Guy 04.12.2005 11:24 |
Assuming all diplomatic attempts to stop the development of the Iranian nuclear program fail, will you support a preemptive military action in order to eliminate the new threat? If you can, please explain your answer. |
Guy 04.12.2005 12:04 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: No, I will not. Although I do not support Iran the slightest bit, I do not trust the US any more, and they will undoubtedly take it upon themselves to carry out such a 'heroic' strike. Iran will not use these weapons, they will at best intimidate others with them, as they are very much aware that their country will be literally flattened the minute they use nuclear arms.There are a few more countries in the world, other than the US, with the ability to conduct an operation like that. I do think, however, that the countries bothered the most with Iran will carry out an attack only if the US agrees. Let me start by saying I know what you think of Israel. That said, Iran's current president has declared in various opportunities his aim is destroying Israel. Also, we all know Iran does not favour the western world. Since the nuclear program brings Iran one step closer to achieving the mentioned goal, we should be concerned. |
Maruga 04.12.2005 12:27 |
NO. Military action doesn't need. If USA remove their nuclear wheapons, Iran and others countries should do it too. Cheers. |
Serry... 04.12.2005 12:32 |
I know only one country what have used once nuclear weapon... Japanese Queen fans know this country too... Anyway my answer is no. Why? I won't explain because if this is poll - then I don't want someone to explain why explaination was wrong, if it's not poll - I don't want it anyway. |
Serry... 04.12.2005 12:32 |
Double post, sorry |
Guy 04.12.2005 13:01 |
Serry<h6>Inventor of terrible English wrote: I know only one country what have used once nuclear weapon... Japanese Queen fans know this country too... Anyway my answer is no. Why? I won't explain because if this is poll - then I don't want someone to explain why explaination was wrong, if it's not poll - I don't want it anyway.Look, I don't want to turn this into another anti-USA thread. I didn't mention the USA in my question because of what I told Thomas - it's not the only country with the ability to carry out such an attack. I'm genuinely interested in the opinions of people from all over the world... It would be kind of boring asking my fellow classmates. Barry © wrote: Nope, a few countries have nuclear arms so why pick on them? The moment they try to use them yes but not until then. That's if it's not too late. ;-)Because Iran has a tyran, extremist & fanatic regime. Most other countries with nuclear power don't. |
pma 04.12.2005 13:06 |
Yes, and while "they" are at it. Nuke China! |
John S Stuart 04.12.2005 13:33 |
I find this so problematical, but NO - I would NOT support such a preemptive strike. As a resident of the UK, I take many things for granted. Not only nuclear arms or power, but also things like everyday conveniences - cars, electrical goods, Medicare etc. Many developing countries are denied these luxuries, because we in the ‘West’ rather selfishly have decided that these peoples are ‘undeserving’, and unless there is a fast buck to be made, are not interested in assisting these cultures. Why is it that ‘our’ countries are allowed a ‘civil defence’ but those who are not ‘worthy’ denied a similar right? What other rights are we to deny? I read recently that the US objects to a new Chinese ‘middle class’ as their appetite for new motorcars, could spark environmental change. Now (and this is NOT anti-US) but isn’t this a tad hypocritical? That the world’s greatest gas guzzling consumers over the last 75 years or so, now object to the Chinese, in case they MAY draw upon the same limited resources? (I say may as no-one really knows what energy reserves are available to the Chinese). In sum: No I do not object (in priciple) to Iran having these arms – if they are used for defensive purposes, as they too deserve a modicum of security for their people, regardless of their politics. As for your title: 'The Iranian Nuclear Threat' is that fact, or Western paranoia? I do not believe anyone or any country would be stupid enough to develop these arms as a means of aggression – as we all know this aggression would spell ‘Total annihilation’ in retaliatory strikes. |
Guy 04.12.2005 14:27 |
