| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"kmiller" |
| Date: |
29 Jul 2006 12:08:00 AM |
| Object: |
When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
Q:
When does a country call-in the United States and Britain to do an
'Intervention'?
A:
When you are Israel, and you just started a WAR, that you just realized
that you can't WIN !!!
8-)
.
|
|
| User: "bye" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 12:27:38 AM |
|
|
When you are Israel, and you just started a WAR, that you just realized
that you can't WIN !!!
Unless you use nukes.....
"kmiller" <miller.k@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1154149680.066032.135050@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Q:
When does a country call-in the United States and Britain to do an
'Intervention'?
A:
When you are Israel, and you just started a WAR, that you just realized
that you can't WIN !!!
8-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 07:39:25 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 05:27:38 +0000, bye wrote:
When you are Israel, and you just started a WAR, that you just realized
that you can't WIN !!!
Unless you use nukes.....
Can't use nukes. They know perfectly well that Pakistan, and any other
Arab nation with nukes, will remove Israel permanently from the face of
the planet if Israel dared to use a nuke. Plus, the US may even pull
support for Israel.
We won't see any nukes fired by Israel. I'm positive that they are only
there for taking out Arab countries if a nuke is tossed Israel's way. (IE
- it's to guarantee that if Israel is destroyed by nukes, so will the rest
of the ME be destroyed by nukes)
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Styrbj=F6rn?=" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain ToDo An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 03:17:31 AM |
|
|
bye wrote / skrev:
When you are Israel, and you just started a WAR, that you just realized
that you can't WIN !!!
Unless you use nukes.....
Using nukes locally? I remember Chernobyl. The wind brought
radioactivity to Sweden.
"kmiller" <miller.k@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1154149680.066032.135050@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Q:
When does a country call-in the United States and Britain to do an
'Intervention'?
A:
When you are Israel, and you just started a WAR, that you just realized
that you can't WIN !!!
8-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 08:27:16 AM |
|
|
kmiller wrote:
Q:
When does a country call-in the United States and Britain to do an
'Intervention'?
A:
When you are Israel, and you just started a WAR, that you just realized
that you can't WIN !!!
Please show your evidence that Israel started this conflict.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bye" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 02:46:56 PM |
|
|
Regardless of who started it, the Jews should be smart enough to know how to
stop it!!! Even I could do that, if I were there leader!!!~
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154179636.664248.243020@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kmiller wrote:
Q:
When does a country call-in the United States and Britain to do an
'Intervention'?
A:
When you are Israel, and you just started a WAR, that you just realized
that you can't WIN !!!
Please show your evidence that Israel started this conflict.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 06:38:17 PM |
|
|
bye wrote:
Regardless of who started it, the Jews should be smart enough to know how to
stop it!!! Even I could do that, if I were there leader!!!~
Yes, if you were their leader you'd surrender and move away -- thereby
giving the evil terrorists exactly what they want. And you'd have done
the same thing if you'd been the leader of Britain during World War II,
wouldn't you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "bye" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
30 Jul 2006 12:04:09 AM |
|
|
No I would not!!! I would expect us all to surrender to God and fully
trust him, obey his commandments and expect that he will part the Red Sea as
he did for his people so many times in the past. If I didn't believe that,
how could I possibley be a true Jew?
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154216297.637183.184270@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
bye wrote:
Regardless of who started it, the Jews should be smart enough to know how
to
stop it!!! Even I could do that, if I were there leader!!!~
Yes, if you were their leader you'd surrender and move away -- thereby
giving the evil terrorists exactly what they want. And you'd have done
the same thing if you'd been the leader of Britain during World War II,
wouldn't you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 08:43:24 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
kmiller wrote:
Q:
When does a country call-in the United States and Britain to do an
'Intervention'?
A:
When you are Israel, and you just started a WAR, that you just realized
that you can't WIN !!!
Please show your evidence that Israel started this conflict.
I believe it's pointless in arguing 'who started it' -- it'd be a waste
of time.
There's a Buddhist parable that goes along these lines -- a soldier is
hit by an arrow with a poisoned tip. But before he allows anyone to
remove the arrow he needs to know who shot the arrow and the type of
life that person led. He'd be dead before he was able to learn any of
this. Sometimes it's best ot act on the issues at hand.
Personally, I think Israel has vastly over-responded to the kidnapping
of 2 IDF soldiers and the killing of several others by members of
Hezbollah. Destroying Lebanon as retribution doesn't sit well with me.
Members of the Czech resistance murdered Reinhart Heydrich and the
village of Lidice was destroyed as retribution. The death of 10
soldiers does not justify destroying Lebanon's new democracy, it's
infrastructure and it's citizens.
Just my opinion.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 08:56:10 AM |
|
|
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
kmiller wrote:
Q:
When does a country call-in the United States and Britain to do an
'Intervention'?
A:
When you are Israel, and you just started a WAR, that you just realized
that you can't WIN !!!
Please show your evidence that Israel started this conflict.
I believe it's pointless in arguing 'who started it' -- it'd be a waste
of time.
I disagree. It's too easy for the anti-Israel crowd to say it doesn't
matter who started it.
