Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 10

Topic closed

Poll

Should Israel negotiate with Hezbollah?

Yes47%47% - 53
No40%40% - 45
I don't give a shit about them11%11% - 13
Total: 111
2006-08-29 03:12:50
EricTViking
Yes, I am Queeg
+48|6796|UK
Of course they should negotiate, as someone said earlier - it worked for the UK in coming to a settlement with Sinn Fein. Neither side wanted to talk, each believed they were right, but what was the alternative? More bombing and death?

This is just another flimsy excuse to bomb your neigbours based on the so called "War on terrorism". The way this works is that if you want to blow someone up, you brand them a terrorist and you are them free to do whatever you like to them.

The real solution has 2 parts:

1. Israel and Hezbollah should sit down and negotiate.
2. Meanwhile if Israel still feels the need to shoot it's load then they should use Mossad to quietly dismantle Hezbollah while no-one is looking.
2006-08-29 03:19:23
ltsabre
Member
+0|6709|rotterdam Holland
You can kiss my right nut.
And 1 more thing... we did NOT start this war... they kidnapped 2 soldiers so we got sick of this.
I am from Israel and I think we should not talk to them coz they are a terrorists "union" the doesn't even have its own country and they only want to kill us.
Have u ever seen a Jew bombing himself so he can kill German ppl? (after the holocaust)
Have u ever seen a Buddhist bombing himself so he can kill Arab ppl? (after the bomb in the train in India)
N-E-V-E-R
The Arab ppl hate everybody and willing to kill them self so they can kill others.
If they want something they will do everything to get it with war never with negotiation.
They put 6-7 kids in a car that transfer missiles so when Israel shoot it the whole world will hate us.
So... in conclusion... the whole world should join forces to destroy this "union" called Hezbolla which is filled with terrorists and finish all the conflicts in the middle east!

hwo started the war after the holocast and later on ISRAEL or not. They don't want to live with the pas in one country. MORON,S For get the past and start living in the future.
2006-08-29 03:27:09
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6895|USA
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P … n.asp?pg=1

Well, it is no wonder Israel lost this war anyway. The unbiased, completely neutral, give Israel a fair shake, UN was on the side of the terrorists!!. I seem to remember a few weeks ago that I suggested that UN outpost was hit because it was spying for hezzbolah.......Go figure huh??
2006-08-29 03:37:05
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6799

lowing wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp?pg=1

Well, it is no wonder Israel lost this war anyway. The unbiased, completely neutral, give Israel a fair shake, UN was on the side of the terrorists!!. I seem to remember a few weeks ago that I suggested that UN outpost was hit because it was spying for hezzbolah.......Go figure huh??
Lowing - you keep posting tripe from the neo-con mouthpiece 'The Weekly Standard'. Try a more balanced news source and you may win some people over. 'The Weekly Standard' is a joke.

"The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative political magazine published 48 times per year. It made its debut on September 17, 1995 and is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. It is viewed as a leading outlet of the influential neoconservative movement. Its current editors are founder William Kristol, chairman of the Project for the New American Century, and Fred Barnes."

"The Weekly Standard, like The Nation, is an example of advocacy journalism, a genre of journalism which favors subjectivity over objectivity."

It's editor is chairman of the odious PNAC for christ's sake!!!! Owner: Rupert Murdoch!?!?!? I suppose you think it's "Fair and Balanced". LOL

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-29 03:45:16)

2006-08-29 03:42:49
one_of_ten
Member
+7|6900|Brussels, Belgium

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp?pg=1

Well, it is no wonder Israel lost this war anyway. The unbiased, completely neutral, give Israel a fair shake, UN was on the side of the terrorists!!. I seem to remember a few weeks ago that I suggested that UN outpost was hit because it was spying for hezzbolah.......Go figure huh??
Lowing - you keep posting tripe from the neo-con mouthpiece 'The Weekly Standard'. Try a more balanced news source and you may win some people over. 'The Weekly Standard' is a joke.

"The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative political magazine published 48 times per year. It made its debut on September 17, 1995 and is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. It is viewed as a leading outlet of the influential neoconservative movement. Its current editors are founder William Kristol, chairman of the Project for the New American Century, and Fred Barnes."

