Israel Hammers Gaza

[Bro. Curtis]

One usually has to have a seat at the table to be part of an agreement.

Arafat was at the table. He left.

 

[KenH]

In the 1940s?

 

[Bob Alkire]

In the 1940s?

Due to Briton giving into the Arabs and turning on the Jews the Belfour Agreement wasn't lived up to. That was done to keep the Arabs happy and no one wanted to keep the Jews happy. I still think that after WWII if anyone nation would have taken in the Jews there would not have be an Israel today. No the Arabs had much to say, look at how little the Jews got, no where near the Belfour Agreement.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

In the 1940s?

Misunderstood the question. Sorry.

 

[LeBuick]

It won't work. Because ONE group of people (we call them Palestinians) want all of the territory and Jerusalem as their capitol. Besides that, the land has already been carved up, but the Arabs didn't honor their part in it way back when.

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

Correct... However, I think it's a good blueprint to get them to the table of discussion. Yes, they will bicker over where the line should be drawn but I'd rather them bicker diplomatically than with missiles.

 

[Spinach]

I didn't want to start another thread about this, but I hope this article doesn't get lost in the debate. It was sent to me today by an online Jewish friend.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123059693797741083.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

This one sickens me:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081231...alestinians;_ylt=Ap7sQgx5bNQ3nRcBm60e4XdvaA8F

Also, another article (and I was looking for one with American response):
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/141913/Hundreds-in-Michigan-NYC-protest-strikes-on-Gaza

As a personal side note, I've been in Dearborn many many times and even ate at an Arabic restaurant. It was scary to see the street signs that weren't in English and to hear the loud speaker. It was surreal. I remember feeling scared then and I'm scared for Israel and Jewish Americans right now.

 

[hillclimber1]

Correct... However, I think it's a good blueprint to get them to the table of discussion. Yes, they will bicker over where the line should be drawn but I'd rather them bicker diplomatically than with missiles.

You can't negotiate in good faith with terrorists, to whom life means nothing...As long as these so called Palestinians are controlled by terrorists, Israel must destroy them at every occurrence of terrorism...

 

[KenH]

Terror is a tactic. You can't defeat this tactic as long as there is at least one person who is willing to destroy his life to destroy another life(s).

The "War on Terror" is a misnomer. One can wage a war against terrorists but not against a tactic.

 

[Revmitchell]

Silly. War can be waged on anything or anybody. The term "War on Terrorism" declares an agenda to put an end to the tactic. There can be a war on terror, a war on drugs, a war on abortion, etc. The word war simply indicates a level of opposition but not necessarily military combat. The only misnomer I have seen with regards to terrorism is the inappropriate use of the term freedom fighter to characterize terrorists.

 

[KenH]

There can be a war on terror, a war on drugs, a war on abortion, etc.

Yeah, and fighting a tactic has been really successful, eh? How many acts of terror take place every year? How many times are illegal drugs used every year? How many abortions happen every year? All in spite of these wars.

The United States should have as a goal the destruction of al Qaeda and its allies. We cannot defeat a tactic.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yeah, and fighting a tactic has been really successful, eh? How many acts of terror take place every year? How many times are illegal drugs used every year? How many abortions happen every year? All in spite of these wars.

The United States should have as a goal the destruction of al Qaeda and its allies. We cannot defeat a tactic.

The lack of an end to these activities shows no evidence against the opposition to the. And it is quite ridiculous to suggest that Al qaeda has been ignored because of the war on terror. You are attempting to frame the phrase war on terror in a way that shows error and gives opportunity for criticism of those you already disagree with. Quite disingenuous and silly.

I say that as a result of giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not really that ignorant. There are no other options.

 

[KenH]

We'll just have to agree to disagree about this, Pastor Mitchell.

 

[hillclimber1]

Terror is a tactic. You can't defeat this tactic as long as there is at least one person who is willing to destroy his life to destroy another life(s).

The "War on Terror" is a misnomer. One can wage a war against terrorists but not against a tactic.

We have to defeat this tactic...The hard part is dealing with the terrorist tactic of hiding among non-combatants... To civilized people it is very hard to deal with, but it must be done, or that tactic allows evil, the victory... And that tactic (just one of many) makes these radicals monsters that must be destroyed.

As they become evident they must be killed... It is a MUST. Righteousness must prevail, to the best of our ability, and to declare evil "undefeatable" is very wrong...

But, look at the world and its condemnation of Israel.. satan is very powerful in the middle eastern region, and his shaping of world opinion on Israel is masterful....