[CBC excerpt] Eight Israeli soldiers were killed and two others
captured following a cross-border raid on Wednesday by the militant
group Hezbollah - a move that triggered Israeli troops to move into
Lebanon. [end excerpt]
[Washington Post excerpt] The fighting began after Hezbollah members
crossed the heavily fortified Israeli border Wednesday. In an ambush,
they killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two, whom they spirited
away to Lebanese territory. Five more soldiers were killed as the
Israeli military tried to recover the soldiers and equipment wrecked in
the pursuit. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called the attack an
act of war, and Israel launched a campaign whose reach is greater than
any since it invaded Lebanon 24 years ago. [end excerpt]
[CBC excerpt] The abduction followed a rocket exchange along the
border. At least two rockets fired from south Lebanon exploded near the
Israeli town of Shlomi. [end excerpt]
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/12/israel-lebanon.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071300278_pf.html
It DOES matter who started this conflict, because Israel would be happy
to live in peace if the terrorists would just stop attacking Israel.
From the moment Israel pulled out of Gaza, Hamas started firing rockets
into Israel on a near daily basis. Does it matter that Israel was being
attacked by Hamas on a near daily basis before Israel finally had
enough and reentered Gaza to try to stop it? Or is it a waste of time
to point out Israel was under near daily attack by Hamas BEFORE Israel
reentered Gaza?
So ... does it matter that Hezbollah started this conflict before
Israel decided it had had enough and started targeting Hezbollah
fighters? Yes, innocent civilians have been killed on both sides. The
difference is, the people of Israel have bomb shelters (because they've
been attacked so often for so long), while the Hezbollah terrorists
hide amongst the civilian population. Even the UN station that was
accidentally hit by Israel had Hezbollah fighters in its proximity
trying to use it as a shield.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bye" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 03:07:26 PM |
|
|
I think the Jewish "Star of David" is the 666. It must be. Just look at the
symbol how it 'reeks' of 6s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_David
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154181370.151709.51790@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
kmiller wrote:
Q:
When does a country call-in the United States and Britain to do an
'Intervention'?
A:
When you are Israel, and you just started a WAR, that you just
realized
that you can't WIN !!!
Please show your evidence that Israel started this conflict.
I believe it's pointless in arguing 'who started it' -- it'd be a waste
of time.
I disagree. It's too easy for the anti-Israel crowd to say it doesn't
matter who started it.
[CBC excerpt] Eight Israeli soldiers were killed and two others
captured following a cross-border raid on Wednesday by the militant
group Hezbollah - a move that triggered Israeli troops to move into
Lebanon. [end excerpt]
[Washington Post excerpt] The fighting began after Hezbollah members
crossed the heavily fortified Israeli border Wednesday. In an ambush,
they killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two, whom they spirited
away to Lebanese territory. Five more soldiers were killed as the
Israeli military tried to recover the soldiers and equipment wrecked in
the pursuit. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called the attack an
act of war, and Israel launched a campaign whose reach is greater than
any since it invaded Lebanon 24 years ago. [end excerpt]
[CBC excerpt] The abduction followed a rocket exchange along the
border. At least two rockets fired from south Lebanon exploded near the
Israeli town of Shlomi. [end excerpt]
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/12/israel-lebanon.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071300278_pf.html
It DOES matter who started this conflict, because Israel would be happy
to live in peace if the terrorists would just stop attacking Israel.
From the moment Israel pulled out of Gaza, Hamas started firing rockets
into Israel on a near daily basis. Does it matter that Israel was being
attacked by Hamas on a near daily basis before Israel finally had
enough and reentered Gaza to try to stop it? Or is it a waste of time
to point out Israel was under near daily attack by Hamas BEFORE Israel
reentered Gaza?
So ... does it matter that Hezbollah started this conflict before
Israel decided it had had enough and started targeting Hezbollah
fighters? Yes, innocent civilians have been killed on both sides. The
difference is, the people of Israel have bomb shelters (because they've
been attacked so often for so long), while the Hezbollah terrorists
hide amongst the civilian population. Even the UN station that was
accidentally hit by Israel had Hezbollah fighters in its proximity
trying to use it as a shield.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 05:24:30 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:07:26 +0000, bye wrote:
I think the Jewish "Star of David" is the 666. It must be. Just look at the
symbol how it 'reeks' of 6s.
No, it doesn't. It's more like 2 3's than a 6, but even it it were to be
considered a 6, it would just be 6, not 666.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_David
According to this, it's equated to the number 7. I highly doubt that a
Jewish writer would refer to the Star of David anything with a
6, let alone 3 of them, if he's in a culture that considers it a 7. (You
knew that John was Jewish, right?)
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "bye" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 11:50:15 PM |
|
|
6 points (apexs), 6 triangles and 6 sides of the inner hexagram = 666.
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.29.22.24.30.46645@tepidmail.com...
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:07:26 +0000, bye wrote:
I think the Jewish "Star of David" is the 666. It must be. Just look at
the
symbol how it 'reeks' of 6s.
No, it doesn't. It's more like 2 3's than a 6, but even it it were to be
considered a 6, it would just be 6, not 666.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_David
According to this, it's equated to the number 7. I highly doubt that a
Jewish writer would refer to the Star of David anything with a
6, let alone 3 of them, if he's in a culture that considers it a 7. (You
knew that John was Jewish, right?)
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "bye" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
30 Jul 2006 12:14:27 AM |
|
|
6 x 1 pointed objects (points) = 1
6 x 2 pointed objects (lines) = 2
6 x 3 pointed objects (trangles) = 3
Indidentally the numbers 1, 2 and 3 are one of the most 'holy' numbers in
Jewish mysticism and the Kabbalah...
