I'm Just Going to Say It

[Thomas Paine]

 

Nice cartoon, but when you have terrorists in your backyard hiding behind civilians there will be casualties on both sides. I have stated my position, and I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who seems to prefer the existence of ISIS to America's ally Israel. 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

How many of those people killed were actively taking up arms against the oppressive regimes? Surely the definition of a soldier is a man who fights with weaponry?

 

Most of the fighting was/is urban warfare and the regime dropped hundreds of bombs on rebels held towns and cities, even districts of the same city that weren't in regime hands, and they are still doing that to this day. As a result the overwhelming majority of people who have been killed have in fact been civilians and were largely killed as a resort of those unguided, indiscriminate, barrel bombs being thrown out of the back of regime helicopters that level entire cities to the ground when used in large quantity.

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Nice cartoon, but when you have terrorists in your backyard hiding behind civilians there will be casualties on both sides. I have stated my position, and I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who seems to prefer the existence of ISIS to America's ally Israel. 

 

I am going to make the same move. Khilafah, I pity you, you seem to be so fixated on your worldview that you believe anything else is wrong - to me that seems to be a view that leads to extremism and thus makes you an ideal recruitment opportunity to people such as ISIS. This is why I reported you to West Mercia Police on Saturday, in Hereford Police Station, for your own safety. I would be very careful if I was you. If you are a troll you are playing a dangerous game, if not well.........

 

A pen drive and a ton of information was handed over.........think about it will you? You are trying to defend the indefensible.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Rob Ap Ioan

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Nice cartoon, but when you have terrorists in your backyard hiding behind civilians there will be casualties on both sides. I have stated my position, and I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who seems to prefer the existence of ISIS to America's ally Israel. 

 

 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

A pen drive and a ton of information was handed over.........think about it will you? You are trying to defend the indefensible.

 

Shariah Law is the only law. 

[Rozalia]

 

If you're going to use a cartoon then use a good one.

 

 

As for the situation as a whole.

 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

 

Edited August 20, 2015 by Khilafah

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

HOW ZIONISTS EXPAND THE STATE OF ISRAEL

BOMBS AND ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS 

 

[Buorhann]

Some serious disgusting sensationalist pictures being posted up.

[Alex]

This isn't a propaganda thread, this is the debate forum. Actually discuss the topic at hand, here, or this thread will be locked. Simply posting political cartoons does not suffice as "debate."

[Buorhann]

This is the second debate thread that Khalifah ruined with terrible trolling replies.

[Kyubnyan]

This is why I set him to ignore.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

This is the second debate thread that Khalifah ruined with terrible trolling replies.

 

As Sheepy would say...

 

[Rozalia]

As Sheepy would say...

 

 

So is that an admittance of trolling there?

 

I hope it is because honestly I'm not seeing signs of a healthy mind here if it is otherwise. I get you have your religion and all that, but supporting ISIS is the realm of madmen. 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

So is that an admittance of trolling there?

 

I hope it is because honestly I'm not seeing signs of a healthy mind here if it is otherwise. I get you have your religion and all that, but supporting ISIS is the realm of madmen. 

 

I will not keep repeating myself due to your sheer stupidity. 

[Greatnate]

This is why I set him to ignore.

 

This is a good life choice.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

This is a good life choice.

 

Thought it seems he hasn't made very many of them, I agree with you, this is a good start.

[Rozalia]

I will not keep repeating myself due to your sheer stupidity. 

 

You support ISIS so you are quite discredited from making such claims of others.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

You support ISIS so you are quite discredited from making such claims of others.

 

If you weren't so stupid you would have typed "I don't support ISIS" or something along those line, in the topic search box at the top right hand corner of the screen, were you would have seen the first post I made in this topic explicitly stating that I don't support them and I can't recall how many other times I had to repeat myself. Also, Assad and Israel are still worse and if you don't like the fact that i have this view... guess what? I don't care.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Khilafah

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Last time I checked Israel wasn't involved in sex slavery. Last time I checked Israel was not slaughtering civilians solely based on their religion. Last time I checked Israel wasn't destroying WORLD HERITAGE sites. Last time I checked Israel wasn't forcing people to pay extra money simply because they were of a different religion.

Daesh are monsters and if you truly believe they are better than Israel than you are so deluded and ignorant of the atrocities committed that I honestly fear for your morality. 

 

You have not morality Mr Atheist or at best you believe morality to be subjective; in either case you can't really say much in this regard. 

 

I also outlined very clearly why I believe Israel to be worse than ISIS, throughout several pages of this thread, and I am not going through that again.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Khilafah

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Atheist? I am a Christian and am well versed in both the Holy Bible and the Holy Qu'ran.

You dodged my statement. And you ignored my point fully because you insist on hating Israel so damn much. 

Daesh are a cancer. Not just to western views, but to the entire Islamic world as well.

They kill, destroy and terrorize without a care. They are demons and deserve death.

 

I would say the exact same thing and far more about Zionists who are committing genocide against Palestinians. I also doubt your claim of being well versed in the Bible and Noble Quran so I will give you a very simple challenge: Bring me a direct quote that is attributed to Jesus, in the bible, were he says "I am god! Worship me!" or something along those lines. 

Edited August 20, 2015 by Khilafah

[Rozalia]

If you weren't so stupid you would have typed "I don't support ISIS" or something along those line, in the topic search box at the top right hand corner of the screen, were you would have seen the first post I made in this topic explicitly stating that I don't support them and I can't recall how many other times I had to repeat myself. Also, Assad and Israel are still worse and if you don't like the fact that i have this view... guess what? I don't care.

 

You can say such a thing if you want, but you've betrayed yourself long ago with all your other postings.

 

Fixed that 4 u bb

 

Not a fan of Daesh, especially as it is apparently a request from American allies in the middle east. I can see why because if ISIS can stand the test of time then their claims of being caliphate will start to look legitimate, and when that happens they aren't going to need to conquer places as the people will simply defect to them instead... it'd actually be quite something extraordinary if ISIS managed to get the middle east and establish an actual legitimate Caliphate... Israel better have those nukes ready... and the countries with high Muslim populations better be ready themselves.

 

Anyway been calling them ISIS all this time and Daesh seems a pointless politically correct thing to call them. 

[LordRahl2]

Wrote this for other people a few years ago and did not censor it for this forum so I apologize for the word filters:

 

/////////////////////////

 

 

 

WARNING: The below is too long, didn't read:

Ok well I am about to try the impossible: finding common ground on this forum regarding the Israel/Palestine/Arab/US question.  

Since Obama forwarded his abortive way ahead in the peace process there has been considerable consternation on this board with some very extreme views put forth.  Nick holds a Pro-Israeli stance almost to the exclusion of logic.  Shadow advances an Anti-Israeli viewpoint that, frankly, ignores reality.  The “truth†if such a thing exists lies somewhere else.  I think the main problem with this discussions is that we are approaching the problem without a full framework or a grasp on the history and the complexity of the subject.  

I tend to argue from a strictly realist standpoint on this forum mainly because through disagreement and the argumentative process the appropriate moral aspect will leak into the discussion.  In this case I will attempt to provide a reasonable moral grounding for the way ahead along with a realist viewpoint.  This synthesis is historically an excellent way to address such problems successfully.

On of the hardest things to do is to pick a starting point.  I have selected the date when the US actually became an ally of the US, 1967.  Some small facts before I begin: 1) Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc were all creations of the British and the French after WW1 and the dissolution of the Ottomans.  Look up the good Mr. Sykes and Mr. Picot for more information.  2)At the time none of these states had any national identity per se (They do today including Palestine).  3)As a general point most regional states such as the Jordanians were happy to have the Jewish state of Israel tying up the Palestinians. 4)Egypt created the PLO.  At the time Egypt was attempting to rebuild an Arab superstate with Egypt as the nucleus of course.  The PLO was an organization dedicated to that purpose, ie. It was not conceived as a nationalist movement but as part of a trans-national concept.  The Soviets later took the lead with the PLO, but that is another story.

Prior to 1967 Israel had been a first a Soviet then a French(who gave them nuclear tech by the way) client, not a US client as common mythology holds forth.  In fact the only aid we were supplying Israel beyond one SAM shipment (which went primarily to Muslim states) was foodstuffs.  It is instructive that US/Arab relationship sucked when the only thing we were doing was giving some food to an impoverished French client.  Anyway in 1967 the Six day war highlighted to the French that their perceived interests, reestablishing good relations with the Arab states following the Algerian conflict, no longer coincided with support to Israel.  Coincidentally, the US strategy of containment at the time was facing a serious threat in the region.  The initial containment strategy had been the strengthening of Turkey (and Greece) with the specific goal to block the Bosporus straight hence containing the Soviet Black Sea fleet's access to the MED.  In the early 60s the Soviets leapfrogged the initial line of containment and established allies with Syria, Iraq, and Egypt.  This put immense pressure on the Turks and required a regional counterweight.  Lucky for us Israel was available as it drifted out from under the French.  

So there in a nutshell is the realist view of how the US-Israeli alliance began.  Now there was a moral justification as well.  It's genesis was FDR's “Arsenal of Democracyâ€.  To be honest, not all democracies share the Grand Strategic Goals of the United States.  Increasingly in the 21st century they will not.  However, human rights in general are more prevalent in such states because if you oppress to large a percentage of your population, commit indefensible actions abroad, fail to defend your people, or are perceived to be doing these things by reasonable voters in your state you will get thrown out on your ass.  Here is where Shadow's argument goes awry in my humble opinion.  If the Israeli voters believed that their government was committing “war crimes†they would have changed course.  Israelis are human beings and many actually give a !@#$ about other human beings.  I believe that if there was a reasonable course of action available to them they would force their government to engage in that strategy.  Israel has in fact suggested such courses of action in the past and been blocked by various groups pursuing self-interested goals.  Using the conventional military to bomb selected targets in retaliation to attacks or as a preemptive strike to block said actions is not an unreasonable strategy.  Reasonable states engage in this strategy frequently.  Casualties do in fact result, this is a tragedy but it is a reality of how states and nations act/interact and does not constitute a war crime.  Like all moral arguments this one is not perfect.  But I submit that supporting democracies that have already formed and act in a reasonable manner is a decent moral course of action to help guide US policy.  No Israel is not committing “war crimesâ€.

Now let us take a brief(ish) foray back into the history of geopolitics.  In 1967 the US became the major sponsor of Israel.  Our aid constituted a huge percent of their GDP at the time 20ish% (today it is like 1.4% so lets let that argument go people).  Above and beyond which we provided both technology transfer and reasonable guarantees of protection.  In return Israel balanced the Soviet client states for us.  They did this quite successfully mind you.  Egypt drifted away from the Soviets and the Egyptian ports were unable to significantly counter US dominance in the MED.  Syria remained, but was isolated and unable to force direct action.  Syria became warped up in the issues of Lebanon.  Jordan became, effectively, a client state of Israel.  Iraq was unable to sustain a long term deployment opposing Israel (or Turkey) when confronted with the Iranian threat.  The Saudis reinforced the Iran/Iraq BOP.  The end result was an effective block of the Soviet move to gain control of the Bosporus.  Regional containment succeed.  This along with a few other huge successes in the world this led to US victory in the Cold War.  So yes, Onishi, Israel has been an effective ally.  If you had framed your question differently, say post 1991, you would have received a different answer from me.

Low lets take a gander at where the region are today from inside Israel out.  Israel has secure borders on all sides, a competent standing army with a respectably large number of short term soldiers available from reservists.  Inside Israel the nation of Palestine is internally divided (near a civil war without the “external†threat of Israel) and capable of irritating but in no way devastating attacks against Israel.   Egypt is the most important regional player from Israels strategic outlook.  The stable relations between the two derive from geopolitical reality (the Sinai peninsula makes direct assault extraordinarily risky.)  The one wild-card is how the Egyptian military will shepard, or not, Egypts current political system to conclusion.  Syria is a weakened state with internal discontent and a focus on Lebanon, not on Israel.  Jordan remains cautious but with interests strongly against a direct confrontation with Israel.  Turkey is a rising power and is making somewhat aggressive regional moves.  Still, they have a long way to go before achieving the power base to impact Israel directly.  Iraq is decimated and will remain very weak.  Iran is licking its chops eying its region and realizing that it is soon to have overwhelming power if the US withdraws from Iraq.  The Saudis are terrified of this fact (Iranian power) and looking for any way to restore regional balance.

All the above being said, there is only one way for Israel to come under an actual threat to its existence.  That is to respond in such a way against irritant Palestinian attacks that they cause a direct response from Iran.  And there is the rub.  Out of all the complexity that is the Levant region, and I did not in fact delve into it deeply, US support blocks Iran from responding to Israeli excess at the moment.  So we have, in a round about way, the power to ratchet this situation up or down by either maintaining, increasing, or decreasing this block.  The Soviets no longer threaten our strategy of containment by encircling Turkey.  Israel is secure locally and has the freedom to create a new reality on the ground.  The US is responsible for destabilizing the Iraq/Iran Balance of Power.  Israel has yet to take actions to the extreme against the Palestinian people, or to be perceived by their people to have done so.

Israel is a democracy.  Like it or not the one successful guiding moral principle of the US has been to support such governments.  We have not done this consistently by any stretch of the imagination but it is THE successful unifying moral theme of our foreign policy in the last 60 years.  Since we became the sole superpower in 1989-1991 we have attempted to generate a new moral compass by a) opposing genocide or creating democracies.  Both have failed to achieve their stated goals and have run counter to the realist view of supporting regional balances of power.  Fascinatingly, since they were applied in spite of, not in concert with, realism they have failed and weakened the US's core interests.  Still, as we strain in the greater Mid-East region to develop a new balance of power continuing support to Israel may not be in our fundamental interests.

Back to a short stint of morality vis-a-vi Palestine and Israel.  Is it “immoral†for Europeans in the US, Australia, or Brazil to occupy lands taken from nations who occupied them previously.  That argument is a straw man.  It is exactly the same straw man saying it is “immoral†for Israel to occupy Palestine.  Still, straw people aside, there is a whole host of moral issues with a state occupying a nation that desires to be free.  On the flip side, deciding to free a nation that tells you its core tenant is to refuse to recognize your right to exist is an almost indefensible position.  These issues are a bit to entangled for an easy answer.  Hence my proposal to decouple the debate from them and develop a reasonable way ahead.  Nor, to bring realpolitik back into the mix, is a negotiated settlement in Palestine of vital interest to the USA.  So the above moral argument need not necessarily enter into the debate.

Deciding whether or not the selected moral argument coincides with current US geopolitical priorities is how this question should be debated among the elite in the US today.  I say the elite because to be honest we must hide US foreign policy behind a series of smoke and mirrors explanations.  As long as the US's actions remain based on a moral compass and are in line with geopolitical reality there will not be any fundamentally immoral behavior in hiding what we are doing.  If we can tone out the extremes it is my sincere hope that the President(s) can chart us such a course.

So here are the questions given the above tldr:
Is supporting Israel morally justified?  What is the moral justification?
Should the US continue financial aid to Israel?  Why/why not?
Should the US support the actual development of a Palestinian State? Why/why not?
What if any grand strategic purpose does an alliance with Israel serve today?

-I tried to keep some semblance of order to my post, but I am not receiving a grade and if you dislike its lack of polish do not read it.
-This may shock you but I do have a way forward.  I would like to debate this framework and reach some reasonable understanding before we collectivly look for a way ahead.  
-Notice that I did not mention the G word or the H word once in the whole tldr.  If you can keep from doing so you might find that you actually advance the question rather than spinning into rhetoric.

OP request:  Feel free to throw in some XD Random and abuse the !@#$ out of me at will.  I am a big boy and will beat your ass into the ground using my keyboard.  I do not think it advances the debate any but if it makes you feel better go ahead.  However, please try to avoid ad hom attacks/abuse against people giving honest answers.

Edited August 20, 2015 by LordRahl2

[Thalmor]

How about we just have another Crusade?

[Kyoko]

God this is an embarrassing  (and disgustingly racist) thread