If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I cant help but notice that you still havent answered my question, and given you havent I can only assume that you think its justified for Hamas to kill civilians but not the Israeli's. Why the difference?
I've spoken to a few christians in the US, and this issue of the Third Temple has never come up, they just believe basically, the war between the two sides has been going on almost for ever, and that it wont stop fully till Judgement. I was read the passage where it lays out the starting point for all this but I've long since forgoten it. So its not that there isnt sympathy for the Palestinians, but because they feel its not going to get sorted till He comes again they have a more fatalistic view of the conflict.
Oh and bb, as to your comment above, you must have conveniently missed or ignored post #64 which did in fact answer your question. Obviously though you prefer to avoid answering mine for the clear consistently of principle it would force you to acknowledge.
No matter.
I was just putting my opinion based on what I've come across, that's what this place is for isnt it?
Yes, I did miss #64, I've read it now. It just seems strange to me that you can justify the killing of civilians on one side and not the other. Are you saying all Israeli's are guilty, and therefore it doesnt matter who or how you kill them?
The railway workers killed by a rocket, did they personally strike at Hezbollah first?
I just think its double standards, killing Israeli's is justified because they started it, but the killing of Lebanese people isnt.
Why?
Firing rockets into a civilian area is wrong, it makes bugger all difference which side your on.
http://www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/isreal_un_resolutions.htm
Such is the intrinsic character of group exceptionalism at the heart of the institutionalised Zionist ideology.
So firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel is justified then?
Suicide bombings on buses is justified then?
Does this include civillians?
And determine "invaders", at what point does the land becomes "yours". Is it when the UN recoginses your border or when your enemies do?
You of all people have no moral ground left to ask such questions given that you support illegal war of aggression by whatever nation states the tv tells you are the "good guys" or are "spreading democracy".
Hang on a minute.
You accuse me of being an "apologist" for Israeli terrorist actions, even though I condemn them, and then refuse to answer simple questions about your own apparently apologist tendances.
So why can't you answer the questions?
Lets try again...
1. Is it acceptable for Israeli civilians to be targetted? Yes/ No
2. Define "invasion". For that to happen there must be borders to cross. As klintock would tell you (and he was right on this) border are not fixed. So at what point is a border deemed to exist (in your opinion)? Is it when the UN recognises it, of when your enemies do - or is there an alternative?
Says who? You? The UN? Why is it the wrong qeustion to ask, when you claim I am an apologist yet your own comments could lead to similar accusations levelled at you...
Surely your position should be clear here, if you are making (unsubstantiated) accusations about others...
Except it isn't.
Becuase if you say that it isn't accpetable then you are not being an aopologist, are you.
So actually it's only loaded if you already know the answer will show you to be a hypocrite. I certainly don't know that...
By "state sponsored terrorism" are you including the funding given to Hamas etc by Suria and Iran (for example), or are you just aiming your rhetoric at Israel?
Given that the resistance rockets fired by Palestinian defence groups are not precision guided missiles as are those fired from Israel's squadrons of F-16's or Apaches, the term "targetted" Israeli civilians is even disingenuous.
And now you want to dredge up klintock as an example of logically grounded argumentation to suggest there has been no illegal invasions of sovereign nation states? Well then, lets rush right back to the history books and exhonerate Nazi Germany because obviously they did no wrong in invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, et al.
Try asking the question, do a brutally oppressed, routinely snipered, economically starved, randomly abducted and illegally imprisoned people have a right to fight back against the ideological state tyranny visited upon them with impunity?
Maybe some reflection on that right, which you may find yourself living one day to defend your family from state tyranny, might help concretise your reasoning with some definite conviction.
Except I don't. You just think I do. Explaining how someone else is thinking isn't being an apologist Clandestine. I'd expect someone who claims to be intelligent to understand that.
Except unilateral condemnation isn't appropriate here, in fact it rarely is. Again I guess that an intelligent person would understand that there is more than one perspective involved, and although you might agree with one that doesn't make any other "wrong".
So, suicide bombings are not targetted? Why assume that I am only talking about rockets?
But as you raised them, is it acceptable to launch a missile in the general direction of a civillian area without caring whether they hit military targets or not?
Whoops, missed the point again.
Firstly, perhaps you could explain how klintock was incorrect in his assertion tha borders are not fixed .
Secondly, why do you assume that I was talking about Israel crossing borders?
I already know the answer to that one. I also know your view, which is why I asked something else.
The question I was interested in was, as part of that "right to fight back", is it acceptable that they target civillians?
Maybe with some reflection, you might want to consider if your assumptions about my views are actually incorrect and perhaps you should look at those areas where I express an "opinion" and those where I present a "perspective" and see if you can spot the difference between comments like...
"I condemn Israel", with something like "but the Israelis would argue"...
That sounds like you assume that borders do exist.
I'm very curious as to what makes the civilians different.