"bye" <3@4.com> wrote in message news:bUWyg.274675$Mn5.36083@pd7tw3no...
6 points (apexs), 6 triangles and 6 sides of the inner hexagram = 666.
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.29.22.24.30.46645@tepidmail.com...
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:07:26 +0000, bye wrote:
I think the Jewish "Star of David" is the 666. It must be. Just look at
the
symbol how it 'reeks' of 6s.
No, it doesn't. It's more like 2 3's than a 6, but even it it were to be
considered a 6, it would just be 6, not 666.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_David
According to this, it's equated to the number 7. I highly doubt that a
Jewish writer would refer to the Star of David anything with a
6, let alone 3 of them, if he's in a culture that considers it a 7. (You
knew that John was Jewish, right?)
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 09:03:33 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
I believe it's pointless in arguing 'who started it' -- it'd be a waste
of time.
I disagree.
And that's fine. I'm not really insisting that you do agree.
All I'm pointing out is that by the time you decide who really started
and when there will most likely be nothing left in the region worth
fighting over.
But what I'd like you to consider is Israels response. Israel had a
right to respond, I'm not suggesting it didn't. Destroying a country in
response is excessive and not unlike the fate of Lidice.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 09:16:11 AM |
|
|
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
I believe it's pointless in arguing 'who started it' -- it'd be a waste
of time.
I disagree.
And that's fine. I'm not really insisting that you do agree.
All I'm pointing out is that by the time you decide who really started
and when there will most likely be nothing left in the region worth
fighting over.
But what I'd like you to consider is Israels response. Israel had a
right to respond, I'm not suggesting it didn't. Destroying a country in
response is excessive and not unlike the fate of Lidice.
I have considered Israel's response. I am truly sorry for the innocent
people of Lebanon who have been caught up in the mess that has been
created by the terrorists in their midst. But you should consider that
Israel was being attacked on a near daily basis for months by Hamas,
and then when they finally tried to stop it, they were attacked by
Hezbollah -- also with rockets fired into Israeli territory, which is
what had been happening with Hamas from Gaza for MONTHS. Should Israel
have just allowed those rocket attacks to continue for months as well?
Obviously, they didn't think so.
In conclusion, it is a real tragedy that the Hezbollah and Hamas
terrorists have brought so much pain and suffering on their OWN people
-- not to mention the people of Israel.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 03:30:20 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
I believe it's pointless in arguing 'who started it' -- it'd be a
waste of time.
I disagree.
And that's fine. I'm not really insisting that you do agree.
All I'm pointing out is that by the time you decide who really started
and when there will most likely be nothing left in the region worth
fighting over.
But what I'd like you to consider is Israels response. Israel had a
right to respond, I'm not suggesting it didn't. Destroying a country in
response is excessive and not unlike the fate of Lidice.
I have considered Israel's response. I am truly sorry for the innocent
people of Lebanon who have been caught up in the mess that has been
created by the terrorists in their midst.
Don't be too sorry. Most of the dead 'civilians' were people
driving away from rocket launch pads. Israel isn't really that
bad a shot with its laser and gps guided bombs that it would
mistakenly kill several hundred people.
But you should consider that
Israel was being attacked on a near daily basis for months by Hamas,
and then when they finally tried to stop it, they were attacked by
Hezbollah -- also with rockets fired into Israeli territory, which is
what had been happening with Hamas from Gaza for MONTHS. Should Israel
have just allowed those rocket attacks to continue for months as well?
Obviously, they didn't think so.
In conclusion, it is a real tragedy that the Hezbollah and Hamas
terrorists have brought so much pain and suffering on their OWN people
-- not to mention the people of Israel.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 05:33:38 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:16:11 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
I believe it's pointless in arguing 'who started it' -- it'd be a waste
of time.
I disagree.
And that's fine. I'm not really insisting that you do agree.
All I'm pointing out is that by the time you decide who really started
and when there will most likely be nothing left in the region worth
fighting over.
But what I'd like you to consider is Israels response. Israel had a
right to respond, I'm not suggesting it didn't. Destroying a country in
response is excessive and not unlike the fate of Lidice.
I have considered Israel's response. I am truly sorry for the innocent
people of Lebanon who have been caught up in the mess that has been
created by the terrorists in their midst. But you should consider that
Israel was being attacked on a near daily basis for months by Hamas,
and then when they finally tried to stop it, they were attacked by
Hezbollah -- also with rockets fired into Israeli territory, which is
what had been happening with Hamas from Gaza for MONTHS. Should Israel
have just allowed those rocket attacks to continue for months as well?
Obviously, they didn't think so.
You're aware that Hamas and Hezbollah are 2 different groups, right? Also
that the attacks by Hamas were at the other end of Israel from where
Hezbollah attacked? It's like saying the Bloods were acting up in Boston,
so of course the cops in NYC went overboard when the Crips acted up!
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 06:40:55 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:16:11 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
I believe it's pointless in arguing 'who started it' -- it'd be a waste
of time.
I disagree.
And that's fine. I'm not really insisting that you do agree.
All I'm pointing out is that by the time you decide who really started
and when there will most likely be nothing left in the region worth
fighting over.
