Originally posted by AThousandYounghey, im not a christian zealot and im on israel's side.
How come the only people to take Israel's side on this site are Christian zealots?
well not on their side as thats a bit simplistic (suggests taht i will support them in any endeavour) but i totally understand where they were coming from with lebanon.
If we're going to start slapping simplistic labels around, I probably qualify as a Christian zealot who's opposed to Israel. So between myself and davidtravelling, the wild generalisation being proposed in this thread falls apart pretty quickly.
Perhaps the most depressing thing about being a left-wing(ish) Christian is watching the RIGHT-wing Christians hog the limelight.
Originally posted by orfeoWhat is the difference between being a left-wing Christian zealot and an Islamic one?
If we're going to start slapping simplistic labels around, I probably qualify as a Christian zealot who's opposed to Israel. So between myself and davidtravelling, the wild generalisation being proposed in this thread falls apart pretty quickly.
Perhaps the most depressing thing about being a left-wing(ish) Christian is watching the RIGHT-wing Christians hog the limelight.
Originally posted by PhilodorThe difference between zealots - Christian or Islamic - is not that great.
What is the difference between being a left-wing Christian zealot and an Islamic one?
A point lost on many ...
I think right wing Christians are interchangeable with the very clique they demonise. Ironic, huh?
Originally posted by PhilodorThe only response I'm going to dignify that with is to say that I wouldn't describe myself as a zealot.
What is the difference between being a left-wing Christian zealot and an Islamic one?
But I knew that if I stuck around this thread long enough some word along those lines would have turned up - so I might as well beat everybody to the punch.
No, wait, here's the obvious answer to your question: reading material.
I'm certainly not rabidly against Israel. I don't advocate the destruction of the state or anything, nor do I think Israel should have just sat back and allowed two if its soldiers to be kidnapped. In my view, it was Hezbollah that started this whole sorry episode. But it was Israel that turned it into a war and an international crisis. It's the total lack of proportionality I object to.
What was wrong with gathering some intelligence and then sending a small force of elite troops to where the soldiers were being held? They would have killed maybe... I don't know, maybe a dozen or so members of Hezbollah. The ones directly responsible. I suspect the great majority of the Lebanese population would have tolerated such an operation.
But instead, Israel has displaced around a million people from their homes and killed a thousand, and last I heard the month of fighting hadn't actually led to the rescue of the original two soldiers.
When discussing the (then upcoming) ceasefire, one minister in the Israeli government said words along the line of: "If Hezbollah throws a rock across the border, a Lebanese village will be flattened." I'm sure that kind of attitude appeals to a portion of his constituents, but it horrifies me.
And yes, there are people in the Islamic world who engage in the same kind of rhetoric. The difference is that, on current form, Israel has both the capacity and the will to carry it out.
I hate it when something as complex as the middle east's is simply reduced to something as simple as what is shown in the news. I must say that if someone considers Israel's responses to the Hezbolla missiles entirely justified, then they are making a complex situation black-and-white. Alternately, if someone thinks that Israel should not have done anything about the missiles, or that Hezbollah was right to launch those missiles into Israel, then they, too, are simplifying a truly complex situation.