I believe it is more of a pick side. In this age, you can not be on the side lines. So chose!
2006-08-03 13:25:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Grandreal 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
In the short term you can strive for peace (now) but you would be remise in not considering the long term. Hezbollah is doing the dirty work for several Mid Eastern political entities (Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Egypt etc.) that have strong Muslim populations which have a long term agenda that does not include peace, until the infidel is dead. All the infidel.
Does this sound extreme or peaceful to you? If it sounds peaceful, understand you are the infidel, unless you are Muslim. Sounds pretty radical to me.
The radical Muslims that have hijacked the Islamic faith, need to put down. Jihad is want they want. All other faiths of the world need to unite under the same umbrella (about 'peace') that you ask. I'll para-phrase: isn't there room enough in the world for all of us? If so, why must one religion wage war on another and insist another religious group (Jews) and all other non believers (Christians, Buddahist, Hindus, Zoroasters, etc, etc. everyone else other than Mulsims) must go. Sounds VERY radical to me.
So cry 'peace now' all you want to. But get ready to be a Muslim or die.
To learn more about one persons perspective who was a PLO terrorist, that is now a Christian, and grew up under Islamic rule, check out the web site below.
2006-08-03 13:36:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is such a "simple" question for such a sensitive issue. Supporting further military aggression, or choosing to side with either group could lead to a temporary end in the conflict/battle, but it would not end the mutual resentment it feeds from.
Working for peace by addressing the core social issues instead of supporting this cycle of retaliation should end in lasting change. Of course, some countries would tend to be biased according to their economic, political, and religious leanings.
2006-08-03 13:23:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by ELI 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are no sides...Hezbollah is not a country, its a terrorist group. Hezbollah crossed the border, murdered israeli soliders and kidnapp the survivors. All other countries would consider this an act of war.
Let me repeat that...every single country, on earth, would consider that an act of war. Whether you want to impose a different standard on Israelis is an issue of anti-semitism or insane leftists sentiments.
2006-08-03 13:15:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Do what you feel is right. You cannot be told which side you want to be on. I would research both sides and then come up with a choice/option.
2006-08-03 13:13:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by fUnKi BaBi 69 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Since Israel only wants peace and Hezbollah wants to destroy
Israel, to work for peace is to support Israel and oppose Hezbollah.
Israel has never initiated any attacks on it's Arab neighbors in the 50 years that I have been paying attention to this issue in the news.
Every time there is any violence, it is initiated by the Arabs, responded to by the Israelis, and then lied about by the Arabs.
If the Arabs stopped attacking Israel, there would be peace. If Israel stopped defending itself, There would be no Israel.
2006-08-03 13:35:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by Smartassawhip 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Since when does God care what benefits an agnostic society?
2006-08-03 13:14:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Working for peace is always the best action, but what do you do when neither side wants peace, but conflict?
2006-08-03 13:24:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by weaver0322@sbcglobal.net 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I won't choose either side. I'll let God settle it.
2006-08-03 13:13:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by Who am I? 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
We should work for peace. Each side has valid points but violence never settled anything.
2006-08-03 13:16:20
·
answer #10
·
answered by karen wonderful 6
·
0⤊
0⤋