05-29-2008, 04:41 PM | #41 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Nice doggy. Go back into your kennel now.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
05-29-2008, 04:41 PM | #42 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,368
|
Quote:
|
|
05-29-2008, 04:44 PM | #43 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Lebowski and SIEQ, do you agree with Waters that Israel was the de facto and de jure aggressor in the Six-Day war, and it was an unjust war?
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
05-29-2008, 04:47 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,371
|
It's obvious, to me, that the debate on this issue is not about peace between Palestinian & Israeli (which is, IMO, impossible due to mutually exclusive goals), but about the moral correctness of the actions of Israel in regards to those territories referred to as "occupied".
To me, this argument comes down to the following: 1. When is it OK for a victorious nation to claim territory from other nations following a war? 2. When bordered by an aggressive, belligerent people, what actions are acceptable to protect your citizens? 3. What actions were taken that were unrelated to the security of Israel? Personally, I have a hard time blaming a country for holding onto assets taken from the aggressors during a war that threatened the complete destruction of it's people, and which assets provide security against an escalation of violence against it's citizens. On the other hand, I recognize that actions taking by an occupying force will invariably involve atrocities that should rightfully be condemned.
__________________
"My days of not respecting you are certainly coming to a middle." -Malcolm Reynolds "It doesn't mean that if we lose a game or when we lose a game people won't then jump on and say the quest is over. Because they will. But they've missed the point." -Bronco Mendenhall on "The Quest" |
05-29-2008, 05:10 PM | #45 | |
Formerly known as MudPhudCoug
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Land of desolation
Posts: 2,548
|
Quote:
I don't blame you for your positions. I consider you to be a victim of hacks like Tucker Carlson. See below: |
|
05-29-2008, 05:27 PM | #46 |
Formerly known as MudPhudCoug
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Land of desolation
Posts: 2,548
|
Yes. When God says it's OK to kill people, then it is moral. Thank goodness for the Nephi/Laban story and the Old Testament. Where would our perception of morality be if we didn't know it was OK to kill people?
|
05-29-2008, 05:34 PM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The People's Republic of Monsanto
Posts: 3,085
|
Quote:
Responsibility: When the UN General Assembly convened an emergency session right after the 1967 war, not a single country unilaterally asserted that the Arab countries solely caused the war. There were various perspectives expressed, including that Israel was the aggressor, that all parties to the conflict were at fault, and that attempting to determine responsibility was useless. The U.S.S.R. put forward a resolution condemning Israel. The U.S. didn't sign on--but not because the resolution condemned Israel. The U.S. didn't sign on because the Soviet's resolution didn't also condemn the Arab nations. The following is from the U.S.'s statement in the Official Records of the General Assembly Fifth Emergency Special Session from June 17-September 18, 1967: "Israel alone is to be condemned as an aggressor [by the Soviet resolution]--though surely, in the light of all the events, both recent and long past, that led up to the fighting, it would be neither equitable nor constructive for this Organization to issue a one-sided condemnation." Israel's Options: I think Israel had other reasonable options. It could have asked for a redeployment of UN forces on its Egyptian border. It also could have accepted the temporary suspension of the Straits of Tiran issue proposed by the UN Secretary General. Pre-Emptive Attack: According to a scholar at the conservative (and Jewish) Shalem Center in Jerusalem, Egypt probably didn't intend to attack Israel. Avraham Selam noted that, "The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensive plan...and Nasser's defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike." I'm drawing these points from Finkelstein's 2005 book, and from my notes on his book.
__________________
"Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; " 1 Thess. 5:21 (NRSV) We all trust our own unorthodoxies. Last edited by Sleeping in EQ; 05-29-2008 at 05:41 PM. |
|
05-29-2008, 05:44 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
What do you think God REALLY intended to happen once Moses got the Israelites to the scenic overlook of the Promised Land?
|
05-29-2008, 05:58 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,371
|
I enjoy the comedy involved when one places one's own sensibilities on the acceptable actions of God.
__________________
"My days of not respecting you are certainly coming to a middle." -Malcolm Reynolds "It doesn't mean that if we lose a game or when we lose a game people won't then jump on and say the quest is over. Because they will. But they've missed the point." -Bronco Mendenhall on "The Quest" |
05-29-2008, 06:04 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|