John S Stuart wrote: I find this so problematical, but NO - I would NOT support such a preemptive strike. As a resident of the UK, I take many things for granted. Not only nuclear arms or power, but also things like everyday conveniences - cars, electrical goods, Medicare etc. Many developing countries are denied these luxuries, because we in the ‘West’ rather selfishly have decided that these peoples are ‘undeserving’, and unless there is a fast buck to be made, are not interested in assisting these cultures. Why is it that ‘our’ countries are allowed a ‘civil defence’ but those who are not ‘worthy’ denied a similar right? What other rights are we to deny? I read recently that the US objects to a new Chinese ‘middle class’ as their appetite for new motorcars, could spark environmental change. Now (and this is NOT anti-US) but isn’t this a tad hypocritical? That the world’s greatest gas guzzling consumers over the last 75 years or so, now object to the Chinese, in case they MAY draw upon the same limited resources? (I say may as no-one really knows what energy reserves are available to the Chinese). In sum: No I do not object (in priciple) to Iran having these arms – if they are used for defensive purposes, as they too deserve a modicum of security for their people, regardless of their politics. As for your title: 'The Iranian Nuclear Threat' is that fact, or Western paranoia? I do not believe anyone or any country would be stupid enough to develop these arms as a means of aggression – as we all know this aggression would spell ‘Total annihilation’ in retaliatory strikes.This has nothing to do with 'the third world'. Iran is non democratic. It has been supporting terror in almost every possible way for nearly 30 years. Its current president has said Israel must be destroyed (= threat, not "western paranoia"). link ("The group is headed by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and is financed largely by Iran and Syria") link ("Hezbollah is believed to be behind the attack, with backing from Iran.") Because of its history, I don't trust Iran to use nuclear weapons as defensive measures only. |
John S Stuart 04.12.2005 15:23 |
Guy: I do see your point, but any chance you can re-make it without the use of 'wikipedia', because as we all know, anyone can change whatever they like on that site to suit their own particular dogma. I think such a move would carry more weight. As for the Israeli's they have nuclear weapons too. This is similar to the Pakistan/India situation - in that we seem to support one side or another, YET Pakistan legitimately claim, they only need such weapons because their neighbours do. The middle east is very complicated, and, I think if one country has them, that means they have a very strong advantage over their neighbours. On the other side of the coin, if they all had them, it would surely redress the balance of power, so either no-one has them, or they all have them. It could be argued that such weapons have held the peace over the last 60 years, but in the face of Korea, Afghanastan, Vietnam, Falklands, etc, it could also be argued that they do not. But I am just an idealist on a music internet site, I am not really qualified to say, as I do not live in such places, nor do I deal with their politics on a daily basis. What I do see over the next one hundred years is that developing countries like Argentina, China, Singapore, and large parts of Russia and Africa, will continue to develop inspite of the west, while more established nations like the UK, and the USA will undoubtedly see a deteriation in both standards of living and quality of life, and I think it would be better to be 'on-side' with these countries rather than face economical and ecological differences. As for Iran, we need to cultivate some sort of trust their too, otherwise your nightmare scenario of nuke them all - may well be the only thing left if all offers of diplomacy fails. And if that happens - what next - nuke Canada because they impose a grain embargo against the US? |
Guy 04.12.2005 15:44 |
John S Stuart wrote: Guy: I do see your point, but any chance you can re-make it without the use of 'wikipedia', because as we all know, anyone can change whatever they like on that site to suit their own particular dogma. I think such a move would carry more weight. As for the Israeli's they have nuclear weapons too. This is similar to the Pakistan/India situation - in that we seem to support one side or another, YET Pakistan legitimately claim, they only need such weapons because their neighbours do. The middle east is very complicated, and, I think if one country has them, that means they have a very strong advantage over their neighbours. On the other side of the coin, if they all had them, it would surely redress the balance of power, so either