[itai195]

Originally posted by Logic:
They already do that. And as long as they do that the Palestinians are fully justified in fighting back. The "Israelis" set down the rules for this war, and the Palestinians will continue to fight back according to those rules.

Did they? I didn't realize 'intifada' was an Israeli concept. Anyway, I asked for a yes/no answer... not whether the Palestinians are justified in their actions, who started what, and what kind of governments exist. If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine, but I'll assume your answer is 'no.'

[deomacius]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Zionists are the ones valuing life differently? Explain dhimmi to us again. It values every non-Muslim as non-citizens, basically to be barely tolerated.

If that's not a Smackdown� I don't know what is.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by itai195:
So I ask you, would Israel be justified in deliberately killing civilians who support (materially or not) Palestinian terror? It's a simple yes/no question.

159 words later (yep, I counted.....), and logic was not able to answer. Pretty telling.

[itai195]

Originally posted by PacHead:
159 words later (yep, I counted.....), and logic was not able to answer. Pretty telling.

Yes, I assume that's because his answer is 'no,' which, if you're following my logic, is indeed pretty telling.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by itai195:
Yes, I assume that's because his answer is 'no,' which, if you're following my logic, is indeed pretty telling.

Indeed.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by itai195:
So I ask you, would Israel be justified in deliberately killing civilians who support (materially or not) Palestinian terror? It's a simple yes/no question.

Yes.

The difficulty, just as with justifying Palestinian terror on the same grounds, is in separating those who support the terrorist activities from those who do not. I've argued that the electorate of a democratic state can be held responsible for the actions of their representative government. This is, of course, not entirely accurate unless the government is elected by 100% of the voters with a 100% of eligible voters turning out. Even then, one must separate eligible voters from ineligible voters to justify an attack on those who support the actions of a government. Of course, one could (and both sides apparently do) use the "collateral damage" rationalization for the "accidental" deaths of non-supporters.

Honestly, I wish Palestinians would just stop fighting. One of two things would happen: a) as Zim says, Israel would stop attacking and the two sides would settle their differences rationally; b) Israel would continue attacking and the world, even the US, would have no choice but to step in.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:

Honestly, I wish Palestinians would just stop fighting. One of two things would happen: a) as Zim says, Israel would stop attacking and the two sides would settle their differences rationally; b) Israel would continue attacking and the world, even the US, would have no choice but to step in.

(b) would never happen. If it did, then even I would condemn it (and everybody knows what I think of palestinian terrorist scum), but like I said, highly unlikely.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by PacHead:
(b) would never happen. If it did, then even I would condemn it (and everybody knows what I think of palestinian terrorist scum), but like I said, highly unlikely.

You're speculating with no evidence to back up your position. From my perspective, (b) is just as likely as (a) ... though I don't think we'll ever have the opportunity to find out.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
You're speculating with no evidence to back up your position. From my perspective, (b) is just as likely as (a) ... though I don't think we'll ever have the opportunity to find out.

I am certainly not speculating without evidence. Israel = good - - - Palestinian terrorists = bad

Just look at history. Israel could have wiped out the palestinians (every last one of them) mutiple times already, if they felt like it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I am certainly not speculating without evidence. Israel = good - - - Palestinian terrorists = bad

Just look at history. Israel could have wiped out the palestinians (every last one of them) mutiple times already, if they felt like it.

... sigh ...

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourk...mages/grey.gif

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
... sigh ...

http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~jwarner/wr...ck-white-2.jpg

[Splinter]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
There had been no attacks by the Palestinians for five months. Israel re-started the cycle of violence a few days ago when they badly wounded a Palestinian child.

sorry to bring this topic so far back but this is a largley assumed peice of information.

Attacks have not stopped in five months... only succesful attacks on civilians have been stopped in the last five months,.... not ceased... stopped. If you look the army has been getting a bunch of bombs and rockets and firing and catching people trying to slip through cehckpoints with this stuff over the last five months cause the wall prevents them from exiting from most other areas without checkpoints.

so has the wall been doing its job? yes. is its perfectly secure? of course not it needs completion. have the attacks been stopped? yes. have the attacks stopped? no. this is simply the first one to get through in five months...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Splinter:
sorry to bring this topic so far back but this is a largley assumed peice of information.