It's editor is chairman of the odious PNAC for christ's sake!!!! Owner: Rupert Murdoch!?!?!? I suppose you think it's "Fair and Balanced". LOL
And the guy that wrote the article is the president of the zionist organisation in America so he' s not very neutral either.....
2006-08-29 03:46:19
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6799

one_of_ten wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp?pg=1

Well, it is no wonder Israel lost this war anyway. The unbiased, completely neutral, give Israel a fair shake, UN was on the side of the terrorists!!. I seem to remember a few weeks ago that I suggested that UN outpost was hit because it was spying for hezzbolah.......Go figure huh??
Lowing - you keep posting tripe from the neo-con mouthpiece 'The Weekly Standard'. Try a more balanced news source and you may win some people over. 'The Weekly Standard' is a joke.

"The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative political magazine published 48 times per year. It made its debut on September 17, 1995 and is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. It is viewed as a leading outlet of the influential neoconservative movement. Its current editors are founder William Kristol, chairman of the Project for the New American Century, and Fred Barnes."

It's editor is chairman of the odious PNAC for christ's sake!!!! Owner: Rupert Murdoch!?!?!? I suppose you think it's "Fair and Balanced". LOL
And the guy that wrote the article is the president of the zionist organisation in America so he' s not very neutral either.....
No wonder many Americans are duped into running with the less savoury of their governments policies when they lap up bullshit from such 'news' sources.
2006-08-29 03:49:12
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6895|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp?pg=1

Well, it is no wonder Israel lost this war anyway. The unbiased, completely neutral, give Israel a fair shake, UN was on the side of the terrorists!!. I seem to remember a few weeks ago that I suggested that UN outpost was hit because it was spying for hezzbolah.......Go figure huh??
Lowing - you keep posting tripe from the neo-con mouthpiece 'The Weekly Standard'. Try a more balanced news source and you may win some people over. 'The Weekly Standard' is a joke.

"The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative political magazine published 48 times per year. It made its debut on September 17, 1995 and is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. It is viewed as a leading outlet of the influential neoconservative movement. Its current editors are founder William Kristol, chairman of the Project for the New American Century, and Fred Barnes."

"The Weekly Standard, like The Nation, is an example of advocacy journalism, a genre of journalism which favors subjectivity over objectivity."

It's editor is chairman of the odious PNAC for christ's sake!!!! Owner: Rupert Murdoch!?!?!? I suppose you think it's "Fair and Balanced". LOL
Fair enough, so all you need is a link to this article that is of a neutral source, then you will agree the UN is biased against Israel???

By the way, where is the outrage by the UN at these "false" allogations??

Last edited by lowing (2006-08-29 03:54:23)

2006-08-29 04:10:01
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6799

lowing wrote:

Fair enough, so all you need is a link to this article that is of a neutral source, then you will agree the UN is biased against Israel???

By the way, where is the outrage by the UN at these "false" allogations??
The UN wouldn't take seriously allegations by small circulation hard right talkshop magazines. I quite clearly recall pro-Israel right wing channels such as Sky News (sister channel of FOX) presenting detailed information about Israeli troop movements through embedded journalists and the like. I'd say the info was relatively common knowledge and 'The Weekly Standard' chose to pin this down as some kind of breach of neutrality on the part of the UN even though many others presented this info, the UN being an organisation it wishes to see destroyed.

SKy News is owned by Rupert Murdoch by the way, who also happens to own "The Weekly Standard".

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-29 04:11:16)

2006-08-29 05:25:04
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7001|Argentina

lowing wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp?pg=1

Well, it is no wonder Israel lost this war anyway. The unbiased, completely neutral, give Israel a fair shake, UN was on the side of the terrorists!!. I seem to remember a few weeks ago that I suggested that UN outpost was hit because it was spying for hezzbolah.......Go figure huh??
Thanks Lowing this neo-con shit has been posted before.
2006-08-29 05:55:47
Jainus
Member
+30|6820|Herts, UK
You don't negotiate with terrorists; simple as.

It doesn't work as they're not accountable to anyone. Israel at least has to answer to her people and if they agree then they go ahead. For Hezbollah, we've already seen that some people in the forum believe that Lebanon are completely separate (btw go ask Kofi if he thinks the people of Lebanon don't support Hezbollah), so who are they answerable to exactly? Iran or Syria? Do you really think that either of them will be happy with Hezbollah talking to Israel rather than blowing them up? You're living in a dream world if you think the answer to that is "yes"!!

Furthermore, as soon as you start making concessions to terrorists, you declare open season on your own population. If the terrorists think that they can gain an advantage in negotiation by holding 2 soldiers prisoner, what stops them from a massive kidnapping campaign and holding 10, 50 or 100 soldiers (or civilians. Would you want to sacrifice Lil Israeli Isabelle? If you try and get Lil Izzy back, what stops Hez taking 10 little girls...?)

I would propose something similar to the Northern Ireland ceasefire and then negotiate. The Northern Ireland dispute is still ongoing (as far as i'm aware) with negotiations built from the ceasefire that was put in place. The IRA can take part in the government (through its political wing Sinn Fein) because they stopped killing and blowing people up. Without that ceasefire and the ceasation of hostilities from both sides, negotiation would have failed long ago. 

Similarly, until Hezbollah stops its terrorist activities and disarms, and until they are able to trust Israel enough not to take advantage of the disarmament, there won't be a peace and as a result any negotiations will be a propaganda exercise where one side will say "we tried but they're being unreasonable and demanding the impossible" and the other side will do exactly the same.

The current ceasefire could be the first step provided that;
a) any outbreaks of violence are not retaliated in the 'eye-for-an-eye' mould (when the IRA and the Brits were trying to sort themselves out, there were ongoing acts of violence but because it didn't escalate, things could go forward)
b) both sides announce a willingness to talk to each other
c) small moves are made on both sides to start the ball rolling, i.e. Israeli reparations to civilians caught in Israel's attacks and the beginnings of disarmament of Hez or possibly a reciprocal offer of reparations to Israeli civilians from Hezbollah.

Once things start with Israel and Hezbollah, it could encourage Hamas and others to try and open a dialogue with Israel but all of this rests on Israel and her current enemies trusting each other enough to try and i simply don't think that's likely to happen and they'll fight until one side has been annihilated
2006-08-29 05:59:32
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6799
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elchanan_Tenenbaum

Like I said - they've negotiated before and they will again.
2006-08-29 06:31:53
HM1{N}
Member
+86|6888|East Coast via Los Angeles, CA

sergeriver wrote:

What do you think?  Should Israel negotiate with Hezbollah, to achieve a peaceful solution for the middle east war, at least in this issue?  Please explain your vote.
Absolutely, maybe then Israel will release the thousands of Lebanese that have been locked up in Israeli jails for 3 decades.
2006-08-29 06:34:47
HM1{N}
Member
+86|6888|East Coast via Los Angeles, CA

Jainus wrote:

You don't negotiate with terrorists; simple as.

It doesn't work as they're not accountable to anyone. Israel at least has to answer to her people and if they agree then they go ahead. For Hezbollah, we've already seen that some people in the forum believe that Lebanon are completely separate (btw go ask Kofi if he thinks the people of Lebanon don't support Hezbollah), so who are they answerable to exactly? Iran or Syria? Do you really think that either of them will be happy with Hezbollah talking to Israel rather than blowing them up? You're living in a dream world if you think the answer to that is "yes"!!

Furthermore, as soon as you start making concessions to terrorists, you declare open season on your own population. If the terrorists think that they can gain an advantage in negotiation by holding 2 soldiers prisoner, what stops them from a massive kidnapping campaign and holding 10, 50 or 100 soldiers (or civilians. Would you want to sacrifice Lil Israeli Isabelle? If you try and get Lil Izzy back, what stops Hez taking 10 little girls...?)

I would propose something similar to the Northern Ireland ceasefire and then negotiate. The Northern Ireland dispute is still ongoing (as far as i'm aware) with negotiations built from the ceasefire that was put in place. The IRA can take part in the government (through its political wing Sinn Fein) because they stopped killing and blowing people up. Without that ceasefire and the ceasation of hostilities from both sides, negotiation would have failed long ago. 

Similarly, until Hezbollah stops its terrorist activities and disarms, and until they are able to trust Israel enough not to take advantage of the disarmament, there won't be a peace and as a result any negotiations will be a propaganda exercise where one side will say "we tried but they're being unreasonable and demanding the impossible" and the other side will do exactly the same.

The current ceasefire could be the first step provided that;
a) any outbreaks of violence are not retaliated in the 'eye-for-an-eye' mould (when the IRA and the Brits were trying to sort themselves out, there were ongoing acts of violence but because it didn't escalate, things could go forward)
b) both sides announce a willingness to talk to each other
c) small moves are made on both sides to start the ball rolling, i.e. Israeli reparations to civilians caught in Israel's attacks and the beginnings of disarmament of Hez or possibly a reciprocal offer of reparations to Israeli civilians from Hezbollah.

Once things start with Israel and Hezbollah, it could encourage Hamas and others to try and open a dialogue with Israel but all of this rests on Israel and her current enemies trusting each other enough to try and i simply don't think that's likely to happen and they'll fight until one side has been annihilated
You forget one thing: Israel is a terrorist state.  Everything they have they got by murdering innocent civilians and now that the civilians fight back they are called terrorists???  Where's the logic in that?

Why does Israel still illegally occupy Palestine with an army?  Why have they done so for 4 decades, stealing all the natural resources while they annex more land?

Your faith in Israel is blind...screw religion, that's just an excuse to further the Israeli Zionist agenda.
2006-08-29 09:27:53
Jainus
Member
+30|6820|Herts, UK

HM1{N} wrote:

You forget one thing: Israel is a terrorist state.  Everything they have they got by murdering innocent civilians and now that the civilians fight back they are called terrorists???  Where's the logic in that?

Why does Israel still illegally occupy Palestine with an army?  Why have they done so for 4 decades, stealing all the natural resources while they annex more land?

Your faith in Israel is blind...screw religion, that's just an excuse to further the Israeli Zionist agenda.
What you seem to forget is your history. If you actually think about it, every nation in existence today has got where it is by murdering thousands of people at some point. Not just open wars against soldiers but civilian atrocities as well. If you are going to play that card and try to suggest that Israel should not be a state because of its history, what exactly do you propose to do with every other nation on Earth? Tell them they've all been very naughty boys and its time to join a peaceful state born out of Peace, Love and a thirst of chocolate biscuits? Great idea... right up to the point when you try and set laws and anything else for a populace so diverse.

I'm not saying that the actions of Israel have made it credible, or even that the tactics that they employ don't make them terrorists themselves. What i am saying is that until you get some semblance of trust between the two parties, no negotiation will work. Your phrase of "my faith in Israel" is laughable because i don't have any faith in Israel. If Hezbollah were to lay down its arms tomorrow I don't think Israel would do the same, I know they'd probably shoot the lot of them. Terrorists are extremists. Extremists willing to kill anyone and everyone that stands in their way; my point still stands that you don't deal with terrorists and nothing you've submitted so far has tried to challenge that.

You and I have had this conversation before; I'm not pro-Israeli and I'm not pro-Palestinian/Hamas/Hezbollah. In my original post I'm pointing out that any talks that the two sides have will amount to nothing unless both sides start by fundamentally changing their attitudes towards each other.

Everytime I've seen you post on this subject, and yes it is everytime, all you do is bash Israel. I'm not for one minute suggesting that you can't or that you shouldn't; all I'm trying to do is present both sides of the argument and suggest a way forward. Look at your posts and tell me the bit where you suggest a way towards peace... no i can't find it either. So come then, you seem determined to derail my thoughts for a peaceful solution, whats yours?

And no, a complete disbanding of Israeli territory won't work because one side won't argue to it will they? Try and see past your anti-Israel prejudice and propose a plausible solution.