no-one has them, or they all have them. It could be argued that such weapons have held the peace over the last 60 years, but in the face of Korea, Afghanastan, Vietnam, Falklands, etc, it could also be argued that they do not. But I am just an idealist on a music internet site, I am not really qualified to say, as I do not live in such places, nor do I deal with their politics on a daily basis. What I do see over the next one hundred years is that developing countries like Argentina, China, Singapore, and large parts of Russia and Africa, will continue to develop inspite of the west, while more established nations like the UK, and the USA will undoubtedly see a deteriation in both standards of living and quality of life, and I think it would be better to be 'on-side' with these countries rather than face economical and ecological differences. As for Iran, we need to cultivate some sort of trust their too, otherwise your nightmare scenario of nuke them all - may well be the only thing left if all offers of diplomacy fails. And if that happens - what next - nuke Canada because they impose a grain embargo against the US?As you asked, John: link link link Anyhow... You're aware Israel is a democratic country surrounded by non-democratic countries, right? And you're also aware Israel was dragged into wars many times, right (sometimes with some sort of support from Iran & Iraq)? So giving Iran the ability to obtain nuclear power, regardless of her neighbours, will be a grave mistake. It's well known that Israel was in a state of panic during the Yom Kippur War (1973), and that the prime minister considered using nuclear power. As we all know, that never saw the light of day (I'd like to mention this was the most serious war Israel had ever took part in). Therefore I believe we can trust Israel a tiny bit more than Iran, which has proven to have a more sensitive trigger finger, if I may say so. In conclusion, could I make a small comparison? Nazi Germany was working on the atom bomb, and Hitler hated Jews in particular and the West in general. The same happens with Iran, and quite frankly, I don't want to be a victim of the next holocaust. |
jcrawford79 04.12.2005 16:09 |
John S Stuart wrote: I read recently that the US objects to a new Chinese ‘middle class’ as their appetite for new motorcars, could spark environmental change.That is very interesting. Where did you read that? It seems odd because our current administration has the worst environmental protection record of any president. While this is merely my opinion and NOT statistical fact, it is a commonly held view by Americans. So, obviously, the reason behind this has nothing to do with the environment, I would be curious to know what the real interests are in preventing acquisition of motor vehicles by the Chinese middle class. |
Lisser 04.12.2005 17:14 |
I am an American and I am not against a "new Chinese middle class" or their appetite for sportscars, etc. As far as I am concerned any citizen of any country can have whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm other people. |
Mr.Jingles 04.12.2005 17:37 |
Personally NO COUNTRY in the entire world should have nuclear weapons. Of course, the appetite for destruction (no G'n'R' reference intended) of our world leaders is the one thing that's making us turn against the other, and justify violence and destruction as the only way to find freedom. No wonder why Oppenheimer and Einstein felt so dissapointed of how their intellect was used to make the world a worse and far scarier place to live. I do not agree one bit with the policies of North Korea, Iran, or Sudan. However, diplomatic talks and economic embargos are the first thing the international community should try in order to bring opossition to ruthless regimes. |
Mr.Jingles 04.12.2005 17:44 |
Guy, why always make Israel look like the victim in the middle east conflict? I'm not going to get into an argument about whether Palestinians or Israelis have been worse? The truth of the matter is that both sides have been wrong for the past 50 years. Now it seems like some small progress is being made towards achieving peace, and let's hope that it remains that way. Personally, anyone who takes sides in the middle east conflict is a fuckin' idiot. Peace and freedom for both sides is what should be in everybody's mind, not some dumb excuse to bomb each other. |
flash00. 04.12.2005 19:25 |
imo i think most nations not just the states are very concerned about iran and there statements about wiping isreal of the planet, i believe they will eventualy strike against isreal, if they dont co-operate with the UN.. talks, i wonder what will happen? |
Guy 04.12.2005 23:51 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: I do not agree one bit with the policies of North Korea, Iran, or Sudan. However, diplomatic talks and economic embargos are the first thing the international community should try in order to bring opossition to ruthless regimes. Guy, why always make Israel look like the victim in the middle east conflict? I'm not going to get into an argument about whether Palestinians or Israelis have been worse? The truth of the matter is that both sides have been wrong for the past 50 years. Now it seems like some small progress is being made towards achieving peace, and let's hope that it remains that way. Personally, anyone who takes sides in the middle east conflict is a fuckin' idiot. Peace and freedom for both sides is what should be in everybody's mind, not some dumb excuse to bomb each other.I said "if all diplomatic efforts fail", didn't I...? I don't think I made Israel look like a victim. It wasn't my intention, anyway. John said "Israel has nuclear weapons too", implying Iran should have the right to defend herself as well. I merely said Israel had been attacked many times in the past, including a very serious war (at least for us), yet we never used nuclear weapons. Moreover, we never declared we would completely destroy another nation. That's why I think the fact we have nuclear power has nothing to do with Iranian nuclear power. I can't really see any progress towards peace. The peace process seems to be stuck, and it has been stuck for the past 25 years. Each time either Israel or the Palestinians make a step forward and then two steps backwards. It's not about sides. I'd say the same if any other hostile country acted as Iran did. Not that it's a coincidence that a country ruled by Muslim fanatics is declaring the destruction of "the Zionist entity"... |
Serry... 05.12.2005 07:12 |
As I said - we have explainations why our explainations of our opinion were wrong... |
Fairy 05.12.2005 08:27 |
If nothing else works, yes. Sept. 11 should teach us a lot. |
Serry... 05.12.2005 08:41 |
Fairy wrote: If nothing else works, yes. Sept. 11 should teach us a lot.Terrorist attacks started in Moscow in 1994 - we've lost few thousands people in them (only in Moscow, Russia is not only Moscow, to be honest...), therefore Sept. 11 taught me nothing, except "It could happens with anyone!". Ask guys in Israel, Spain, Ireland etc. - what Sept. 11 taught them? Maybe for some lucky countries Sept. 11 was like a revelation, but it's only because of lack of TRUE information about what is going on on the Earth. |
Guy 05.12.2005 09:34 |
Serry<h6>Inventor of terrible English wrote:I couldn't say it better myself. September 11th, for me, apart from many many innocent lives lost, is the event that showed everyone terror can hit anyone - even the most powerful country in the world.Fairy wrote: If nothing else works, yes. Sept. 11 should teach us a lot.Terrorist attacks started in Moscow in 1994 - we've lost few thousands people in them (only in Moscow, Russia is not only Moscow, to be honest...), therefore Sept. 11 taught me nothing, except "It could happens with anyone!". Ask guys in Israel, Spain, Ireland etc. - what Sept. 11 taught them? Maybe for some lucky countries Sept. 11 was like a revelation, but it's only because of lack of TRUE information about what is going on on the Earth. |
Guy 05.12.2005 09:37 |
Serry<h6>Inventor of terrible English wrote: As I said - we have explainations why our explainations of our opinion were wrong...This is a discussion... So we discuss :-) |
Fairy 05.12.2005 10:28 |
Serry, are you aware that Italy was target of terrorism all through the 70s and early 80s? Have you ever heard of the Bologna bombing, for example? So you can add Italy, my country, to your list... I just think that with the Twin Towers attack a new kind of terrorism started. One which is not aimed at a specific country but at a culture and civilization. |
Guy 05.12.2005 11:22 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Ahem... Hence "most".Guy wrote: Because Iran has a tyran, extremist & fanatic regime. Most other countries with nuclear power don't.- N. Korea - Israel Like it or not, Israel is a democracy. |
Mr.Jingles 05.12.2005 11:49 |
Israel is not particularly an extremist state. However, the Zionist faction of the Israeli government is indeed extremist. |
Guy 05.12.2005 11:58 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Israel is not particularly an extremist state. However, the Zionist faction of the Israeli government is indeed extremist.I didn't answer Thomas regarding the "extremist & fanatic" part because it's 'open for debate'. I'd say 95% of the government is Zionist. But what's wrong with being Zionist, anyway? "Zionism: Movement founded by the Viennese Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, who argued in his 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) that the best way of avoiding anti-Semitism in Europe was to create an independent Jewish state in Palestine" (link Herzl was right, you know... Anti-semitism in various countries (ie. France & Russia) continues to this day. The only country in the world with no anti-semitism is Israel, for obvious reasons. We do have prejudice against Arabs, but so do other countries, and I honestly believe it doesn't derive from our religion. Unfortunately, a Jewish state was founded too late. |
Music Man 05.12.2005 12:41 |
Guy wrote:Well, some countries like Germany and Egypt have never expressed any sort of anti-semitism, so I don't know where you're coming from.Mr.Jingles wrote: Israel is not particularly an extremist state. However, the Zionist faction of the Israeli government is indeed extremist.I didn't answer Thomas regarding the "extremist & fanatic" part because it's 'open for debate'. I'd say 95% of the government is Zionist. But what's wrong with being Zionist, anyway? "Zionism: Movement founded by the Viennese Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, who argued in his 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) that the best way of avoiding anti-Semitism in Europe was to create an independent Jewish state in Palestine" (link Herzl was right, you know... Anti-semitism in various countries (ie. France & Russia) continues to this day. The only country in the world with no anti-semitism is Israel, for obvious reasons. We do have prejudice against Arabs, but so do other countries, and I honestly believe it doesn't derive from our religion. Unfortunately, a Jewish state was founded too late. |
Serry... 05.12.2005 14:27 |
"I just think that with the Twin Towers attack a new kind of terrorism started. One which is not aimed at a specific country but at a culture and civilization." Why? Read about what's happened in Moscow in 1999: link So why the TT attack was a start for new kind of terrorism? It was start for terrorism in USA. It was a new way of how to make terrorist attacks. People died in Russia, people died in USA, people died in Italy - I don't know what's the difference, if terrorists' goal was the same. And by the way - I can't see what's the connection between North Korea politic system and terrorism... By the way - there's no terrorism in North Korea, to be honest... Why we need to bomb North Korea? Because Bin Laden attacked USA in 2001? |
Serry... 05.12.2005 14:44 |
Not for everyone - really. We were shocked, because it happened with USA, but when you see buildings attacked in your own city - it changes your mind more quickly than you see it on the TV. Well, okay. What do you expect from me? I was born in USSR - I can't agree with what USA doing, it's in my blood ;) Just kidding. I hope no-one gonna bomb Switzerland, because now it's time to take a trip to this wonderful country! I'll try to connect to the Internet from there tomorrow! See ya! |
Guy 05.12.2005 16:01 |
Music Man wrote:Are you serious? If you are, you managed to pick the 2 worst examples.Guy wrote:Well, some countries like Germany and Egypt have never expressed any sort of anti-semitism, so I don't know where you're coming from.Mr.Jingles wrote: Israel is not particularly an extremist state. However, the Zionist faction of the Israeli government is indeed extremist.I didn't answer Thomas regarding the "extremist & fanatic" part because it's 'open for debate'. I'd say 95% of the government is Zionist. But what's wrong with being Zionist, anyway? "Zionism: Movement founded by the Viennese Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, who argued in his 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) that the best way of avoiding anti-Semitism in Europe was to create an independent Jewish state in Palestine" (link Herzl was right, you know... Anti-semitism in various countries (ie. France & Russia) continues to this day. The only country in the world with no anti-semitism is Israel, for obvious reasons. We do have prejudice against Arabs, but so do other countries, and I honestly believe it doesn't derive from our religion. Unfortunately, a Jewish state was founded too late. |
Guy 05.12.2005 16:07 |
Serry<h6>Inventor of terrible English wrote: And by the way - I can't see what's the connection between North Korea politic system and terrorism... By the way - there's no terrorism in North Korea, to be honest... Why we need to bomb North Korea? Because Bin Laden attacked USA in 2001?Uh, doesn't terror from the administration itself count? I remember seeing photos from a labor camp in North Korea, to which "political prisoners" were sent. Also, you might want to review this: link link link A dictatorship with nuclear power is never a good thing. And no, it doesn't mean it should be bombed, before you ask. |
John S Stuart 05.12.2005 18:59 |
Guy: "...doesn't terror from the administration itself count? I remember seeing photos from a labor camp in North Korea, to which "political prisoners" were sent." I expect you overlook these - or is it one law for us - and a different law for everyone else? link As they say, one man's terrorist, is another's Freedom Fighter. |
Music Man 05.12.2005 20:00 |
Guy wrote:I hope you're not seriously responding to me like that.Music Man wrote:Are you serious? If you are, you managed to pick the 2 worst examples.Guy wrote:Well, some countries like Germany and Egypt have never expressed any sort of anti-semitism, so I don't know where you're coming from.Mr.Jingles wrote: Israel is not particularly an extremist state. However, the Zionist faction of the Israeli government is indeed extremist.I didn't answer Thomas regarding the "extremist & fanatic" part because it's 'open for debate'. I'd say 95% of the government is Zionist. But what's wrong with being Zionist, anyway? "Zionism: Movement founded by the Viennese Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, who argued in his 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) that the best way of avoiding anti-Semitism in Europe was to create an independent Jewish state in Palestine" (link Herzl was right, you know... Anti-semitism in various countries (ie. France & Russia) continues to this day. The only country in the world with no anti-semitism is Israel, for obvious reasons. We do have prejudice against Arabs, but so do other countries, and I honestly believe it doesn't derive from our religion. Unfortunately, a Jewish state was founded too late. |
Guy 05.12.2005 23:47 |
John S Stuart wrote: Guy: "...doesn't terror from the administration itself count? I remember seeing photos from a labor camp in North Korea, to which "political prisoners" were sent." I expect you overlook these - or is it one law for us - and a different law for everyone else? link As they say, one man's terrorist, is another's Freedom Fighter.I don't support this action, unless the interrogated are known terrorists (as opposed to suspects). Music Man wrote: I hope you're not seriously responding to me like that.But I am... |
Serry... 06.12.2005 07:52 |
Barry © wrote: Enjoy your trip Serry.Thanks Barry! It's great to be here! Tomorrow or on Thursday I'm gonna visit Montreux and Vevey to take a look at towns where two of my heros lived - Freddie and Charlie Chaplin! ;) |
Guy 06.12.2005 10:26 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:How is it other peoples' territory? There were Jews in the area from the dawn of days.Guy wrote:"Unfortunately, a Jewish state was founded too late." Yes, and sadly it was also founded in other peoples' territory. I happen to agree with ORTHODOX JEWS on this subject: you can have the holy land. Just not until your messiah shows up.Mr.Jingles wrote: Israel is not particularly an extremist state. However, the Zionist faction of the Israeli government is indeed extremist.I didn't answer Thomas regarding the "extremist & fanatic" part because it's 'open for debate'. I'd say 95% of the government is Zionist. But what's wrong with being Zionist, anyway? "Zionism: Movement founded by the Viennese Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, who argued in his 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) that the best way of avoiding anti-Semitism in Europe was to create an independent Jewish state in Palestine" (link Herzl was right, you know... Anti-semitism in various countries (ie. France & Russia) continues to this day. The only country in the world with no anti-semitism is Israel, for obvious reasons. We do have prejudice against Arabs, but so do other countries, and I honestly believe it doesn't derive from our religion. Unfortunately, a Jewish state was founded too late. A serious question for you: why do you act like you know so much when you actually know so little? Do you have any idea how many orthodox Jews there are in Israel? Only a small (the extremist) portion of the orthodox community is waiting for the messiah before moving to the holy land. We both know you were talking sarcastically, since you obviously don't believe in any kind of messiah. I could quote a certain line from a certain Queen song, but I think I'll refrain. I don't want to get personal. |
Mr.Jingles 06.12.2005 11:38 |
Why is it that so many Jewish people take disagreeing with the policies of the Israeli government as anti-semitism? I do agree with bringing terrorists from groups like Hamas to justice, but I also disagree with putting the lives of innocents at risk, the destruction of homes, and all violations of human rights committed by the Israeli army. The number of innocents who have died in the pursue for chasing terrorists and militias is possibly even bigger than the numbers of members of terrorist groups captured or killed. I also disagree with the lack of effectiveness of the Palestinian government for bringing terrorists to justice. Both sides have done so few to bring peace to the region. |
John S Stuart 06.12.2005 13:15 |
I still think it boils down to one law for one - and another law for everyone else. If this was happening in China, the west would be outraged. link link link link Accepting this source as slighty more authorative than wikipedia, how can anyone justify this? |
Guy 06.12.2005 15:51 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: I happen to know of rather large groups of non-Zionist and Orthodox Jews. In fact, they are larger than the entire Zionist faction is. As a people, the Jews had not been living in the area currently known as Israel for many, many centuries (apart from the select few, who DID get along with the Arabs living there). However, when they were given the land after the second world war, the Arab states agreed...sadly the Zionists didn't think twice about kicking the Palestines, who had been living there for quite some time (think: multiple centuries) from that land. After all, it had been given to the Israeli people. Now, that didn't seem to be enough, so they took South Africa's example and started enforcing an Apartheid-regime. Which is presently still in function. Finally, yes, I do have a wrath against Israel. It would probably be to do with several members of your army knowingly shooting and killing the cameraman of a Dutch documentary-crew, and attempting to shoot the others (who were CLEARLY MAKING THEMSELVES KNOWN). As if that wasn't bad enough, the soldiers were not prosecuted. Sounds like a totalitarian state to me. Not to mention the fact that you are a theocracy, just like, for instance, Iran.You also happen to know a lot of wrong things, so...? I'm not even going to help you turn this into an anti-Israel thread. I've said everything I had to say in previous discussions we both participated in. I'll just mention, once again, that you'll have to prove the Arabs (notice THE, meaning all of them, not just a few - because I don't deny a few were deported) were "kicked" and not ran away from their own free will. Besides that, wouldn't you say 3000+ years are a very long time? link |
Guy 06.12.2005 16:06 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Why is it that so many Jewish people take disagreeing with the policies of the Israeli government as anti-semitism?I don't know. I guess it depends on what kind of language you use. Calling someone "neo-nazi" (HINT: Thomas) certainly doesn't help. Mr.Jingles wrote: I do agree with bringing terrorists from groups like Hamas to justice, but I also disagree with putting the lives of innocents at risk, the destruction of homes, and all violations of human rights committed by the Israeli army. The number of innocents who have died in the pursue for chasing terrorists and militias is possibly even bigger than the numbers of members of terrorist groups captured or killed.Should the house of a terrorist be destroyed? Statistics show there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of people volunteering for being homicide bombers because they fear their family will lose their home. In light of that, I support demolishing houses of terrorists. I highly doubt the number of dead innocents is bigger than the number of dead terrorists. Do you have any proof, or are you just guessing? Allow me to state in advance I do not support hurting innocent people, neither Jewish nor Palestinian. Mr.Jingles wrote: I also disagree with the lack of effectiveness of the Palestinian government for bringing terrorists to justice. Both sides have done so few to bring peace to the region.Agreed. Do you have any suggestion that will be acceptable in the eyes of both sides? It will be particularly hard after this: link |