But what I'd like you to consider is Israels response. Israel had a
right to respond, I'm not suggesting it didn't. Destroying a country in
response is excessive and not unlike the fate of Lidice.
I have considered Israel's response. I am truly sorry for the innocent
people of Lebanon who have been caught up in the mess that has been
created by the terrorists in their midst. But you should consider that
Israel was being attacked on a near daily basis for months by Hamas,
and then when they finally tried to stop it, they were attacked by
Hezbollah -- also with rockets fired into Israeli territory, which is
what had been happening with Hamas from Gaza for MONTHS. Should Israel
have just allowed those rocket attacks to continue for months as well?
Obviously, they didn't think so.
You're aware that Hamas and Hezbollah are 2 different groups, right?
Right (and by the way, I also know the difference between Darfur and
southern Sudan).
Also that the attacks by Hamas were at the other end of Israel from
where Hezbollah attacked? It's like saying the Bloods were acting
up in Boston, so of course the cops in NYC went overboard when
the Crips acted up!
Did you notice that I connected Hamas with the Gaza rocket attacks? No?
That's probably because you seem to have a problem reading what you
respond to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 07:38:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:40:55 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:16:11 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
I believe it's pointless in arguing 'who started it' -- it'd be a waste
of time.
I disagree.
And that's fine. I'm not really insisting that you do agree.
All I'm pointing out is that by the time you decide who really started
and when there will most likely be nothing left in the region worth
fighting over.
But what I'd like you to consider is Israels response. Israel had a
right to respond, I'm not suggesting it didn't. Destroying a country in
response is excessive and not unlike the fate of Lidice.
I have considered Israel's response. I am truly sorry for the innocent
people of Lebanon who have been caught up in the mess that has been
created by the terrorists in their midst. But you should consider that
Israel was being attacked on a near daily basis for months by Hamas,
and then when they finally tried to stop it, they were attacked by
Hezbollah -- also with rockets fired into Israeli territory, which is
what had been happening with Hamas from Gaza for MONTHS. Should Israel
have just allowed those rocket attacks to continue for months as well?
Obviously, they didn't think so.
You're aware that Hamas and Hezbollah are 2 different groups, right?
Right (and by the way, I also know the difference between Darfur and
southern Sudan).
Also that the attacks by Hamas were at the other end of Israel from
where Hezbollah attacked? It's like saying the Bloods were acting
up in Boston, so of course the cops in NYC went overboard when
the Crips acted up!
Did you notice that I connected Hamas with the Gaza rocket attacks? No?
That's probably because you seem to have a problem reading what you
respond to.
Backpeddling, or just difficulty with writing clearly in English?
Typically, one would not bring up a wholly separate group as
rationalization for the reaction to another group, unless one was lumping
them in together. By using the recent turmoil at the other end of the
country, with Hamas, as justification for attacking a sovereign nation
over a skirmish with Hezbollah, you have lumped the two together.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 07:52:28 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:40:55 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:16:11 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
I believe it's pointless in arguing 'who started it' -- it'd be a waste
of time.
I disagree.
And that's fine. I'm not really insisting that you do agree.
All I'm pointing out is that by the time you decide who really started
and when there will most likely be nothing left in the region worth
fighting over.
But what I'd like you to consider is Israels response. Israel had a
right to respond, I'm not suggesting it didn't. Destroying a country in
response is excessive and not unlike the fate of Lidice.
I have considered Israel's response. I am truly sorry for the innocent
people of Lebanon who have been caught up in the mess that has been
created by the terrorists in their midst. But you should consider that
Israel was being attacked on a near daily basis for months by Hamas,
and then when they finally tried to stop it, they were attacked by
Hezbollah -- also with rockets fired into Israeli territory, which is
what had been happening with Hamas from Gaza for MONTHS. Should Israel
have just allowed those rocket attacks to continue for months as well?
Obviously, they didn't think so.
You're aware that Hamas and Hezbollah are 2 different groups, right?
Right (and by the way, I also know the difference between Darfur and
southern Sudan).
Also that the attacks by Hamas were at the other end of Israel from
where Hezbollah attacked? It's like saying the Bloods were acting
up in Boston, so of course the cops in NYC went overboard when
the Crips acted up!
Did you notice that I connected Hamas with the Gaza rocket attacks? No?
That's probably because you seem to have a problem reading what you
respond to.
Backpeddling, or just difficulty with writing clearly in English?
Not backpeddling in the least. And if you didn't notice that I
connected Hamas with the Gaza rocket attacks (that have been going on
since the day Israel pulled out of Gaza), then it's you who has a
comprehension problem.
Typically, one would not bring up a wholly separate group as
rationalization for the reaction to another group, unless one was lumping
them in together. By using the recent turmoil at the other end of the
country, with Hamas, as justification for attacking a sovereign nation
over a skirmish with Hezbollah, you have lumped the two together.
Please read carefully (since you probably still don't know the
difference between Darfur and southern Sudan, even though I tried to
explain it to you numerous times) ... I lumped the two together because
Israel finally got tired of having rockets fired into its territory by
Hamas (from GAZA!). For many months, Israel showed restraint, but
finally reentered GAZA to try to stop the rocket attacks. And what
happened? Hezbollah began firing its own rockets (in addition to
crossing the border and ambushing Israeli soldiers). And when Israel
followed the fleeing kidnappers, more rockets were fired into Israel.
So now the world expects Israel to show great restraint while MORE
rockets (from Hezbollah this time) are falling on Israel? They're
trying to stop the Hezbollah rocket attacks, and they are targeting
Hezbollah terrorists, not civilians. Does Israel have a right to defend
itself from rocket and missle attacks that TARGET Israeli civilians?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 08:38:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:52:28 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:40:55 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:16:11 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
I believe it's pointless in arguing 'who started it' -- it'd be a waste
of time.
I disagree.
And that's fine. I'm not really insisting that you do agree.
All I'm pointing out is that by the time you decide who really started
and when there will most likely be nothing left in the region worth
fighting over.
But what I'd like you to consider is Israels response. Israel had a
right to respond, I'm not suggesting it didn't. Destroying a country in
response is excessive and not unlike the fate of Lidice.
I have considered Israel's response. I am truly sorry for the innocent
people of Lebanon who have been caught up in the mess that has been
created by the terrorists in their midst. But you should consider that
Israel was being attacked on a near daily basis for months by Hamas,
and then when they finally tried to stop it, they were attacked by
Hezbollah -- also with rockets fired into Israeli territory, which is
what had been happening with Hamas from Gaza for MONTHS. Should Israel
have just allowed those rocket attacks to continue for months as well?
Obviously, they didn't think so.
You're aware that Hamas and Hezbollah are 2 different groups, right?
Right (and by the way, I also know the difference between Darfur and
southern Sudan).
Also that the attacks by Hamas were at the other end of Israel from
where Hezbollah attacked? It's like saying the Bloods were acting
up in Boston, so of course the cops in NYC went overboard when
the Crips acted up!
Did you notice that I connected Hamas with the Gaza rocket attacks? No?
That's probably because you seem to have a problem reading what you
respond to.
Backpeddling, or just difficulty with writing clearly in English?
Not backpeddling in the least. And if you didn't notice that I
connected Hamas with the Gaza rocket attacks (that have been going on
since the day Israel pulled out of Gaza), then it's you who has a
comprehension problem.
Okay, so it's an English problem. Here's a clue for you - if you don't
mean that you are lumping Hamas in with Hezbollah, don't bring them up for
justification for how Israel is reacting to Hezbollah. If you hadn't
brought them up as justification for Israel's overreaction, we wouldn't be
having this conversation.
Typically, one would not bring up a wholly separate group as
rationalization for the reaction to another group, unless one was
lumping them in together. By using the recent turmoil at the other end
of the country, with Hamas, as justification for attacking a sovereign
nation over a skirmish with Hezbollah, you have lumped the two
together.
Please read carefully (since you probably still don't know the
difference between Darfur and southern Sudan, even though I tried to
explain it to you numerous times) ... I lumped the two together because
Israel finally got tired of having rockets fired into its territory by
Hamas (from GAZA!).
Which has NOTHING to do with Hezbollah, correct? You are lumping them
together as some rationale for how one deals with one group because of
completely different group, right here.
For many months, Israel showed restraint, but
finally reentered GAZA to try to stop the rocket attacks. And what
happened? Hezbollah began firing its own rockets (in addition to
crossing the border and ambushing Israeli soldiers).
Which is a SEPARATE group, correct? A DIFFERENT situation, correct? It
has nothing whatsoever to what was going on in the North, correct? So,
why are you even bringing it up, unless you mistakenly believe there is
some kind of connection?
And when Israel
followed the fleeing kidnappers, more rockets were fired into Israel. So
now the world expects Israel to show great restraint while MORE rockets
(from Hezbollah this time) are falling on Israel?
See my original comparison between Hezbollah/Hamas and the Bloods/Crips,
this is the comparison right here. DIFFERENT groups, no connection,
DIFFERENT locations, no connection. THERE IS NO CONNECTION here, so why
are you bothering to bring it up, unless you mistakenly believe there is a
connection?
They're trying to stop
the Hezbollah rocket attacks, and they are targeting Hezbollah
terrorists, not civilians. Does Israel have a right to defend itself
from rocket and missle attacks that TARGET Israeli civilians?
Well, seeing as how nobody even mentioned that as an issue, I'd say that's
an attempt at changing the subject.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 08:56:05 PM |
|
|
Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:52:28 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:40:55 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:16:11 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
I believe it's pointless in arguing 'who started it' -- it'd
be a waste of time.
I disagree.
And that's fine. I'm not really insisting that you do agree.
All I'm pointing out is that by the time you decide who really
started and when there will most likely be nothing left in the
region worth fighting over.
But what I'd like you to consider is Israels response. Israel
had a right to respond, I'm not suggesting it didn't. Destroying
a country in response is excessive and not unlike the fate of
Lidice.
I have considered Israel's response. I am truly sorry for the
innocent people of Lebanon who have been caught up in the mess
that has been created by the terrorists in their midst. But you
should consider that Israel was being attacked on a near daily
basis for months by Hamas, and then when they finally tried to
stop it, they were attacked by Hezbollah -- also with rockets
fired into Israeli territory, which is what had been happening
with Hamas from Gaza for MONTHS. Should Israel have just allowed
those rocket attacks to continue for months as well? Obviously,
they didn't think so.
You're aware that Hamas and Hezbollah are 2 different groups,
right?
Right (and by the way, I also know the difference between Darfur and
southern Sudan).
