Vatican chides U.S. , U.N. for allowing Israel/Lebanon conflict to escalate

[Richard Tafoya]

From the "What would Jesus do?" side of the equation.

Catholic World News:
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=45335

The Holy See has protested Israel's air raids on Lebanon, condemning both terrorist acts and reprisals that violate national sovereignty and strike at innocent civilians.

"As in the past, the Holy See also condemns both the terrorist attacks on the one side and the military reprisals on the other," he continued." He argued that Israel's right to self-defense "does not exempt it from respecting the norms of international law, especially as regards the protection of civilian populations."

"In particular," the statement continued, "the Holy See deplores the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation."

[pinky]

As someone who did a long term paper on the just war theory, I'm not surprised to read this.

[Richard Tafoya]

The Vatican is now criticizing the US for blocking implementation of a withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=45368
The Vatican newspaper has sharply chided the "do-nothing policy" of the UN regarding the mounting violence in the Middle East, and chided the US for using its veto power to "prevent the adoption of concrete measures in support of international law."

L'Osservatore Romano lamented that after the UN Security Council failed to authorize immediate action, the international body had "again become a spectator" as violence increased, with violent assaults continuing "from both sides."

L'Osservatore provided an account of UN debates on July 14, when a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon-- urgently requested by that country's government-- failed. The US, which had earlier vetoed a resolution calling for Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, suggested that the blame for the latest violence should fall on Iran and Syria, for sponsoring Hezbollah terrorism. The French delegation, on the other hand, said that the Israeli attacks on Lebanon were a "disproportionate" response to Hezbollah.
Darn those Christians. Don't they know there's killing to be done?

[Java]

I'd venture to say that the vast majority of the people living in Lebanon had nothing to do with those few crooks would started this conflict by kidnapping those Israeli soldiers. In my opinion its savage to go after a whole nation like this just because of a few crooks, and in every nation there will always be a few crooks - just that some are more notorious than others. About the only thing to come out of Israel's chosen response to this are incitations to more and greater violence.

[Regis Philbin]

Let's remember that Hezbollah and Hamas picked this fight with Israel when they kidnapped those soldiers---an act of war. Israel is completely within their rights to do what they're doing. If the terrorists would give up the soldiers, the war stops. Simple as that.

As for the U.S., I'm sure that we hope Israel just keeps going and does away with Hezbollah for good. We may talk "restraint" in public but I'm sure in private we're telling them to keep up the good work...probably got more ammo and supplies on the way to Israel as we speak.

As for the U.N., they will do their best to stop the conflict by brokering some absurd deal that will assure Hezbollah's survival so we'll go through this whole war thing again in the future. Proving themselves do be the absolutely worthless organization that they are. :rolleye2:

As for Jesus, he always said we had the right to defend ourselves and our property, as he was doing when he threw the moneychangers out of the temple...

[Stopanimalabuse]

I'd venture to say that the vast majority of the people living in Lebanon had nothing to do with those few crooks would started this conflict by kidnapping those Israeli soldiers.
This has been an ongoing war that has been happening on and off since 1948. It certainly didn't start a few days ago. Jews choosing Arab territory as their "homeland" is similar to white seperatists choosing to live in the middle of Africa as their homeland. The violence and wars would be obvious. The Balfour declaration was signed by the British government;they made no action to enforce it. People knew the problems this would cause, and were very reluctant about it. Madagascar would have been a good choice, and Idaho and Montana probably would have been ideal.

Israeli's taking over Palestine because they lived there at one point is no different than Mexicans taking over California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, or the indians taking back much of America because they had lived there at one time. If every group of people claimed territory because they used to live there, you would have war in just about every country. This conflict clearly began in 1948, and every action has been a result of that.

[Stopanimalabuse]

Let's remember that Hezbollah and Hamas picked this fight with Israel when they kidnapped those soldiers---an act of war.
I was ignored in the other thread, and I'll likely be ignored here as well. However, this statement amazes me. If you think Israel has no hostages of other groups like Hamas or Hezbollah, I don't even know what to say. I guess one group takes 150 hostages or so and it's okay, but another group takes 2 hostages and it's an "act of war". That makes a lot of sense.

[Stopanimalabuse]

My brother wants to live in Idaho, so he doesn't like my idea. Maybe Florida would be a better state for a homeland.

I'm curious to know what our founding fathers would think about this. Franklin was considered very "anti-semetic", and Washington was an isolationist who didn't believe the United States should be promoting wars in other countries. There's no way I could see them supporting this war.

[Richard Tafoya]

As for Jesus, he always said we had the right to defend ourselves and our property, as he was doing when he threw the moneychangers out of the temple...
Always? Trot out the quotes. Must be several in each Gospel if he came back to this point so often.

[pinky]

As for Jesus, he always said we had the right to defend ourselves and our property, as he was doing when he threw the moneychangers out of the temple...
However, he did NOT kill the moneychangers and many of the people around them.

[Richard Tafoya]

Jesus wasn't big on collateral damage?

[Stopanimalabuse]

I'm not sure if it was talked about on this board, but around 200 people from India were killed by explosions taking a train. A Pakistani "terrorist" group has been held responsible. These two countries have similarities to the Israeli conflict. Israel has maybe 10,000 prisoners(Israeli sources claim these are linked to Hamas and other groups, while non-Israeli sources have said that a large percent are civilians). Basically, Israel can take prisoners anytime it wants to, but when they have one or two soldiers taken in a way that the other countries can have their prisoners returned, they decide to react this way. Hostages have been taken throughout human history, but I can't remember even one country acting half this violent. If India acted this way towards Pakistan after that incident, I wonder what would happen. Maybe a nuclear war with 100 million casulties? Thankfully India's government doesn't behave that way.

