Firstly may I ask that you read my later posts (#59 and #65) where I relaxed my position. You had already replied to this post I believe but not in the point by point fashion.
IisJustMe said:
To my knowledge, there are no lesser nor greater terrorists. Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism, period.
I meant lumping together terrorist groups/organizations, you may feel all the muslim organizations are in kahouts and have the same motives and objectives. Personally I don't believe Hezbollah or Hamas have an agenda for attacking the US (at least outside of the middle east). You also at one point you blamed Hezbollah for a Hamas incident, though perhaps this was just a mistake. Though you may feel it reasonable to lump them all together I don't think it's unreasonable that you keep them seperate. Clearly groups like the IRA and ETA have different agenda's then Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Quaeda. So not all terrorist groups are alike clearly.
IisJustMe said:
That'a great rationalization. Too bad it fails to stand up to even casual scrutiny. Hezbollah is the reason Israel was in south Lebanon in the first place. The terrorists had no organization until they labled themselves 'The Party of God' and collectively held up that banner. All that changed was they now had a name, which they thought (and which 'useful idiots' in the west have confirmed for them) would give them an identity. But they're still just terrorists.
I will look deeper into things, I pulled my information from wikipedia article about Hezbollah. My purpose was to disociate groups of terrorist not to claim them not to be terrorist.
IisJustMe said:
But the credit for that withdrawal belongs to Israel's respect for international law, in that they were the only country in the region to comply with UN Resolution 1559, which demanded all foreign troops leave Lebanon by the end of 2000. No other nation complied, and Hezbollah was expected to disarm under 1559, but obviously did not.
I mearly stating hatred doesn't dissapear overnight.
IisJustMe said:
I suggest you research this a bit further, and this time include the biblical passages on Jacob and Esau, Isaac and Ishmael, etc. The hatred goes back to Old Testament times and the so-called 'meddling' of the west is just a tired excuse to extend their hatred further outward of the Mideast.
I'm aware of Jacob and Esau, Isaac and Ishmael. I don't deny hatred and mistrust have blown little things out of proportions.
IisJustMe said:
No, the way I view them is through reality. You seem to be among the spinmeisters here who ignore or deny context and history.
I was making an appeal to human fallibility, nothing that can't be claimed against myself also. I'm concerned if you don't feel you are not capable of mis-interpreting evidence, or that you haven't ever accepted someones word on the matter.
IisJustMe said:
Then why don't you present some 'facts' supporting your rhetoric instead of repeatedly citing your viewpoint as though having said it several times constitutes proof? And please explain how US provision of humanitarian and financial aid to the Arab countries makes us deserving of 'attack'? When you examine the facts and history of the region, neither the US nor Israel have done anything to provoke the attacks. This is another example of an oft-repeated 'fact' that is nothing more than lies and spin, the purveyors of the lie meaning the repetition to constitute its 'truth.'
You are right I should present more facts if I want to make claims. I will admit being a bit lazy. To tell you the truth I feel a bit intimated, I feel that if I put research into things it may be in vain, that it will simply be disregarded immediately as spin and propaganda.
IisJustMe said:
So, in one breath you 'condemn' it, and in the next you excuse it. And you wonder why people think you don't grasp the situation?
There is a difference between presenting motive and excusing evil.
IisJustMe said:
And that last sentence appears to be a rationalization for Hitler's annihilation of six million Jews. I'm beginning to see the pattern to your own 'distaste' for Israel here, and I don't care for it.
Again presenting motive is different than excusing evil. You are basically claiming I have a distates for Jews on the level of Hitler here. This couldn't be further from the truth. I merely believe Israel is responding inappropriately. I'm claiming Israel isn't as white as snow, not saying they are black as night.
IisJustMe said:
And you honestly think an international peacekeeping force will be successful where Israel has not?
Honestly probably not actually, at least not short term. Hezbollah and Lebannon would trust an external entity very little if anymore than they trust Israel. I also likely believe the best we can expect is an uneazy peace treaty, to at worst WWIII and a nuke going off in Israel, or elsewhere in the middle east. But I hope someone can stand up to avoid such things, likely there won't be peace in that region until Christ returns though.
IisJustMe said:
You really do live in a little world all your own, don't you?
IisJustMe I'm getting a little tired of your personal insults. I don't mean just against me. Please address your comments towards the issues away from the writters of the issues. I know in our attempts to argue we can fall into the trap and try to riddicule others to help strenghthen our case, I probably am guilty with my mini-WMD comments, but lets try to keep this civil.
IisJustMe said:
I do too, but I don't recall anywhere in the Bible that Jesus required us to let ourselves be killed when the gospel was met with hostility.
Addressed in post #65
IisJustMe said:
This is the story of Elizabeth Elliot, whose husband Jim, along with missionary bush pilot Nate Saint and three other missionaries were killed by the Alca Indians in Ecuador in 1954. Its the story told in the recent movie "End of the Spear." But the key to the Alca's salvation is that they laid down their arms. It is highly unlikely that Hezbollah will do that, because they are fanatics to a false religion they absolutely believe to be true. Also there is considerable evidence that the Alcas were under the conviction of the 'law in their hearts' as Paul writes of in Romans 2:16ff.
Thanks for this info. This is an earnest question not an attack. Did the tribe disarm prior to Elizibeth Elliots arrival or after. It clearly happened after the law in their hearts began to convict them. But this was an example of a person's death having an impact later, not meant to parallel the Israel Lebanon situation. We should pray that the conviction of the law come upon those involved in terrorism though.
IisJustMe said:
No, it was not until Paul had a direct encounter with Jesus Christ on the Damascus Road that Paul even gave consideration to Stephen's sacrifice. It always requires the intervention of Christ, through the Holy Spirit, to make the change in a man's heart. Words from men won't do anything except plant the seed of truth in someone's heart. The Holy Spirit is Who makes it grow.
Wasn't saying Stephen's death converted Paul, but saying that it had an impact on him. Paul accepting himself as the worst of sinners was because of his persecution of the church before his conversion. Paul wouldn't be the man he became, if God hadn't let him commit the evil he did so that he could experience the fullness of his grace.
I believe there is misunderstand of what my attepts to do here. I want to present motivation of terrorist not make excuses for it. The only solution is for the motivation for terrorism to be killed. Killing terrorist, especially when civillians are caught in the mix leads to more hate. We most certainly can not give into the terrorist agenda. Or they will take advantage of it.
Think of it like this. Hitler can't rightfully blame the economic situation as an excuse for the evil he did. But if there was the opportunity to eliminate the situation to either stop hitler from developing the hatred for jews or prevent a person like him from coming into power to spare six million jews would you not want to take it. This doesn't excuse Hitler of any of the responsibility.