Magox Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 strong rebuttal there…. It really doesn't warrant a serious rebuttal. Your views are so out of the mainstream the only appropriate response is derisive mockery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I just can't see any rational reason why anyone would say Palestine is a threat to Israel. I debated greatly whether or not I should hit the "add reply" button. It depends on your definition of "threat." I actually agree with you - the Palestinians are not an existential threat. But it gets back to my point about al Qaeda - they weren't an existential threat to the US, either. But we still went after them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Day after day. Year after year. All you hear on the news is Israel's security is being threatened. I don't blame anyone for thinking that way. It simply isn't true. Terrorist attacks in Israel are a rarity these days. Btw, ever wonder why terrorists are far more effective in their attacks on muslim land as opposed to anywhere else? With the exception of 9/11 of course. Terrorist attacks are rare in Israel? Okay. What happened all last summer? Were bombs being launched daily at Israel, or am I misremembering? We've had this discussion before. We know where you stand. The Palestinians/Hamas only had the means to kill a couple thousand Israelis, which they try capitalize on. For whatever reason, this means Israel should say, "aw shucks, you guys aren't so bad." That's not how the world works. Tom is exactly correct with the Al Queda comparison. They were never going to storm the White House, but they were a threat to some of our citizens. an alternative explanation is that they, like you, have a dog in the hunt. i'd like to see a poll of americans with no close ties to either side (like me), and that includes fundamentalists that think israel must fulfill bible prophecy. i think such a poll would be quite unfavorable to netanyahu's israel. What "dog in the fight" do you think any of us have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Terrorist attacks are rare in Israel? Okay. What happened all last summer? Were bombs being launched daily at Israel, or am I misremembering? We've had this discussion before. We know where you stand. The Palestinians/Hamas only had the means to kill a couple thousand Israelis, which they try capitalize on. For whatever reason, this means Israel should say, "aw shucks, you guys aren't so bad." That's not how the world works. Tom is exactly correct with the Al Queda comparison. They were never going to storm the White House, but they were a threat to some of our citizens. What "dog in the fight" do you think any of us have? no idea. it's the only alternative explanation i can muster for yall's dogged defense of the us' massive financial support for israel when so many of you cling to liberterian ideologies on virtually every other issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 no idea. it's the only alternative explanation i can muster for yall's dogged defense of the us' massive financial support for israel when so many of you cling to liberterian ideologies on virtually every other issue. The dog in the fight is a vitriolic hate for all things Obama. BO could negotiate a nuclear stand down from Iran delivered on unicorns farting heart shaped golden eggs that cured cancer....and they would hate it. "The purpose of the senate GOP is to make sure the the Presidency of the BO is a failure" - Mitch McConnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 no idea. it's the only alternative explanation i can muster for yall's dogged defense of the us' massive financial support for israel when so many of you cling to liberterian ideologies on virtually every other issue. I think most of us feel that Israel's foreign policy is at least partially justified. That's a separate issue from sending financial aid, but they are usually conflated. I can see the benefits of sending aid to Israel, although I probably wouldn't vote for it myself. The dog in the fight is a vitriolic hate for all things Obama. BO could negotiate a nuclear stand down from Iran delivered on unicorns farting heart shaped golden eggs that cured cancer....and they would hate it. "The purpose of the senate GOP is to make sure the the Presidency of the BO is a failure" - Mitch McConnell If there's any hatred present, it's for plans or ideas not grounded in realism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Terrorist attacks are rare in Israel? Okay. What happened all last summer? Were bombs being launched daily at Israel, or am I misremembering? We've had this discussion before. We know where you stand. The Palestinians/Hamas only had the means to kill a couple thousand Israelis, which they try capitalize on. For whatever reason, this means Israel should say, "aw shucks, you guys aren't so bad." That's not how the world works. Tom is exactly correct with the Al Queda comparison. They were never going to storm the White House, but they were a threat to some of our citizens. What "dog in the fight" do you think any of us have? A couple thousand Israelis died? Where did you get this number from? That's nowhere near correct. Are you lying on purpose or was that a honest mistake? Edited March 23, 2015 by Justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 do you even read the news? the prime minister's uninvited speech to congress was a clear affront to the president. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/boehner-netanyahu-congress-invitation-obama The Prime Minister was invited to speak to Congress. The thin-skin-in-chief may not have liked it, but the PM was invited. Perhaps you felt the same anger when Barry had David Cameron calling US Senators to pressure them about Iran sanctions. Or more realistically...perhaps not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) no idea. it's the only alternative explanation i can muster for yall's dogged defense of the us' massive financial support for israel when so many of you cling to liberterian ideologies on virtually every other issue. Like FireChan said, I support Israel's foriegn policy; though I'm not keen on footing the bill for it. It is, however, important to note that our dollars tie Israel to us, and work to prevent them from taking an even more aggressive approach with their hostile neighboors. Edited March 23, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 "The purpose of the senate GOP is to make sure the the Presidency of the BO is a failure" - Mitch McConnell You really shouldn't put quotes on