[pinky]

Perhaps the fact that both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons is what keeps them from reacting the way Israel is doing right now.
Jews choosing Arab territory as their "homeland" is similar to white seperatists choosing to live in the middle of Africa as their homeland. The violence and wars would be obvious. The Balfour declaration was signed by the British government;they made no action to enforce it. People knew the problems this would cause, and were very reluctant about it. Madagascar would have been a good choice, and Idaho and Montana probably would have been ideal.You're ignoring the fact that the Jews consider the land on which Israel is located as sacred to them, given to them by God for all time. That makes your comparison to white separatists locating in Africa ludicrous, as well as your suggestion that Madagascar, Idaho, or Montana would have been acceptable, let alone "ideal."

Since your brother doesn't want the Jews to have Idaho, can we assume he's as unbigoted as you? :rolleyes:

[Stopanimalabuse]

Perhaps the fact that both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons is what keeps them from reacting the way Israel is doing right now.
You're ignoring the fact that the Jews consider the land on which Israel is located as sacred to them, given to them by God for all time. That makes your comparison to white separatists locating in Africa ludicrous, as well as your suggestion that Madagascar, Idaho, or Montana would have been acceptable, let alone "ideal."

Since your brother doesn't want the Jews to have Idaho, can we assume he's as unbigoted as you? :rolleyes:
:zzz: Let's just say that I was fired maybe 3 years ago. I was told I was "slow" but my view is that it was a race issue. I hadn't thought much of racial issues before then. My brother is far worse than I'll ever be, but I'm not going to repeat the stuff he has said. People here would be very angry. I wouldn't even say he has influenced me though. I get along very well with my cousin(who is mixed), and I will continue to support charitable groups who do a lot of good for humans, regardless of which race they help. My parents have criticized my brother to his face countless times, but they don't make comments like that to me. So, it's really only people who are very ignorant of anything I stand for who have used a term like hateful or bigot.

You're ignoring the fact that many Zionists supported the Madagascar Plan. Some Jews may see it as sacred, but others don't. Every person on this planet could have seen the problems this would bring about, and it has been shown to be correct. Maybe if you were a Palestinian refugee who suffered greatly from this, you'd understand.

[Stopanimalabuse]

Also, Pinky, do we still have that agreement? My claim was that 6 million Jews were not murdered, so I'd go through great lengths to embarass myself if I found out that did happen. I'd also apologize to the gypsies as well and just about every other group. I believe you had said that you would apologize to all of the German people if you found out you were wrong. So, do we still have that agreement?

[pinky]

I have no idea what "agreement" you're talking about. There would be no need to apologize to "all of the German people" because not all Germans were Nazis. So I don't recall ever having said I would.

[Stopanimalabuse]

I don't remember exactly what the agreement was. That's why I asked. I do remember it involved apologizing and you agreed to it.

I have said this before, but there is a belief among many people that the Jews were Khazars. This would mean that they have no link to the original Israelites, and that they were never there. There's nothing sacred about that area then. Neither of us has evidence one way or the other. The debate will continue.

Could you give me two examples where a government has acted like Israel's has over an incident like that? Events like that happen frequently. Pakistan and India had border clashes long before they were nuclear powers. There was the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980. Hezbollah had held many Western hostages in 1990. Hostages are held in Iraq very frequently. Israel has approximately 10,000 Palestinian "prisoners". None of these incidences have involved massive bombing of another country like this. I can't even think of one incident where a reaction like this has taken place, so clearly this is a case where the Israeli government is acting up.

You have criticized a white homeland as being hateful, yet you don't seem to mind a Jewish homeland being formed. Could you explain how that's not a double standard? My ideal society would involve some form of both. I'll just look at the United States. There would be a mixed area, land dedicated to all 4 races(it does appear that there are far more racial groups than just 4 but I won't go into that any further), and there would be land dedicated to all of the religious groups as well. There would also be land for the vegetarians. Then again, killing animals would be illegal, so every person would be a vegetarian. Every group would have some form of a homeland, and people would have the freedom to move about from one to the other. It also promotes consistency.

[pinky]

You've obviously not read too many of my posts regarding Israel. I've said more than once that I don't agree with the fact that Israel was formed. However, nearly 60 years of its existence means that it is a political reality that the rest of the Middle Eastern nations must accept and deal with.

I've also not expressed any support whatsoever with what Israel is doing right now to Lebanon.

If you want to know what agreement we supposedly made, look it up. I don't have the time or inclination to do so.

[Stopanimalabuse]

You've obviously not read too many of my posts regarding Israel. I've said more than once that I don't agree with the fact that Israel was formed. However, nearly 60 years of its existence means that it is a political reality that the rest of the Middle Eastern nations must accept and deal with.

I've also not expressed any support whatsoever with what Israel is doing right now to Lebanon.

If you want to know what agreement we supposedly made, look it up. I don't have the time or inclination to do so.
There are a lot of posts on this board I don't read, so you're probably right. Then I apologize. I know there are a lot of people who do feel that Israel is acceptable while other homelands are not. Maybe one of these days I'll have my brother send you a PM. His talk regarding Liberals is similar to Regis' statements, and his statements regarding race would boggle a person's mind. He doesn't use violence and I don't believe he supports a group like Aryan Nation so I wouldn't necessarily say he is an extremist but it would be interesting to see the two of you argue.