[The wirerat]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Two comments:

1) That ship has sailed. The US controls what technology can be exported anywhere. For example: No one at all is allowed to buy F22s.

2) So you would say it was wrong to prohibit a company that makes nuclear bombs from selling on to AlQuieda? I doubt that. I think you support all sorts of limits on sale.

Notice I said aircraft. Not Nukes.

Does a gun store that sells knowingly to a convicted felon bear responsability? Does the guy that gave an automatic weapon to a 7 year old (who died BTW)? Of course giving a weapon to someone you know will use it wrongly means you share the responsablity.

The US government is not PROVIDING the weapons. Companies based in the US sell the weapons. There is a HUGE difference. The arms industry is multi-national.

Cool. Let's kill everyone on the planet. That will get them. Can I start with you.

Sure go ahead. Hamas is not a people group. It's a terrorist group.

"Wait!" I hear you cry? You are not in Hamas? Wow. Neither are most of the people in Gaza.

Notice I said Hamas? Nothing about Gaza. The bombing is doing nothing but kill but innocent and guilty. Its time that assassination comes into play. Otherwise Hamas has a perfectly logical reason to continue launching their homemade rockets into Israel and killing civilians.

What's funny about this rather offensive statement (I recall Nazi propiganda saying that about Jews), is that it's true in a way very different from how I believe you intended it.

First off, its not funny, secondly its true. Hamas is growing by leaps and bounds because of the Israeli bombing. But even when the bombing stops, the rocket attacks will continue.

Hamas, being an organization, grows by recruitment. The devistation that is Gaza, and the killing of innocents by those Hamas opposes does indeed bring in recruits.

Yeah, thats what I said.

Israel is small and there is at least one nuclear power in the region that doesn't like them.

At least one? There isn't a Middle Eastern country that doesn't harbor hate for them!

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

Would you have said the same thing about the pre-1920's Irish Republican movement (from whence the 'original' IRA) or the American revolutionaries?

It is very likely that neither the modern United States nor the modern Republic of Ireland would exist today were it not for these groups fighting back against what was felt as an unwanted foreign invader or influence. Certainly in the latter's case, even the declaration of limited powers of a 'free state' (which was still subject to the Monarch of England) came as the result of years (centuries, in fact) of bloody fighting and resistance to English rule.

Who is 'right' in these sorts of conflicts is just a matter of perspective. Palestinians (rightly) think believe that Israel is trying to disenfranchise them of what few scraps of land they have left. Hamas is the (violent) representation of that belief.

The Irish republican fighters prior to the creation of the Saorstát Éireann and the outbreak of the Irish Civil War, the American Revolutionaries, and Hamas all have a common thread - they want an end to what they see as a foreign occupation. Call for their annhililation and you might as well not light your fireworks on July 4th.

The thing is, Israel is no longer occupying Gaza. it was, but it pulled out. So now Hamas is attacking Israel, not fighting against a foreign force. The fact is, and has long been established, Hamas, and several other countries don't want Israel there. They refuse to acknowledge its sovereignty, even though the land is theirs, however controversial that fact may be.

[Demon_Hunter]

Well, Israel said today they were going to halt the bombings and give Hamas a chance at a cease fire.

Though, I dont condone the killing of civilians in war, if Hamas fires rockets at Israel during this cease fire, it is Hamas who is calling down death on the civilians in Gaza, not Israel. I think Israel can, and should be more responsible in the way it drops munitions. But if Hamas continues to fire into Israeli territory, are they not "asking for it"?

[The wirerat]

Originally Posted by Demon_Hunter

Well, Israel said today they were going to halt the bombings and give Hamas a chance at a cease fire.

Though, I dont condone the killing of civilians in war, if Hamas fires rockets at Israel during this cease fire, it is Hamas who is calling down death on the civilians in Gaza, not Israel. I think Israel can, and should be more responsible in the way it drops munitions. But if Hamas continues to fire into Israeli territory, are they not "asking for it"?

Yes they are, but at the same time, I think that really only implies when two countries are at war. This is a terrorist group, although they try to convince themselves they are a government system.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by The wirerat

Notice I said aircraft. Not Nukes.

So then it would be OK to sell AlQeida F22 raptors?

The point, and there's a reason that I gave multiple examples, is that someone who provides, directly or indirectly, assistance (weapons in this case) to someone else bears responsability when that someone else uses said aid in a predictable way.

We persue people for "providing material aid" to terrorist groups all the time. We clearly believe that the suppliers bear responsability. In this case, we are the suppliers.

The US government is not PROVIDING the weapons.

Yes it is.

Israel is the top recipient of U.S. military and economic assistance (this was likely surpassed since it was tallied in 2003 by Iraq aid). The most commonly cited figure is $3 billion a year, with about $1.8 billion a year in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grants from the Department of Defense and an additional $1.2 billion a year in Economic Support Funds (ESF) from the Department of State. In the last decade FMF grants to Israel have totaled $18.2 billion. In fact, 17% of all U.S. foreign aid is earmarked for Israel.

Further: the US government *does* regulate who can buy (for example) F-16s; and allows Isreal to buy them when it denies such sales to other countries. The US government even provides financing for Isreal (when not outright donating weaponry).

Of course arms sales should be regulated. But whether you agree or disagree with that (and you don't seem to have a consistant position), they *are* regulated: and the US government has specifially decided to provide Isreal with money, millitary aid, millitary equipment, and the right to purchase millitary equipment.

Companies based in the US sell the weapons. There is a HUGE difference. The arms industry is multi-national.

The same aircraft could not be sold to Iran, or Cuba, or Venuselia. See above.

Sure go ahead. Hamas is not a people group. It's a terrorist group.

Really? You support me killing you as part of my campaign to destroy Hamas by killing everyone on the planet? I don't believe you do.

Notice I said Hamas? Nothing about Gaza. The bombing is doing nothing but kill but innocent and guilty. Its time that assassination comes into play. Otherwise Hamas has a perfectly logical reason to continue launching their homemade rockets into Israel and killing civilians.

You seem to have flipped positions somewhere (certainly from you "go ahead" response to my killing you to eventually get Hama to your "don't bomb civillians")

First off, its not funny, secondly its true. Hamas is growing by leaps and bounds because of the Israeli bombing. But even when the bombing stops, the rocket attacks will continue.

Likely yes, though not as much as now (for support, see that it was not as much as now for the past 6 months).

Of course "not bombing" is only one of the neccessairy actions. Have you seen Gaza? Have you seen the results of the Isreali occupation. Even on video it's more than enough for me to see *why* there's an anti-Isreal group or five. The opression is far worse than it was in Ireland.

And after 400 years of war the IRA stopped. Why? Because they were included in the politicla process. "Destroy Hamas" will be about as effective as "destroy the IRA" was, or "destroy the American revolutionaries", or indeed "destroy AlQuieda". You have to stop the *causes* or you accomplish very little.

At least one? There isn't a Middle Eastern country that doesn't harbor hate for them!

Depending on your definition of "harbor", I could say there's no country in the world that doesn't harbor hate for every other country in the world. Certainly there are many in the region who have shown no inkling to invade (Jordan, Kuwait, Quatar, Turkey).

But when I said "at least one" I was referring to "nuclear armed". In this case "Pakistan"

The thing is, Israel is no longer occupying Gaza. it was, but it pulled out. So now Hamas is attacking Israel, not fighting against a foreign force.

So why has Gaza been mostly without power? Why have relief supplies been unable to get into Gaza from the outside world? Turning Gaza into a walled Ghetto is no different from having soldiers on the streets.

The fact is, and has long been established, Hamas, and several other countries don't want Israel there. They refuse to acknowledge its sovereignty, even though the land is theirs, however controversial that fact may be.

"land is theirs, however controversial that fact may be." seems contradictory.

You mean there are people who feel about the state of Isreal the way the state of Isreal feels about them? Odd that.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Ryan

The Irish republican fighters prior to the creation of the Saorstát Éireann and the outbreak of the Irish Civil War, the American Revolutionaries, and Hamas all have a common thread - they want an end to what they see as a foreign occupation. Call for their annhililation and you might as well not light your fireworks on July 4th.

I would, however, make a huge distinction between teh American revolutionaries and the IRA and Hamas. The American revolutionaries (largely) used conventional standards and armies mounted in the field to defeat teh British. The IRA tried that (1916 Easter Rebellion) and failed, spectacularly. Both groups tended to steer away from targeting civilian populations.

Michael Collins changed that, as I'm sure you know (are you taking an Irish history class at uni or something?), and Hamas is following suit. The IRB before 1916 and the IRA after 1916 are two different organizations, and I'm not sure it's a good comparison to make to Hamas. Hamas is certainly taking lessons from Collins and the IRA, and post-1916 their methods are nearly identical, but merely ending occupation isn't on Hamas' list. They want to eliminate the existence of Israel altogether. The IRA wanted to end British rule in all of Ireland, they didn't want to end the existence of Britian altogether.

I'm not disagreeing with you, by the by, or the thrust of the argument, but I don't thnk that's a helpful comparison to make.

Originally Posted by Demon_Hunter

Though, I dont condone the killing of civilians in war, if Hamas fires rockets at Israel during this cease fire, it is Hamas who is calling down death on the civilians in Gaza, not Israel. I think Israel can, and should be more responsible in the way it drops munitions. But if Hamas continues to fire into Israeli territory, are they not "asking for it"?

Children ask 'Who hit first?' Adults learn how to settle differences without hitting back. Neither Israel nor Hamas has learned that very difficult lesson. And not without good reason, either. For the past 60 years, Israel has had to fight for its very existence, and don't think that history hasn't shaped fears of being 'wiped off the map.' If all you have learned to use is a hammer, then everything is a nail. Likewise, the Palestinians ahve been let down by nearly everyone but the icecream man and their mommas. Pan-Arab nationalism, the Israelis and the US, the UN, no one has offered them a solution that actually works and actually treates them as anything but refugees. It affects the national story and the way people view themselves. If you feel like you have nothing to lose, then fighting in a corner is the best option.

I'm not excusing either party, but this all or nothing approach to either side doesn't solve anything.

Originally Posted by wirerat

The thing is, Israel is no longer occupying Gaza. it was, but it pulled out. So now Hamas is attacking Israel, not fighting against a foreign force. The fact is, and has long been established, Hamas, and several other countries don't want Israel there. They refuse to acknowledge its sovereignty, even though the land is theirs, however controversial that fact may be.

This really gets at the key misunderstanding of Americans abouit the whole thing. For Hamas, and much of the Palestinian community, they view the 1948 partition of Palestine as essentially stealing an entire country away from them, one that had been promised by successive British governments since 1914. And did so without their consent. They Palestinians rejected the partition, and Israel announced its creation anyway. For them, it's really is an occupation, because it's a country they don't recognize operating an army they don't want in land they believe is theirs. It's not like the Palestinians agreed that the West Bank and Gaza were 'theirs' and the rest was nulla territoria.

[Bryan]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...PRq3gD95DO1RO0

[The wirerat]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So then it would be OK to sell AlQeida F22 raptors?

No because Al Queda is not a government.

The point, and there's a reason that I gave multiple examples, is that someone who provides, directly or indirectly, assistance (weapons in this case) to someone else bears responsability when that someone else uses said aid in a predictable way.

Actually I disagree. If I purchase a long distance rifle from a gun shop and then use it to kill president Bush, for example, then I am the only one responsible. They cannot go to the gun dealer and arrest him in connection with he crime. All he did was do his business. I killed the president.

We persue people for "providing material aid" to terrorist groups all the time. We clearly believe that the suppliers bear responsability. In this case, we are the suppliers.

However we and the countries supplying the arms both know what is going to be done with them.

Of course arms sales should be regulated. But whether you agree or disagree with that (and you don't seem to have a consistant position), they *are* regulated: and the US government has specifially decided to provide Isreal with money, millitary aid, millitary equipment, and the right to purchase millitary equipment.

The arms sales should be regulated. There are countries which, if they had certain weaponry at their disposal would do their best to attack the US.

The same aircraft could not be sold to Iran, or Cuba, or Venuselia. See above.

Thats like selling a gun to someoe who you know is going to kill you with it.

Really? You support me killing you as part of my campaign to destroy Hamas by killing everyone on the planet? I don't believe you do.

I was bein sarcastic about the "go ahead" bit.

You seem to have flipped positions somewhere (certainly from you "go ahead" response to my killing you to eventually get Hama to your "don't bomb civillians")

Hamas is a terrorist group, and as such uses civilians to hide themselves. Bombing is only going to cause collateral damage, which needs to stop. And even if Israel stops the boming, that will not stop the rocket attacks. Hamas wants Israel gone. They want every person in Israel wiped out, and so does pretty much most of the Middle East.
[QUOTE[Of course "not bombing" is only one of the neccessairy actions. Have you seen Gaza? Have you seen the results of the Isreali occupation. Even on video it's more than enough for me to see *why* there's an anti-Isreal group or five. The opression is far worse than it was in Ireland.[/QUOTE]
See above.

And after 400 years of war the IRA stopped. Why? Because they were included in the political process. "Destroy Hamas" will be about as effective as "destroy the IRA" was, or "destroy the American revolutionaries", or indeed "destroy Al Queda". You have to stop the *causes* or you accomplish very little.

The IRA is still around, it just has a different face. ITs a more political organization now, furthering its cause throuh more peaceful means, although it does have very violent elements that still exist. It was involved in the political decision making process and that stopped the violence. However, when Hamas became the government in Palestine, that didn't stop the violence. You can't use the IRA as a comparison point because Hamas has the decimation of an entire country as its goal.

Depending on your definition of "harbor", I could say there's no country in the world that doesn't harbor hate for every other country in the world. Certainly there are many in the region who have shown no inkling to invade (Jordan, Kuwait, Quatar, Turkey).

As in practically every country in the Middle East would rejoice to see Israel's downfall. Clearer now?

But when I said "at least one" I was referring to "nuclear armed". In this case "Pakistan"

Okay.

So why has Gaza been mostly without power? Why have relief supplies been unable to get into Gaza from the outside world? Turning Gaza into a walled Ghetto is no different from having soldiers on the streets.

That needs to stop. Israel is not at war with Gaza. Its at war with certain factions inside Gaza.

"land is theirs, however controversial that fact may be." seems contradictory.

The Palestinians got their land taken from them in the 1948 treaty signing. They want it back. So most of the world accepts Israel as a country, but for much of the Middle East, thats not true. How's that for controversy?

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

I would, however, make a huge distinction between teh American revolutionaries and the IRA and Hamas. The American revolutionaries (largely) used conventional standards and armies mounted in the field to defeat teh British. The IRA tried that (1916 Easter Rebellion) and failed, spectacularly. Both groups tended to steer away from targeting civilian populations.

Agreed

Michael Collins changed that, as I'm sure you know (are you taking an Irish history class at uni or something?), and Hamas is following suit. The IRB before 1916 and the IRA after 1916 are two different organizations, and I'm not sure it's a good comparison to make to Hamas. Hamas is certainly taking lessons from Collins and the IRA, and post-1916 their methods are nearly identical, but merely ending occupation isn't on Hamas' list. They want to eliminate the existence of Israel altogether. The IRA wanted to end British rule in all of Ireland, they didn't want to end the existence of Britian altogether.

I agree. Hamas wants Israel gone, not just away from Gaza.

Children ask 'Who hit first?' Adults learn how to settle differences without hitting back. Neither Israel nor Hamas has learned that very difficult lesson. And not without good reason, either. For the past 60 years, Israel has had to fight for its very existence, and don't think that history hasn't shaped fears of being 'wiped off the map.' If all you have learned to use is a hammer, then everything is a nail. Likewise, the Palestinians ahve been let down by nearly everyone but the icecream man and their mommas. Pan-Arab nationalism, the Israelis and the US, the UN, no one has offered them a solution that actually works and actually treates them as anything but refugees. It affects the national story and the way people view themselves. If you feel like you have nothing to lose, then fighting in a corner is the best option.

At the same time, even when we offered to recognize Palestine as a true and legitimate government, we still had problems. They are a nation, but a nation that wants its neighbor and our ally gone.

This really gets at the key misunderstanding of Americans abouit the whole thing. For Hamas, and much of the Palestinian community, they view the 1948 partition of Palestine as essentially stealing an entire country away from them, one that had been promised by successive British governments since 1914. And did so without their consent. They Palestinians rejected the partition, and Israel announced its creation anyway. For them, it's really is an occupation, because it's a country they don't recognize operating an army they don't want in land they believe is theirs. It's not like the Palestinians agreed that the West Bank and Gaza were 'theirs' and the rest was nulla territoria.

That was my controversial quote. So I completely agree with you. I could probably have worded that sentence better.

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by The wirerat

The Palestinians got their land taken from them in the 1948 treaty signing. They want it back. So most of the world accepts Israel as a country, but for much of the Middle East, thats not true. How's that for controversy?

While I'm always for peace over war I tend to sympathize more with the Palestinians than the Israelis.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the IRA became less and less active as the London government gave Northern Ireland more and more autonomy to the point where now NI has a devolved parliament and the violence has for the most part ceased. The IRA began to believe that they had more to lose by being violent than they had by being peaceful.

Suicide bombings, people joining terrorist organizations, these things only happen when people feel like they have been stripped of their dignity or they have nothing to lose; both of which are apparent in the Gaza strip. When Christians are being persecuted around the world, we expect our governments to act and to stand up to the tyranny. The same goes for the Middle East; Israel has destroyed the dignity of the Palestinians and the rest of the Muslim nations (who care way more about their spiritual brothers/sisters than Christians do) are determined to stand up for them.

Israel needs to tear down that stupid wall that to me, as an outsider, only resembles the walls that were erected around the Jewish ghettos of the second world war. Israel needs to begin to provide infrastructure, health care, schooling, etc. to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel needs to begin to bring the Palestinians within their political structure. Above all, and in doing this, Israel needs to restore the dignity of Palestinian arabs (a population which includes Christians as well as Muslims) and give the Palestinian arabs something to lose.

[The wirerat]

Originally Posted by OneHope

While I'm always for peace over war I tend to sympathize more with the Palestinians than the Israelis.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the IRA became less and less active as the London government gave Northern Ireland more and more autonomy to the point where now NI has a devolved parliament and the violence has for the most part ceased. The IRA began to believe that they had more to lose by being violent than they had by being peaceful.

Suicide bombings, people joining terrorist organizations, these things only happen when people feel like they have been stripped of their dignity or they have nothing to lose; both of which are apparent in the Gaza strip. When Christians are being persecuted around the world, we expect our governments to act and to stand up to the tyranny. The same goes for the Middle East; Israel has destroyed the dignity of the Palestinians and the rest of the Muslim nations (who care way more about their spiritual brothers/sisters than Christians do) are determined to stand up for them.

Israel needs to tear down that stupid wall that to me, as an outsider, only resembles the walls that were erected around the Jewish ghettos of the second world war. Israel needs to begin to provide infrastructure, health care, schooling, etc. to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel needs to begin to bring the Palestinians within their political structure. Above all, and in doing this, Israel needs to restore the dignity of Palestinian arabs (a population which includes Christians as well as Muslims) and give the Palestinian arabs something to lose.

As far as the IRA goes, you are correct. The violence is pretty much gone, however they still maintain a presence in the political process. They are now more of a political party than anything else. However, they do have certain rogue IRA elements out there who have the wrong motives at heart.
I have to disagree with you about the suicide combers and terrorists motives. While I believe the loss of dignity may drive some people to terrorism, you cannot place that label on all terrorists. Being a "successful terrorist" has to do with how solidly you believe in your ideology. Terrorists act based upon that ideology. So in order to become a good terrorist, you have to be devoted to that ideology.
I do agree somewhat with you about that wall. It does seem to be that way. However, you seem to think that Palestine is part of Israel (correct me if I'm wrong about that). Palestine is completely separate from Palestine, which includes the West Bank and Gaza. If Israel were to bring Palestinians (rather try to bring) into the political process, that would cause the take-over of Palestine. Israel knows its got problems now. That would cause a massive war. The blockade of supplies to Palestine needs to stop. That is wrong to refuse medical supplies and foodstuffs to anyone.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

I would, however, make a huge distinction between teh American revolutionaries and the IRA and Hamas. The American revolutionaries (largely) used conventional standards and armies mounted in the field to defeat teh British. The IRA tried that (1916 Easter Rebellion) and failed, spectacularly. Both groups tended to steer away from targeting civilian populations.

It seems to me the early targeting by the revolutionaries of taxmen and other officials is the same playbook used by the IRA... and Mujahadeen.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by The wirerat

No because Al Queda is not a government.

But the Taliban was a government, as is Hamas, as was Saddam.

You seem to be splitting some pretty fine hairs.

Actually I disagree. If I purchase a long distance rifle from a gun shop and then use it to kill president Bush, for example, then I am the only one responsible. They cannot go to the gun dealer and arrest him in connection with he crime. All he did was do his business. I killed the president.

And if you walk into a gun shop and say "I need a gun to shoot the president" and he sells you one?

If you have a history, known to the gunshop owner, of trying to shoot the president and he sells you a gun?

You ignored a pretty important part of my statement: the concept of predictable use.

"Providing aid" requires at least assumptive knowledge... which in this case (Isreal) certainly exists.

However we and the countries supplying the arms both know what is going to be done with them.

Exactly my point. Knowing exactly what they will be used for, the US approves the sale of weapons to Isreal. We therefore have a responsability for those results.

The arms sales should be regulated. There are countries which, if they had certain weaponry at their disposal would do their best to attack the US.

So then you retract your earlier assertion that the US does not and should not interfere in the sale of weapons to governments?

Thats like selling a gun to someoe who you know is going to kill you with it.

Are you making a moral distinction between giving someone a gun you think they will use on you and giving them a gun you think they will use on someone else?

I was bein sarcastic about the "go ahead" bit.

So you oppose what Isreal is doing? I'm curious how you then absolve America of responsability for providing bombs to people who we knew then (as now) tend to use them this way.

Hamas is a terrorist group, and as such uses civilians to hide themselves. Bombing is only going to cause collateral damage, which needs to stop. And even if Israel stops the boming, that will not stop the rocket attacks. Hamas wants Israel gone. They want every person in Israel wiped out, and so does pretty much most of the Middle East.

No. Most of the middle east dislikes the country of Isreal, not the people. Similar to the general dislike of the US government while liking us personally.

The IRA is still around, it just has a different face. ITs a more political organization now, furthering its cause throuh more peaceful means, although it does have very violent elements that still exist. It was involved in the political decision making process and that stopped the violence. However, when Hamas became the government in Palestine, that didn't stop the violence. You can't use the IRA as a comparison point because Hamas has the decimation of an entire country as its goal.

No more than the IRA did. The IRA was engaged in the same types of terrorism that Hamas does now, or the Mujahadeen did in Afghanistan. They stopped when they were included.

As in practically every country in the Middle East would rejoice to see Israel's downfall. Clearer now?

No. What constitutes a "country rejoicing"? Certain elements within Isreal herself would rejoice, as would some in the US.

Conversely, some in Syria or even Palestin would be sad about it.

Every population has people on all sides of an issue.

The Palestinians got their land taken from them in the 1948 treaty signing. They want it back. So most of the world accepts Israel as a country, but for much of the Middle East, thats not true. How's that for controversy?

It conflicts with "the land is theirs".

I have to disagree with you about the suicide combers and terrorists motives. While I believe the loss of dignity may drive some people to terrorism, you cannot place that label on all terrorists. Being a "successful terrorist" has to do with how solidly you believe in your ideology. Terrorists act based upon that ideology. So in order to become a good terrorist, you have to be devoted to that ideology.

Stupidity, youth, dispair, and peer pressure is all it takes. Brainwashing never hurts either.

[The wirerat]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

But the Taliban was a government, as is Hamas, as was Saddam.

However, the US refused to call the Taliban a legitimate government, and it no longer is. Al Queda in and of itself was never a government. Taliban was a branch of it that WAS but no longer is. You are raising that issue after the fact. Besides, the Taliban and Iraq were supplied weapons by Russia.

And if you walk into a gun shop and say "I need a gun to shoot the president" and he sells you one?

If you have a history, known to the gunshop owner, of trying to shoot the president and he sells you a gun?

Now if that was the case, and the gun owner knew this, and that could be proven, then yes, he would be arrested. Otherwise, to him, I'm just a guy buying a gun.

You ignored a pretty important part of my statement: the concept of predictable use.

"Providing aid" requires at least assumptive knowledge... which in this case (Isreal) certainly exists.

Exactly my point. Knowing exactly what they will be used for, the US approves the sale of weapons to Isreal. We therefore have a responsability for those results.

Those bombs could be used to blow up fish for all I care. Israel does not tell us how its going to use the bombs. We see the result on CNN. Should we stop it? Well we are an ally of Israel. We could restrict the supply of bombs to them to force them to stop bombing Palestine, but that wouldn't do any good. In the end, we are just a supplier.

So then you retract your earlier assertion that the US does not and should not interfere in the sale of weapons to governments?

Sure, why not. It might shut you up.

Are you making a moral distinction between giving someone a gun you think they will use on you and giving them a gun you think they will use on someone else?

Nope.

So you oppose what Isreal is doing? I'm curious how you then absolve America of responsability for providing bombs to people who we knew then (as now) tend to use them this way.

No I was telling you I was being sarcastic about saying go ahead, kill me. I don't support Israel bombing the living crap out of Gaza, as I have said many many times. That needs to stop. What the heck makes you so BLIND about what I have been saying? Are you really reading what I write or what just pisses you off?

No. Most of the middle east dislikes the country of Isreal, not the people. Similar to the general dislike of the US government while liking us personally.

I would beg to differ. There are presidents of countries in the Middle East that have personally called the for the destruction of Israel as a nation, and a people group.

No more than the IRA did. The IRA was engaged in the same types of terrorism that Hamas does now, or the Mujahadeen did in Afghanistan. They stopped when they were included.

You aren't getting it. Hamas WAS included in the political process of Palestine. Not Israel, because they are not an Israeli group. They are Palestinian. They still didn't stop the violence when they were included. The IRA is out.

It conflicts with "the land is theirs".

The land IS theirs. By the right of a treaty signed in 1948. The land became Israel's, although it wasn't theirs to take, nor the UN's to give. Of course there really isn't anything we can do about that now. The Palestinians want their land back. They want it back by Israel leaving, which it can't do, for obvious reasons. So, they have decided to kill people until Israel gives them what they want, which is the land. The controversy is, over whether or not Israel had the right to take that land. That is now a moot point. Interesting how a side note I made became this huge blown-out of proportion problem.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by The wirerat

However, the US refused to call the Taliban a legitimate government, and it no longer is. Al Queda in and of itself was never a government. Taliban was a branch of it that WAS but no longer is. You are raising that issue after the fact.

I thought you were saying the US shouldn't regulate at all. Please argue a consistant position.

Besides, the Taliban and Iraq were supplied weapons by Russia.

Sure they were. The Taliban were a mix of Pakistanis (US ally) and left over Mujahadeen (who faught *against* the Russians. As for Saddam:

Now if that was the case, and the gun owner knew this, and that could be proven, then yes, he would be arrested. Otherwise, to him, I'm just a guy buying a gun.

It is certainly the case that we know, from the past half-century, what Isreal will do with US weapons.

Since what they are doing is exactly what they have done many times before, we can safely say that we knew this is how our weapons were likely to be used.

Those bombs could be used to blow up fish for all I care. Israel does not tell us how its going to use the bombs.

So if the guy with the history of repeateld trying to shoot the president doesn't say that's his intent with *this* gun, it's OK to sell it to him?!?

We see the result on CNN. Should we stop it?

Stop selling new arms or accept responsability when they are used exactly like the last half-centiry of weapons were used? Yes!

Well we are an ally of Israel. We could restrict the supply of bombs to them to force them to stop bombing Palestine, but that wouldn't do any good. In the end, we are just a supplier.

I think a similar defense was tried unsuccessfully at Nurenburg.

Again, my gun-shop owner selling to the known felon is just as supplier.

Nope.

Then you are stuck between "it's wrong to give Isreal bombs" of your "why we don't sell to Iran" claim, and your "we are just a supplier" from above. Your two arguments are not compatable.

I don't support Israel bombing the living crap out of Gaza, as I have said many many times.

And you have contradicted it many times. You've admitted you are responsable when you hand a weapon to someone you know will use it in a certain way and they do; and you support giving bombs to Isreal that you know they will drop on the Palistinians.

That needs to stop. What the heck makes you so BLIND about what I have been saying? Are you really reading what I write or what just pisses you off?

If I were only reading half, I wouldn't have to waste so much time pointing out the contradictions. I could just choose the half "stop the bombing" or the half "just a supplier".

I would beg to differ. There are presidents of countries in the Middle East that have personally called the for the destruction of Israel as a nation, and a people group.

When did the ruler of Jordan do so? Remember, you said "all". I can list others.

You aren't getting it. Hamas WAS included in the political process of Palestine. Not Israel, because they are not an Israeli group. They are Palestinian. They still didn't stop the violence when they were included.

So they had say in the barrier wall? In the import/export of their country? of their crossing points? of Jews living on their land?

Of course they did not. Hamas won an election for a government under siege... it's like winning control of the ShinFain.

The land IS theirs. By the right of a treaty signed in 1948.

...but that's contested. You said so yourself. Obviously it is the position of some that it *is not* theirs, which you aknowledged and then ignored.

The land became Israel's, although it wasn't theirs to take, nor the UN's to give.

So someone who didn't own it and wasn't allowed to give it gave it anyway and your conclusion from that is that they rightly own it?

Seriously?

Of course there really isn't anything we can do about that now.

Odd. It seems to me that in 1947 the Jews wanted the land and the Palistianians had it and wouldn't give it up and we found something to do then... but we are digressing from "give them bombs" to "who should have the land".

The Palestinians want their land back. They want it back by Israel leaving, which it can't do, for obvious reasons.

The same obvious reasons that the Palistianians couldn't leave in 1947 no doubt.

So, they have decided to kill people until Israel gives them what they want, which is the land.

The Palistinians decided that? I thought it was Hamas. Please try for some consistancy.

The controversy is, over whether or not Israel had the right to take that land. That is now a moot point. Interesting how a side note I made became this huge blown-out of proportion problem.

Speaking of consistancy: which land are you discussing. Isreal is fighting in Gaza, which was not given to them in 1948.

[The wirerat]

I understand that some of my recent posts may have been a bit contradictory. Let me lay out for you all nice and clearly what exactly my position is on Israel and Palestine. This will include the current conflict, the bombing and rocket strikes, and the U.S. involvement in this conflict as a whole.

It has been suggested that the U.S. take responsibility for the arms supplies they have sold Israel. The argument has been made that since they know what will be done with the arms they should stop supplying them. However it has also been said that ceasing the supply of bombs would not prevent Israel from bombing Palestine. So I'm asking why the supply of bombs should be cut off? It doesn't do anything, other than removing the "blame" off of the U.S.
I tend to disagree that the U.S. should get the blame for the arms they supply countries. The countries we supply are our allies. We do not supply weapons to our enemies, for obvious reasons. Now, of course from time to time, the weapons produced by companies in our country do show up in the hands of our enemies, but that typically happens through illegal channels.
Thats said, Israel is our ally. We sell them arms. Its business.

The current conflict involves Israel and Palestine. The two territories in question are Gaza and the West Bank. Both were at one time under Israeli control, but have now been given autonomy as the state of Palestine.
On Israel's side, they are dealing with rocket attacks from a lawless strip of land under the control of Hamas. In response to these attacks, Israel has conducted bombing runs on the Gaza Strip killing innocent civilians. It has also begun amassing troops and tanks at the border for an assumed ground assault.
Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip, which, in conjunction with the West Bank make up Palestine, in 2007 after a nasty split with Fatah. Since then they have launched rockets into Israel, at first, these rockets were homemade contraptions, but now Hamas is getting its hands on actual rockets which have better range and accuracy. They are intent on the annihilation of Israel. Since the blockade started, the Palestinians have begun to run low on supplies. Khalad Mashal has been reaching out to his contacts for help, including King Abdullah on Saudi Arabia who not only supplies monetary help, but also P.R. assistance.

Peace treaties have been tried. As soon as those have run out, Hamas resumes its rocket fire without hesitation. Its time that both the bombing and rocket attacks stop. The unfortunate issue is that even if we can convince Israel to stop the bombing, lift the blockade, and take down the wall, the attacks will not stop. Hamas will only stop its attack when Israel disbands and leaves the land it currently holds.

Israel was put together on a piece of land that was originally Palestine. In fact, the Jews who populate modern-day Israel were originally citizens of Palestine until in 1948, they signed Israel into existence. Since then it has been formally recognized as a nation by most countries of the world, excluding the majority of the Middle East.

The Palestinians want their land back. That is the reason for the conflict in a nutshell, although there are also other fringe issues going on as well.

My take on it, is that Hamas needs to go. They are officially listed as a terrorist organization, although they have attempted to control the government of Palestine unsuccessfully. Being accepted into Palestine's political processes will not appease them. Therefore the previous attempt to compare them to the IRA cannot be used. The IRA was appeased when they were involved in the political processes and when Britain relinquished control.

Israel is not fighting over a piece of land it believes it owns. Israel is defending itself against attacks from not only foreign soil, but a terrorist group. While the bombing strikes are not the best way to end the rocket attacks on Israel, that is their justification. The Palestinian people are victims of not only Israeli stupidity, but also terrorists who happen to be their own countrymen. They need medical supplies and food. This may not appease Hamas, but it will help Palestine.

As for the supplies we give to the IDF, we may need to send more. Because when this ground war starts, there will be a lot if bullets flying, and lots more aid needed. The reason we can give for supplying this aid, is that we are fighting terrorism, not taking over a state.

There is my position. Hopefully it has been clear, concise, and non-contradictory.

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by The wirerat

I have to disagree with you about the suicide combers and terrorists motives. While I believe the loss of dignity may drive some people to terrorism, you cannot place that label on all terrorists. Being a "successful terrorist" has to do with how solidly you believe in your ideology. Terrorists act based upon that ideology. So in order to become a good terrorist, you have to be devoted to that ideology.

I disagree. Leaders need followers. These terrorist organizations need to recruit ordinary people, notice that it isn't Bin Laden out there committing suicide. We need to ask what is driving people to take up this ideology so fervently. People don't suddenly wake up and think 'hmm, I think I'm going to give up my life to drive Uganda off the map'. The ideology was created out of Israeli oppression and humiliation, people were driven to it because of Israeli oppression and humiliation.

I'm not sure where you're from but lets say you're from the States. Let's say that the European countries got together and decided to give the entire United States to the Swedes. Let's say that the Swedes came and forced all the Americans into New Jersey. They then built a wall around New Jersey and controlled supply and movement in and out. The Swedes were supported by most of the world in this action. Would you not fight back?