ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

But if you're going to pick a side, at least pick the one that is defending itself from unprovoked aggression. And don't condemn that side if it manages to fight more effectively than the aggressor. And don't fall for manufactured propaganda that causes the gullible to take the wrong side. And when reporting a war, you don't report theories and innuendo and speculation that provides aid and comfort and/or useful information to the aggressor.

But if you're going to pick a side, at least pick the one that is defending itself from unprovoked aggression. And don't condemn that side if it manages to fight more effectively than the aggressor. And don't fall for manufactured propaganda that causes the gullible to take the wrong side. And when reporting a war, you don't report theories and innuendo and speculation that provides aid and comfort and/or useful information to the aggressor.

Why I Am Ashamed
of My Fellow-Jews

With the usual exception of the Orthodox, most Jewish Americans espouse a secular faith that can justifiably be called a "gutter religion""Jews in America may belong to Jewish institutions, send their children to Sunday schools for religious instruction, proudly identify themselves as Jews - but their religion, for the most part, is only Jewish in its externals. At the core it is secular humanist."

-Irving Kristol, The Future of American Jewry


What's wrong with secular Jews?
Have you ever had an uncle who was a hopeless alcoholic, who constantly embarrassed you in public? That's how I feel about my secular relatives in the American Jewish community.

Every time I hear about America's "culture war", guess who is on the side of the devil - my secular Jewish relatives: the American Jewish Congress, Hadassah, the ADL, and all the rest. Abortion, "gay rights", pornography - they're all for it.

On the other hand, they vigorously oppose any moral, religiously-based initiative in public life: the Ten Commandments, school prayer, creation as an alternative to evolution - they're all against it.

As an Orthodox Jew, I was taught that our mission was to be a "Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation.... A light unto the Nations." Are these lost Jews truly the descendents of that great people who entered into a solemn covenant with G-D in the desert of Sinai? How could we have sunk so low that we now are an example of utter moral depravity before the nations of the world...

David ben-Ami

Quote:

But if you're going to pick a side, at least pick the one that is defending itself from unprovoked aggression. And don't condemn that side if it manages to fight more effectively than the aggressor. And don't fall for manufactured propaganda that causes the gullible to take the wrong side. And when reporting a war, you don't report theories and innuendo and speculation that provides aid and comfort and/or useful information to the aggressor.

Why "pick a side" at all? What are the consequences for your thinking and your perceptions and your judgements when you do "pick a side"?

In this case picking a side is easy. You pick the side that didn't kidnap somebody else's people in order to provoke an action. You pick the side that didn't start intentionally shelling civilian neighborhoods hoping to hit civilians. And you pick the side that hasn't pledged to wipe another country/people off the face of the earth..

revel wrote:

You know, I really hate to say it, but a lot of what I'm hearing seems to be borne out here...

There's no blood on those two bodies.

Or apparently on any of the others. One claim I'm reading is that the hezbullies just went around to morgues and funeral homes and collected the first 60 bodies of women and kids they could come up with.

Or are you claiming that Count Dracula killed those two and drank all their blood?

"All those killed had no shrapnel or wounds on their bodies. They all died of suffocation. The debris fell on them - their colour was blue," said Red Cross volunteer Bassam Mokdad.

"If I had been able to arrive earlier, I could've found people alive."

freedom4free wrote:

Israel pushing toward WWIII

August 6, 2006

It is beyond my moral imagination why our U.S. Congress and our five Iowa congressmen have given almost 100 percent approval in what Israel is doing to Lebanon and the Palestinians, all because of three captured Israeli soldiers.

Why do the Zionists believe they are God's chosen people, and do what they are doing? Israel has made refugees out of two-thirds of the Palestinians; they have 10,000 Palestinians in their prisons and won't release them.

The radical Hamas and Hezbollah organizations did not come into existence until Israel began its land expansion. Now Israel has created 700,000 more refugees in Lebanon.

The prophets of justice and peace need to rise up and be heard at this time. I don't want my tax dollars going to Israel and supporting this Zionist, military action.

May God help us Americans to see what is morally right in the Middle East, or Israel will be leading us into a Third World War.

- Darrell V. Mitchell,

Marshalltown.

freedom4free, please define morallly right in the following context:

Anabbreviated chronology of the land called Palestine (years are approximate). The Encyclopedia Britannica, "Palestine", is the source.[/I][/b]

Quote:

...
1400 BC:Eqypt conquers Palestine
1300 BC:First Israelite Culture.
1100 BC:First Philistine Culture (Philistra, evolved to the name Palestine).
Jews start ruling part of Palestine
1000 BC:Saul King of Israel (all Palestine except Philistra and Phoenicia).
950 BC:Solomon King of Israel.
721 BC:Israel Destroyed, but Judaea Continued.
516 BC:2nd Temple in Judaea.
333 BC:The Greek, Alexander the Great Conquers Palestine.
Jews stop ruling part of Palestine.
161 BC:Maccabaen Maximum Expansion of Judaea to All Palestine Plus.
Jews start ruling Palestine.
135 BC:Maccabaen Maximum Expansion Ends.
40 BC:The Roman, Herod Conquers Palestine.
73 AD:Fall of Jerusalem and all resistance ceases.
Jews stop ruling part of Palestine.
638 AD:Arabs take Jerusalem.
Arabs start ruling part of Palestine.
1099 AD:Crusaders take Palestine.
Arabs stop ruling part of Palestine.
1187 AD:Saladin Takes Palestine.
1229 AD:Saladin/Crusader Treaty.
1244 AD:Turks Take Palestine.
1516 AD:Ottoman Empire Begins Governing Palestine.
1831 AD:Egypt Conquers Palestine.
1841 AD:Ottoman Empire Again Conquers Palestine.
1915 AD:British Ambassador Promises Palestine to Arabs.
1917 AD:British Foreign Minister Balfour Promises Palestine to Zionists.
1918 AD:Ottoman Empire Ends Control of Palestine.
1918 AD:British Protectorate of Palestine Begins.
1920 AD:5 Jews killed 200 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.
1921 AD:46 Jews killed 146 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.
1929 AD:133 Jews killed 339 wounded
1929 AD:116 Arabs killed 232 wounded.
1936,38,39 AD:329 Jews killed 857 wounded
------------------3,112 Arabs killed 1,775 wounded
--------------------135 Brits killed 386 wounded.
--------------------110 Arabs hanged 5,679 jailed.
1947 AD:UN resolution partitions Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab State.
1948 AD:Civil war breaks out between Jews and Arabs.
1948 AD:State of Israel conquers part of Palestine.
...
Jews start ruling part of Palestine;
Arabs start ruling part of Palestine.

NOW

The arabs do not own all of Palestine.

The jews do not own all of Palestine.

But the arabs think they own all of Palestine. Why?

But the jews do not think they own all of Palestine. Why?

The arabs think they are morally right to murder jews in order for the arabs to rule all of Palestine.

The jews think they are morally right to intentionally kill (i.e., murder) arabs, and their accomplices, who are murdering and attempting to murder them, in order for the jews to rule part of Palestine.

PREVIOUSLY

He who initiated murder WAS guilty of a crime. He WAS normally called the murderer or perpetrator, or perp.

He who aided or abetted a murderer WAS guilty of a crime. He WAS normally called an accomplice.

He who WAS murdered WAS not guilty of a crime. He WAS normally called the deceased or victim or corpse.

He who WAS threatened to to be murdered by those who initiate murder, WAS normally called the potential victim. He WAS not guilty of a crime when he defended himself by intentionally killing (i.e., murdering) those who would initiate his murder or were accomplices to his murder. He WAS normally called a self-defender or hero.

He who aided or abetted a self-defender WAS not guilty of a crime. HE was normally called a rescuer or a hero.

Jews for Morality"?! LOL!!!! Isn't "Jewish Morality" an oxymoron? Isn't our President an oxymoron? ooops, no, he's just a MORON, sorry.

revel wrote:

Quote:

More on that phony Reuters photo. Note that Reuters is now saying that the photographer who turned it in is the same photographer who provided all those heart wrenching Reuters photos from Qana. It does raise some interesting additional questions doesn't it?

Are you suggesting that all the images that we have seen on TV and other news agencies of Qana are fake because one of the ones from one photographer is bogus? It was more than just Reuters who provided photos from Kana.

It appears that the photographer did fake the photo to make it more dramatic. However, the event actually did take place.

There is a huge difference between an event taking place and the way it is used to generate sympathy from those gullible or whatever leftoids or anti-Israel people in general. And if photographers/reporters are willing to doctor photos to make them more 'dramatic', isn't it reasonable to think it possible that they also sort of doctor the circumstances of the event itself?

...
In a conflict that has been going on as long as this one has, how can you honestly say for sure who the aggressor is? How can you make any determination when you know that the facts you get are filtered through Israel and the US, who have never been neutral? We are an ally of Israel so our government always takes her side, regardless of the facts. We, as individuals, have the option of neutrality. In this light, there is no innocent party, and Israel is certainly not the poor victim it likes to present itself as.

blatham wrote:

Quote:

But if you're going to pick a side, at least pick the one that is defending itself from unprovoked aggression. And don't condemn that side if it manages to fight more effectively than the aggressor. And don't fall for manufactured propaganda that causes the gullible to take the wrong side. And when reporting a war, you don't report theories and innuendo and speculation that provides aid and comfort and/or useful information to the aggressor.

Why "pick a side" at all? What are the consequences for your thinking and your perceptions and your judgements when you do "pick a side"?

In this case picking a side is easy. You pick the side that didn't kidnap somebody else's people in order to provoke an action. You pick the side that didn't start intentionally shelling civilian neighborhoods hoping to hit civilians. And you pick the side that hasn't pledged to wipe another country/people off the face of the earth.

If the fight was between say Iran and Syria, I wouldn't be able to pick a side.

Foxfyre wrote:

blatham wrote:

Quote:

But if you're going to pick a side, at least pick the one that is defending itself from unprovoked aggression. And don't condemn that side if it manages to fight more effectively than the aggressor. And don't fall for manufactured propaganda that causes the gullible to take the wrong side. And when reporting a war, you don't report theories and innuendo and speculation that provides aid and comfort and/or useful information to the aggressor.

Why "pick a side" at all? What are the consequences for your thinking and your perceptions and your judgements when you do "pick a side"?

In this case picking a side is easy. You pick the side that didn't kidnap somebody else's people in order to provoke an action. You pick the side that didn't start intentionally shelling civilian neighborhoods hoping to hit civilians. And you pick the side that hasn't pledged to wipe another country/people off the face of the earth.

If the fight was between say Iran and Syria, I wouldn't be able to pick a side.

I absolutely disagree with this statement. Picking a side is always easy. It's the easy thing to do. Just pick one side, than spend some time looking into their propaganda (a good deal of true belief is needed) and there you are. You get people like F4F or you, Foxy. Thing is, F4F is beyond what I would call reasonable, he has crossed the event horizon and is never going to listen to any reasonable argument again. I'm not so sure about you, but you're very close.

What do you gain by "picking a side" anyway? Is it like a soccer game where you "pick a side" and hope your team wins? Who would loose, in that case? The guys who got wiped out in the end?

If there are just enough people who are willing to "pick a side", this conflict will never end. Never. Today I read that in Iran, tents have been set up where people can donate money to support the cause of Hezbollah in their fight against Israel. Then again, there was news that 800,000 people in Lebanon are on the flight, but unable to leave the country.

I've seen pictures showing where innoncent Israelis had been killed by Katyusha rockets, and I've seen pictures of grateful Lebanese people who had been given shelter by Palestinians. It's easy to see how this conflict drives people into "picking sides". It's the exact opposite of what would benefit Israel. What Israel needs is neighbors who accept its right of existence. It's neighbors who can see how Hezbollah or Hamas are acting as social organizations - paying for medical bills, offering health insurance, paying school fees and making money available for small businesses - and still are responsible for so much terror and suffering in Israel. But what Israel needs, too, are people who see how in the present conflict the Israeli army has long ago crossed the point of "self defense", and all that's left is causing suffering and, yes, terror in Lebanon and Gaza.

"Picking a side" in this conflict is nothing but idiocy.

It's idiocy only if you refuse to make a moral judgment between right and wrong.

And it is wrong to fire rockets into residential neighborhoods hoping to destroy homes of people and injure or kill civilians. It is wrong to attempt to commit genocide or drive an otherwise peaceful people from their land.

It is not wrong to defend yourself and sometimes that means ensuring that your opponent won't be able to hurt you again. It is wrong to condemn the defender in such a case and not condemn the aggressor.

Foxfyre wrote:

It's idiocy only if you refuse to make a moral judgment between right and wrong.

No. It's idiocy especially when you are desperately trying to make a moral judgment between right and wrong. Let me explain why I think that's the case. You are saying

Foxfyre wrote:

And it is wrong to fire rockets into residential neighborhoods hoping to destroy homes of people and injure or kill civilians. It is wrong to attempt to commit genocide or drive an otherwise peaceful people from their land.

It is not wrong to defend yourself and sometimes that means ensuring that your opponent won't be able to hurt you again. It is wrong to condemn the defender in such a case and not condemn the aggressor.

Your statement. But given the length of the conflict in the Middle East, who is the agressor and who is the defender? Hard to say.

You say it's wrong to kill civilians and to drive an otherwise peaceful people from their land. I agree. However, you may remember what Yitzhak Rabin said when Isreal conducted similar operations in 1993 and 1996: "The goal of the operation is to get the southern Lebanese population to move northward, hoping that this will tell the Lebanese government something about the refugees, who may get as far as Beirut."

So does Hezbollah kill Israeli civilians, and does Hezbollah deny Israel's right of existence? Yes. Does Israel kill civilians, and is it Israel's stated goal to drive an otherwise peaceful people from their land? Yes. So, which side do you pick, and why?

Then, you say that it is "not wrong to defend yourself and sometimes that means ensuring that your opponent won't be able to hurt you again." Are you also speaking for Lebanon, and the Lebanese government, and the Lebanese government's duty to protect its people? Does that mean that Lebanon has the duty of destroying Israel? After all, Israel is not only attacking Hezbollah - Israel is attacking Lebanon, is violating Lebanon's sovereignity, is killing Lebanese civilians, is destroying Lebanese infrastructure, etc.

I hope that's not what you're trying to say.

You, Foxy, argue that "It is wrong to condemn the defender in such a case and not condemn the aggressor." That's quite commendable. I'd just like to see you acting on that maxim. Really.

He actually thought the Qana story was real.

Lebanon, through Qatar, which has a seat on the council, tried unsuccessfully to change the draft, calling for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops rather than having them remain in the country until a UN-backed international force is put in place. The draft allows Israel to continue "defensive operations" in Lebanon after a ceasefire.