Last edited by Jainus (2006-08-29 09:32:05)

2006-08-29 16:33:28
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6895|USA

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp?pg=1

Well, it is no wonder Israel lost this war anyway. The unbiased, completely neutral, give Israel a fair shake, UN was on the side of the terrorists!!. I seem to remember a few weeks ago that I suggested that UN outpost was hit because it was spying for hezzbolah.......Go figure huh??
Thanks Lowing this neo-con shit has been posted before.
LOL,,,,,, oh pardon my shit, I will make room for your stuff
2006-08-29 16:47:15
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7001|Argentina

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp?pg=1

Well, it is no wonder Israel lost this war anyway. The unbiased, completely neutral, give Israel a fair shake, UN was on the side of the terrorists!!. I seem to remember a few weeks ago that I suggested that UN outpost was hit because it was spying for hezzbolah.......Go figure huh??
Thanks Lowing this neo-con shit has been posted before.
LOL,,,,,, oh pardon my shit, I will make room for your stuff
At least I don't put my stuff twice.  Anyway, stop reading such shit.
2006-08-29 16:53:35
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6895|USA

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


Thanks Lowing this neo-con shit has been posted before.
LOL,,,,,, oh pardon my shit, I will make room for your stuff
At least I don't put my stuff twice.  Anyway, stop reading such shit.
Yer right, I will start reading some of your stuff
2006-08-29 16:57:29
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7001|Argentina

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:


LOL,,,,,, oh pardon my shit, I will make room for your stuff
At least I don't put my stuff twice.  Anyway, stop reading such shit.
Yer right, I will start reading some of your stuff
Well, you could convert yourself to the dark side of the society.
2006-08-29 17:01:19
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6895|USA

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


At least I don't put my stuff twice.  Anyway, stop reading such shit.
Yer right, I will start reading some of your stuff
Well, you could convert yourself to the dark side of the society.
Yeah, maybe having the govt. take care of me wouldn't be so bad....Easier than gettin a job. hehehe
2006-08-29 17:16:13
DSRTurtle
Member
+56|6930
Hezbollah would have to change first and show Isreal that intend to live in peace with them first.  That won't happen so negotiations are pointless.
2006-08-29 17:30:22
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7001|Argentina

DSRTurtle wrote:

Hezbollah would have to change first and show Isreal that intend to live in peace with them first.  That won't happen so negotiations are pointless.
Israel should be moderate first and show Hezbollah that intend to live in peace with them first.  That might happen, so negotiations are likely to begin.
2006-08-29 17:39:41
AAFCptKabbom
Member
+127|6902|WPB, FL. USA
There should always be dialog however, in the current situation there should never be negotiations.

For the ignorant who posted before they searched for facts - the majority of the world has concluded:
- Hezbollah killed three soldiers and kidnapped two others without provocation. 
- Hezbollah invaded a sovereign country and committed an act of war.
- The international consensus is that Hezbollah was ordered by Iran to draw attention from the dealings with the UN over their nuke program and to invade Israel.
- Hezbollah is controlled and funded by Iran and  supplied by Iran and Syria.
- Hezbollah is a terrorist organization {as per the UN, EU, and the West}.
- Hezbollah's leader admitted to ordering the kidnapping {that's an act of terrorism}.
- The Lebanese Government is now complacent in an act of war since they have not taken action against Hezbollah.

Two Facts: 1} Israel did not start this conflict,  2} Never negotiate with terrorist!

"Just the facts mam"
2006-08-29 17:41:08
Sgt.Kyle
Kyle
+48|6727|P-way, NJ
man why did isreal stop....
2006-08-29 17:45:50
TeamZephyr
Maintaining My Rage Since 1975
+124|6773|Hillside, Melbourne, Australia

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:


Yer right, I will start reading some of your stuff
Well, you could convert yourself to the dark side of the society.
Yeah, maybe having the govt. take care of me wouldn't be so bad....Easier than gettin a job. hehehe
Learn about what socialism is before commenting about it please.
2006-08-29 17:53:30
EricTViking
Yes, I am Queeg
+48|6796|UK

AAFCptKabbom wrote:

2} Never negotiate with terrorist!

"Just the facts mam"
Bollocks.

How do you think the Northern Ireland situation got placated?

It wasn't by bombs.

Topic closed

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard