Alighieri Re..Here is what I posted.
And just how have you said that. You have said nothing about the Arabs stopping the terrorism, just that the US shouldn't retaliate. Worse your logic that Americas aid to Israel is causing the war defies logic, as the US gives far more aid to arab countries, than the US gives to Israel.
And here is your reply.
I have a number of times said that the peace process is the only path to a solution in Palestine. This requires concessions on both sides. Israel must pull back from land captured in 1967, dismantle settlements in Gaza and WB, and Palestinians must guarantee Israel's security in exchange for the land. The UN (not the US) should resolve to give Palestine statehood and assist both sides in policing and meeting their respective obligations. The start of this is little more than meeting existing UN resolutions on both sides. Now why is it that the US is so concerned about Iraq not meeting its resolutions and the same level of expectation is not applied to Israel.
Al <<
In an earlier post I asked this question
Interesting statement. You make it sound like we should live with the terrorism at the current level, and not attack back at the terrorists, because retribution would just encourage more terrorism, at a higher level. How so? Should the US allow the terrorist to destroy the twin towers, or its equivalent, every yr, every other year, once every five yrs., How many nightclubs in Bali should we allow to be destroyed, how many oil tankers sunk, how many embassies have to be rebuilt, before you agree that the purpose doesn't justify the means.
To which you replied
I am suggesting that the solution to terror lies not in violence...the world is full of examples that support my claim. <<<
I also posted this
Where are you getting this stuff? AFAIK, GW has urged both sides to stop the violence. What is it with you liberals, that you can only condemn Israel for the violence, but not the Palestinians. If you truly are against violence, you would condemn both sides.
To which you answered.
Bush has put forth a pathetic effort in mediating the conflict in Palestine. The results speak for themselves.
Now how does that answer possibly answer that statement.
My point is that to all questions concerning Palestinian violence, you refuse to condemn Palestinian violence with evasive answers saying you are against violence, but refusing to say you are specifically against Palestinian violence. Once again I ask you point blank, are you against palestinian violence, period; no qualifications, no obfuscations, no garbage; just a simple "yes I am against violence by the palestinians ".
The reason I am asking is because that is I feel one of the main reasons for the big election victory by the Reps. You and Ted, and most liberals condemn violence, yet you refuse to say that violence by a group you favor is bad. Why???????? How can you possibly support a cause which violates one of liberalism's basic principles. How hypoocritical can you be? You say you are against violence, yet you favor a group who routinely uses violence. And not just the Palestinians, all groups you favor get a free pass from you to use violence to attack America, witness your answer to my question about the destruction of the twin towers, Bali and the French tanker. OSB main product is terrorism, and yet you defend Al Quaeda because OSB is an Arab, and you are for Arabs and against Israel. So therefore anything Israel, and by connection America, is for,(aid to all countries including Israel) is bad. Al Quaeda, Palestinians;(now matter how disgusting their methods) is good. It seems impossible for you liberals to separate a cause from its methods. Sometimes causes can be hurt by the methods, and you liberals are hurting the Arab cause (not to mention the Arab people themselves) by justifying violence in the name of a cause. |