something that is not true. Here is what Sen. Mitch McConnell told National Journal in 2010 McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I think most of us feel that Israel's foreign policy is at least partially justified. That's a separate issue from sending financial aid, but they are usually conflated. I can see the benefits of sending aid to Israel, although I probably wouldn't vote for it myself. If there's any hatred present, it's for plans or ideas not grounded in realism. they're "conflated" because one is a necessary condition for the other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 they're "conflated" because one is a necessary condition for the otherAgain, without our defense dollars, Israel would be forced into a situation in which their survival depended on taking an even more aggressive approach with their hostile neighboors. There would be no discussion about the plight of the Palestinians, because there would be no Palestinians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 A couple thousand Israelis died? Where did you get this number from? That's nowhere near correct. Are you lying on purpose or was that a honest mistake? That's not what I said. They only have the means to kill a couple thousand Israelis, although that's a rough estimation. they're "conflated" because one is a necessary condition for the other What would happen if we reduced our funding to Israel? Give me your predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Again, without our defense dollars, Israel would be forced into a situation in which their survival depended on taking an even more aggressive approach with their hostile neighboors. There would be no discussion about the plight of the Palestinians, because there would be no Palestinians. pure conjecture. an "even more aggressive approach" might be counterproductive. there's no doubt they're between a rock and a hard place. it just doesn't seem a good idea to take clear sides in such a lose-lose dispute. That's not what I said. They only have the means to kill a couple thousand Israelis, although that's a rough estimation. What would happen if we reduced our funding to Israel? Give me your predictions. i doubt much would change. we supposedly are paying for leverage on the peace process. that's clearly wasted money. perhaps israel would allocate more of their own wealth away from settlements and into their military. Edited March 23, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 pure conjecture. an "even more aggressive approach" might be counterproductive. there's no doubt they're between a rock and a hard place. it just doesn't seem a good idea to take clear sides in such a lose-lose dispute. i doubt much would change. we supposedly are paying for leverage on the peace process. that's clearly wasted money. perhaps israel would allocate more of their own wealth away from settlements and into their military. The way I view the Israel funding is like a prison. We are funding the "prison" that allows Palestinians to keep their lives and somewhat keep their homes. Without the money to fund this "prison," the Israelis would be forced to kill them because they can't hold or contain them. I agree with Tasker's insinuation that without our money, the Israelis would be forced to kill the Palestinians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 The way I view the Israel funding is like a prison. We are funding the "prison" that allows Palestinians to keep their lives and somewhat keep their homes. Without the money to fund this "prison," the Israelis would be forced to kill them because they can't hold or contain them. I agree with Tasker's insinuation that without our money, the Israelis would be forced to kill the Palestinians. and i don't. they're already pariahs. they would be globally hated if they outright murdered palestinians. it would be a stupid and immoral choice althouygh i doubt immorality would dissuade them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) and i don't. they're already pariahs. they would be globally hated if they outright murdered palestinians. it would be a stupid and immoral choice althouygh i doubt immorality would dissuade them.Before I address this, I'd like to point out your contradictions. You said that the issues of US support and Israel's foreign policy were conflating because one is not possible with another. Then, not two posts later, you said that nothing would change in Israel if we reduced our financial support. What? Now, onto your post, killing those who do not recognize your right to exist and want your Nation destroyed is immoral and "murder?" Edited March 23, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Before I address this, I'd like to point out your contradictions. You said that the issues of US support and Israel's foreign policy were conflating because one is not possible with another. Then, not two posts later, you said that nothing would change in Israel if we reduced our financial support. What? Now, onto your post, killing those who do not recognize your right to exist and want your Nation destroyed is immoral and "murder?" it's not contradictory at all. i believe we are wasting money on israel. they'll fiond a way without our money to maintain their defense system. and we won't lose the influence that we clearly haven't bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 it's not contradictory at all. i believe we are wasting money on israel. they'll fiond a way without our money to maintain their defense system. and we won't lose the influence that we clearly haven't bought. Then how in the world is Israel's foreign policy conditional on US support? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Before I address this, I'd like to point out your contradictions. You said that the issues of US support and Israel's foreign policy were conflating because one is not possible with another. Then, not two posts later, you said that nothing would change in Israel if we reduced our financial support. What? Now, onto your post, killing those who do not recognize your right to exist and want your Nation destroyed is immoral and "murder?" God forbid the US is ever overtaken, but if it were, would you recognize your oppressors right to exist? That's not what I said. They only have the means to kill a couple thousand Israelis, although that's a rough estimation. What would happen if we reduced our funding to Israel? Give me your predictions. They must have been holding back during the "war" then because they only killed 64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts