So did Isreal do the right thing?

[markw]

But in reality everyone one of us should be asking this question to himself or herself.

The sad fact is that real people are dieing. Not just the bad guys either. Innocent people. Women and children. People who have never raised a hand in anger against anyone have been terrorized and slaughtered. Homes destroyed, lives ruined. A whole country is now being bombed into to the same horrible state that Iraq is in.

Is it fair? Is it moral? Is it a sin before god?

All that Lebanon has to do is return the two kidnapped soldiers and assure Israel that their will be no more rockets launched at them from their soil. ...and that no incursions into Israel will take place from there, either.

Simple as that.

If Lebanon was sincere about not wanting trouble with Israel they would have put a stop to the shenanigans in the south sometime within the last five years when Israel returned that land to Lebanon. Israel has been more than patient for five years as they lobbed rockets into Israel . Since they (Lebanon) seem to be either unwilling or unable to do the job, I guess it leaves Israel little choice except to do it themselves.

Remember, they are now using that land to stage incursions onto Israeli territory. That's a whole 'nuther ballgame and ratchets up the stakes quite a bit.

Until then, what is fair and moral? Who do you suppose is more accountable to God?

The terrorists, who accepted "land for peace" from Israel five years ago, only to use it to launch rockets at Israeli cities, send suicide bombers to blow up civilians and launch incursions into Israel, or the Israelis for finally reacting to that which has been their daily existance for fifty years or so? It seems they have run out of cheeks to turn.

It's been said that if the Arab nations gave up their weapons there would be peace. If Israel gives them up there will be a slaughter. Likewise, if Arab mothers loved their children more than they hated the Jews, there would be peace.

[ForeverAutumn]

But in reality everyone one of us should be asking this question to himself or herself.

The sad fact is that real people are dieing. Not just the bad guys either. Innocent people. Women and children. People who have never raised a hand in anger against anyone have been terrorized and slaughtered. Homes destroyed, lives ruined. A whole country is now being bombed into to the same horrible state that Iraq is in.

Is it fair? Is it moral? Is it a sin before god?

I thought this thread had been deleted at first. But I finally noticed it hiding up in The Cage. Why is there no "moved" notice like there is when threads are moved from one forum to another?

All very good questions Geoffcin. It is a sad fact of war that innocent people die. I'm thankful every day that these wars are not being waged in my own country...yet. Eight Canadian tourists were killed earlier this week in Lebanon. Hell, they don't even live there! They go on a vacation to a city that they believe is reasonably stable (under the perpetual circumstances), suddenly the winds change and they were bombed to death.

Is it fair? Never.
Is it moral? I would say, Yes, it is moral to defend yourself and protect your citizens. It's unfortunate and unfair that innocent people are caught in the process.
Is it a sin before god? As an athiest, I'll leave this one up to the religious to try to answer.

[shokhead]

I thought this thread had been deleted at first. But I finally noticed it hiding up in The Cage. Why is there no "moved" notice like there is when threads are moved from one forum to another?

All very good questions Geoffcin. It is a sad fact of war that innocent people die. I'm thankful every day that these wars are not being waged in my own country...yet. Eight Canadian tourists were killed earlier this week in Lebanon. Hell, they don't even live there! They go on a vacation to a city that they believe is reasonably stable (under the perpetual circumstances), suddenly the winds change and they were bombed to death.

Is it fair? Never.
Is it moral? I would say, Yes, it is moral to defend yourself and protect your citizens. It's unfortunate and unfair that innocent people are caught in the process.
Is it a sin before god? As an athiest, I'll leave this one up to the religious to try to answer.

Sorry to hear of those deaths. I'm not sure how anyone could assume anywhere over there is reasonably safe.

[Geoffcin]

I thought this thread had been deleted at first. But I finally noticed it hiding up in The Cage. Why is there no "moved" notice like there is when threads are moved from one forum to another?

All very good questions Geoffcin. It is a sad fact of war that innocent people die. I'm thankful every day that these wars are not being waged in my own country...yet. Eight Canadian tourists were killed earlier this week in Lebanon. Hell, they don't even live there! They go on a vacation to a city that they believe is reasonably stable (under the perpetual circumstances), suddenly the winds change and they were bombed to death.

Is it fair? Never.
Is it moral? I would say, Yes, it is moral to defend yourself and protect your citizens. It's unfortunate and unfair that innocent people are caught in the process.
Is it a sin before god? As an athiest, I'll leave this one up to the religious to try to answer.

Of course it's moral to defend yourself, but when is it moral to bomb innocent people? If a suspect hides in a movie theater full of innocent people is it moral to bomb the movie theater?

I pose the religious question not for us, but for them, as fully 99.99% of the combatants are deeply religious. Supposedly they all pray to the same god. Surely he's not condoning the killing of innocents.

It's interesting to see that everyone has assumed I was talking strictly about Israels actions. Please re-read my post, I wasn't.

[ForeverAutumn]

Of course it's moral to defend yourself, but when is it moral to bomb innocent people? If a suspect hides in a movie theater full of innocent people is it moral to bomb the movie theater?

You know, that's a question that I struggle with. Its very difficult to see innocent people die. And I'm sure that it's not easy for the military to target a place where they know civilians will be. But, yes, in your example, I think that there are circumstances when bombing the movie theatre is moral. If the person that you are targeting is known to be a threat and there is no other known alternative to rid yourself of that threat, then I would say that bombing the theatre is moral.

If Osama Bin Laden were sitting in a movie theatre in Afganistan, it is moral to bomb the theatre even though some innocent people will be killed. By doing so, you are defending yourself by eliminating a very large threat and protecting your people. To not bomb the theatre leaves you open for Osama's next attack and puts your people at risk.

What is immoral is if you bombed the theatre just for the hell of it. Just because you can. With your sole purpose being only to hurt innocent people.

[shokhead]

When the bad guys are hiding and living around them,come out to kill and fight go back to the innocent people to hid,then yes they are going to get hurt and killed. Its a bad deal.

[ForeverAutumn]

When the bad guys are hiding and living around them,come out to kill and fight go back to the innocent people to hid,then yes they are going to get hurt and killed. Its a bad deal.

Good point. If the innocents are really innocent and want to save themselves, they need to turn in the bad guys who are hiding amonst them.

The problem is, the people in the theatre (to continue with the previous example) may not think that Osama is a bad guy. They may support his actions and may be protecting him. In which case, that makes them a threat also. Suddenly the people in the theatre don't seem as innocent as they may have first appeared. It's all very grey. Who are innocent and who are the enemy?

If you follow this train of thought, it's easy to see how a "If you're not with us, then you must be against us" mentality is born.

[shokhead]

Good point. If the innocents are really innocent and want to save themselves, they need to turn in the bad guys who are hiding amonst them.

The problem is, the people in the theatre (to continue with the previous example) may not think that Osama is a bad guy. They may support his actions and may be protecting him. In which case, that makes them a threat also. Suddenly the people in the theatre don't seem as innocent as they may have first appeared. It's all very grey. Who are innocent and who are the enemy?

If you follow this train of thought, it's easy to see how a "If you're not with us, then you must be against us" mentality is born.

Problem is the more innocents that die,the more they will turn on the side of the bad guys around them.

[trollgirl]

Problem is the more innocents that die,the more they will turn on the side of the bad guys around them.

Yes, it's a lose-lose situation for the common people on both sides.

"You can't fight for peace. You have to peace for peace." Peace as a verb - I like that.

Here is the Plan:
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time." Albert Pike 1871

Albert Pike was high up in the Masonic organization here in the USA. What we are seeing unfolding has been planned for a long time. If any of you are curious as to what Pike said about World Wars one and two, I can post those quotes too.

Laz

[markw]

Yes, it's a lose-lose situation for the common people on both sides.

"You can't fight for peace. You have to peace for peace." Peace as a verb - I like that.

Here is the Plan:
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time." Albert Pike 1871

Albert Pike was high up in the Masonic organization here in the USA. What we are seeing unfolding has been planned for a long time. If any of you are curious as to what Pike said about World Wars one and two, I can post those quotes too.

Laz

Sounds sort of like the Tribulation.

[kexodusc]

The terrorist don't follow Geneva, they don't play by the rules. If anyone thinks they can be contained, or defeated, or reasoned with by playing by the rules, they are dreaming.

They hide among the "innocent" because they wish to exploit the moral dilemma their military adversaries have to deal with when pointing a missile at a hospital, anything to get an edge. It works. I guarantee you if their enemies started bombing schools and hospitals in the first wave of retaliation, they wouldn't be there anymore. Of course the next step is to hide in their enemies' hospitals and schools instead of their own.

We view the deaths of innocent people and civilians as collateral damage, tragic and terrible. To them, there are no innocents - you're either loyal to the cause, or loyal to the enemy. People who are killed when a suicide bomber blows up a bus or school are revered as martyrs. It's the greatest honor. Foreign civilians are sympathizers responsible for electing the leaders they're at war with.

These religions have been fighting for centuries, both sides would rather sacrifice their lives than give up the battle to the aggressors. Western civilization doesn't understand this. It's nothing like dying for your country, or even your family - it's far beyond that to these people.