Attacks have not stopped in five months... only sucsecful attacks on civilians have been stopped in the last five months,.... not ceased... stopped if you looke the army has been getting a bunch of bombs and rockets and firing and catching people trying to slip throughcehckpoints with this stuff over the last five months cause the wall prevents them from exiting form most other areas without checkpoints.

so has the wall been doing its job? yes. is its perfectly secure? of course not it needs completion. have the attacks been stopped? yes. have the attacks stopped? no. this is simply the first one to get through in five months...

Exactly. They don't need Israel to do ANYTHING for them to attack. They think just because Israel EXISTS gives them justification to attack.

Deluded fools.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Honestly, I wish Palestinians would just stop fighting. One of two things would happen: a) as Zim says, Israel would stop attacking and the two sides would settle their differences rationally; b) Israel would continue attacking and the world, even the US, would have no choice but to step in.

I feel kind of the same way as you about this, I think. But it's idealistic, neither side is going to stop fighting until there is some kind of breakthrough.

And thanks for answering 'yes.' That's being honest.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by itai195:
...So I ask you, would Israel be justified in deliberately killing civilians who support (materially or not) Palestinian terror? It's a simple yes/no question.

Yes - the problem is clearly identifying who supports what. If the Israeli army is unable to accurately make that distinction, why should anyone expect the Palestinian resistance fighters to be able to make a similar distinction?


Edit: Wiskedjak already said pretty much the same thing above

[Logic]

Originally posted by itai195:
Yes, I assume that's because his answer is 'no,' which, if you're following my logic, is indeed pretty telling.

You've never heard of a time difference meaning that it can be night in one place while day or evening in another? Do schools in the US still teach that the earth is flat?

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by itai195:
So I ask you, would Israel be justified in deliberately killing civilians who support (materially or not) Palestinian terror?

No, not at all.

See, before you have asked the question, you have already made a number of assumptions, that are all wrong:

1. You assume that Israel is a legitimate state and nation.
2. You also assume the occupation of Gaza and Westbank and the military oppression and control to be legitimate.
3. Therefore you assume that the resistance among the palestinians is not legitimate, including everything from non-violent resistance to guerillia-warfare to retaliation-operations.

From those assumptions you conclude that the resistance-fighters are criminals and that Israel, as the righteous state/nation/democracy, has the right to prosecute, to emprison, and even better (since Israel doesn't have the law-mean to execute) to kill them right away before they see a judge.

With all that assumptions and conclusions, you are just asking, if Israel is on top of all that justified to kill civilians that help the resistance-fighters.

The answer is no, because all the assumptions and conclusions made consciencly or not, that the question is based upon, are wrong to boot.

On the contrary, the criminal in that conflict are the zionists that founded an independent state in a country that doesn't belong them, in which other people lived and worked for more than a thousand years, with a different (though similar) religion..

Driving out (this sounds so euphemistic, while it describes everything from kidnapping, blackmailing, from bombing, burning and killing, terrorism at its finest) islamic palestinians just because they are not jewish, to make room for the waves of jewish immigrants to live in their (the previous owners', the islamic palestinians') homes and land.

But that wasn't all, with the help of the new friend, Britain saw the mistake and didn't want to cooperate with the zionists anymore, USA (that saw the opportunity to secure and control the arabic US-neocolonies from an independent military- and spybase in Israel), the zonists were able to finally declare the foundation of Israel, as a souvereign and independent (ha!) jewish state (with all its ramifications, double-standard, racism and injustices), and at the same time starting a war to drive out massively palestinians and expand.

There was no real danger for the zionists, as the US, the master of the arabic US-neo-colonies, that installed and financed/finances the arabic dictators, was/is on Israel's side.

The rediculous fight the arabic countries put up was just enough to calm the arabic street (the masspopulation), that everything was tried..., so that they don't topple the dictators.

To make a short story even shorter: Who is the criminal, the arabs that were driven out from their land, that were and still are prosecuted, terrorised, and killed by Israel and the zionists, or the arabs, that were left in vain by their neighbours, that had to find an own political identity as palestinians, and that try to keep Israel from stealing even more land from them, with the meager means that they have--> guerillia-warfare and retaliations.

I feel disgusted and deeply sad whenever I see/hear that civilians are killed, espescially innocent civilians, even children and women and elderly, and as it is Israel is doing that kind of acting five times as often as palestinians, and as it is Israel is the one starting the bloodshed and the one who is in the wrong to boot, and I think that the palestinians are right in retaliating as it is restraining (regarding the killing of civilians) the israelic army.

The proof for the life-saving of civilians through retaliation, is that the israelic army felt to not not be restrained anymore when they had the wall up in big parts of Palestine, which reduced the retaliations by 80%. In the same timeframe, the israelic army killed more than 300 civilians among the palestinians, and even killed political leaders of resistance-groups in the assurance that they couldn't retaliate.

That means that at least the israelic leaders in the government, and especially in the armies, know that the suicide-attacks are indeed just retaliations.

Therefore they have used the wall as an offensive weapon, as an opportunity to squash the resistance among the palestinians without having to care much for casualties among the civilians, and espescially without having to care much about retaliations, that could disturb the israelic public and consequentially at the end the israelic army through an interested and question-asking public...

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lets put this in even more perspective.

You don't get it, hmm? The jewish and christian religion are the same religion, Jesus was a jew, the old-testament is part of the bible. The jewish religion was just updated and expanded by Jesus and was directed as the new testament directly at the jews, the gentiles were just a bonus.

So, if you really think about it, the whole christian west is Great Israel, and the whole west world is a jewish homeland and a safe haven.

But that christian west, espescially its current leader, the USA, wanted to have also a strategic foot on islamic land, controlling the oppressed arabic/islamic world, that's why they have instrumentalised the radical among the followers of the old version of the jewish religion, which called themselves zionists..

Taliesin

[version]

How convenient for Israel all of this is. Just days after they attract negative publicity because of the spy scandal, we see a bus bombing, the first in months. Not only does this allow Israel to move the focus back on to them, but they mamage to up the stakes by slipping in how they will go after Hamas leaders anywhere.

So now we see a new threat to Syria, on top of the previous one to Iran. Of course, Israel has its hand firmly in the pants of the Bush Government, and has no trouble in making sure Iran is marginilised as much as possible.
One other thing I have a hard time buying into, is all these recent attacks in Russia, and the belief they are purely done by Islamic groups. It's all far too covenient, just like this new, unheard of group who kidnapped the French journalists.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
So, if you really think about it, the whole christian west is Great Israel, and the whole west world is a jewish homeland and a safe haven.

[Logic]

Originally posted by f1000:
...snipped image.....

[f1000]

Originally posted by version:
One other thing I have a hard time buying into, is all these recent attacks in Russia, and the belief they are purely done by Islamic groups. It's all far too covenient, just like this new, unheard of group who kidnapped the French journalists.

Or maybe terrorists are just stupid, impulsive, attention-seeking fools?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
No, not at all.

See, before you have asked the question, you have already made a number of assumptions, that are all wrong:

1. You assume that Israel is a legitimate state and nation.
2. You also assume the occupation of Gaza and Westbank and the military oppression and control to be legitimate.
3. Therefore you assume that the resistance among the palestinians is not legitimate, including everything from non-violent resistance to guerillia-warfare to retaliation-operations.

From those assumptions you conclude that the resistance-fighters are criminals and that Israel, as the righteous state/nation/democracy, has the right to prosecute, to emprison, and even better (since Israel doesn't have the law-mean to execute) to kill them right away before they see a judge.

With all that assumptions and conclusions, you are just asking, if Israel is on top of all that justified to kill civilians that help the resistance-fighters.

The answer is no, because all the assumptions and conclusions made consciencly or not, that the question is based upon, are wrong to boot.

On the contrary, the criminal in that conflict are the zionists that founded an independent state in a country that doesn't belong them, in which other people lived and worked for more than a thousand years, with a different (though similar) religion..

Driving out (this sounds so euphemistic, while it describes everything from kidnapping, blackmailing, from bombing, burning and killing, terrorism at its finest) islamic palestinians just because they are not jewish, to make room for the waves of jewish immigrants to live in their (the previous owners', the islamic palestinians') homes and land.

But that wasn't all, with the help of the new friend, Britain saw the mistake and didn't want to cooperate with the zionists anymore, USA (that saw the opportunity to secure and control the arabic US-neocolonies from an independent military- and spybase in Israel), the zonists were able to finally declare the foundation of Israel, as a souvereign and independent (ha!) jewish state (with all its ramifications, double-standard, racism and injustices), and at the same time starting a war to drive out massively palestinians and expand.

There was no real danger for the zionists, as the US, the master of the arabic US-neo-colonies, that installed and financed/finances the arabic dictators, was/is on Israel's side.

The rediculous fight the arabic countries put up was just enough to calm the arabic street (the masspopulation), that everything was tried..., so that they don't topple the dictators.

To make a short story even shorter: Who is the criminal, the arabs that were driven out from their land, that were and still are prosecuted, terrorised, and killed by Israel and the zionists, or the arabs, that were left in vain by their neighbours, that had to find an own political identity as palestinians, and that try to keep Israel from stealing even more land from them, with the meager means that they have--> guerillia-warfare and retaliations.

I feel disgusted and deeply sad whenever I see/hear that civilians are killed, espescially innocent civilians, even children and women and elderly, and as it is Israel is doing that kind of acting five times as often as palestinians, and as it is Israel is the one starting the bloodshed and the one who is in the wrong to boot, and I think that the palestinians are right in retaliating as it is restraining (regarding the killing of civilians) the israelic army.

The proof for the life-saving of civilians through retaliation, is that the israelic army felt to not not be restrained anymore when they had the wall up in big parts of Palestine, which reduced the retaliations by 80%. In the same timeframe, the israelic army killed more than 300 civilians among the palestinians, and even killed political leaders of resistance-groups in the assurance that they couldn't retaliate.

That means that at least the israelic leaders in the government, and especially in the armies, know that the suicide-attacks are indeed just retaliations.

Therefore they have used the wall as an offensive weapon, as an opportunity to squash the resistance among the palestinians without having to care much for casualties among the civilians, and espescially without having to care much about retaliations, that could disturb the israelic public and consequentially at the end the israelic army through an interested and question-asking public...

Taliesin

That's a lot of words considering the 'yes-or-no' question that was asked.

Sounds like you're trying to justify something that could not be justified.

Keep typing until you convince yourself it's true....

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
That's a lot of words considering the 'yes-or-no' question that was asked.

Sounds like you're trying to justify something that could not be justified.

Keep typing until you convince yourself it's true....

Same criticism you levelled against Kerry...I love it!

The moment somebody tries to do justice to an issue that is NOT black-and-white (and nothing ever is*), you get all confused on content and smear on motivation.

Woo-hoo.

-s*

*) except murder, which, paradoxically, is definitely a lengthy "yes, but" situation for you yes/no-advocates when you're trying to justify state-sanctioned murder.

[Logic]

Originally posted by itai195:
So I ask you, would Israel be justified in deliberately killing civilians who support (materially or not) Palestinian terror? It's a simple yes/no question.

I'll try to answer this question now that I have some time. But you'll need to define "support" and "terror".

After you do that this might be a simple yes or no question. Now it isn't because it is too broad and open ended.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Logic:
I'll try to answer this question now that I have some time. But you'll need to define "support" and "terror".

After you do that this might be a simple yes or no question. Now it isn't because it is too broad and open ended.

lol.

grow some ballz and answer the question using a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

You're already trying to weasel out of it.

"It depends on what the definition of 'is' is..."

sheesh.

how damned predictible.

Just refer to taliesin's essay-like response to a yes or no question.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by typoon:
I think it's about time the world stopped condemning Israel when they go after these terrorists from Hamas and Hezbullah and let them destroy them once and for all.

sure..because genocide is such compassionate conservative ideal.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
lol.

grow some ballz and answer the question using a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

You're already trying to weasel out of it.

"It depends on what the definition of 'is' is..."

sheesh.

how damned predictible.

Just refer to taliesin's essay-like response to a yes or no question.

I'm trying to weasel out of it? I'm trying to get what exactly he means. I know that's hard for you to understand.

Now go back to school and learn how to spell. A damn shame that someone who speaks English as a third language has to correct you.

[Spliffdaddy]

you earn a cookie for correcting what used to be a regional spelling bee champion.

It could be argued that I spell all words correctly and reference sources such as dictionaries are simply wrong. Besides, I'm using a peecee with laptop-sized infrared wireless keyboard from a vintage Gateway iAppliance. It ain't even got all the normal keys. Coffee spew killed my real keyboard last week. While viewing the "olympic picture caption" thread in the Lounge forum.

But anyways, you're still trying to dodge the question.

[deomacius]

This history of Palestine seems very similar to the history of it's leader, Yasser Arrafat. An Egyptian born man who conveniently claims to be palestinian. A farce and an invention to justify destroying Israel. Now who's state is illegitimate?

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
1. You assume that Israel is a legitimate state and nation.

yes, and? What does a nation have to do to be legit? It has a national anthem, It has a flag, It has currency, It has a Government, it has an economy, it is recognized by every international gathering of nations/leaders as a country, it has borders, it has armed forces, it has a leagl system... so what exactly more does it have to do to become legit? grow wings and fly? or maybe bow before muslim terrorist lay down and die? no I suspect your reffering to the manner in which it was born... well then my friend I suspect most of the countries on this earth are not legit by those standards... It just happened for them so long ago that people have forgotten about it.

[typoon]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Except that despite Israel's continued strikes against the Palestinian territories, the militants did stop, for five months. There is only a limited amount of time you can expect them to sit quiet and not retaliate while Israel continues to murder Palestinian civilians.

One of The reasons why they stopped was because of the wall that Israel had put up. Once again they got comdemned by the rest of the world for that too. Israel doesn't seem to be able to win either way. they are damned if the do and damned if they don't.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by PacHead:
http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~jwarner/wr...ck-white-2.jpg

In my opinion, in a black and white world where everyone is either with you or against, there are no neutral parties and everyone would be a legitimate target. Even children. Anything other than 100% support for or against would have to be considered a shade of grey.

I feel sorry for you. Your black or white stance places almost everyone, including 51% of your fellow citizens, against you. It must feel terribly lonely and threatening.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I feel sorry for you. Your black or white stance places almost everyone, including 51% of your fellow citizens, against you. It must feel terribly lonely and threatening.

...with nothing but his big gun and cattle to keep him company.

<cue sunset>

[itai195]

Originally posted by Logic:
I'll try to answer this question now that I have some time. But you'll need to define "support" and "terror".

After you do that this might be a simple yes or no question. Now it isn't because it is too broad and open ended.

No I don't, you and eklipse made no effort to define just what supporting the Israeli government means. I don't suspect that I'm the person turning this into a black and white issue... if one says that supporters of the Israeli government are no better than the soldiers who kill Palestinian civilians, then am I not justified in asking whether those who support Palestinian terror groups (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc) are any better than the suicide bombers?

BTW, yes I was taught the earth is flat. YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?

[itai195]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
No, not at all.

See, before you have asked the question, you have already made a number of assumptions, that are all wrong:

1. You assume that Israel is a legitimate state and nation.
2. You also assume the occupation of Gaza and Westbank and the military oppression and control to be legitimate.
3. Therefore you assume that the resistance among the palestinians is not legitimate, including everything from non-violent resistance to guerillia-warfare to retaliation-operations.

From those assumptions you conclude that the resistance-fighters are criminals and that Israel, as the righteous state/nation/democracy, has the right to prosecute, to emprison, and even better (since Israel doesn't have the law-mean to execute) to kill them right away before they see a judge.

With all that assumptions and conclusions, you are just asking, if Israel is on top of all that justified to kill civilians that help the resistance-fighters.

Actually I didn't make any of these assumptions, read the thread. All I'm assuming is that both sides should uphold the same standard when fighting this war. Wouldn't want to be hypocrites, and all that. But just wondering, what makes a state legitimate? Is that codified anywhere?

BTW, my personal answer to the question would be 'no,' but I'd also say that it's wrong for suicide bombers to deliberately target Israeli civilians.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
You don't get it, hmm?

You say this..

Then you say this

The jewish and christian religion are the same religion,

No, no it's not.

Jesus was a jew, the old-testament is part of the bible. The jewish religion was just updated and expanded by Jesus and was directed as the new testament directly at the jews, the gentiles were just a bonus.

Yes, and you just contradicted yourself. You go to say it's the same, then show how it's different. Way to go.

So, if you really think about it, the whole christian west is Great Israel, and the whole west world is a jewish homeland and a safe haven.

Wow what a spin. That would work if it weren't for the fact that there are some "Christians" that have similar opinions as the Islamics over there. You are showing that YOU don't get it.

But that christian west, espescially its current leader, the USA, wanted to have also a strategic foot on islamic land, controlling the oppressed arabic/islamic world, that's why they have instrumentalised the radical among the followers of the old version of the jewish religion, which called themselves zionists..

No, that isn't the reason. You have been lied to by propagandists and you accept it as the truth.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deomacius:
If that's not a Smackdown� I don't know what is.

It was. Typical of vmarks though. You almost expect it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
1. You assume that Israel is a legitimate state and nation.

WAKE UP TALIESIN. IT IS.

[Logic]

Originally posted by itai195:
BTW, yes I was taught the earth is flat. YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?

But lets say(since you don't want to define the word support) that you mean the same as I do then yes. Israel would be allowed to kill them.

But

That depends on if this is war or not. That also changes quite much other things that I'm not sure Israel would like.

[dcolton]

This is what I don't understand. Out of all of the contemporary conflicts in this world, Muslims seem to be involved - and it still isn't clear as to what they want. Taliesan et al. claim it to be freedom from opression. What kind of freedom do they really want? The freedom to allow ruthless regimes like Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khamenei, the Taliban, corrupt royal families and so on to reign with an iron fist and rape the land of resources for their own profit all in the name of Allah?

Taliesan claims that the US and other western nations have meddled too much in ME politics...to the point of covert operations, weapons sales, coup attempts, etc. SO WHAT! If the US didn't exert her influence in the ME, the region would be more unstable than it is now...as a matter of fact, the region would probably be reduced to rubble as Israel would undoubtedly be forced to defend herself against the entire Muslim world. Even at that, we have seen that muslim neighbors can't even get along long enough to ensure peace. Thanks to the efforts of the US and a handful of other nations, we ensured that at least one aggresor is no longer in power.

Perhaps if 'muslim' nations can show the world that they can be civil and exist without armed conflict - or at least exist without an itchy trigger finger, the climate would be quite different and the notion of peace could exist. Simply put. When you play nice, people tend to listen.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Perhaps if 'muslim' nations can show the world that they can be civil and exist without armed conflict - or at least exist without an itchy trigger finger, the climate would be quite different and the notion of peace could exist. Simply put. When you play nice, people tend to listen.

Indeed. You don't scream "We want our own nation" while you suicide bomb your neighbor and claim you wont stop till they are gone.

That will just get you pointed at and laughed at.

Certainly not taken seriously.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by dcolton:
This is what I don't understand. Out of all of the contemporary conflicts in this world, Muslims seem to be involved - and it still isn't clear as to what they want. Taliesan et al. claim it to be freedom from opression. What kind of freedom do they really want?

If the US didn't exert her influence in the ME, the region would be more unstable than it is now...

You answered your own question. One person's "influence" is another's "oppression".

As for the region being unstable without US "influence", that's speculation. It's possible that the region would have been more stable without US influence. It's difficult to speculate how history would have turned out had histroy taken different directions.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Logic:


But lets say(since you don't want to define the word support) that you mean the same as I do then yes. Israel would be allowed to kill them.

Okay, then you will stop condemning Israel whenever it kills Palestinian civilians? That seems only logical.

That depends on if this is war or not. That also changes quite much other things that I'm not sure Israel would like.

I think it would be disingenuous to call it by any other euphemism, but I also share, to some extent, your hesitancy to call it a full-scale war. Regardless, I think both sides should play by the same rules and standards.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
You answered your own question. One person's "influence" is another's "oppression".

Buying oil. Defending freedom. How is that oppression?

As for the region being unstable without US "influence", that's speculation. It's possible that the region would have been more stable without US influence. It's difficult to speculate how history would have turned out had histroy taken different directions.

Yes, it is speculation. But I think it is safe to assume that if the ME were going to be a mecca for anything besides terrorism, they would have accomplished it by now.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Defending freedom. How is that oppression?

If you're "defending freedom" at the cost of the freedom of others, it's oppression.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
If you're "defending freedom" at the cost of the freedom of others, it's oppression.

Example, or are you just buying into terrorist rhetoric?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
If you're "defending freedom" at the cost of the freedom of others, it's oppression.

Yeah we sure took Saddam's freedom away from him didn't we.

OPPRESSORS!

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Example, or are you just buying into terrorist rhetoric?

Saudi Arabia.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
Saudi Arabia.

How is the US opressing the Saudi people?