So, when do we consider this WW3?

[flipsideguy]

I know what hes going to say. That Israel crossed their borders already by occupying land illegally.

Rightly so. As some people so aptly ignore this fact, and post nonsense like "As much as flipside wants to blame them, the reality is, the Israeli's didn't cross any borders until after they were attacked."

[indivision]

please answer, Flipside, do you believe that the Israeli / Arab conflict will be resolved through non-violent means?

[Ask The Geezer]

For any peace plan to work, Israel must end the occupation.

Where have you been? Israel gave back the west bank and Gaza. And what happened? The subhumans used it to launch missiles and incursions into Israel. Fools. I hope they all get themselves dead.

They took it in the first place, for the same reason they are taking it back now. The sub humans attacked Israel and got their collective asses whipped for their troubles. They kept it then cause they knew then, like they are relearning now, that to let subhumans live there is just asking for trouble.

Humans can think for themselves and learn from their mistakes, are able try new ideas when the old don't work. Subhumans can't.

[indivision]

Rightly so. As some people so aptly ignore this fact, and post nonsense like "As much as flipside wants to blame them, the reality is, the Israeli's didn't cross any borders until after they were attacked."

yeah. according to my interperetation of the history, Israel is guilty of some major improprieties there. I wouldnt deny that. Even further, there are some radical Israelis as well. I read of one case early in the conflict where one of them murdered a whole mosque full of muslims. Im not an apologist for Israel or anything. I just dont let their actions cloud reality and allow me to justify terrorism. You know, its possible to be wronged and then respond in a way that is worse than the original crime.

Now, Im just speculating on what it would take, realistically (as opposed to contemporary liberalismly), to resolve the issue once and for all.

[flipsideguy]

another aspect of the 'war is not the answer' debate here is that, in order to justify not resolving the conflict via war, in cases where regular bloodshed occurs due to lack of resolution, you must have faith that the disagreement will be resolved through other means.

to clarify, Flipside, do you believe that the Israeli / Arab conflict will be resolved through non-violent means?

I sincerely believe that, the first step to any peace talk is for Israel to get out of all of the territories assigned to Palestine.

Selecting hardline governments like Hamas is a cry for help by the palestinians. They have seen many so called leaders come to power, shake hands with Israel, and go, with the end result being the same. The occupation remains.

[JWin]

Selecting hardline governments like Hamas is a cry for help by the palestinians. They have seen many so called leaders come to power, shake hands with Israel, and go, with the end result being the same. The occupation remains.

Then maybe they should get passports and visit the motherland once in a while, not fling stategic missles at it.

[flipsideguy]

Geezer, I consider you a sub-sub-human due to your racism.

[JWin]

lay off the insults bud, there's no reason we can't have a decent debate without name calling

[flipsideguy]

Then maybe they should get passports and visit the motherland once in a while, not fling stategic missles at it.

Whatever this means...

LOL at your last comment. Calling someone a racist is hardly name calling. If you call arabs sub-humans for being arab you are a racist. Plain simple.

[Ask The Geezer]

Since when were Palestinians a race? Or even muslims?

That's OK though, cause I consider you a quaint sort of fool, so I don't really worry about what they think of me.

Here's an idea, why not move all Swedes to Israel and all Israelis to Sweden and see who starts doing the dying. Like to see what you swedes would do if Norway started flinging missiles at your trees.

[JWin]

Calling someone a racist is hardly name calling.

Maybe, but you didn't call him a racist you called him a "sub-sub-human". There's no need for attitude.

And yes, terrorists don't deserve to be aknowleged as humans.

[alty29]

I just realized something. Almost every "arguement" in the CL gets very out of hand. I also just realized why. Most everyone on these forums is intelligent, intelligent people are used to winning arguements, and usually it is easy. On FK, you can't ever win an arguement, there are too many intelligent people with too many different points of view. Anyway, that is all, Free Tibet and such....

[gerbick]

The fact they're both unable to sit down at a table and figure out how to co-exist like they once did way back before the crusades. Ever thought that it's time for them to act like humans instead of just flinging weapons at each other?

Killing another human being regardless of the provocation or justification is pretty damn sub-human in my regards. And both sides are guilty if you were to ask me; which I know you haven't.

This thread is close to running it's course. Be adults, everybody... or I'll consider you sub-human myself... mmkay?

Deep breath. It's just a flash resource forum.

[Visionray]

You are only seeing the results of many years of oppression. Terrorism is a tool of retaliation, not provocation.

HAHAHAHAAAA that's a good one. Might want to check out the definition of terrorism.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Sounds like provocation to me. Or are you one of those fools who thinks blowing up a bus or cafe full of women and children (who are labeled primary targets by terrorists) is a just response to "occupation"?

[Ask The Geezer]

Oh, I agree Gerbs. But it takes someone really, really stupid to attack a strong and unified nation who are going fight for their right to live. And has nukes.

Does anyone believe that Israel would keep attacking if they were not attacked first?

Does anyone believe they would not stop attacking if the enemy did?

Please. Someone, show me where Israel attacked with out first being provoked.

[indivision]

I sincerely believe that, the first step to any peace talk is for Israel to get out of all of the territories assigned to Palestine.

i thought they did this. i havent followed up and looked at all the details but i thought they did actually withdraw from the assigned territories. there was a bunch of Israeli uprising over it all over the news.

[gerbick]

Oh, I agree Gerbs. But it takes someone really, really stupid to attack a strong and unified nation who are going fight for their right to live. And has nukes.

Having nukes is easy. Diplomacy is hard.

Does anyone believe that Israel would keep attacking if they were not attacked first?

Nope. It'll take Israel to be destroyed and off the map before some type of happiness every happens, imho.

Please. Someone, show me where Israel attacked with out first being provoked.

When the UN gave them the land in 1948.

[Ask The Geezer]

When the UN gave them the land in 1948.

Ah, really?

"On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel."

"Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war."

http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

[gerbick]

Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the League of Nations granted the British and the French temporary colonial administration over former Ottoman provinces south of present day Turkey. These regions had been called vilayets under the Ottomans, but were referred to as mandates at the time, after the process that allocated them. The two powers drew arbitrary borders, dividing the area into four sections. Three of these -- Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon -- survive to this day as states.

The fourth section was created from what had been known as "southern Syria." The region was officially named the British Mandate of Palestine, and was called "Falastin" in Arabic and "Palestina (E.I.)" in Hebrew. The British revised its borders repeatedly, but under the direction of Winston Churchill the region was divided along the Jordan River, forming two administrative regions. The portion east of the Jordan River was then known as Transjordan, and later became the Kingdom of Jordan. The area to the west of the Jordan retained the former name of Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

Now... with that, Palenstine actually did exist.

And the fact that later with the backing of Britain and France, the newly created country of Israel went and attacked Egypt a bit later.

Now, with that said... I'll go back and state that 1948 is basically the start of the modern issues that we see and read about daily now according to popular belief. Not 1099... 1948.

Do I believe that 1948 was the "first shot"... that should have been your next question to me though.

[Ask The Geezer]

Naa, let's just cut to the chase. Go back 2800 years. Who owned it then? The same ones who own it now. Go back a little further and you'll find out the arabs and jews were the same people. Go back a couple hundred thousand years and you'll find that blacks, white, reds and yellows were the same people. go back some more and you'll find there were no white, reds and yellows.

So why are we always fighting? Because some people just can't deal with change.