How do you defeat such an enemy with conventional warfare? You don't.
You either give in to their demands and hope they never ask for more (which I'm skeptical of based on my admittedly limited understanding of some countries' values of human rights and lack of tolerance) or you draw the line and play dirty yourself.

You're forced to choose the lesser of two evils pretty much.
I'll be blunt though, if it's "us" vs. "them", I'll pick "us" right or wrong every single time. Guess I'm just simple.

[Geoffcin]

Were on the Lebanese side of the border! They were conducting some kind of raid when they were ambushed. Sort of like WMD, that really means nothing now.

[kexodusc]

Were on the Lebanese side of the border! They were conducting some kind of raid when they were ambushed. Sort of like WMD, that really means nothing now.

Just curious, what was your source? Everything international I've searched - including French news, still reports that Operation "Truthful Promise" was named after the plan to enter Israel to kidnap hostages for the sole purpose of negotiating the release of Lebanese prisoners - supposedly verified by Hezbollah.

I have little doubt there's a lot of bad info on this subject - surely both sides are interpreting events a bit differently as needed or desired, and it could very well be that Israeli's intercepted the invasion and followed them across the border - or that it was a pre-emptive strike - or exactly as you say.

Personally, I don't think the kidnapping is what set Israel off the 8 killed soldiers on Israeli soil (supposedly) as a result of an attack by Hezbollah probably would have triggered this retaliation on its own - Israel can't seriously expect to increase its chances of recovering the captives this way.

I'm a little surprised at how slow the rest of the world is moving on this.

And I'm dying to know what was in that letter the Germans received from Iran.

[Geoffcin]

Just curious, what was your source.

According to the Lebanese police force, the two soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aïta Al-Chaab close to the border, whereas Israeli television indicated that they had been captured in Israeli territory.

[shokhead]

I'm trying to figure out what Israeeli did wrong? Let there soldiers get kidnaped?

[kexodusc]

Go figure!
Given the last 60 years of war in that region, it's nor a shock that there's 2 different accounts of what happened.

Okay, who's lying?

[Mr Peabody]

I was watching some coverage on CNN today and they showed how Hezbalah rebuilt homes and schools after bombing and distruction. It also showed a mother and young daughter vowing alliance with Hezbalah because of the good they did for them. It's very difficult to stamp out an organization who is digging roots very deep into society. The "terrorists" are doing for the people what their government can't do. We've seen this type of thing in every country with organized crime or whatever. People are going to be loyal to those who take care of them. You can sometimes temporarily kill the tree but the roots produce a different one if roots are not completely dealt with.

I can't say if Isreal was right, but I do respect their action. The U.S. is in much of it's trouble because we talk sh*t. If you say something you'd better do it or else your respect is gone. In the words of Fred Durst, "don't write checks your *ss can't cash". That's why the U.N. is a worthless sham. They write resolutions that are rarely backed up. That's basically why a lot of this is going on. Those of you who have kids know that if there is no consequences for their actions they will run all over you and others they come into contact with. It's no different with dealing with anyone else.

Along the same lines, you also know that if you get your butt kicked for something you believe in, it still isn't going to change your mind.

I personally cannot remember the last fight I have been in but my philosophy is to avoid it if all possible but if it can't or I'm attacked, the other party will pay a heavy price for doing so. Or to put it another way I intend to inflict enough damage that you would never want to try it again. I would apply the same principle if I was the leader of a country.

[daviethek]

[QUOTE=Mr Peabody]I was watching some coverage on CNN today and they showed how Hezbalah rebuilt homes and schools after bombing and distruction. It also showed a mother and young daughter vowing alliance with Hezbalah because of the good they did for them. It's very difficult to stamp out an organization who is digging roots very deep into society.

They are extremely organized and there are many agendas at work here. Religious fanaticism is only the fuel , the motivator for the masses. The final objective is economic equality. I've looked at this thing from many different perspectives and I am a simple guy and I keep coming back to money angle. The "Islamic" nations, Iran, Syria,Lebanon, Pakistan, are essentially undeveloped compared to the G-8. I can't help believe that death in the name of religion is nothing more than a "method" for the theocracies to muscle their way into the boardroom without paying any dues. They want a piece of the action in the world economy and see themselves as permanent slave states without it. Reeking havoc and waving the sword is much more fun than assembling Chevy Cobalts in Teheran. They think they can level the playing field with nuclear weapons. The Europeans are close at hand and reluctant to oppose them presently, with the exception of the Brits, who do stick their necks out for us.

[Mr Peabody]

The problem with religion is those who want to follow the religion are too lazy or have their own agenda, so they do not research and study the point of reference whether it's the Bible or some other writing. Those who are lazy take what is told to them for fact and are misled, those who have their own agenda take what is written and distort it to fit what they want to achieve or take things out of context. Just as an example, Catholics did not have access to the Bible until the recent century. It was read in Latin and they had to accept what was told to them. They have many practices that are not found in the Bible, as do many other "Christian" denominations. Most have a Creed they follow which was written by man. If you want to follow God, then follow what God has written. Those of you who denounce Faith totally should ponder why you believe in Socrates or Aristotile but not the Bible when there is actually more physical prove, as in validated historical writings, to prove the Bible than there is for the Greek scholars mentioned?

If the Isrealy soldiers were captured in Lebanon that puts things in a different perspective for me. That would seem more of a hazzard of the assignment more so than an agressive kidnapping.

[JoeE SP9]

The problem with religion is those who want to follow the religion are too lazy or have their own agenda, so they do not research and study the point of reference whether it's the Bible or some other writing. Those who are lazy take what is told to them for fact and are misled, those who have their own agenda take what is written and distort it to fit what they want to achieve or take things out of context. Just as an example, Catholics did not have access to the Bible until the recent century. It was read in Latin and they had to accept what was told to them. They have many practices that are not found in the Bible, as do many other "Christian" denominations. Most have a Creed they follow which was written by man. If you want to follow God, then follow what God has written. Those of you who denounce Faith totally should ponder why you believe in Socrates or Aristotile but not the Bible when there is actually more physical prove, as in validated historical writings, to prove the Bible than there is for the Greek scholars mentioned?

If the Isrealy soldiers were captured in Lebanon that puts things in a different perspective for me. That would seem more of a hazzard of the assignment more so than an agressive kidnapping.

Belief in Socrates or Aristotle is not in any way faith based. Faith is the requirement to believe without proof.

[shokhead]

So dont talk about it but its ok to tell you not to talk about it. Abit one sided it seems. Good apples and bad apples.

[Geoffcin]

Of terrorist;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...277717,00.html

[Mr Peabody]

Joe E, Socrates is not a religion but the point is, if you believe he existed and his writings are his, then why not believe in God or the Bible. We take much of history for granted, history books as true, but we were not there. I'm just trying to make the point that there are more original transcripts of books of the Bible than there are writings of Socrates. And why is it so hard to believe in God, when people believe so much more far fetched things. Faith actually can apply to anything you believe without seeing. When you jump out of a plane you have faith that parachute will open, or else you wouldn't jump...., I hope.

What people have a problem with when it comes to religion is that it involves changes in life, sacrafice and commitment, most of which make people turn and run. People can't even keep a diet which has to be a permanent change in eating habits. So what do most do, they make their own religion or find the one with the path of least resistance.

[GMichael]

The problem I have with organized religions is that most of them were written in a time when people believed in stories of sea monsters and dragons. That and that whole, "our religion is right and all the others are wrong" idea. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of good that comes from it. And I do believe that there is a God. But it's not all good. Religion was written by man. A man's idea of what he or she thinks is the truth. I was taught about many "myths" when in school. But what makes one person's religion another person's myth?

[JoeE SP9]

Joe E, Socrates is not a religion but the point is, if you believe he existed and his writings are his, then why not believe in God or the Bible. We take much of history for granted, history books as true, but we were not there. I'm just trying to make the point that there are more original transcripts of books of the Bible than there are writings of Socrates. And why is it so hard to believe in God, when people believe so much more far fetched things. Faith actually can apply to anything you believe without seeing. When you jump out of a plane you have faith that parachute will open, or else you wouldn't jump...., I hope.

What people have a problem with when it comes to religion is that it involves changes in life, sacrafice and commitment, most of which make people turn and run. People can't even keep a diet which has to be a permanent change in eating habits. So what do most do, they make their own religion or find the one with the path of least resistance.

If parachutists really had faith they would only have one chute. When I jumped out of airplanes while in the military I always had a backup chute.
I am reminded of something Bertrand Russell (athiest)once said. He was asked if he died and ended up standing before the throne of God and was asked by God "Why didn't you believe in me?" His response was "I would say to God you should have given better evidence". So, it comes down to faith ie: Belief without proof. I need proof.
I do not now nor have I ever believed that the Bible is the direct word of God. If it is then "God" is mean spirited capricious and intolerant. The biblical version of creation is simply not believable and the Bible just gets more unbelievable from there. Just consider, Noah and a breeding pair of every animal in a relatively small boat?
It is my observation that those who benefit the most from any organized religion are the priests ministers and assorted shamen who always live a cushier more comfortable life than their flocks.