Also that the attacks by Hamas were at the other end of Israel from
where Hezbollah attacked? It's like saying the Bloods were acting
up in Boston, so of course the cops in NYC went overboard when
the Crips acted up!
Did you notice that I connected Hamas with the Gaza rocket attacks?
No? That's probably because you seem to have a problem reading what
you respond to.
Backpeddling, or just difficulty with writing clearly in English?
Not backpeddling in the least. And if you didn't notice that I
connected Hamas with the Gaza rocket attacks (that have been going on
since the day Israel pulled out of Gaza), then it's you who has a
comprehension problem.
Okay, so it's an English problem. Here's a clue for you - if you don't
mean that you are lumping Hamas in with Hezbollah, don't bring them up
for justification for how Israel is reacting to Hezbollah. If you
hadn't brought them up as justification for Israel's overreaction, we
wouldn't be having this conversation.
Typically, one would not bring up a wholly separate group as
rationalization for the reaction to another group, unless one was
lumping them in together. By using the recent turmoil at the other
end of the country, with Hamas, as justification for attacking a
sovereign nation over a skirmish with Hezbollah, you have lumped the
two together.
Please read carefully (since you probably still don't know the
difference between Darfur and southern Sudan, even though I tried to
explain it to you numerous times) ... I lumped the two together because
Israel finally got tired of having rockets fired into its territory by
Hamas (from GAZA!).
Which has NOTHING to do with Hezbollah, correct? You are lumping them
together as some rationale for how one deals with one group because of
completely different group, right here.
For many months, Israel showed restraint, but
finally reentered GAZA to try to stop the rocket attacks. And what
happened? Hezbollah began firing its own rockets (in addition to
crossing the border and ambushing Israeli soldiers).
Which is a SEPARATE group, correct? A DIFFERENT situation, correct? It
has nothing whatsoever to what was going on in the North, correct? So,
why are you even bringing it up, unless you mistakenly believe there is
some kind of connection?
And when Israel
followed the fleeing kidnappers, more rockets were fired into Israel.
So now the world expects Israel to show great restraint while MORE
rockets (from Hezbollah this time) are falling on Israel?
See my original comparison between Hezbollah/Hamas and the Bloods/Crips,
this is the comparison right here. DIFFERENT groups, no connection,
DIFFERENT locations, no connection. THERE IS NO CONNECTION here, so why
are you bothering to bring it up, unless you mistakenly believe there is
a connection?
I think Stephen skipped out on his Writing Composition, possibly
even Reading Comprehension, classes, just as Bush must have went
AWOL on his history courses about what happens when you start
invading other countries.
They're trying to stop
the Hezbollah rocket attacks, and they are targeting Hezbollah
terrorists, not civilians. Does Israel have a right to defend itself
from rocket and missle attacks that TARGET Israeli civilians?
Well, seeing as how nobody even mentioned that as an issue, I'd say
that's an attempt at changing the subject.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 09:45:52 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
I think Stephen skipped out on his Writing Composition, possibly
even Reading Comprehension, classes,
You know, Randolph, I can't help but wonder why you keep putting your
faith in the "knowledge" of Woods -- only to have it blow up in your
face each time she is proven factually wrong (which is often).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
30 Jul 2006 08:12:13 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
I think Stephen skipped out on his Writing Composition, possibly
even Reading Comprehension, classes,
You know, Randolph, I can't help but wonder why you keep putting your
faith in the "knowledge" of Woods -- only to have it blow up in your
face each time she is proven factually wrong (which is often).
There you go with that 'faith' thing. More analysis and less
blind belief would serve you well. Peoples' 'beliefs' don't interest
me nearly as much as their factual arguments, and your arguments
tend to be filled with non-sequiturs and stunning congnitive leaps
which conclude with the neocon party line-of-the-day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
30 Jul 2006 03:56:06 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 08:12:13 -0500, Perseid wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
I think Stephen skipped out on his Writing Composition, possibly
even Reading Comprehension, classes,
You know, Randolph, I can't help but wonder why you keep putting your
faith in the "knowledge" of Woods -- only to have it blow up in your
face each time she is proven factually wrong (which is often).
There you go with that 'faith' thing. More analysis and less
blind belief would serve you well. Peoples' 'beliefs' don't interest
me nearly as much as their factual arguments, and your arguments
tend to be filled with non-sequiturs and stunning congnitive leaps
which conclude with the neocon party line-of-the-day.
It's bizarre, actually. It's like he got hold of some talking point,
which he doesn't quite understand, and then attempts to argue when he
doesn't even know what he's saying - it's ridiculous!
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
30 Jul 2006 03:20:08 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
I think Stephen skipped out on his Writing Composition, possibly
even Reading Comprehension, classes,
You know, Randolph, I can't help but wonder why you keep putting your
faith in the "knowledge" of Woods -- only to have it blow up in your
face each time she is proven factually wrong (which is often).
There you go with that 'faith' thing.
No, my reference to you putting your faith in the "knowledge" of Woods
is not that 'faith' thing. That 'faith" thing is a different definition
of faith, and you know it.
More analysis and less blind belief would serve you well.
Why not just stick to the current situation, in which Woods was wrong
again (as usual), and you followed along blindly behind her.
Peoples' 'beliefs' don't interest
me nearly as much as their factual arguments, and your arguments
tend to be filled with non-sequiturs and stunning congnitive leaps
How about an example of a non sequitur or stunning cognitive leap by
me, please? Just so I'll know what you're talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
30 Jul 2006 08:31:16 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
I think Stephen skipped out on his Writing Composition, possibly
even Reading Comprehension, classes,
You know, Randolph, I can't help but wonder why you keep putting your
faith in the "knowledge" of Woods -- only to have it blow up in your
face each time she is proven factually wrong (which is often).
There you go with that 'faith' thing.
No, my reference to you putting your faith in the "knowledge" of Woods
is not that 'faith' thing. That 'faith" thing is a different definition
of faith, and you know it.
More analysis and less blind belief would serve you well.
Why not just stick to the current situation, in which Woods was wrong
again (as usual), and you followed along blindly behind her.
Peoples' 'beliefs' don't interest
me nearly as much as their factual arguments, and your arguments
tend to be filled with non-sequiturs and stunning congnitive leaps
How about an example of a non sequitur or stunning cognitive leap by
me, please? Just so I'll know what you're talking about.
One recent example (just from memory 'cause I'm not going to sift
through your posts) was the discussion about nabbing of Israeli
soldiers by Palestinians and Hezbolla, when out of the clear blue
sky and not a cloud in sight, a bolt of lightning from Stephen's
brain struck and he started talking about Darfur (this of course
is a good 3000 miles away from Israel and completely unrelated).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
30 Jul 2006 10:43:58 PM |
|
|
Randolph Foreman wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
I think Stephen skipped out on his Writing Composition, possibly
even Reading Comprehension, classes,
You know, Randolph, I can't help but wonder why you keep putting your
faith in the "knowledge" of Woods -- only to have it blow up in your
face each time she is proven factually wrong (which is often).
There you go with that 'faith' thing.
No, my reference to you putting your faith in the "knowledge" of Woods
is not that 'faith' thing. That 'faith" thing is a different definition
of faith, and you know it.
More analysis and less blind belief would serve you well.
Why not just stick to the current situation, in which Woods was wrong
again (as usual), and you followed along blindly behind her.
Peoples' 'beliefs' don't interest
me nearly as much as their factual arguments, and your arguments
tend to be filled with non-sequiturs and stunning congnitive leaps
How about an example of a non sequitur or stunning cognitive leap by
me, please? Just so I'll know what you're talking about.
One recent example (just from memory 'cause I'm not going to sift
through your posts) was the discussion about nabbing of Israeli
soldiers by Palestinians and Hezbolla, when out of the clear blue
sky and not a cloud in sight, a bolt of lightning from Stephen's
brain struck and he started talking about Darfur (this of course
is a good 3000 miles away from Israel and completely unrelated).
It's called a parenthetical aside -- or a brief digression -- and it
was intended for another poster, not you. Please feel free to skim
right over any future parenthetical aside, Randolph, and continue on to
my main point -- which, in the case you mentioned, we seem to agree.
You're reminding me of the R. Foreman I first encountered when I came
to this group. And it's really refreshing to see a glimmer of that guy
again ... but I digress ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do AnIntervention? |
30 Jul 2006 06:33:47 AM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:52:28 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:40:55 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:16:11 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
I believe it's pointless in arguing 'who started it' -- it'd be a waste
of time.
I disagree.
And that's fine. I'm not really insisting that you do agree.
All I'm pointing out is that by the time you decide who really started
and when there will most likely be nothing left in the region worth
fighting over.
But what I'd like you to consider is Israels response. Israel had a
right to respond, I'm not suggesting it didn't. Destroying a country in
response is excessive and not unlike the fate of Lidice.
I have considered Israel's response. I am truly sorry for the innocent
people of Lebanon who have been caught up in the mess that has been
created by the terrorists in their midst. But you should consider that
Israel was being attacked on a near daily basis for months by Hamas,
and then when they finally tried to stop it, they were attacked by
Hezbollah -- also with rockets fired into Israeli territory, which is
what had been happening with Hamas from Gaza for MONTHS. Should Israel
have just allowed those rocket attacks to continue for months as well?
Obviously, they didn't think so.
You're aware that Hamas and Hezbollah are 2 different groups, right?
Right (and by the way, I also know the difference between Darfur and
southern Sudan).
Also that the attacks by Hamas were at the other end of Israel from
where Hezbollah attacked? It's like saying the Bloods were acting
up in Boston, so of course the cops in NYC went overboard when
the Crips acted up!
Did you notice that I connected Hamas with the Gaza rocket attacks? No?
That's probably because you seem to have a problem reading what you
respond to.
Backpeddling, or just difficulty with writing clearly in English?
Not backpeddling in the least. And if you didn't notice that I
connected Hamas with the Gaza rocket attacks (that have been going on
since the day Israel pulled out of Gaza), then it's you who has a
comprehension problem.
Okay, so it's an English problem. Here's a clue for you - if you don't
mean that you are lumping Hamas in with Hezbollah, don't bring them up for
justification for how Israel is reacting to Hezbollah. If you hadn't
brought them up as justification for Israel's overreaction, we wouldn't be
having this conversation.
Typically, one would not bring up a wholly separate group as
rationalization for the reaction to another group, unless one was
lumping them in together. By using the recent turmoil at the other end
of the country, with Hamas, as justification for attacking a sovereign
nation over a skirmish with Hezbollah, you have lumped the two
together.
Please read carefully (since you probably still don't know the
difference between Darfur and southern Sudan, even though I tried to
explain it to you numerous times) ... I lumped the two together because
Israel finally got tired of having rockets fired into its territory by
Hamas (from GAZA!).
Which has NOTHING to do with Hezbollah, correct? You are lumping them
together as some rationale for how one deals with one group because of
completely different group, right here.
For many months, Israel showed restraint, but
finally reentered GAZA to try to stop the rocket attacks. And what
happened? Hezbollah began firing its own rockets (in addition to
crossing the border and ambushing Israeli soldiers).
Which is a SEPARATE group, correct? A DIFFERENT situation, correct? It
has nothing whatsoever to what was going on in the North, correct? So,
why are you even bringing it up, unless you mistakenly believe there is
some kind of connection?
And when Israel
followed the fleeing kidnappers, more rockets were fired into Israel. So
now the world expects Israel to show great restraint while MORE rockets
(from Hezbollah this time) are falling on Israel?
See my original comparison between Hezbollah/Hamas and the Bloods/Crips,
this is the comparison right here. DIFFERENT groups, no connection,
DIFFERENT locations, no connection. THERE IS NO CONNECTION here, so why
are you bothering to bring it up, unless you mistakenly believe there is a
connection?
They're trying to stop
the Hezbollah rocket attacks, and they are targeting Hezbollah
terrorists, not civilians. Does Israel have a right to defend itself
from rocket and missle attacks that TARGET Israeli civilians?
Well, seeing as how nobody even mentioned that as an issue, I'd say that's
an attempt at changing the subject.
Woods
Actually, there is commonality at work here, in a tactical sense. Both groups are busily
firing inaccurate ballistic rockets into Israel. Both groups have kidnapped Israeli
military personnel. Both groups use 'civilians' as shields. The fact that the groups are
seperated by some distance only serves to divide the IDF, preventing the IDF from
concentrating their forces on a single combat zone. This strategy is as old as war
itself; divide and conquer. Maybe the US should offer the IDF the loan of a few
'slightly used' B-52s to speed the process of urban renewal. Short of nukes, nothing
says 'we're coming to get you' like a B-52.
Charly
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: When Does A Country CALL IN The United States And Britain To Do An Intervention? |
29 Jul 2006 09:43:24 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:52:28 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:40:55 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:16:11 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
I believe it's pointless in arguing 'who started it' -- it'd be a waste
of time.
I disagree.
And that's fine. I'm not really insisting that you do agree.
All I'm pointing out is that by the time you decide who really started
and when there will most likely be nothing left in the region worth
fighting over.
But what I'd like you to consider is Israels response. Israel had a
right to respond, I'm not suggesting it didn't. Destroying a country in
response is excessive and not unlike the fate of Lidice.
I have considered Israel's response. I am truly sorry for the innocent
people of Lebanon who have been caught up in the mess that has been
created by the terrorists in their midst. But you should consider that
Israel was being attacked on a near daily basis for months by Hamas,
and then when they finally tried to stop it, they were attacked by
Hezbollah -- also with rockets fired into Israeli territory, which is
what had been happening with Hamas from Gaza for MONTHS. Should Israel
have just allowed those rocket attacks to continue for months as well?
Obviously, they didn't think so.
You're aware that Hamas and Hezbollah are 2 different groups, right?
Right (and by the way, I also know the difference between Darfur and
southern Sudan).
Also that the attacks by Hamas were at the other end of Israel from
where Hezbollah attacked? It's like saying the Bloods were acting
up in Boston, so of course the cops in NYC went overboard when
the Crips acted up!
Did you notice that I connected Hamas with the Gaza rocket attacks? No?
That's probably because you seem to have a problem reading what you
respond to.
Backpeddling, or just difficulty with writing clearly in English?
Not backpeddling in the least. And if you didn't notice that I
connected Hamas with the Gaza rocket attacks (that have been going on
since the day Israel pulled out of Gaza), then it's you who has a
comprehension problem.
Okay, so it's an English problem. Here's a clue for you - if you don't
mean that you are lumping Hamas in with Hezbollah, don't bring them up for
justification for how Israel is reacting to Hezbollah. If you hadn't
brought them up as justification for Israel's overreaction, we wouldn't be
having this conversation.
I meant exactly what I wrote. Please read this:
[excerpt] Some analysts suggested that the similarity between the
Hezbollah raid and the one in Gaza by fighters with the Islamic faction
Hamas and its allies, both intended to gain leverage through captured
Israeli soldiers, pointed to increasingly closer relations between the
groups.
As with the Gaza conflict, Israel ruled out negotiations with the
Lebanese captors of the Israeli soldiers. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
said he held the Lebanese government responsible for the assault by
Hezbollah, the Shiite Muslim group that participates in Lebanese
politics but also continues to battle Israel.
"I want to make clear that the event this morning is not a terror
act, but an act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel without
reason," Mr. Olmert said. "The government of Lebanon, of which
Hezbollah is a part, is trying to shake the stability of the region."
Israel is demanding that all three soldiers be returned and that
militants stop firing rockets at Israelis from Gaza in the south and
Lebanon in the north. [end excerpt]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/world/middleeast/13mideast.html?ex=1310443200&en=5b4658b29a4ba9a2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
<snip silly and irrelevant tirade>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
