87 total posts
(Page 1 of 3)
You could also ask.....
is it right to fire missiles indiscriminately at civilian areas in Israel? Is it right to launch those missiles from civilian neighborhoods?
Like Iseral is doing?
And above all, is it right what Iseral is doing? That requires a YES or NO...
I doubt if you will get it.
Not such a simple question if it seems.
Is it right what Hamas is doing and has been doing. That is also the question.
You seem rather one-sided here.
?You have heard that it was said, ?An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.? But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer, But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.?
Moreover, it's difficult to say who really started the conflict, so who is retaliating whom.
Remember neither side is Christian
I don't understand the Arab world. It seems to be OK for Muslims to blow up anyone they want, even each other (this includes civilians).
But heaven forbid if anyone retaliates and kills a Muslim. It's also the other person's fault if the killers set up shop in civilian areas and a few civilians get killed along with the killers. But it's normal for civilians to get killed by the Muslims (Muslim and non-Muslim alike).
I don't hear any condemnation from the Muslim world for Hamas starting the shooting by firing rockets into Israel. Just for Israel for shooting back.
Also, the "who started it" question
Who broke the latest "ceasefire" and who targets citizens?
Actually the U.N. started it....
with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947, a resolution that was never finished. What good is a worthless organization that just passes an endless stream of resolutions that never translate into actual implementation and enforcement.
How can a resolution
that was never finished, be called a "resolution"? And have a number?!
Haven't you noticed?
That's a common theme with U.N. resolutions. They sit around and talk about what needs to be done, they write it down, they vote on it and then everyone does what they want no matter what the resolution says. That's why Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors that were mandated by a U.N. resolution.
Let's say it started with ...
Theodor Herzl, although he built upon predecessors.
But you can also say it started back in the year 135 with the diaspora, when many Jewish people left what's now Israel and Palestina after they were defeated by the Romans.
From then on, it continued in quite understandable steps until it reached the current mess.
that's too easy.
When someone tosses garbage in your yard first, they are to blame. When they keep tossing garbage in your yard, they are still to blame. If one day you take and toss all the garbage back and kick his butt, he is still to blame, but at least he got what was coming to him.
Christianity isn't the issue, common humanity is.
Israelis for years behaved quietly in between defending themselves from attack. It is only since the establishment of a long term terrorist threat, beginning with Yasser Arafat and the PLO, who was permitted to address the UN with a pistol strapped to his hip (speaking of double standards) and its children in Black September and Hamas and Hezbollah and Al Qaeda who are the issue. And I don't believe they truly represent majority Islamic opinion, though I may be wrong about that, but probably not by much.
Islam is not a monolith. It is not even like the Catholic church or any other church except perhaps for the Baptist confederations of churches (watch the hate mail fly). Each imam interprets the Q'ran in his own way. Yes, there are common threads between some imams, but mostly differences are buried at the moment as the more militant side carries on its war against Israel and the United States. Should something change their focus they would be arguing with one another just like they were before 1972.
Christianity was and is like this. Roman Catholics versus Orthodox Catholics versus Protestants, and if you've noticed some of the Christians here at SE deny that mainline Christian churches are Christian at all. At least that's what they argued to me. But Christianity which had its own endless wars finally grew out of that in the 18th Century. Now Islam is 600 years newer than Christianity. I don't think we can expect it to settle down a lot quicker than it took Christians which gives us another 3 or 4 hundred years to wait.
I wasn't saying that Christianity was the issue
I was referring to the statement about turning the other cheek. I was simply saying that neither side was a follower of Christ's teachings.
I know about the bloody history of Christianity. I also know that fo the first four leaders of Islam after Muhammad, two were killed by rival factions. So the religion might be newer than Christianity but the blood started flowing a lot sooner.
It is amazing to me that a religion that was considered the most enlightened one during the Middle Ages. The wealthy wanted a Muslim or Jewish doctor; definitely not a Christian one. Also the Muslims were in the forefront of science. Now so many want to go back to the worse parts of the Middle Ages and before.
Like the man said,
"you only have two cheeks to slap, after that, hell's to pay".
you only have 2?
What do you sit on?..besides a chair?
Quoting things out of context usually winds up getting
things wrong. When Jesus said those words, he was speaking to individuals. He was not speaking to governments. As Paul, speaking from his intimate understanding of the teachings of Jesus, later said, the government is given a sword by God Himself. It is government's responsibility to use that sword to protect its population, and to secure justice. There is no God given mandate for the government to "turn the other check" and allow evil doers to deprive its people of justice and security.
could be quite the cornball. IF he was responsible for that old bromide, he can be forgiven.
without such law
eventually only the bully would retain sight and everyone else would be blind. Sort of a "two strikes" law.
I guess, based on your quote, that Gandhi did not
understand what the Bible is saying.
When the Bible uses the "eye for an eye" phrase, it is saying that the response to a wrong should be limited and proportional. If you lose your eye, you cannot kill in retaliation. Your response, if any, must be limited and proportional to the wrong inflicted on you.
The Bible did not say that the eye must or should be taken in retaliation. The desirable response to an inflicted injury was simply not the focus of that particular writing.
Not at all
Just asking if Iseral is right to take the measures that they have taken? It IS a simple yes or no...
Does Iseral have the right to exist? Absolutely!
Could you at least make an effort....
....to spell "Israel" correctly? It would be a nice show of respect for a country you believe has a right to exist and defend itself.
Everyone's been telling you that.
Does Israel have the right to self defense? Absolutely -Rob
Total number of rockets launched from Gaza has passed 300. R
And how many deaths on each side?
Last thing I heard was 4 Israelis and over 360 Palestinians...
I don't expect you to feel sorry for the Palestinian people at all, but you see the number of rockets is not the ultimate count. It's the lives that have been taken.
all Hamas has to do is quit sending rockets into Israel! Israel didn't bomb Gaza until Hamas broke the truce and started terrorist acts.
a slight analogy
the death of a thousand cuts......
you want Israel to stand by and bleed to death
they want to "live by the sword"?
let them die by the fastest means possible
The rockets didn't just start yesterday...
Out of curiosity... how many years has Hamas claimed responsibility for lobbing missiles of all sorts into Israel? Terry makes a case for 4 fatalities versus 390+ and counting... as an illustration of how unreasonable Israel's response has been.
But the reality is that Hamas has been involved in such attacks for many years. Is that not correct?
The situation has changed only because Hamas now has its' own small country to stage attacks from. Hamas claims authenticity and credibility for its position as a representational authority of the Palestinian peoples, but acts as no responsible government would by cravenly attacking a much more well armed opponent from behind civilian shields. Unfortunately though, it is my understanding that Hamas has earned some small gratitude from the Palestinian populations because they have provided better services to the population than the Palestinian Authority has in past years. I am not so sure that if the Palestinian ground forces move into Gaza... that the civilian populations will not rise up and give more support to Hamas than it might really deserve. I hope and pray that will not be the case for everyone on both sides.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 3)