UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United Nations voted overwhelmingly Thursday to recognize a Palestinian state, a long-sought victory for the Palestinians but an embarrassing diplomatic defeat for the United States.
The resolution upgrading the Palestinians' status to a nonmember observer state at the United Nations was approved by a more than two-thirds majority of the 193-member world body — a vote of 138-9, with 41 abstentions.
A Palestinian flag was quickly unfurled on the floor of the General Assembly, behind the Palestinian delegation. In the West Bank city of Ramallah, hundreds crowded into the main square waved Palestinian flags and chanted "God is great." Others who had crowded around outdoor screens and television sets to watch the vote hugged, honked and set off fireworks before dancing in the streets.
Real independence, however, remains an elusive dream until the Palestinians negotiate a peace deal with the Israelis, who warned that the General Assembly action will only delay a lasting solution. Israel still controls the West Bank, east Jerusalem and access to Gaza, and it accused the Palestinians of bypassing negotiations with the campaign to upgrade their U.N. status.
The United States immediately criticized the historic vote. "Today's unfortunate and counterproductive resolution places further obstacles in the path peace," U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said. And U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called the vote "unfortunate" and "counterproductive."
The United States and Israel voted against recognition, joined by Canada, the Czech Republic, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Panama.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the speech by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to the General Assembly shortly before the vote "defamatory and venomous," saying it was "full of mendacious propaganda" against Israel. He called the vote meaningless.
Abbas had told the General Assembly that it was "being asked today to issue the birth certificate of Palestine." Abbas said the vote is the last chance to save the two-state solution.
After the vote, Netanyahu said the UN move violated past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians and that Israel would act accordingly, without elaborating what steps it might take.
Just before the vote, Israel's U.N. ambassador, Ron Prosor, warned the General Assembly that "the Palestinians are turning their backs on peace" and that the U.N. can't break the 4,000-year-old bond between the people of Israel and the land of Israel.
The vote had been certain to succeed, with most of the member states sympathetic to the Palestinians. Several key countries, including France, this week announced they would support the move to elevate the Palestinians from the status of U.N. observer to nonmember observer state.
Thursday's vote came on the same day, Nov. 29, that the U.N. General Assembly in 1947 voted to recognize a state in Palestine, with the jubilant revelers then Jews. The Palestinians rejected that partition plan, and decades of tension and violence have followed.
The vote grants Abbas an overwhelming international endorsement for his key position: establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war. With Netanyahu opposed to a pullback to the 1967 lines, this should strengthen Abbas' hand if peace talks resume.
The overwhelming vote also could help Abbas restore some of his standing, which has been eroded by years of standstill in peace efforts. His rival, Hamas, deeply entrenched in Gaza, has seen its popularity rise after an Israeli offensive on targets linked to the Islamic militant group there earlier this month.
Israel has stepped back from initial threats of harsh retaliation for the Palestinians seeking U.N. recognition, but government officials warned that Israel would respond to any Palestinian attempts to use the upgraded status to confront Israel in international bodies.
The Palestinians now can gain access to U.N. agencies and international bodies, most significantly the International Criminal Court, which could become a springboard for going after Israel for alleged war crimes or its ongoing settlement building on war-won land.
However, in the run-up to the U.N. vote, Abbas signaled that he wants recognition to give him leverage in future talks with Israel, and not as a tool for confronting or delegitimizing Israel, as Israeli leaders have alleged.
So now any further rocket attacks will not be the act of terrorists, but acts of war from one nation upon another.
Israel should recognize them, and at the next attack take over for good.
Maybe Israel will stop with its ridiculously out of proportion reprisals now? Because they'll be considered an act of war? Maybe the Israeli settlements will stop as well? Because they'll count as Israel attempting to invade Palestine, rather than just "O Israel, you go ahead and take that land that doesn't belong to you, it's okay because Palestine isn't a country".
Maybe Israel won't threaten to kill the leaders of the government of what is now recognised as a state, rather than a "political organisation"?
I can write hypothetical questions as well, and a lot of what Israel has done counts as an act of war as much as, if not more, than what you wrote in the OP.
Israel should recognize them, and at the next attack take over for good.
Do you honestly think that would work? In practical terms it will just lead to a prolonged and very bloody insurrection and in political terms Israel will become a pariah state.
This is very good news, maybe the end is finally in sight.
The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves. Now you really do that as it would be Palestine making war on Israel, one nation state being an agressor and the other making war in retribution.
Grey Templar wrote: The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves.
Yeah, that silly international outrage. How dare anyone be bothered when Israel exercises its god-given right to kill innocent civilians because someone in the general area might have once launched a rocket at them.
Grey Templar wrote: The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves.
Yeah, that silly international outrage. How dare anyone be bothered when Israel exercises its god-given right to kill innocent civilians because someone in the general area might have once launched a rocket at them.
Thats quite a simplified version of the situation. Hamas deliberatly hides behind civilians, and Israel warns them to get out of the way. Often repeatedly.
Grey Templar wrote: The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves. Now you really do that as it would be Palestine making war on Israel, one nation state being an agressor and the other making war in retribution.
And the theft of Palestinian land by Israel is what? Israel just nicking a bit of spare land? If you want to say that the Palestinian attacks count as an act of war, you have to accept that the Israeli settlement of Palestinian land counts as an invasion.
Grey Templar wrote: The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves.
Yeah, that silly international outrage. How dare anyone be bothered when Israel exercises its god-given right to kill innocent civilians because someone in the general area might have once launched a rocket at them.
Thats quite a simplified version of the situation. Hamas deliberatly hides behind civilians, and Israel warns them to get out of the way. Often repeatedly.
And then when they don't, Israel just blows them up and writes off the civilian deaths as the cost of ensuring that the target is dead. By this ridiculous reasoning every time a suspected murderer or other criminal takes hostages the police should respond by blowing up the building and killing everyone. Except they don't, because civilized people understand that it's not acceptable to just kill anyone who gets in the way of killing who you really want to kill. Sometimes civilized people just have to accept that they can't kill their target this time, and wait for a better opportunity.
Grey Templar wrote: The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves. Now you really do that as it would be Palestine making war on Israel, one nation state being an agressor and the other making war in retribution.
And the theft of Palestinian land by Israel is what? Israel just nicking a bit of spare land? If you want to say that the Palestinian attacks count as an act of war, you have to accept that the Israeli settlement of Palestinian land counts as an invasion.
Technically, the land was not part of any nation state so it couldn't have been invasion. The Palestinians have never ever had their own country.
Anything after this would be invasion of course, but not before this point in time.
Grey Templar wrote: The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves.
Yeah, that silly international outrage. How dare anyone be bothered when Israel exercises its god-given right to kill innocent civilians because someone in the general area might have once launched a rocket at them.
Thats quite a simplified version of the situation. Hamas deliberatly hides behind civilians, and Israel warns them to get out of the way. Often repeatedly.
"Get out of the way, we think theres a terrorist hiding among you and we're going to fire rockets at your homes to kill him, if you don't move it's your fault that you die"
Besides, who are you saying is being warned to get out of the way? Hamas? The Civilians?
Grey Templar wrote: The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves.
Yeah, that silly international outrage. How dare anyone be bothered when Israel exercises its god-given right to kill innocent civilians because someone in the general area might have once launched a rocket at them.
The Israelis are consistently seen launching strikes back at places where rockets were in fact launched from. It is not their fault that Palestinian groups put those sites up in the middle of a civilian population. You make it sound as if the Palestinians don't kill innocent civilians, while the Israelis are randomly shelling apartments full of civilians just for the hell of it.
JEB_Stuart wrote: The Israelis are consistently seen launching strikes back at places where rockets were in fact launched from. It is not their fault that Palestinian groups put those sites up in the middle of a civilian population.
If the rockets are fired from places with civilians nearby then you send in troops to carefully deal with it, you don't flatten the whole building with an airstrike. Is it more difficult? Of course. But civilized people understand that you don't always get to do things the easiest way and ignore the consequences.
You make it sound as if the Palestinians don't kill innocent civilians, while the Israelis are randomly shelling apartments full of civilians just for the hell of it.
Obviously there's guilt on both sides, but:
1) Israel claims to be a civilized, modern nation, and gets obscene amounts of military aid from us. If they want to be judged by the standards of a terrorist organization hiding in a poverty-crippled occupied territory then it's time to revoke their status as a legitimate nation and place their territory under someone else's control.
2) Israel's response is massively disproportionate. Some Palestinian launches a rocket that lands in the middle of nowhere and kills nobody, Israel drops an airstrike on the "guilty" party and anyone who happens to be within the blast radius without any apparent concern over how many innocent people die in the process.
Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?
The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.
Grey Templar wrote: Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?
What part of "you don't get to kill innocent civilians just to make your job easier" is so hard to understand? Part of being a civilized nation is accepting that sometimes you have to expose your troops to additional risk to avoid massacring innocent civilians.
The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.
Then if you can't do it without inflicting dozens of civilian casualties you don't get to do it at all. Deal with it.
Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?
The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.
Your estimation of the level of Militant deaths compared to civilian deaths is way out.
There have been almost twice as many civilian deaths as there have been militant deaths. (55 militants to 103 Civilians, according to the BBC
Grey Templar wrote: Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?
What part of "you don't get to kill innocent civilians just to make your job easier" is so hard to understand? Part of being a civilized nation is accepting that sometimes you have to expose your troops to additional risk to avoid massacring innocent civilians.
The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.
Then if you can't do it without inflicting dozens of civilian casualties you don't get to do it at all. Deal with it.
So Israel should just take the rocket attacks on the chin if its possable civilians might get harmed? When those rocket attack victims are almost always Israeli civilians and never Israeli military?
Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?
Or they could actually try not to be provocative with their methodical land grabs/sanctions/everything else and genuinely try some diplomacy for once. Put yourself in a Palestinians shoes, what would you do?
Grey Templar wrote: Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?
What part of "you don't get to kill innocent civilians just to make your job easier" is so hard to understand? Part of being a civilized nation is accepting that sometimes you have to expose your troops to additional risk to avoid massacring innocent civilians.
The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.
Then if you can't do it without inflicting dozens of civilian casualties you don't get to do it at all. Deal with it.
So Israel should just take the rocket attacks on the chin if its possable civilians might get harmed? When those rocket attack victims are almost always Israeli civilians and never Israeli military?
All 6 of those Israeli casualties must be feeling pretty hard done by. And if you want to use the argument that the Palestinians only hit civilians then you have to accept that the Israeli collateral damge levels are too high as well, because whilst there have been 6 Israeli casualties, four of them were civilians, so they (Hamas) have the same levels of "accuracy" as the Israeli "Defence" Force
Grey Templar wrote: Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?
What part of "you don't get to kill innocent civilians just to make your job easier" is so hard to understand? Part of being a civilized nation is accepting that sometimes you have to expose your troops to additional risk to avoid massacring innocent civilians.
"Massacring"? Way to drag an emotional element into it. Maybe you want to start saying it's genocide too?
Please keep yourself grounded in reality when discussing things. Thanks.
The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.
Then if you can't do it without inflicting dozens of civilian casualties you don't get to do it at all. Deal with it.
Really? That's your answer?
Even if it could be done with no civilian casualties and only the destruction of the rocket batteries, the Palestinians(more specifically: the anti-Israel movement which voted Hamas into power) would continue these attacks. They have a stated goal, and it is not simply "equality". Hamas has its roots in the Black Hand and other anti-Zionist/Israel groups which were a thorn in the side of the British managing Palestine after the first world war.
Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?
The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.
Your estimation of the level of Militant deaths compared to civilian deaths is way out.
There have been almost twice as many civilian deaths as there have been militant deaths. (55 militants to 103 Civilians, according to the BBC
That number only considers those who actually were identified as "militants".
Insurgencies are difficult to deal with simply because not everybody wears a uniform or says "Hey, I'm the enemy!".
Peregrine wrote:If the rockets are fired from places with civilians nearby then you send in troops to carefully deal with it, you don't flatten the whole building with an airstrike. Is it more difficult? Of course. But civilized people understand that you don't always get to do things the easiest way and ignore the consequences.
Are you seriously advocating Israeli troops move in to Palestinian territory? That would be counter-productive as this would only further antagonize the situation.
Peregrine wrote:Obviously there's guilt on both sides
If you really think so then instead of offering reactionary judgement, try to understand both sides, and offer criticism to both parties. From what I could tell you were only offering derision for Israel.
Peregrine wrote:1) Israel claims to be a civilized, modern nation, and gets obscene amounts of military aid from us.
Both are true and not mutually exclusive. That being said, North Korea claims to be civilized and modern, as does Syria, Iran, Libya, Egypt, etc., etc. And some of those do receive military aid from the US, notably Egypt. I only compare these nations for the sake of discussion, because based on their actions Israel is the only one of that list that actually practices things like freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. Just something to keep in mind.
Peregrine wrote:If they want to be judged by the standards of a terrorist organization hiding in a poverty-crippled occupied territory then it's time to revoke their status as a legitimate nation and place their territory under someone else's control.
Well then it is time to welcome our new Finnish overlords. I think it is a bit presumptuous that just because a nation doesn't act like, well Finland, means that they should lose their country. That is just a tad bit harsh.
Peregrine wrote:2) Israel's response is massively disproportionate. Some Palestinian launches a rocket that lands in the middle of nowhere and kills nobody, Israel drops an airstrike on the "guilty" party and anyone who happens to be within the blast radius without any apparent concern over how many innocent people die in the process.
This is why Israel has worked very hard at creating shockingly accurate missile technology. It is fair to say that the Israeli response is disproportional, but that doesn't mean it is always a bad thing. It is almost certainly better then an outright invasion of the Gaza strip.
Personally I think that if Israel lightened up on the blockade a bit, and Hamas was not in power the conversation would be radically different and more likely to find a peaceful outcome. Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel is a major sticking point, and it is only fair for the Israelis to deny recognition of Palestine while the elected government of Gaza refuses to to the same for them.
Grey Templar wrote: So Israel should just take the rocket attacks on the chin if its possable civilians might get harmed? When those rocket attack victims are almost always Israeli civilians and never Israeli military?
Nice straw man. We aren't talking about a possibility of civilians being harmed, we're talking about near certainty that innocent civilians will be killed, and in greater numbers than any terrorists. There's a difference between "we might accidentally kill someone if things go badly" and "if we fire this missile we're guaranteed to kill innocent people in addition to our target".
Grey Templar wrote: So Israel should just take the rocket attacks on the chin if its possable civilians might get harmed? When those rocket attack victims are almost always Israeli civilians and never Israeli military?
Nice straw man. We aren't talking about a possibility of civilians being harmed, we're talking about near certainty that innocent civilians will be killed, and in greater numbers than any terrorists. There's a difference between "we might accidentally kill someone if things go badly" and "if we fire this missile we're guaranteed to kill innocent people in addition to our target".
So now they're "terrorists"?
The people firing rockets into Israel aren't "terrorists" by any stretch of the imagination. If Hamas wanted the rocket attacks to end, they'd end.
Grey Templar wrote: So Israel should just take the rocket attacks on the chin if its possable civilians might get harmed? When those rocket attack victims are almost always Israeli civilians and never Israeli military?
Nice straw man. We aren't talking about a possibility of civilians being harmed, we're talking about near certainty that innocent civilians will be killed, and in greater numbers than any terrorists. There's a difference between "we might accidentally kill someone if things go badly" and "if we fire this missile we're guaranteed to kill innocent people in addition to our target".
So now they're "terrorists"?
The people firing rockets into Israel aren't "terrorists" by any stretch of the imagination. If Hamas wanted the rocket attacks to end, they'd end.
He was using the words that Grey Templar used to describe them by in the first post.
What's interesting is how emphatic the vote was. 138 votes for, and just 9 votes against, with 41 abstaining.
And in case anyone's interested, there was apparently a hell of barny behind closed doors here in Australia about it. Our Prime Minister wanted to vote against recognising Palestine just to follow the US line, and much of her party rebelled against here. They ended up with a compromise position to abstain.
Grey Templar wrote: So now any further rocket attacks will not be the act of terrorists, but acts of war from one nation upon another.
Israel should recognize them, and at the next attack take over for good.
Yeah, Israel really wants to have their troops on the ground, in the region administering the place day to day.
For feth's sake, this is a serious issue. Learn something about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves. Now you really do that as it would be Palestine making war on Israel, one nation state being an agressor and the other making war in retribution.
"Oh look, Palestine is firing rockets into Israel, that must be because they're terrorists motivated entirely by evil. And now there's some people saying words, I don't really know or care what they're saying so I'll just assume they're criticising Israel for the only thing I understand about this issue, and that is that Israel is retaliating for those rocket attacks. And now I feel all self-righteous, because I've simplified a complex issue down into evil people and good people, and crazy people defending the evil people."
Your position is absurd. Either learn about this or stop pretending you have a sensible opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Look, in case anyone actually wants to learn something about the situation, here's an interesting picture for you;
That's the King David hotel. It was the centre of the British Administration during the Mandate era. The Jews wanted a better deal than the one being offered, and began their own terror campaign against the British authorities, culminating in the bombing of the King David hotel. It killed 91 people.
I don't condone violence, but I recognise that when you want your own country, you use the tools you have at your disposal. For the Jews at the time, outgunned as they were, that meant bombing campaigns and abductions. It sucks, but that's how it is.
Now, 60 something years later, the Palestinians are doing the same.
And people on-line, with absolutely no understanding of the history of these events, take up this moralistic positions against one side for using whatever weapons they have at their disposal.
And then when they don't, Israel just blows them up and writes off the civilian deaths as the cost of ensuring that the target is dead. By this ridiculous reasoning every time a suspected murderer or other criminal takes hostages the police should respond by blowing up the building and killing everyone. Except they don't, because civilized people understand that it's not acceptable to just kill anyone who gets in the way of killing who you really want to kill. Sometimes civilized people just have to accept that they can't kill their target this time, and wait for a better opportunity.
Lol, you might want to inform America of that, they seemed to be doing a pretty good job of racking up the civillian casualties in the invasion of Iraq. Or Vietnam, or Bosnia, or heck the British. Americans have a long history of being trigger happy and doing a piss poor job at target identification. Yet no one suggests that they aren't a civilized state and that their territory should be handed over to someone else.
Hell 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan and the bombings in Yemen Somalia and Pakistan are analogous to the Palestinians shooting rockets and then Israel bombing them back. Yet there isn't anywhere near the outpouring of vitriol and hate as when Israel kills a few Palestinians.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If they want to be judged by the standards of a terrorist organization hiding in a poverty-crippled occupied territory then it's time to revoke their status as a legitimate nation and place their territory under someone else's control.
Also the only thing that makes a state legitimate is if they can hold the territory they claim. Statehood is a monopoly on force in a given area, everything else is particulars. And I think we can agree that Israel has proven that it is legitimate seeing as it's still standing after three wars and a decades long insurgency.
That's the King David hotel. It was the centre of the British Administration during the Mandate era. The Jews wanted a better deal than the one being offered, and began their own terror campaign against the British authorities, culminating in the bombing of the King David hotel. It killed 91 people.
Yip, and do you know why those 91 people died? Because the British didn't think the Jews would be that audacious. They were actually phoned half an hour before the bomb went off, told there was a bomb, and told to evacuate. The British scoffed at the thought and stayed where they were. Next to the British office was the French office, they were also phoned to clear out, which they did, and didn't suffer a single casualty. I think there is a difference between intending to blow up a building but not hurt anyone, and the Palestinians firing rockets with the intention to kill. Bombs are like gifts, it's that thought that counts, not that you got the result you were aiming for.
Isn't there a US law that disbars them from providing funding for Organizations that recognize palestine as a state? I thought this was an issue when the Palestinians were put on the UN's World Heritage Organization thingy.
I mean, if the US is forced by law to stop funding the UN, well there goes the UN.
Isn't there a US law that disbars them from providing funding for Organizations that recognize palestine as a state? I thought this was an issue when the Palestinians were put on the UN's World Heritage Organization thingy.
I mean, if the US is forced by law to stop funding the UN, well there goes the UN.
I actually think it might be, but I think it is refering to Terrorist organizations and Hamas IIRC is defined as one. So its not directly aimed at Palestine but they simply fall into its scope.
Ratbarf wrote: Yet no one suggests that they aren't a civilized state and that their territory should be handed over to someone else.
Uh, almost every claim that one party involved isn't civilised is directed at Palestine. I mean, you've seen this, haven't you?
And no-one is saying Israel has to hand their territory over to anyone else. People are saying that should stop taking other people's land.
Hell 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan and the bombings in Yemen Somalia and Pakistan are analogous to the Palestinians shooting rockets and then Israel bombing them back. Yet there isn't anywhere near the outpouring of vitriol and hate as when Israel kills a few Palestinians.
Well I guess everything is okay then. I mean seriously, dude, you honestly think 'oh people aren't as outraged when people needlessly die in this other situation' is a defence?
Also the only thing that makes a state legitimate is if they can hold the territory they claim.
I think you're about 350 years behind in your reading on international law.
Yip, and do you know why those 91 people died? Because the British didn't think the Jews would be that audacious. They were actually phoned half an hour before the bomb went off, told there was a bomb, and told to evacuate. The British scoffed at the thought and stayed where they were. Next to the British office was the French office, they were also phoned to clear out, which they did, and didn't suffer a single casualty. I think there is a difference between intending to blow up a building but not hurt anyone, and the Palestinians firing rockets with the intention to kill. Bombs are like gifts, it's that thought that counts, not that you got the result you were aiming for.
Oh look, and when the side you've chosen blows up a building, there's all kinds of excuses and rationalisations. You know that wasn't the only violent act they undertook... they were pretty hardcore. And while violence is wrong and all that, you have to say well they were trying to fight for their own country, and that kind of stuff is what it took.
Basically, they weren't an anything. They weren't a part of Israel, and they weren't a nation in their own right. Now they're recognised as a territory in their own right, albeit not one that is yet a full member nation of the UN.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: The same thing they are after, squatters.
That's fething lovely. I mean, really just fething delightful.
People fething live there. They were born there, like their parents and their parents before. They aren't squatters, and the only reason anyone claims that kind of bs is to justify letting Israel do whatever they want in the region.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, I keep forgetting the West Bank and Gaza are actually 2 seperate areas politically. Of course they act the same so its easy to do.
If you don't know enough about a region to know that two areas are politically and geographically seperate, then you almost certainly don't know enough to talk about their actions.
Ratbarf wrote: Lol, you might want to inform America of that, they seemed to be doing a pretty good job of racking up the civillian casualties in the invasion of Iraq. Or Vietnam, or Bosnia, or heck the British. Americans have a long history of being trigger happy and doing a piss poor job at target identification. Yet no one suggests that they aren't a civilized state and that their territory should be handed over to someone else.
But mommy, he did it too!!!!
Didn't this excuse stop working when you were a small child? And for the record, I hate the things the US is doing, but that's not the topic here.
Hell 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan and the bombings in Yemen Somalia and Pakistan are analogous to the Palestinians shooting rockets and then Israel bombing them back. Yet there isn't anywhere near the outpouring of vitriol and hate as when Israel kills a few Palestinians.
Except that:
1) The US invaded other nations, while Israel is bombing occupied territory. This is like arguing that because the military in a war is allowed to shoot an enemy with a gun without hesitation the police should also drop a hellfire missile on anyone who looks like a suspect.
and
2) The US has at least made a token attempt to create a long term solution (occupying Afghanistan and putting a new government in place), while Israel has no interest in any kind of long-term peace other than complete surrender to Israel. Until then they just keep bombing civilians.
Also the only thing that makes a state legitimate is if they can hold the territory they claim. Statehood is a monopoly on force in a given area, everything else is particulars. And I think we can agree that Israel has proven that it is legitimate seeing as it's still standing after three wars and a decades long insurgency.
By your standard North Korea is a legitimate nation, and I think you might be the only person outside North Korea that considers their government legitimate. "Might makes right" stopped being a legitimate ethical system a long, long time ago.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, I keep forgetting the West Bank and Gaza are actually 2 seperate areas politically. Of course they act the same so its easy to do.
If you don't know enough about a region to know that two areas are politically and geographically seperate, then you almost certainly don't know enough to talk about their actions.
I know they are seperate, it just keeps slipping my mind. So get off your high horse, people can make little mistakes now and again.
Grey Templar wrote: The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves.
Yeah, that silly international outrage. How dare anyone be bothered when Israel exercises its god-given right to kill innocent civilians because someone in the general area might have once launched a rocket at them.
Thats quite a simplified version of the situation. Hamas deliberatly hides behind civilians, and Israel warns them to get out of the way. Often repeatedly.
And then when they don't, Israel just blows them up and writes off the civilian deaths as the cost of ensuring that the target is dead. By this ridiculous reasoning every time a suspected murderer or other criminal takes hostages the police should respond by blowing up the building and killing everyone. Except they don't, because civilized people understand that it's not acceptable to just kill anyone who gets in the way of killing who you really want to kill. Sometimes civilized people just have to accept that they can't kill their target this time, and wait for a better opportunity.
Ya know what's really fethed up about this? Israel doesn't care if the building has been evacuated.
Grey Templar wrote:Put yourself in their shoes.
Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?
The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.
I don't think you understand how ground troops work...
Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?
The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.
I don't think you understand how ground troops work...
I do know bullets don't always hit their intended mark. A firefight in and around crowded civilian buildings is going to result in more casualities then a precision missile strike.
A missile has a maximum kill area, which you can plan for, a bullet can go for hundreds of feet and still kill. And most shooting in a military firefight is aimed in the general direction of the enemy as covering fire, not as a shot aimed at a known combatent.
Plus if the enemy is dressed exactly like the surrounding civilians it becomes even more likely you will shoot a civilian.
Suggesting ground troops in a situation like this is the dumbest idea ever.
Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?
The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.
I don't think you understand how ground troops work...
I do know bullets don't always hit their intended mark. A firefight in and around crowded civilian buildings is going to result in more casualities then a precision missile strike.
A missile has a maximum kill area, which you can plan for, a bullet can go for hundreds of feet and still kill. And most shooting in a military firefight is aimed in the general direction of the enemy as covering fire, not as a shot aimed at a known combatent.
Plus if the enemy is dressed exactly like the surrounding civilians it becomes even more likely you will shoot a civilian.
Suggesting ground troops in a situation like this is the dumbest idea ever.
They aren't targeting the big bad guy's secret fortress hidden in the depths of gaza with thousands of troops tucked away inside. They're targeting very small groups of people, often only one or two, and not many more than that, so sending in troops would only result in the same sort of levels of civilian casualty if both the militants and the Israeli troops were just spraying as many bullets as possible at their target.
Israel dosen't like using ground troops because they can get captured. From my vantage point, it dosen't look like Israel cares if they kill civilians. They very well might. I just can't see it from where I am.
Grey Templar wrote: A missile has a maximum kill area, which you can plan for
That only helps if you pay attention to innocent civilians in the kill area, and are willing to call off the attack if there are any. Israel seems to have a hard time with that one.
a bullet can go for hundreds of feet and still kill.
That's assuming it hits you instead of just hitting a random wall/the ground/etc. A stray bullet is usually just going to hit empty space (simple probability), but a missile within lethal range of you is probably going to kill you.
sebster wrote: Uh, almost every claim that one party involved isn't civilised is directed at Palestine. I mean, you've seen this, haven't you?
All rhetoric aside, Sebster's absolutely right here. Firing rockets randomly in the hope of inflicting as many civilian casualties as possible, strapping a bomb to your chest and detonating it where you'll maximize the number of children killed, and stabbing, disemboweling, and gouging out the eyes of two captured soldiers are all perfectly civilized forms of making your point.
sebster wrote: Uh, almost every claim that one party involved isn't civilised is directed at Palestine. I mean, you've seen this, haven't you?
All rhetoric aside, Sebster's absolutely right here. Firing rockets randomly in the hope of inflicting as many civilian casualties as possible, strapping a bomb to your chest and detonating it where you'll maximize the number of children killed, and stabbing, disemboweling, and gouging out the eyes of two captured soldiers are all perfectly civilized forms of making your point.
As opposed to bulldozing houses with people inside them or firing anti-tank missiles at civilian targets?
Seaward wrote: All rhetoric aside, Sebster's absolutely right here. Firing rockets randomly in the hope of inflicting as many civilian casualties as possible, strapping a bomb to your chest and detonating it where you'll maximize the number of children killed, and stabbing, disemboweling, and gouging out the eyes of two captured soldiers are all perfectly civilized forms of making your point.
Nobody would be blaming Israel if they just killed the people who were responsible for those things (at least the ones that didn't already kill themselves), the problem is that Israel is a big fan of guilt by association and collateral damage.
Nobody would be blaming Israel if they just killed the people who were responsible for those things (at least the ones that didn't already kill themselves), the problem is that Israel is a big fan of guilt by association and collateral damage.
PS: "but they did it too" isn't an excuse.
The assumption that you can just "go in and get only the bad guys" is not, sadly, based on reality. It might make a certain amount of sense to people who've only ever experienced military operations via video game, but it just doesn't work like that in reality. Limiting Israel to defeating threats only when those threats are not surrounded by civilians prevents Israel from acting at all. Palestinian terrorists purposefully hide among Palestinian civilians - with the support of said civilians.
That you see a moral equivalency between an entire campaign based around killing as many civilians as possible, and a country that does what it can to limit collateral damage when it does choose to strike, is one of those things I will never be able to wrap my head around.
d-usa wrote: Bombing a UN refuge building is limiting collateral damage?
Setting off white phosporous bombs in civilian neighborhoods are targeted strikes limiting collateral damage?
Yeah, it is. Know why? Because, as usual, Hamas set up to start lobbing crap at the Israelis near something they hoped would cause outrage if it got hit when they were engaged. They know what they're doing.
It's both hilarious and sad that you feel accidentally hitting a UN building while firing on guys who've been trying to kill your civilians, and apologizing for it once it became clear what you hit, is exactly equivalent to getting on a civilian bus and blowing it up with the explosives you're wearing.
Seaward wrote: It's both hilarious and sad that you feel accidentally hitting a UN building while firing on guys who've been trying to kill your civilians, and apologizing for it once it became clear what you hit, is exactly equivalent to getting on a civilian bus and blowing it up with the explosives you're wearing.
Nice straw man. Criticizing Israel does not mean dismissing all of the horrible things that their enemies have done, nor does it mean that both are exactly equivalent. Palestinian terrorists kill civilians deliberately, Israel kills more civilians but does it "accidentally". Both of them suck in their own ways, and the solution is to build a wall around Israel and re-settle the ruins in a few decades.
d-usa wrote: And violating international laws of warfare by setting of white phosphorous munitions in civilian neighborhoods?
You may know more about that than I do, but last I heard, it was two UN guys who claimed Israel had used WP shells, and it'd never been confirmed either way.
You're going to have to work considerably harder to justify terrorism, the use of human shields, and the torture and murder of captured soldiers.
Seaward wrote: You're going to have to work considerably harder to justify terrorism, the use of human shields, and the torture and murder of captured soldiers.
Didn't you learn that "but they did it too!" isn't an excuse when you were a small child?
I never said that Hamas was innocent. I only say that Israel is not the only victim and they do plenty of wrong things themselves and are agitators as well.
Seaward wrote: You're going to have to work considerably harder to justify terrorism, the use of human shields, and the torture and murder of captured soldiers.
Didn't you learn that "but they did it too!" isn't an excuse when you were a small child?
It isn't? It sure seems to be working for the US in the past 10+ years.
The US illegal invasion of Iraq caused 114,000 civilian deaths according to the most conservative estimates and left a country in ruins and all I see as outrage from US citizens in this regard is at best a shrug of the shoulders and the rest of the "international community" does even less than that.
Iraq didn't do a single thing to provoke the US invasion, the Hamas launches tens of rockets daily into Israel with the sole purpose of killing Israeli civilians. The US invades and destroys Iraq and is seen as a force of justice and liberty, Israel defends itself from terrorists and we have people claiming that they should have their country taken away from them and that they should be walled of until they die (where have I seen this before)...
Is there a big sale on strawmen today? Buy one, get one free? Because "but the US does it too" is a completely ridiculous strawman. Nobody here is arguing that the invasion of Iraq was a good thing, and nothing about that invasion in any way justifies Israel's actions.
Peregrine wrote: Is there a big sale on strawmen today? Buy one, get one free? Because "but the US does it too" is a completely ridiculous strawman. Nobody here is arguing that the invasion of Iraq was a good thing, and nothing about that invasion in any way justifies Israel's actions.
And no one is saying that the invasion of Iraq justifies Israel's actions, what people are noting is the blatant hypocrisy in the treatment of two sovereign nations in what are ultimately, comparable situations (i.e. the justification or lack of justification regarding collateral civilian casualties).
PhantomViper wrote: And no one is saying that the invasion of Iraq justifies Israel's actions, what people are noting is the blatant hypocrisy in the treatment of two sovereign nations in what are ultimately, comparable situations (i.e. the justification or lack of justification regarding collateral civilian casualties).
Where exactly is the hypocrisy? Criticism of the Iraq invasion, by both US citizens and other countries, is not exactly rare, while Israel's strongest supporter is the US. The same people who are responsible for the Iraq invasion also support Israel, while many of the people who criticize Israel also criticize the US. As far as I can see the opinions are pretty consistent.
The only "hypocrisy" I can see is that you assume that everyone from the US posting here must agree with their country's actions, therefore any criticism of Israel is hypocrisy.
Peregrine wrote: Didn't you learn that "but they did it too!" isn't an excuse when you were a small child?
I did, yes, which is why I'm not using it. Israel doesn't "do it too." Israel does not deliberately target civilians, use human shields, or mob-kill captured Hamas operatives.
Seaward wrote: All rhetoric aside, Sebster's absolutely right here. Firing rockets randomly in the hope of inflicting as many civilian casualties as possible, strapping a bomb to your chest and detonating it where you'll maximize the number of children killed, and stabbing, disemboweling, and gouging out the eyes of two captured soldiers are all perfectly civilized forms of making your point.
Nobody would be blaming Israel if they just killed the people who were responsible for those things (at least the ones that didn't already kill themselves), the problem is that Israel is a big fan of guilt by association and collateral damage.
PS: "but they did it too" isn't an excuse.
NO. If they were a fan of collateral damage there would be no Gaza, just a region completely scorched by napalm.
Seaward wrote: It's both hilarious and sad that you feel accidentally hitting a UN building while firing on guys who've been trying to kill your civilians, and apologizing for it once it became clear what you hit, is exactly equivalent to getting on a civilian bus and blowing it up with the explosives you're wearing.
Nice straw man. Criticizing Israel does not mean dismissing all of the horrible things that their enemies have done, nor does it mean that both are exactly equivalent. Palestinian terrorists kill civilians deliberately, Israel kills more civilians but does it "accidentally". Both of them suck in their own ways, and the solution is to build a wall around Israel and re-settle the ruins in a few decades.
It does when only Israel is criticzed however, which what seems to be the PC thing.
My comrade here practically did a jig when he heard the news. Under the Frazzled-X peace treaty plan, Israel should now make it official, have a nice ceremony with Abbas where each side eats some bread, and declares the West Bank its own separate country with all that entails.
I know they are seperate, it just keeps slipping my mind. So get off your high horse, people can make little mistakes now and again.
To people who see this on the news every few years when it heats up its a small mistake. To people who actually read about all the time it's liketthinking there's only one Dakota. Nothing wrongvwith only being the former, but if that's all someone knows do you think they should spend more time reading or posting?
I believe that both China and Russia votes for Palestine nationhood. also Iran adds a vote
and so many Latin american nations.
Any Israel army VS Hamas conflict does not only leads to war between the two 'nations' but also Israel will face another war. against Iran.
should Palestine annexed again. Iran will push the nukin' button. i'm sure of it.
All rhetoric aside, Sebster's absolutely right here. Firing rockets randomly in the hope of inflicting as many civilian casualties as possible, strapping a bomb to your chest and detonating it where you'll maximize the number of children killed, and stabbing, disemboweling, and gouging out the eyes of two captured soldiers are all perfectly civilized forms of making your point.
You've failed your reading test again, buddy. It's left you trying to disprove the claim that Palestine is civilised, except I never said they were.
Its bs spewed by idiots to make claims about anyone being civilised. There's rich and poor, and that dictates capability and need. Everything else is marketing listened to by idiots.
sebster wrote: You've failed your reading test again, buddy. It's left you trying to disprove the claim that Palestine is civilised, except I never said they were.
Its bs spewed by idiots to make claims about anyone being civilised. There's rich and poor, and that dictates capability and need. Everything else is marketing listened to by idiots.
I was agreeing with you. I also agree it's about rich and poor. If you're poor, you have every right in the world to claw someone to death, or blow yourself up in their cafe with the intent of taking as many of them with you as possible. If you're rich, you have an obligation to allow the poor to do such without ever trying to prevent it from happening again.
Any Israel army VS Hamas conflict does not only leads to war between the two 'nations' but also Israel will face another war. against Iran.
should Palestine annexed again. Iran will push the nukin' button. i'm sure of it.
No, that's all nonsense. First up, Iran doesn't give two gaks about Palestine. They make a lot noise about Palestine to make Israel look bad and to score points and expand their profile in the region, but they have no actual concern that'd make them commit to actually help them.
Second up, Mossad, fething Mossad, have stated that Iran is not close to a nuke and if they were it military action is not justified. So given that your personal opinion that Iran isvgoing to a launch is kind of ridiculous compared to that.
Seaward wrote: If you're poor, you have every right in the world to claw someone to death, or blow yourself up in their cafe with the intent of taking as many of them with you as possible. If you're rich, you have an obligation to allow the poor to do such without ever trying to prevent it from happening again.
It's an excellent point.
I guess it's got to be a lot easier to argue with the things you wish someone had said; rather then what they actually did, huh?
Maybe now Palestine can get the full force of the UN brought down on Israel when the Israeli "Defence" Force next bombs their schools.
I agree. However its important to note this could be bad. If both sides shifted and really declared the two terriroties to be independent nations, then the next rocket coming over is an act of war and Israel really can bomb them back to the stone age with impugnity.
Frankly I'd go to the 1967 lines on the WB, declare the WB free and move on. The Gaza however is very twitchy.
I was agreeing with you. I also agree it's about rich and poor. If you're poor, you have every right in the world to claw someone to death, or blow yourself up in their cafe with the intent of taking as many of them with you as possible. If you're rich, you have an obligation to allow the poor to do such without ever trying to prevent it from happening again.
It's an excellent point.
That'd be some pretty cutting satire if I'd ever questioned Israel's actions in retaliation to the rocket fire. But given I haven't its just another of your pointless posts.
Seriously dude, read. You'll learn things and start making points that make sense. It'll be a whole new wored for all of us.
Maybe now Palestine can get the full force of the UN brought down on Israel when the Israeli "Defence" Force next bombs their schools.
I agree. However its important to note this could be bad. If both sides shifted and really declared the two terriroties to be independent nations, then the next rocket coming over is an act of war and Israel really can bomb them back to the stone age with impugnity.
Frankly I'd go to the 1967 lines on the WB, declare the WB free and move on. The Gaza however is very twitchy.
You realise this makes you more radical than most Palestinians? They''ve given up on getting back to 1967 lines.
I don't condone violence, but I recognise that when you want your own country, you use the tools you have at your disposal. For the Jews at the time, outgunned as they were, that meant bombing campaigns and abductions. It sucks, but that's how it is.
Now, 60 something years later, the Palestinians are doing the same.
And people on-line, with absolutely no understanding of the history of these events, take up this moralistic positions against one side for using whatever weapons they have at their disposal.
All the Palestinians have at their disposal, according to Sebster, is terrorism, so we - and Israel - have no right to criticize (or, excuse me, "take up moralistic positions" against one side) because of it.
If all they can do is deliberately target civilians, who are we to judge?
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the modern state of Israel created in 1948? Up until then wasn't it a region in general flux, with "ownership" changing hands over the years? During that time we the Jews stopped from going to their sacred places or were they still open to them?
I have a question and it will be blunt, but I mean no disrespect to any parties involved.
As mentioned, the State of Israel didn't exist until 1948. A Zionist movement towards this started sometime in the 19th Century, but before that there was no Jewish homeland as we'd know it today. Obviously the Jews had a historic religious claim to the region, but were a displaced people, which was the case for around 2,500 ish years? Given the more modern timescale of displacement of Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, New Zealand Moaris, Native South American peoples and including Islanders kicked off their island so a military base can be built there. Plus the fact that they were all in situ when the displacement happened... how did we get to this state of affairs?
We are caught up in situation that takes up so much time an effort for what? A race that lost their homeland back at the time of the Pharoahs?
Any Israel army VS Hamas conflict does not only leads to war between the two 'nations' but also Israel will face another war. against Iran.
should Palestine annexed again. Iran will push the nukin' button. i'm sure of it.
No, that's all nonsense. First up, Iran doesn't give two gaks about Palestine. They make a lot noise about Palestine to make Israel look bad and to score points and expand their profile in the region, but they have no actual concern that'd make them commit to actually help them.
Second up, Mossad, fething Mossad, have stated that Iran is not close to a nuke and if they were it military action is not justified. So given that your personal opinion that Iran isvgoing to a launch is kind of ridiculous compared to that.
Iran Theocrats never says good things about Israel (and Jews in general). supporting Palestine is one thing. what will Iran do after Palestine is recognised by U.N. ?
How can you sure that Iran doesn't have any nukes? What proofs that Iran only denounce Israel and jews but never actually sends any military aid to Hamas no matter if they actually can?
Second up, Mossad, fething Mossad, have stated that Iran is not close to a nuke and if they were it military action is not justified. So given that your personal opinion that Iran isvgoing to a launch is kind of ridiculous compared to that.
It's safe to assume that Mossad knows everything. Including what you personally had for breakfast this morning, your total body composition down to the DNA, and the last time you kissed your significant other on the mouth and if he/she was into the kiss at all.
Any Israel army VS Hamas conflict does not only leads to war between the two 'nations' but also Israel will face another war. against Iran.
should Palestine annexed again. Iran will push the nukin' button. i'm sure of it.
No, that's all nonsense. First up, Iran doesn't give two gaks about Palestine. They make a lot noise about Palestine to make Israel look bad and to score points and expand their profile in the region, but they have no actual concern that'd make them commit to actually help them.
Second up, Mossad, fething Mossad, have stated that Iran is not close to a nuke and if they were it military action is not justified. So given that your personal opinion that Iran isvgoing to a launch is kind of ridiculous compared to that.
Iran Theocrats never says good things about Israel (and Jews in general). supporting Palestine is one thing. what will Iran do after Palestine is recognised by U.N. ?
How can you sure that Iran doesn't have any nukes? What proofs that Iran only denounce Israel and jews but never actually sends any military aid to Hamas no matter if they actually can?
Well, if Iran had nukes, they would have probably used them by now. Or given one to a third party to use for them. Less chance of an international invasion that way(if only slight)
A bigger concern is a dirty bomb, not an actual nuclear weapon. They are far easier to make and cause far more radiation.
^ Of course! simple dynamite covered with rad materials and concealment leave rads once it goes off (or even before that!). and it chills my skin! how can I navigate Khaosarn street lookin' for attractive white dream girls without gettin' hit by that rad weapons? Earlier this year Iranian terrorists was caught in Bangkok, all of them were looking going after Israelites in Khaosarn street. remember??
Didn't this excuse stop working when you were a small child? And for the record, I hate the things the US is doing, but that's not the topic here.
Hah, no it didn't, but since I've grown older pointing out hypocrisy in an argument has worked.
Except that:
1) The US invaded other nations, while Israel is bombing occupied territory. This is like arguing that because the military in a war is allowed to shoot an enemy with a gun without hesitation the police should also drop a hellfire missile on anyone who looks like a suspect.
Really? What would you call Iraq and Afghanistan during the US occupation? Oh wait..........
2) The US has at least made a token attempt to create a long term solution (occupying Afghanistan and putting a new government in place), while Israel has no interest in any kind of long-term peace other than complete surrender to Israel. Until then they just keep bombing civilians.
Huh, you could almost say that Israel has also put in token efforts to provide a long term solution via the peace talks. Hence the "token" part.
Nobody would be blaming Israel if they just killed the people who were responsible for those things (at least the ones that didn't already kill themselves), the problem is that Israel is a big fan of guilt by association and collateral damage.
PS: "but they did it too" isn't an excuse.
You see, it's not that I'm defending Israel's use of attacks that cause collateral damage (lol well I am but to be honest I don't really care either way) but I'm pointing out your lack of outrage for what the Palestinians do. Again with the hypocrisy! Oish!
By your standard North Korea is a legitimate nation, and I think you might be the only person outside North Korea that considers their government legitimate. "Might makes right" stopped being a legitimate ethical system a long, long time ago.
Huh, the UN seems to be full of nations that recognise North Korea as a legitimate nation. Just because it's not a nice state doesn't make it illegitimate, and just because you don't like something doesn't make it false. No matter how much you scream otherwise.
Uh, almost every claim that one party involved isn't civilised is directed at Palestine. I mean, you've seen this, haven't you?
And no-one is saying Israel has to hand their territory over to anyone else. People are saying that should stop taking other people's land.
I think you should go and re-read peregrine's posts, that's exactly what he says.
Well I guess everything is okay then. I mean seriously, dude, you honestly think 'oh people aren't as outraged when people needlessly die in this other situation' is a defence?
I'm not using it as a defence, or at least that wasn't my intention of its use. I was pointing out the inherent hypocrisy between the two scenarios.
Oh look, and when the side you've chosen blows up a building, there's all kinds of excuses and rationalisations. You know that wasn't the only violent act they undertook... they were pretty hardcore. And while violence is wrong and all that, you have to say well they were trying to fight for their own country, and that kind of stuff is what it took.
Some goes for Palestine.
Yep, I sure do, but you ommitted the context from your post, I thought I should add it because your post implied that they intended to kill those 91 people from the get go which simply wasn't true.
I think you're about 350 years behind in your reading on international law.
And you know, here I am wondering how those laws are enforced, oh wait, the means is in the word. But really, the only thing that legitimises a state is it's ability to hold it's own, nothing else matters because as long as they hold their own they don't have to pay attention to whatever anyone outside does or says, because they have to come in and get them if they want to do something about it. North Korea is actually the Prime example of this.
Now I would say that might makes right isn't exactly the best way to interact with each other as individuals, but that doesn't invalidate the power of the argument. It doesn't matter one iota what anyone else thinks as long as you're okay with it and you win and keep on winning. It's when/if you lose that the human fecal matter starts hitting the metallic propellant device, because when you lose it means that someone else now has the requisite force to force you to bend to their will. Any kind of world view that doesn't incorporate this fact is inherently flawed. Those that don't acknowledge it are either naive, ignorant, or self deluding.
Oh and Sebster, regarding the posts between you and Seaward, it did seem that you were alluding to that, namely because you critisized the one and did mention the other. Now I'm not making the case that that's what you meant, I'm just pointing that it was a rather easy thing to read into the post.
Also your post about the rich and poor does make it seem that you are endorsing the Palestinian terrorist's tactics. Just thought I'ld let you know.
so legally if Palestine attacks Israel or vice versa it's now an official act of war and should be viewed as such, yes?
So do we suddenly get involved if this happens or what? and on whos side? would we defend/ support Israel irrelevant of how started it? or just the country being attacked?
nomsheep wrote:so legally if Palestine attacks Israel or vice versa it's now an official act of war and should be viewed as such, yes?
or just the country being attacked?
A deep and resounding no.
The General Assembly resolutions are non-binding to anyone except the General Assembly. Un recognition of Palestine in any way is a statement that does not carry the force of law.
The real problem with this is that it's in all probability going to make what little remains of the peace process even more difficult. The UN member nations who voted for it are terrified of the fact that Hamas is essentially making Abbas irrelevant among everyday Palestinians; they figure throwing him a bone like this will allow him to go back to Palestine with a big, "See? I told you so! Stick with me!" sign around his neck.
What doesn't work about that scenario is that nothing at all is going to change for your everyday Palestinian as a result of the vote. Palestinians are going to realize this, eventually, and Abbas is going to become more irrelevant than ever as Hamas says, "See? Violence is the only way," now with some evidence.
TheHammer wrote: The staggering level of ignorance, paranoia, and fear in this thread is deeply sad. Some here are too extreme for the John Birch Society.
Ohh I like this game. Can I play too?
And some so extreme Castro would have to tell them to lighten up.
Some so slanted the leaning tower of Piza would be vertical.
TheHammer wrote: The staggering level of ignorance, paranoia, and fear in this thread is deeply sad. Some here are too extreme for the John Birch Society.
What do you mean by this? Inquiring minds want to know!
nomsheep wrote: so legally if Palestine attacks Israel or vice versa it's now an official act of war and should be viewed as such, yes?
So do we suddenly get involved if this happens or what? and on whos side? would we defend/ support Israel irrelevant of how started it? or just the country being attacked?
I love that! Typical Brit - "Wait, there's a war!? Ooh, where? Who? HOW CAN WE GET INVOLVED!!!??"
TheHammer wrote: The staggering level of ignorance, paranoia, and fear in this thread is deeply sad. Some here are too extreme for the John Birch Society.
What do you mean by this? Inquiring minds want to know!
He's graduating from openly insulting people he disagrees with to just insulting everyone in the thread.
nomsheep wrote: so legally if Palestine attacks Israel or vice versa it's now an official act of war and should be viewed as such, yes?
So do we suddenly get involved if this happens or what? and on whos side? would we defend/ support Israel irrelevant of how started it? or just the country being attacked?
I love that! Typical Brit - "Wait, there's a war!? Ooh, where? Who? HOW CAN WE GET INVOLVED!!!??"
I thought that reaction was only for Naval Engagements amongst the loyal subjects of the Crown?
AustonT wrote: Why should Israel be helpful to it's Section 8 tenants?
No, you're absolutely right. I think the region's doing fine. I say we try and spin this Isreal/Palestine thing out as long as we can guys, yeah? Sound good?
As far as Im concerned this Israel Palestinian thing ended the day the Palestinians said feth a two state solution and tried to massacre the other half.
I don't think it was a specific day, but they have been saying the same thing more or less since Israel was founded. I mean the neighboring countries even decided to hold a war to welcome them to the neighborhood.
Grey Templar wrote: I don't think it was a specific day, but they have been saying the same thing more or less since Israel was founded. I mean the neighboring countries even decided to hold a war to welcome them to the neighborhood.
Which was soooooo not at all predictable. Noooooooo. Nope.
Well the area is the historical Jewish homeland. They wouldn't accept any other location and the British Empire didn't care otherwise. At the time it had little value beyond religious significance.
And there was a large Jewish population already there anyway. Why move them elsewhere?
Grey Templar wrote: Well the area is the historical Jewish homeland. They wouldn't accept any other location and the British Empire didn't care otherwise. At the time it had little value beyond religious significance.
And there was a large Jewish population already there anyway. Why move them elsewhere?
Why? The last 65 years do a fine job expliciting the answer to that why. Personnaly, between my 'historical ethnic homeland' and 'a fine place where your neighbours don't want to carnage you all over the wall', I know which one I'd take.
Grey Templar wrote: Well the area is the historical Jewish homeland. They wouldn't accept any other location and the British Empire didn't care otherwise. At the time it had little value beyond religious significance.
And there was a large Jewish population already there anyway. Why move them elsewhere?
Why? The last 65 years do a fine job expliciting the answer to that why. Personnaly, between my 'historical ethnic homeland' and 'a fine place where your neighbours don't want to carnage you all over the wall', I know which one I'd take.
Of course, thats what you would do.
They would rather have their historical ethnic homeland because thats what is important to them. You and I probably can't ever fully understand that because our culture is vastly different. I understand that its what was and is important to them, and I respect them for that.
It's a choice that has resulted in a lot of bloodshed, and a lot of other bad consequences for many people, Jewish and non. After the Jews often having been treated very badly by the dominant cultures in various places they lived around the world, there is a terrible and discreditable irony to how the Palestinians are treated.
The whole thing is pretty terrible and the smarter move might have been to settle elsewhere; but I don't know where else they could have really had a "homeland."
Yeah, we give land back to ethnic groups all the time. And they build fancy Casinos for us to blow our money out at, and they can sell us illegal fireworks too
So we are willing that we used to be like Palestine? Squatting on the land, killing the ethnic native population that had a history claim to the land, murdering and targeting civilians?
Well, to be fair, most of the native population of North America died of disease. Only a small portion were killed by settlers or died of starvation caused by settlers.
Plus the Natives didn't have the concept of land ownership, so the settlers couldn't have taken the land from people with no concept of ownership(I'm not saying it was right)
Also, nobody living today bears any of the guilt or responsibility associated with what happened.
It was really big mess that was caused by overcrowding in the East. We had no choice but to expand westward. The Native resisted admirably. but it was an inevitable outcome. Some natives understood this and assimilated themselves into US society, and were better off for that.
There was a war in every sense of it. The US won, to the victor the spoils.
We have changed morally since that time, and it would be wrong today. But history has evolving morals and what happened then can't be judged on our modern morals. Just like you can't judge the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, or any other society by our morals.
Are you really in this fething thread talking about a Jewish homeland and you don't have any idea how Argentina might be involved.
Sebster was right. And I think I just swallowed my own vomit.
@d-usa I'm offering the same odds the Jews had, what all of a sudden it's not fair? If the native pop really wants to have a shot at recapturing thier homeland ala Israel I'm all for it. No one is stupid enough to give up what they have, gak though it is, for that kind of oppourtunity. And by oppourtunity I mean certain annihilation.
I'm not saying that the Native Americans should rise up and take their country back.
All I am saying is that all the reasons given to justify why Hamas are bad and why Palestine should get wiped off the face of the earth sound a lot like the history between the United States and the Native Americans.
The same day white people decided to generally hate muslims and pseudo-muslims.
I can't really say when that was, honestly, I get so many memos, I lose track of them.
Edit : I seem to remember that was around the time we got the 'blacks are allowed to play golf too' one.
That would be the Munich Olympics. Or the first Intafada when Yasser Arafat became a big thing. It's almost certainly one of the two, but I seem to think Munich was more of the eye opener for the west. Though there was also that bombing of a marine barracks back in 83.
And, on a side note, the British Empire did offer the Zionists Madagascar for their homeland, but it was rejected on the ground of there being no mention of it in the Torah.
AustonT wrote: Really in what way. And who plays who in this play?
In the history of the settlement of the United States and the Native Americans, who is the group with an ethnic and historical claim to the land and who is the group that decided that the ethnic groups with the historical ties to the land are savages, didn't deserve to exist, killed civilians, starved them to death, etc etc etc?
AustonT wrote: Really in what way. And who plays who in this play?
In the history of the settlement of the United States and the Native Americans, who is the group with an ethnic and historical claim to the land and who is the group that decided that the ethnic groups with the historical ties to the land are savages, didn't deserve to exist, killed civilians, starved them to death, etc etc etc?
There is a bit of difference here...
The Native Americans were either conquered or treaties where recognized.
Nothing like that happened for the Palistinians. What you have is other countries say "this is now your land Israelis" w/o addressing the other groups.
The name of the tribe escapes me for a moment, but there's a tribe in southwest that is technically still at war with the US and I've met the decendents. Cool people... they're fulling integrated as US citizen, so, not sure how that is reconciled.
AustonT wrote: Really in what way. And who plays who in this play?
In the history of the settlement of the United States and the Native Americans, who is the group with an ethnic and historical claim to the land and who is the group that decided that the ethnic groups with the historical ties to the land are savages, didn't deserve to exist, killed civilians, starved them to death, etc etc etc?
There is a bit of difference here...
The Native Americans were either conquered or treaties where recognized.
Nothing like that happened for the Palistinians. What you have is other countries say "this is now your land Israelis" w/o addressing the other groups.
The name of the tribe escapes me for a moment, but there's a tribe in southwest that is technically still at war with the US and I've met the decendents. Cool people... they're fulling integrated as US citizen, so, not sure how that is reconciled.
The native tribes are not the historical equivalent of Palestine.
AustonT wrote: Really in what way. And who plays who in this play?
In the history of the settlement of the United States and the Native Americans, who is the group with an ethnic and historical claim to the land and who is the group that decided that the ethnic groups with the historical ties to the land are savages, didn't deserve to exist, killed civilians, starved them to death, etc etc etc?
There is a bit of difference here...
The Native Americans were either conquered or treaties where recognized.
Nothing like that happened for the Palistinians. What you have is other countries say "this is now your land Israelis" w/o addressing the other groups.
The name of the tribe escapes me for a moment, but there's a tribe in southwest that is technically still at war with the US and I've met the decendents. Cool people... they're fulling integrated as US citizen, so, not sure how that is reconciled.
The native tribes are not the historical equivalent of Palestine.
Grey Templar wrote: Well the area is the historical Jewish homeland. They wouldn't accept any other location and the British Empire didn't care otherwise. At the time it had little value beyond religious significance.
And there was a large Jewish population already there anyway. Why move them elsewhere?
For Palestinians.
1. Romans stomped them out good. i.e. they recognize the 2000 years old 'recognition' that crossed out Israel as a legitimate nation for so many centuries and Iudea as a roman provice ripe for conquest by 'barbarians'. the first barbarian to successfully get a hold of it was Arabians.
2. (modern) Palestinians believed that they descent from eitehr of the two conquerors (Romans did seed many of its citizens there, and even try to convert local populace to worship the Olympians). and by rights of conquest (by the time of the conquerors it was very legitimate) 'they' deserves a nationhood and Jews deserves none. in their minds Jews should be minority race that they rule over. interestingly the earliest palestinians felt annoyed by jewish presence was Christian ones (either Catholics or Byzantinian Orthodox.), muslim joined the fray relatively late and it was originally bourne out of Anti-Imperialism rather than 'Muslims and Jews are bane to each other and will never peacefully coexists'.
3. Palestinians also believed that Jewish nation is one form of western Imperialism. historically since the days of Herod and sons. Jews were hardly allowed self rule. they existed as a 'subject' race ruled over by someone else and this Status Quo is good for them. for Palestinians, Jews who never was a master race (And its last monarch was abolished long before Muhammad of Quraish had founded Islam), is a worst choice of leaderships. (But Arabians are much more acceptable, at least some Arabian monarchs still reigns today)
Brits simply fetched what that was ancient Iudea-- or what that will become Israel, from the ailing Ottomans, providing protection against Russian Empire to the noth in exchange with the governing rights over that plot of land. Ottomans fear the Christian Reprisals (which usually harsh, in 17xx Russia annexed Crimean Khannate (Vassal to Ottomans) and babtized those muslims by various ways, by 1850 Ottomans fear that Russia will easily marches towards Constantinople and annex the city, in turn rebuilding the Byzantine Empire and will baptize any muslims 'by fire'.) needs the protections of the less religious superpower. that's why it comes to Crimean War, and that's why the rules over what's now Israel changed its hands.
I'm not even being sarcastic here. In the history of the United States we have acted more like Palestine, yet we side with their opponents because "that is the right thing to do".
One of the arguments I hear the most is "The Jews have always lived in Israel, that is their historical homeland, they have ties there, etc etc etc".
To me that is just a stupid argument, and not just because I am sitting on a continent full of white people who are sad that the land that used to be full of "red" people is not white enough anymore.
I also say that because I am sitting in the middle of Oklahoma. A little piece of land that used to be called Indian Territory. A little piece of land where tribes where forcefully relocated to, and with many warriors and civilians that were killed when they refused to leave the land that they had ethnic and historical ties with. A piece of land that was the end of the Trail of Tears. And when all was said and done, we decided to go simply go "feth it, that land is ours now too. Time for a good old fashioned land run. Get yourself some prime farming land people!"
So I find the excuse of "it's their historical home land, the Palestinians are donkey caves for trying to keep them out of it and/or taking it away from them. And since they attack them and kill civilians they should get carpet bombed out of the Gaza Strip" pretty fething stupid and I strongly feel that it includes a stunning amount of ignorance about the history of our own actions and the condemnation we make of people that are doing the same things we did.
^ So you say that Palestinians should either bow before Jewish master and convert to Judaism or being exterminated for good?
If Israelite government intended to do so by force. Israelite tourists safety elsewhere (including in Bangkok) will subject to Muslim reprisals.
Because before the U.N. vote. Palestinians had been recognized a nationhood by other nations (Usually those who's baneful to the US and its allies). any 'Israelite offence against Palestinians' get international attention. the same token doesn't apply with Natives in the U.S. because those tribesmen are not recognized ther nationhood by any (european) empires. and it was Imperial era. concepts of smaller nations becomes part of larger emprie prevails. and any European kings simply says that those tribesmen should bow before either President of the USA or any of them if they wish to maintain its existence. The only superpowers to recognize those tribemen should be either Austria, Ottomans, or Germany. all of which were not in position to intervene and denounce the USA. (Austria had its hand tied to combined Piedmontese (Wars of Italian Unification) and Prussia (which will becomes Germany). Ottomans were at the dire state of dissolution and it was at the mercy of either France, Britain, or Russia.
Britain might be in the position to help those tribesmen (in exchange that they will become vassals to the British Empire). but economic relationships with the US comes first.
This is the logic why Palestinian pleas were heard by the UN. but the natives were silenced and either exterminated or exiled to numerous small enclaves to the west of the US.
d-usa wrote: I'm not even being sarcastic here. In the history of the United States we have acted more like Palestine,
That is some epic trolling right there.
So Palestine is bad because they refuse to acknowledge the ethnic and historical claim of Israel to the area, and for indiscriminately killing civilians?
But we are fine for having refused to acknowledge the ethnic and historical claim of the native tribes to our area, and for indiscriminately killing civilians?
Grey Templar wrote: The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves. Now you really do that as it would be Palestine making war on Israel, one nation state being an agressor and the other making war in retribution.
Actually it raises a whole slew of issues. The biggest of which would be if the Israel/Palestine issue becomes a legal war, then most of Israel's policies in places like Gaza becomes 'war crimes', as do Hamas rocket attacks on Civilians. Which one I find more offensive, I'm not entirely sure. Israel forces people into ghettos with subhuman living conditions (this seems familiar somehow) and wonders why they have problems.
Actually, I can name the one I find most offensive: Israeli soldiers shooting the red cross/red crescent ambulances. 'Oh, we heard a rumor that Hamas might use them for suicide runs, so we opened fire on every ambulance we saw.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lone Cat wrote: the same token doesn't apply with Natives in the U.S. because those tribesmen are not recognized ther nationhood by any (european) empires.
Um, I hate to break it to you, but that's not correct. Some of us even have the paper to prove that we were recognized, not only by the European powers, but also by the United States. Our problem, for some damned reason, is getting recognized by the UN.
One last post to sum up my feelings on this subject, and then I am leaving this thread:
There is only one group of victims in this conflict:
The civilians in the area. Both the Palestinian civilians and the Israeli civilians. They are the ones who don't know if their neighborhood will be blown up tomorrow or if they will see the end of the day. They are the groups that are trying to make a living, raise families, and stay safe and alive.
I am not defending either side in this. I can understand some of the motivations on both sides, and I can see many errors and wrongs on both sides. My issue with the usual arguments is that they absolve Israel of any wrongs, and that is what I don't agree with. But thinking that Israel is committing wrongs does not mean that I think that Hamas is right.
d-usa wrote: So Palestine is bad because they refuse to acknowledge the ethnic and historical claim of Israel to the area, and for indiscriminately killing civilians?
But we are fine for having refused to acknowledge the ethnic and historical claim of the native tribes to our area, and for indiscriminately killing civilians?
No. I couldn't care less about historical claims. Palestinian leadership - and a lot of Palestinians - are bad for other reasons.
The civilians in the area. Both the Palestinian civilians and the Israeli civilians. They are the ones who don't know if their neighborhood will be blown up tomorrow or if they will see the end of the day. They are the groups that are trying to make a living, raise families, and stay safe and alive.
In this, we agree. Gaza right now is the worst combination of the Warsaw ghetto and Sadr City. Too bad the locals can't flee without most likely getting killed.
Kid, you haven't seen the gak I have so take your 'those guys' thing and shove it up your ass sideways. You want to know the difference between the contras and the PLO? One sucked Washington dick and the other didn't. Hell, as long as they were willing to terrorize Russia, we were happy to even fund guys like Osama.
90% of the IRA's funding came from the US, and I'm sure that those of you across the pond know what I'm driving at.
Sometimes terrorism is what people feel forced into when their enemy is vastly more powerful than they are and shows no empathy or consideration for their position.
But I know I'm basically pissing into the wind on this one, and Seaward isn't going to acknowledge my point.
But I know I'm basically pissing into the wind on this one, and Seaward isn't going to acknowledge my point.
Based on his earlier post, Seaward isn't going to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit in his rose tinted view of the nation that can do no wrong. We'll just pretend that there's a difference between Hamas and the CIA doing exactly the same things.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. Also on an Earlier point made in this thread about the fact Israel "Warns" people to leave before they perform air strikes and therefore its the fault of the people for not running away. If i came into your house and planted a bomb, then phoned you and said "I put a bomb in your house". It's all your fault when you die right, i'm not a killer, I told you to leave.
kamakazepanda wrote: If i came into your house and planted a bomb, then phoned you and said "I put a bomb in your house". It's all your fault when you die right, i'm not a killer, I told you to leave.
Ironically, the IRA are terrorists despite largely having exactly that MO when it comes to bombings.
BaronIveagh wrote: Kid, you haven't seen the gak I have so take your 'those guys' thing and shove it up your ass sideways.
I'd be willing to bet I've seen more, actually, but we can compare trigger time somewhere else.
You want to know the difference between the contras and the PLO?
Other than geography?
One sucked Washington dick and the other didn't.
One also received secret, illegal support from the US that became a massive scandal when it was discovered and led to a fair few people losing their jobs. You know, just like what happens when it's discovered that Palestinian leadership is directly supporting terrorism. Oh, wait.
Hell, as long as they were willing to terrorize Russia, we were happy to even fund guys like Osama.
I guess I can expand "those guys" to include "those guys who don't know the difference between terrorism and asymmetric warfare."
90% of the IRA's funding came from the US, and I'm sure that those of you across the pond know what I'm driving at.
And here you're mistaking "idiot private citizens" with "official US policy." There's a difference. It's not, for example, official US policy to rob liquor stores, despite the fact that some Americans do indeed rob liquor stores.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Based on his earlier post, Seaward isn't going to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit in his rose tinted view of the nation that can do no wrong. We'll just pretend that there's a difference between Hamas and the CIA doing exactly the same things.
Tell you what: name one of these exact same things that the CIA and Hamas have both done. I've got a shiny American dollar that says you cop out with something along the lines of, "Walked around Ramallah once."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kamakazepanda wrote: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. Also on an Earlier point made in this thread about the fact Israel "Warns" people to leave before they perform air strikes and therefore its the fault of the people for not running away. If i came into your house and planted a bomb, then phoned you and said "I put a bomb in your house". It's all your fault when you die right, i'm not a killer, I told you to leave.
No, you would be a killer in that case, nothing changes that. The guy who decided to stay, though, would be an abject idiot.
Tell you what: name one of these exact same things that the CIA and Hamas have both done. I've got a shiny American dollar that says you cop out with something along the lines of, "Walked around Ramallah once."
Let's see...
Guns to Syria
Trained Bosnian Muslims.
Used a SE Asian bank as a front
Killed prisoners
killed civilians
Killed US Citizens
Practiced torture
Kidnappings
Run afoul of Human Rights Watch (I wonder why?)
Got funding from operations in South and Central America to conduct operations in the middle east. (Though, supposedly, Hamas aims more for the Paraguay/Argentina/Brazil area, the CIA more form the Colombia/Peru area)
Worked with the Iranians in the 1980's. (Hamas still does, not sure about the CIA.)
Unless you mean 'things they have both done together at the same time'.
Again, it's 'asymmetrical warfare' when you like them, it's 'terrorism' when you don't. The IRA is a good example of this, depending on who you ask.
One also received secret, illegal support from the US that became a massive scandal when it was discovered and led to a fair few people losing their jobs.
Technically, all support for terrorism is 'illegal'. And, OMG someone lost their job. Did that make it ok? It certainly didn't stop (or even slow down) operations of the same type in Colombia, Peru, or South East Asia. Tell me who was defrocked for slaughtering FARC aligned villages in Colombia?
And here you're mistaking "idiot private citizens" with "official US policy." There's a difference.
Yeah, idiot private citizens like congressmen and then President Clinton, who's change of policy allowed me to meet Gerry Adams in the late 90's in Pittsburgh, PA, where he was raising funds thanks to being allowed into the country.
Guns to Syria
Trained Bosnian Muslims.
Used a SE Asian bank as a front
Killed prisoners
killed civilians
Killed US Citizens
Practiced torture
Kidnappings
Run afoul of Human Rights Watch (I wonder why?)
Got funding from operations in South and Central America to conduct operations in the middle east. (Though, supposedly, Hamas aims more for the Paraguay/Argentina/Brazil area, the CIA more form the Colombia/Peru area)
Worked with the Iranians in the 1980's. (Hamas still does, not sure about the CIA.)
I was actually hoping it was going to be a vague, context-free list like this. With the possible exception of guns to Syria, you could equate a fair amount of Western Europe with Hamas, too. It'd be just a puerile.
Unless you mean 'things they have both done together at the same time'.
I was actually hoping you knew of some decades-long campaign of indiscriminate civilian killings run by the CIA that nobody else knew about. You know, something with substance, an actual comparative link between Hamas and the CIA that went beyond, "They used similar methods for wildly different aims once." Because when you fail to take motivation into account, you might as well say that a soldier's no different from a suicide bomber. They've both trained to kill people, after all.
Again, it's 'asymmetrical warfare' when you like them, it's 'terrorism' when you don't. The IRA is a good example of this, depending on who you ask.
It's asymmetrical warfare when the primary goal is still military in nature, or political victory through military means. The opposing force is still the target. That's not the case with terrorism.
Technically, all support for terrorism is 'illegal'. And, OMG someone lost their job. Did that make it ok? It certainly didn't stop (or even slow down) operations of the same type in Colombia, Peru, or South East Asia. Tell me who was defrocked for slaughtering FARC aligned villages in Colombia?
It certainly didn't make it okay, which is I think the point you flew right over in your effort to get on to speculation.
We tend not to support terrorist campaigns in this country. Our leaders tend to get into trouble when they've been caught doing so. Palestinian leaders, on the other hand, tend to get praised.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Yeah, idiot private citizens like congressmen and then President Clinton, who's change of policy allowed me to meet Gerry Adams in the late 90's in Pittsburgh, PA, where he was raising funds thanks to being allowed into the country.
You're saying Bill Clinton contributed cash to the IRA? That was your claim, don't forget - that we've funded the IRA. Here's the quote, just to jog your memory:
90% of the IRA's funding came from the US, and I'm sure that those of you across the pond know what I'm driving at.
My response was that that funding came from idiot private citizens, not the US government, and you responded as shown above. Arafat was allowed into the country, too, I suppose we must be huge backers of Palestinian terrorism. And don't look now, but Ahmadinejad has been here a few times; I suppose that makes us sponsors of Iran's nuclear program?
I was actually hoping it was going to be a vague, context-free list like this. With the possible exception of guns to Syria, you could equate a fair amount of Western Europe with Hamas, too.
I was unaware that most of Europe financed it's covert and not so covert operations in the Middle East with Latin American cash.
I was actually hoping you knew of some decades-long campaign of indiscriminate civilian killings run by the CIA that nobody else knew about. You know, something with substance, an actual comparative link between Hamas and the CIA that went beyond, "They used similar methods for wildly different aims once."
Actually I do, but the CIA supposedly only 'consults'. The CIA fully supported Colombia in it's genocide in the interior, a fact that is only now slowly coming to light, but receiving almost zero coverage in the US news. Over 1500 separate incidents were reported, but so far only 149 convictions have been handed down.
It's asymmetrical warfare when the primary goal is still military in nature, or political victory through military means. The opposing force is still the target. That's not the case with terrorism.
Depends on how you define 'opposing force' If you mean Israel, it's allies, and possible collaborators in the population, I'd say Hamas qualifies as 'asymmetrical warfare'.
You're saying Bill Clinton contributed cash to the IRA? That was your claim, don't forget - that we've funded the IRA.
Dunno about Bill, personally, but I do know he signed the order giving Adams free entry, which is a big difference from what, I understand, both Ahmadinejad and Arafat received. Rep Peter T. King (R, NY) does, in fact, contribute to the IRA, did both before and during his election to office. He currently sits on (and chairs) the House Homeland Security Committee, but previously was involved in NORAID, supposedly a gun running front for the IRA. This has been brought up pretty much every time he's run for re-election since 1994, and... so far hasn't kept him out of Washington in the least.
My response was that that funding came from idiot private citizens, not the US government, and you responded as shown above.
Granted, idiot private citizens can be found in the halls of power in Washington DC. There's a pretty thin line between 'your government is doing it' and 'your congressman, as a private citizen, is doing it and gives speeches that you should too'.
d-usa wrote: I'm not even being sarcastic here. In the history of the United States we have acted more like Palestine,
Not like the Persians, Macedonians, Babylonians, Romans, Turks, or British?
The parallel you're trying to draw here doesn't work very well, as in not at all.
You might have had a point if you painted the Indians as Palestinians and the US as the Western Zionist Horde. It's a tenuous link at best, and you aren't doing a very good job of making it. Especially since the end result is assimilation with extremely limited self rule, Whic is a shade better than Mexico where the end result is total assimilation and the near total erasure of native culture.
nomsheep wrote: so America is at fault here not the guys bombing each other and killing civvies, got ya.
Not even close. My point was that it's hypocritical of Seaward to condemn Hamas and extol the US on the grounds that the US does not support terrorism, when, in fact, they do, just not 'officially'. Personally, I think that Hamas is at least honest about it, though I can't say that I approve of what they're doing any more than I approve of the CIA helping butcher thousands in South America.
d-usa wrote: One last post to sum up my feelings on this subject, and then I am leaving this thread:
There is only one group of victims in this conflict:
The civilians in the area. Both the Palestinian civilians and the Israeli civilians. They are the ones who don't know if their neighborhood will be blown up tomorrow or if they will see the end of the day. They are the groups that are trying to make a living, raise families, and stay safe and alive.
I am not defending either side in this. I can understand some of the motivations on both sides, and I can see many errors and wrongs on both sides. My issue with the usual arguments is that they absolve Israel of any wrongs, and that is what I don't agree with. But thinking that Israel is committing wrongs does not mean that I think that Hamas is right.
This I agree with you.
I just disagree with comparing the Natives to anything like the Israeli/Palistinian conflict.
Doesn't make it right, but history is littered with powerful groups conquering a weaker group.. that just doesn't happen nowadays due to how integrated news are in our societies. That just doesn't happen anymore. So the the larger/more powerful group is forced to stalemant, which in turns extends the conflict. THAT is what exposes the civilians on both sides and makes things really ugly.
There are no angels here... but sometimes you have to either stay out and let the parties work it out... or you pick a side.
Doesn't make it right, but history is littered with powerful groups conquering a weaker group.. that just doesn't happen nowadays due to how integrated news are in our societies. That just doesn't happen anymore. So the the larger/more powerful group is forced to stalemant, which in turns extends the conflict. THAT is what exposes the civilians on both sides and makes things really ugly.
Personally, I think Balian of Ibelin had the right idea. The only way you'll ever see these two groups sit down and sincerely negotiate is if the other option was sending Jerusalem back to God, by reducing it to a sea of radioactive glass and make it so that no man can see it and live for the next ten thousand years.
The United States supports those that use torture, terrorism and war crimes when it is in their interest. This is not new.
"General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of the United States."
-Nixon
Yep. It's often a choice of lesser evils.
I didn't say otherwise. I do, however, think that putting Hamas and the United States on the same level of moral standing is absolutely absurd. I'm not sure how you can take anyone who makes that argument seriously.
The United States supports those that use torture, terrorism and war crimes when it is in their interest. This is not new.
"General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of the United States."
-Nixon
Yep. It's often a choice of lesser evils.
I didn't say otherwise. I do, however, think that putting Hamas and the United States on the same level of moral standing is absolutely absurd. I'm not sure how you can take anyone who makes that argument seriously.
Franco was not a lesser evil. Claiming to moral high ground and at the same time justifying the support of a fascist state is beyond ludicrous.
Both US and Hamas have committed illegal and immoral acts. Morally, the States have the edge in that what they do, they do to defend a stable society, while Hamas have theirs in shamble. That's not enough in my opinion to discount one as dirty terrorists and elevate the other ones as shiny knights of democracy and freedom.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Morally, the States have the edge in that what they do, they do to defend a stable society,
Not always even that. How many people died in Panama when we invaded to bury the fact that CIA Director George HW Bush had helped create the whole Noriega-drug cartel relationship, potentially embarrassing President George HW Bush. How many people would have died if the CIA plot to assassinate that moron Chavez disguised as an attack by the Colombian army had managed to trigger the hoped-for war between Colombia and Venezuela so the US could buy cheap oil and sell guns to both sides?
Kovnik Obama wrote: Morally, the States have the edge in that what they do, they do to defend a stable society,
Not always even that. How many people died in Panama when we invaded to bury the fact that CIA Director George HW Bush had helped create the whole Noriega-drug cartel relationship, potentially embarrassing President George HW Bush. How many people would have died if the CIA plot to assassinate that moron Chavez disguised as an attack by the Colombian army had managed to trigger the hoped-for war between Colombia and Venezuela so the US could buy cheap oil and sell guns to both sides?
I do not know much about the Contras, I'll admit that. But beyond individual interests of high ranking members of the government, I'd at least be willing to agree that the U.S. have a moral edge in that such actions would not have come to pass if it had been a matter of public policy.
Sure he was. Compared to our former valued ally, Josef Stalin. And let's not forget our valued ally Saddam Hussein...
I guess I don't think in these terms. Caucescu, Franco, Stalin... All ordered murders, torture and violence against their own. If the difference is between pliers to the eyes, or sarin gaz, or the number of victims... well those are differences for historians. The moralist in me hate each of them equally.
kamakazepanda wrote: If i came into your house and planted a bomb, then phoned you and said "I put a bomb in your house". It's all your fault when you die right, i'm not a killer, I told you to leave.
Ironically, the IRA are terrorists despite largely having exactly that MO when it comes to bombings.
Because the International power that supports IRA is not the United States of America. nor its allied powers. (Indeed, American Irish might fund them, much like how Chinese Americans funds Triads)
at one point. Gaddhafi did indeed support IRA since he viewed them being Anti-Imperialist right next to British door. he withdrew their supports recently however (several years before the Civil War) in exchange of foreign investment.
Because the International power that supports IRA is not the United States of America. nor its allied powers.
The United Stat6es does support it, though it's a support through willful blindness. Send money to unpopular terrorists, get your assets frozen and cool your heels in a cell. Support popular terrorists and chair the house homeland security committed,
I don't get it, how are people in this day and age so blind to the world around them?
Religion is a mask of ignorance, I do it because a book says my god told me to.
I have had an experience where I have met what I think to be my maker, the singular power that runs through us all. I caused me to cry and contemplate every wrong I had ever done, not bomb innocent kids and women.
It's not a race thing, it's a brain function thing. These people are fething insane. They live by stone age laws and have nothing to go on but blind faith. It makes me sick that they kill their own children, rage non stop war, all over ancient books that are most likely BS to start. How many times can a text be translated before the original meaning is totally lost? I'll tell ya, 2-3. Language from the time the gospels were written till the time they were interpreted for the masses to read they became completely different stories. They became stories to enslave and shackle, not set free.
Well actually that's the interesting thing about the Quran and Islam, it's never "truly" been translated. A real Quran is ONLY in Arabic and changes and even commentary on the Quran have extensive pedigrees behind them. I get what you're trying to say but I've always found that interesting.
I don't get it, how are people in this day and age so blind to the world around them?
Religion is a mask of ignorance, I do it because a book says my god told me to.
Religion. Profit Honor. Patriotism. Plain ol sociopathy. The fact is, the book doesn't say that. People say that, because it lets them justify their inhumanity to others.
"I was only following orders!" they scream, like it justifies it all.
*sigh* Well, judgment is coming, one way or another. I suspect more than a few will be very surprised as the name of God becomes molten brass on their lips for the evils they have done.
d-usa wrote: One last post to sum up my feelings on this subject, and then I am leaving this thread:
There is only one group of victims in this conflict:
The civilians in the area. Both the Palestinian civilians and the Israeli civilians. They are the ones who don't know if their neighborhood will be blown up tomorrow or if they will see the end of the day. They are the groups that are trying to make a living, raise families, and stay safe and alive.
I am not defending either side in this. I can understand some of the motivations on both sides, and I can see many errors and wrongs on both sides. My issue with the usual arguments is that they absolve Israel of any wrongs, and that is what I don't agree with. But thinking that Israel is committing wrongs does not mean that I think that Hamas is right.
This pretty much should sum it up.
Although the digression talking about US support of terrorists is a legitimate one, as we've supported a lot of terrible people and organizations over the years, out of political expediency. We don't have a lot of moral highground to stand on, although most of us try to be better. Dismissing any side in this conflict as subhuman or barbaric is fundamentally hypocritical, given the history of every nation including our own recent history.
Although the digression talking about US support of terrorists is a legitimate one, as we've supported a lot of terrible people and organizations over the years, out of political expediency. We don't have a lot of moral highground to stand on, although most of us try to be better. Dismissing any side in this conflict as subhuman or barbaric is fundamentally hypocritical, given the history of every nation including our own recent history.
Mod...agreeing...with...me...
Who are you, and what have you done with Mannahnin?
whembly wrote: Also... aren't the Palistinians traditional Syrians?
Traditional in what sense? The difference between Lebanon,Syria, Jordan and Arab Palestinians is who held the territory post WWI. They are artificial polities that have since grown into separate nations. Instead of growing into nations and growing into polities like everyone else.
whembly wrote: Also... aren't the Palistinians traditional Syrians?
Traditional in what sense? The difference between Lebanon,Syria, Jordan and Arab Palestinians is who held the territory post WWI. They are artificial polities that have since grown into separate nations. Instead of growing into nations and growing into polities like everyone else.
whembly wrote: Also... aren't the Palistinians traditional Syrians?
Traditional in what sense? The difference between Lebanon,Syria, Jordan and Arab Palestinians is who held the territory post WWI. They are artificial polities that have since grown into separate nations. Instead of growing into nations and growing into polities like everyone else.
Traditional meaning decendents and culture...
It's jsut a Fubar situation all over...
Then yes in the sense that they the Lebanese,Syrians, and Jordanians are all the same general group.
Then yes in the sense that they the Lebanese,Syrians, and Jordanians are all the same general group.
Ironically, these same people have been fighting ever since the New Kingdom period. Some have actually suggested that Moses was fleeing Pharaoh not because of Judaism, but because he had been a supporter of Akhenaten, who, as far as anyone can tell, was the originator of the idea of monotheism. (previous to this, the Jews had worshiped an entire pantheon. )
Not sure if it's accurate, but it causes some events to make more sense, and casts others in a very different light.
Ironically, these same people have been fighting ever since the New Kingdom period. Some have actually suggested that Moses was fleeing Pharaoh not because of Judaism, but because he had been a supporter of Akhenaten, who, as far as anyone can tell, was the originator of the idea of monotheism. (previous to this, the Jews had worshiped an entire pantheon. )
Not sure if it's accurate, but it causes some events to make more sense, and casts others in a very different light.
Don't know where you go that idea, pretty sure Abraham was the first recorded monotheist, and he came about on the way back from Babylon if I'm not mistaken.
The first monotheistic religion is a subject of much debate. One part is that Zorastrianism may be the first real monothesitic religion, the other is when Judaism became monothesitic.
What's that you say? Judaism wasn't always monothesitic? Yeah it was Henotheistic and then it wasn't. Maybe it happened in the Desert, maybe just before the Unified Monarchy. Either way Abraham wasn't the first monotheist.
I don't condone violence, but I recognise that when you want your own country, you use the tools you have at your disposal. For the Jews at the time, outgunned as they were, that meant bombing campaigns and abductions. It sucks, but that's how it is.
Now, 60 something years later, the Palestinians are doing the same.
And people on-line, with absolutely no understanding of the history of these events, take up this moralistic positions against one side for using whatever weapons they have at their disposal.
All the Palestinians have at their disposal, according to Sebster, is terrorism, so we - and Israel - have no right to criticize (or, excuse me, "take up moralistic positions" against one side) because of it.
If all they can do is deliberately target civilians, who are we to judge?
For some reason you've read my statement that the violent response by the Palestinians was probable, perhaps even inevitable, and you've heard that and somehow in your brain lurched to a conclusion that therefore any retaliation against that must be wrong. Which is so stupid it just kind of makes me sad.
I mean, any idiot on Earth knows that if a mob boss finds out you've been sleeping with his wife, at the very least you're going to cop one hell of a beating. We can all recognise that the mob boss shouldn't go around beating up on people, but we all accept the basic reality of what's going to happen when you go aroudn bragging you've been banging his wife.
And yet, according to your line of reasoning, by acknowledging that such a response is inevitable that means no-one should do anything to stop it. You shouldn't call the police to get protection, or fight back however you can. So ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lone Cat wrote: Iran Theocrats never says good things about Israel (and Jews in general). supporting Palestine is one thing. what will Iran do after Palestine is recognised by U.N. ?
Nothing. Iran will do nothing. Why would they do anything?
How can you sure that Iran doesn't have any nukes?
Uh, that's a given. No-one anywhere is claiming they've got nukes. People are debating how close they are, and in some cases whether its actually a viable goal at all. And Mossad, who are s
What proofs that Iran only denounce Israel and jews but never actually sends any military aid to Hamas no matter if they actually can?
They do send aid, again that's not a secret. But the difference between smuggling some rocket parts and committing to the end of your nation by firing a nuclear weapon at a nuclear power who's closest ally happens to have the most powerful nuclear arsenal in history is really quite big.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's safe to assume that Mossad knows everything. Including what you personally had for breakfast this morning, your total body composition down to the DNA, and the last time you kissed your significant other on the mouth and if he/she was into the kiss at all.
That is not a joke.
Yeah, I know you're not joking. Seriously, Mossad are just incredibly good at what they do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Well, if Iran had nukes, they would have probably used them by now. Or given one to a third party to use for them. Less chance of an international invasion that way(if only slight)
Once again, Mossad disagrees with you. And in a choice between the most effective intelligence service on Earth and some guy on the internet, I'm going to give a bit more weight to Mossad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: My only worry about Palistinian gaining UN recognition is how this was achieved.
Is it that far fetched that other groups would do the same thing?
This changes a lot of things.
If other peoples around the world are occupied by another country who won't grant them citizenship and won't allow them to become their own country, and they convince the UN to grant them notional existance as a non-member state, then that'd be nice as well.
Seaward wrote: What doesn't work about that scenario is that nothing at all is going to change for your everyday Palestinian as a result of the vote. Palestinians are going to realize this, eventually, and Abbas is going to become more irrelevant than ever as Hamas says, "See? Violence is the only way," now with some evidence.
So you agree the fundamental problem is the living standards among Palestinians, and that if Israel worked to improve those standards, rather than to reduce them, we'd be much closer to a lasting peace?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote: Uh-oh... These guys really could give masterclasses on eye-for-an-eye making the whole world blind, couldn't they....?
Israel has authorised the construction of 3,000 more housing units in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank, according to Israeli officials.
It is also speeding up the processing of 1,000 planning permissions.
Well, according to at least one person Dakka the settlements aren't an issue because Israel hasn't formed a new one since the late 90s.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think I've yet come to terms with how aggressively the pro-Israel crowd on Dakka reject the basic realities of this issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: As far as Im concerned this Israel Palestinian thing ended the day the Palestinians said feth a two state solution and tried to massacre the other half.
So, basically what you're saying is that you heard a simplistic narrative, used that to make your mind up, and have since avoided learning anything about the issue.
Sounds about right for much of Dakka when it comes to this issue, unfortunately.
AustonT wrote: As far as Im concerned this Israel Palestinian thing ended the day the Palestinians said feth a two state solution and tried to massacre the other half.
So, basically what you're saying is that you heard a simplistic narrative, used that to make your mind up, and have since avoided learning anything about the issue.
Sounds about right for much of Dakka when it comes to this issue, unfortunately.
AustonT wrote: Are you really in this fething thread talking about a Jewish homeland and you don't have any idea how Argentina might be involved.
Sebster was right. And I think I just swallowed my own vomit.
All I'm saying. If you know things contribute, if you don't read and ask questions. And if you think you know things and it becomes obvious you don't, then back away, and take the opportunity to learn.
I'm not even being sarcastic here. In the history of the United States we have acted more like Palestine, yet we side with their opponents because "that is the right thing to do".
One of the arguments I hear the most is "The Jews have always lived in Israel, that is their historical homeland, they have ties there, etc etc etc".
To me that is just a stupid argument, and not just because I am sitting on a continent full of white people who are sad that the land that used to be full of "red" people is not white enough anymore.
It's even dumber because the Palestinians have lived there for a very long time as well.
And ultimately, once your people have been there a generation, then what you're really dealing with is kids who were born in a place and have lived their whole lives there. You can't demand they move because of what their parents, grandparents, or ancestors back 2,000 years did or didn't do. You can't make them move, either morally or practically.
So any talk of anyone moving just doesn't work. It's a nonsense. All that matters is how you get both sides to live peacefully.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: No. I couldn't care less about historical claims. Palestinian leadership - and a lot of Palestinians - are bad for other reasons.
Wow. That's some hardcore nuance right there. "That side is bad."
Don't know where you go that idea, pretty sure Abraham was the first recorded monotheist, and he came about on the way back from Babylon if I'm not mistaken.
Except that Abraham means 'father of multitudes' and does not appear in the early versions of the text. He first turns up in versions following Nebuchadnezzar's invasion (about the same time that Deuteronomy was altered). This took place about 600 BCE. Akhenaten ruled Egypt around 1356-1333 BCE and tried to force the worship of Aten on the entrenched priesthood. His son, Tutankhamun (aka King Tut) repealed most of what his father had down and ordered the old temples Akhenaten had ordered demolished rebuilt.
Not as regards prominence. In brief, Ur lost its power and was succeeded by Babylon.
Actually it's quite specific. 'Ur of the Chaldeans' This means that Abraham left Ur after it's capture by the Babylonians, who were called Chaldeans around the period of the destruction of the first temple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Some natives understood this and assimilated themselves into US society, and were better off for that.
Right up to the moment they were rounded up and sent west too. My grandmother told me the story her grandmother told her, about how when they were forced out of their homes, the white people stood outside hope to steal anything they couldn't take with them. She spent an hour smashing anything she couldn't pack into the single wagon they were allowed, then torched the house.
When George Washington ordered what was, if not the first, pretty close, crime against humanity the United States Army committed, many of the officers complained that the native villages, towns and one city they burned were far too nice for the natives, and complained bitterly that many of the houses had glass windows, a luxury they themselves could not afford.
Further, the idea that we were wandering savages who did not understand land ownership or the trappings of civilization is one of the big lies they like to tell in schools. They forget that William Penn was so kind as to explain it to us. On the occasions that the white governors actually kept their bargains, there was actually surprisingly little strife, as the Penn's were always happy to point out to their somewhat greedier neighbors.
I know you like that as your little thing and everything, but seriously, you posted that nonsense. I mean, even ignoring the one-sided and simplistic it is to claim that Palestine rejected peace (Zionist factions said no plenty of times too, you know), what in the flying fuckballs does it matter to a kid born into Palestine or Israel today?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: hehehe, yeah. Please disregard that post. I was drunk as a skunk when I was posting the other night. I see I forget things when I am in that state.
Is cool. Thankyou for admitting your mistake and letting the debate move on.
If there was more of that Dakka would be a much improved place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: Then yes in the sense that they the Lebanese,Syrians, and Jordanians are all the same general group.
True. It's worth mentioning again that people honestly believed that Palestinian Arabs would generally depopulate the area, and move to neighbouring countries - especially to Jordan. That country actually received and patriated millions of refugees through to 1970s or so. But what no-one saw coming was the rise of Palestinian nationalism, both in the occupied zones and in the camps in Jordan (where there are multiple generation refugees still trying to get back to Palestine, somehow).
That rise corresponded with a general rise in nationalism and the rights of the individual across the world - the idea of telling people to pack up their house and move to another territory because an area 'belongs' to some other ethnic group sounds completely bizarre today, but was actually a broadly accepted, albeit contraversial practice, through much of the 20th century. Population swaps were pretty common across Europe, and some even occurred in the wake of WWII.
The last, most contraversial, and least successful of which has been Israel.
Actually it's quite specific. 'Ur of the Chaldeans' This means that Abraham left Ur after it's capture by the Babylonians, who were called Chaldeans around the period of the destruction of the first temple.
I have never heard Babylonians referred to as 'Chaldeans' and, given that Babylon and Ur exist within the region that is called 'Chaldea' I am hesitant to trust your turn of phrase.
sebster wrote: For some reason you've read my statement that the violent response by the Palestinians was probable, perhaps even inevitable, and you've heard that and somehow in your brain lurched to a conclusion that therefore any retaliation against that must be wrong. Which is so stupid it just kind of makes me sad.
Actually, I read your statement that terrorist campaigns against civilians are entirely justified if that's all you have at your disposal and realized, yet again, that you hold some awfully reprehensible opinions.
I mean, any idiot on Earth knows that if a mob boss finds out you've been sleeping with his wife, at the very least you're going to cop one hell of a beating. We can all recognise that the mob boss shouldn't go around beating up on people, but we all accept the basic reality of what's going to happen when you go aroudn bragging you've been banging his wife.
And yet, according to your line of reasoning, by acknowledging that such a response is inevitable that means no-one should do anything to stop it. You shouldn't call the police to get protection, or fight back however you can. So ridiculous.
I don't think even you know what point you're arguing at the moment, but I'm glad you used that analogy.
All I've been doing is saying that the mob boss' response to finding out some dude was sleeping with his wife is more immoral than sleeping with the mob boss' wife in the first place. Yeah, sleeping with a married woman's bad, but killing a guy for sleeping with your wife is worse. You, on the other hand, have been trying to claim they're morally equivalent. At this point I'm fairly certain you're just trolling, as in most threads you post in,
sebster wrote: So you agree the fundamental problem is the living standards among Palestinians, and that if Israel worked to improve those standards, rather than to reduce them, we'd be much closer to a lasting peace?
No. I was not remotely talking about living standards.
If Israel worked to improve living standards among Palestinians, it just means plans to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible would be made in nicer apartments. If what Palestinians really wanted was simply a better standard of living, they'd be clamoring for immediate annexation into Israel. Arab Israelis have it pretty good, especially compared to...well, most of the other states in the region.
I have never heard Babylonians referred to as 'Chaldeans' and, given that Babylon and Ur exist within the region that is called 'Chaldea' I am hesitant to trust your turn of phrase.
Well, Nabopolassar 'the Chaldean' was Nebuchadnezzar's father, so...
Seaward wrote: Actually, I read your statement that terrorist campaigns against civilians are entirely justified if that's all you have at your disposal and realized, yet again, that you hold some awfully reprehensible opinions.
So you make up gak in your brain, pretend it's what someone else thinks and then condemn people for it. Well if that's how you want to spend your time on the internet I guess that's up to you. It seems a tremendous waste of time to me, and more than a little bit crazy, but it's your time to spend how you like.
Meanwhile, as I've said countless times, I don't condone terrorism of any kind. I just accept what people are likely to do in a given situation.
Meanwhile, you stand off on the side saying 'I am morally opposed to terrorism and that makes me awesome at solving this issue'... which probably makes you feel pretty righteous, but is really quite useless.
All I've been doing is saying that the mob boss' response to finding out some dude was sleeping with his wife is more immoral than sleeping with the mob boss' wife in the first place. Yeah, sleeping with a married woman's bad, but killing a guy for sleeping with your wife is worse. You, on the other hand, have been trying to claim they're morally equivalent.
No, I'm saying one leads to the other. Morality doesn't mean anything if what you want is to stop any of it happening.
If Israel worked to improve living standards among Palestinians, it just means plans to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible would be made in nicer apartments. If what Palestinians really wanted was simply a better standard of living, they'd be clamoring for immediate annexation into Israel. Arab Israelis have it pretty good, especially compared to...well, most of the other states in the region.
Ha ha. Yeah, Israel is totally, definitely going to incorporate the Palestinians into Israel, and become an ethnic minority in their own country. That's both a plausible and totally sensible thing to request. Yep, well done.
I think you made more sense when you were pretending that Palestinian terrorism exists because they're bad.
If Israel worked to improve living standards among Palestinians, it just means plans to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible would be made in nicer apartments.
Yeah, it's like that. I can't tell whether you're just that racist or just that stupid, Seaward.
If what Palestinians really wanted was simply a better standard of living, they'd be clamoring for immediate annexation into Israel.
Yes, because after all, conditions in Gaza wouldn't have anything to do with the Israeli blockaid of things most civilized nations consider basics, whatsoever.
BaronIveagh wrote: Yes, because after all, conditions in Gaza wouldn't have anything to do with the Israeli blockaid of things most civilized nations consider basics, whatsoever.
Careful, you've strayed pretty far from 'Palestinian terrorism exists because they're bad people', and that probably means you condone terrorism.
You should read that Wikipedia article, as it does not equate "Chaldean" with "Babylonian".
"The Neo-Babylonian Empire or the Chaldean Empire was a period of Mesopotamian history which began in 626 BC and ended in 539 BC." - Wikipedia.
It's the first sentence.
Also from Wikipedia:
"Chaldean (or Chaldian) may refer to:
Historical Babylon, particularly in a Hellenistic context
Chaldea, "the Chaldees", Hellenistic designation for a part of Babylon
The 11th dynasty of Babylon (6th century BC) is conventionally known as the Chaldean Dynasty
Chaldean mythology, generalized term used to refer to all the mythologies of ancient Sumer, Akkad, Assyria and Babylon (Mesopotamian religions)"
2 Chronicles 36 from the King James:
17 Therefore He brought upon them the king of the Chaldeans, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped with age; He gave them all into his hand.
18 And all the vessels of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the king and of his princes, all these he brought to Babylon.
19 And they burned the house of God, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and burned all the palaces thereof with fire and destroyed all the goodly vessels thereof.
20 And those who had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia,
BaronIveagh wrote: Then you are only opposed to people that use terrorism against you. You're just fine with using it on other people.
Ah, you're one of those guys.
The United States supports those that use torture, terrorism and war crimes when it is in their interest. This is not new.
"General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of the United States."
-Nixon
Very true. if not with the U.S. help. Bourbons will not reclaim its last stronghold in Europe.
And if it's not because of Juan Carlos wisdom, chosing the path of peace rather than pure Catholic rule. Spanish Civil War would erupt again in 1975 and it would be a perfect bloodbath. Imagine a group of Red Witches openly do gunfights against the Holy Inquisition. communists dragged to the streets and burned alive, in the same token. Witches sacked churches and crucify priests and nuns.
if it happens. would it leads to the third world war?
Very true. if not with the U.S. help. Bourbons will not reclaim its last stronghold in Europe.
And if it's not because of Juan Carlos wisdom, chosing the path of peace rather than pure Catholic rule. Spanish Civil War would erupt again in 1975 and it would be a perfect bloodbath. Imagine a group of Red Witches openly do gunfights against the Holy Inquisition. communists dragged to the streets and burned alive, in the same token. Witches sacked churches and crucify priests and nuns.
if it happens. would it leads to the third world war?
BaronIveagh wrote: Yeah, it's like that. I can't tell whether you're just that racist or just that stupid, Seaward.
No, you're right. I don't think Hamas is one very special HGTV House Hunters episode away from stopping its campaign against Israel, so clearly I'm racist.
Look, I know Sebster's an expert on everything, ever because he can access Wikipedia from his office computer, but you might still be salvageable. There are plenty of ways to get some firsthand experience of the intractability and irrationality of that conflict - or damn near any other in the region. A couple years ago, even bare bones EMT training could've gotten you a sweet contract with Academi or Aegis or whoever else you wanted. Hell, go as an UN aid worker for all I care. Go on vacation. But staring at it from thousands of miles away doesn't do it justice, because it's not about simple, singular solutions.
It's blood. It's tribal. It's not rational. Rational people don't spit on the path to sovereignty if sovereignty's really what they're after. One's bad, but the other's far worse. Whine about reality's lack of balance if you want, but it doesn't change anything.
Look, I know Sebster's an expert on everything, ever because he can access Wikipedia from his office computer, but you might still be salvageable. There are plenty of ways to get some firsthand experience of the intractability and irrationality of that conflict - or damn near any other in the region. A couple years ago, even bare bones EMT training could've gotten you a sweet contract with Academi or Aegis or whoever else you wanted. Hell, go as an UN aid worker for all I care. Go on vacation. But staring at it from thousands of miles away doesn't do it justice, because it's not about simple, singular solutions.
Well, other than the part where me reentering Israel is unlikely at best, I've generally found that simple solutions are a good place to start. See, one thing that I've always taken to heart is this: guerrillas don't last long without people supporting them.
While I doubt that stopping both sides crimes against humanity will end this conflict immediately, they have to stop for any hope to exist for future generations to be conflict free. The longer Israel runs their own version of the Warsaw Ghetto and announces more settlements, the stronger the hold of Hamas on the population. That and the fact they launch wildly disproportionate reprisals also isn't helping. They REALLY need to open thier history books and look at how badly disproportionate reprisals backfire when it comes to dealing with an guerrilla force.
I will say though that no, what made it stupid and racist was the assumption that it's the people in the ghetto that are planning rocket attacks. They're not, by and large. People that don't have money for food don't have money for rockets. Those plans are already planned in nice apartments far from the fighting. The plans get passed down to local guys that then carry them out. Or, at least that's my understanding of how Hamas does it.
Seaward wrote: Look, I know Sebster's an expert on everything, ever because he can access Wikipedia from his office computer, but you might still be salvageable.
No, I just post on things I know about. Whereas you launch into any thread you can, and start posting without spending half a second thinking about whether you actually have any information to give people, or just a noisy, fact free opinion.
No surprise how you've gotten so bitter, so quickly over being corrected on stuff.
It's blood. It's tribal. It's not rational. Rational people don't spit on the path to sovereignty if sovereignty's really what they're after. One's bad, but the other's far worse.
Except, of course, the Zionists were just as bad, and used just as awful measures as their opponents, until they won. Once they got a stable country that provided great economic opportunities for their kids then suddenly sneaking about with bombs and ambushing military patrols started looking like a really unnecessary waste of life.
At the same life for the Palestinians got a whole lot worse, and they started getting even worse with their actions.
It's clear the economic situation can very quickly change how people act, and so your grand theory of irrational, forever war of tribalism is a-class bs.
Now it's up to you whether I could post that because I just looked it up on wiki or because I actually know things. Either way I'm bringing facts to an internet debate, which is apparently cheating.
It took me a while to figure out what was going on with Lonecat's posts, but I think I got there eventually.
Basically think of that particularly dreadful type of cross over fan fiction, where characters are thrown in from all over the place not based on being from the same genre, or having anything even remotely to do with each other, but basically because the author has heard of them. So the stuff where Jean Luc Picard teams up with John the Baptist to stop Sauron from leading the British forces to victory in the Revolutionary War.
Lonecat's posts are basically like that. Any normal impulse to sense or reason is abandoned entirely, and instead you just get everything he knows thrown into a blender. The idea that the House of Bourbon as a meaningful political dynasty is 200 years dead simply doesn't matter - Lonecat throws them in there as real player next to the Catholic Church as major players in a third world war.
sebster wrote:Basically think of that particularly dreadful type of cross over fan fiction, where characters are thrown in from all over the place not based on being from the same genre, or having anything even remotely to do with each other, but basically because the author has heard of them. So the stuff where Jean Luc Picard teams up with John the Baptist to stop Sauron from leading the British forces to victory in the Revolutionary War.
ROFLMFAO.
Sebs sometimes I disagree vehemently with you, but every once in a while you deliver an epic gem like this.
Overall I feel like Lone Cat has the best of intentions and either through translation or a Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory-esque mind it comes out...well the way it comes out. Back when he was more coherent I thought it was Google Translate's fault...
Wow, I can't remember the last time sebster has made me laugh this hard (I literally collapsed on my desk) and it's not because what you're saying is illogical since I do agree with your statements, it's just your descriptions are hilarious.
sebster wrote:Basically think of that particularly dreadful type of cross over fan fiction, where characters are thrown in from all over the place not based on being from the same genre, or having anything even remotely to do with each other, but basically because the author has heard of them. So the stuff where Jean Luc Picard teams up with John the Baptist to stop Sauron from leading the British forces to victory in the Revolutionary War.
ROFLMFAO.
Sebs sometimes I disagree vehemently with you, but every once in a while you deliver an epic gem like this.
Overall I feel like Lone Cat has the best of intentions and either through translation or a Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory-esque mind it comes out...well the way it comes out. Back when he was more coherent I thought it was Google Translate's fault...
On that Exalted thing, how do people find out they've been exalted. I've exalted a few people, and figured they'd get a message or something. How's it work?
On that Exalted thing, how do people find out they've been exalted. I've exalted a few people, and figured they'd get a message or something. How's it work?
Lego is withholding the info from all of us, I don't know why though.
"The Neo-Babylonian Empire or the Chaldean Empire was a period of Mesopotamian history which began in 626 BC and ended in 539 BC." - Wikipedia.
It's the first sentence.
"Neo-Babylonian" does not mean "Babylonian", much as "Chaldea" does not mean "Mesopotamia" or "Sumer". The region of the world in question has had many names, and it is important to be precise when discussing it.
To be brief again: Ur and Babylon were city-states in a region known both as Mesopotamia and Chaldea. Ur was once the prominent power, but it was succeeded by Babylon.
On that Exalted thing, how do people find out they've been exalted. I've exalted a few people, and figured they'd get a message or something. How's it work?
Lego is withholding the info from all of us, I don't know why though.
I was under the impression that they're still trying to figure out what exactly to do with the system, so they're just gathering data on how we use it as is.
"The Neo-Babylonian Empire or the Chaldean Empire was a period of Mesopotamian history which began in 626 BC and ended in 539 BC." - Wikipedia.
It's the first sentence.
"Neo-Babylonian" does not mean "Babylonian", much as "Chaldea" does not mean "Mesopotamia" or "Sumer". The region of the world in question has had many names, and it is important to be precise when discussing it.
To be brief again: Ur and Babylon were city-states in a region known both as Mesopotamia and Chaldea. Ur was once the prominent power, but it was succeeded by Babylon.
Abraham predates Chaldea by about a millennia. But probably as a product of being written by Hellenized Jews the Septuagint calls them קסדים.a term that probably was t used until much later.
Very true. if not with the U.S. help. Bourbons will not reclaim its last stronghold in Europe.
And if it's not because of Juan Carlos wisdom, chosing the path of peace rather than pure Catholic rule. Spanish Civil War would erupt again in 1975 and it would be a perfect bloodbath. Imagine a group of Red Witches openly do gunfights against the Holy Inquisition. communists dragged to the streets and burned alive, in the same token. Witches sacked churches and crucify priests and nuns.
if it happens. would it leads to the third world war?
Do you read what you type?
I do! I'm talking about what will happen if Juan Carlos chose the wrong path. because he was bound to inherit Francisco Franco's rule. This was made possible with the help of the USA and Nato.
I don't appreciate all of your insults and saying that i am not reading every posts i did!
what is your "What if"? version of Post-Franco Spain?
I don't have a "what if/" version of post-franco Spain...
I accept that what happened happened and don't particularly trouble myself with it. Mostly (If not solely) because there is nothing I can do about it.
I'm not insulting you by saying "Do you read what you post?" I'm genuinely interested. Because in my mind a post asking about whether a several hundred year royal dynasty might return to somehow reclaim Spain and start a civil war between a totally defunct institution (The Inquisition) and a more or less imaginary (as far as I can tell) witchcraft group and whether it would start world war 3 seems not only off topic but also... kinda dumb... especially in a topic where we are talking about he UN voting to recognise Palestine as a state.
"Neo-Babylonian" does not mean "Babylonian", much as "Chaldea" does not mean "Mesopotamia" or "Sumer". The region of the world in question has had many names, and it is important to be precise when discussing it.
To be brief again: Ur and Babylon were city-states in a region known both as Mesopotamia and Chaldea. Ur was once the prominent power, but it was succeeded by Babylon.
Neo-Babylonian is the name of a period of the Babylonian empire, to differentiated it from the Kassite Babylonian Empire and the Amorite Babylonian Empire of Hammurabi. In much he same way 'Old Kingdom' and 'New Kingdom' break up Egypt's history. In particular it coves the ascension of the Chaldean Dynasty to the assimilation by the Achaemenid Empire.
The Jewish Encyclopedia, (1906)
Entry: Chaldea
"The Chaldean country, in the strict sense, lay in southern Babylonia, on the lower Euphrates and Tigris. But the name was extended by the Biblical writers to include the whole of Babylonia, after the Chaldean Nebuchadnezzar had established the new Babylonian empire and brought his people to world-wide fame. Indeed, it is doubtful whether the Biblical "Chaldea" and "Chaldeans" ever connoted the ancient country and people; these terms, until the eighth century B.C., were restricted to the region along the head of the Persian gulf (see Babylonia)."
Neo-Babylonian is the name of a period of the Babylonian empire, to differentiated it from the Kassite Babylonian Empire and the Amorite Babylonian Empire of Hammurabi.
You have just distinguished between 3 Babylonian Empires.
It took me a while to figure out what was going on with Lonecat's posts, but I think I got there eventually.
Basically think of that particularly dreadful type of cross over fan fiction, where characters are thrown in from all over the place not based on being from the same genre, or having anything even remotely to do with each other, but basically because the author has heard of them. So the stuff where Jean Luc Picard teams up with John the Baptist to stop Sauron from leading the British forces to victory in the Revolutionary War.
Lonecat's posts are basically like that. Any normal impulse to sense or reason is abandoned entirely, and instead you just get everything he knows thrown into a blender. The idea that the House of Bourbon as a meaningful political dynasty is 200 years dead simply doesn't matter - Lonecat throws them in there as real player next to the Catholic Church as major players in a third world war.
Sebastien.
1. Don't you believe that Spain is stragically important to the US dominance over Western Europe? in 1975, there's still Cold War, USA and Soviets are always at throat to each other.
2. If you say "Bourbon is no longer a political dynasty". then why is there a Coup d'Etat in Spain in the 80s (or many years after Franco passed away) and the King says 'No' to that rightwing movement. the Coup was suppressed? and then why only ETA (Basque separatist movement) and some few hardcore Falangists still 'wages war' against tne new Spain government (and its war is simply a series of terrorist attacks rather than a full fledge civil war). Juan Carlos did guide Spanish politics to ensure that neither vengeful Republicans nor paranoic Falangist gains any dominancy in the Post-Franco politics (until the two were 'diluted') otherwise there will be the civil war. Soviets (and another Communist power in general) did support Spanish Republicans in one way or another. if the King did not arrange a secret deal to bring them back to politics. Soviets will resume its interests in Ibrea.
3. Roman Catholic Church never says good thing about Communism. yet Pope John Paul II (he who came from the then Communist-ruled Poland) simply denounced the Communism and Soviet Union not because of its anticlelical policy. but because series of persecutions, repressions, crackdown, massacre the regime did and still doing by then) he did not, however, call for any Crusade against the Commies. but as you can see, Roman Catholic Church is a worldwide orginization (argurably the first orgization to become really global). it is impossible for the Pope to rule every subject directly. in fact, the Church gave Bishops and Cardinals a considerable sense of autonomy and not all of them acts in unison, in Nicaragua, Cardinals and Bishops were openly oppose Communism and supports the 'Contra' movement (or any non-communist dictators). in El Savador however, in the reign of the U.S. - backed tyrants, local Cardinals opposed the regime regardless of its anticommunism sentiment. in turn the regime did hound so many priests. That is. The Church wouldn't play a major role leading to the WW3 but a few Bishops ruling over a dioclete that overlaps the 'hot zone' might bring the war. Giving a bless to a tyrant troop does not count amongs it, overseering anticommunist armed group does.
The Holy See in the cold war had abandoned the concepts to restore the Inquisition. the local Bishops might revivive it simply as a defence mechanism against communist encroachment.
4. Red Witches refers to communists. especially those armed one.
Neo-Babylonian is the name of a period of the Babylonian empire, to differentiated it from the Kassite Babylonian Empire and the Amorite Babylonian Empire of Hammurabi.
You have just distinguished between 3 Babylonian Empires.
That's a matter of debate. The gap between each of them was shorter than most succession disputes.
And you're trying to drive me off on a tangent to avoid the fact that I've given several sources that show your assertion about Chaldean and Babylonian not being synonymous to be wrong.
sebster wrote: No, I just post on things I know about. Whereas you launch into any thread you can, and start posting without spending half a second thinking about whether you actually have any information to give people, or just a noisy, fact free opinion.
No surprise how you've gotten so bitter, so quickly over being corrected on stuff.
Alright, now I'm genuinely starting to get worried you actually believe a lot of the stuff you say.
Except, of course, the Zionists were just as bad, and used just as awful measures as their opponents, until they won. Once they got a stable country that provided great economic opportunities for their kids then suddenly sneaking about with bombs and ambushing military patrols started looking like a really unnecessary waste of life.
At the same life for the Palestinians got a whole lot worse, and they started getting even worse with their actions.
It's clear the economic situation can very quickly change how people act, and so your grand theory of irrational, forever war of tribalism is a-class bs.
Now it's up to you whether I could post that because I just looked it up on wiki or because I actually know things. Either way I'm bringing facts to an internet debate, which is apparently cheating.
Like this claptrap, for example. It boils down to, "Zionist extremists did bad things seventy years ago, so Palestinians are equivalent to Israelis in moral standing." Seventy years from now, if the Palestinians have managed to cobble together a functioning state that doesn't promote the use of suicide bombers and random rocket attacks on civilian populations, and all the other atrocities their leadership is busily planning at the moment, you might have a point.
Right now, you're just pounding out a sad little collection of apologetics for pointless mass murder.
Seaward wrote: Seventy years from now, if the Palestinians have managed to cobble together a functioning state that doesn't promote the use of suicide bombers and random rocket attacks on civilian populations, and all the other atrocities their leadership is busily planning at the moment, you might have a point.
That, I believe, is the point. Ergun did some shocking stuff, like blowing up the King David hotel for example. They celebrate that every year. Zionists are murdering scum, that doesn't mean that contemporary Israelis are murdering scum.
^ The earliest Palestinians who went war against 'Jews' are christians. While Roman Catholic church declared in 50s or 60s that 'Jews are no longer responsible to the death of Jesus'. the Eastern Orthodoxy (which had no centralized governing body since the Fall of Constantinople) still hold that Jews must pay for their 'crimes'.
Muslims joined the fray relatively late, the main reason was not the hatred against Jews, even if they managed to conquer Israel by 50s they won't simply killed them just because they're Jews. if Jews are useful to Arabian masters, why kill them? the reason is actually 'Anti Imperialism'. and in the recent past, Christianity had been viewed as a tool of Imperialism
Seaward wrote: "Zionist extremists did bad things seventy years ago, so Palestinians are equivalent to Israelis in moral standing." Seventy years from now, if the Palestinians have managed to cobble together a functioning state that doesn't promote the use of suicide bombers and random rocket attacks on civilian populations, and all the other atrocities their leadership is busily planning at the moment, you might have a point.
Right now, you're just pounding out a sad little collection of apologetics for pointless mass murder.
A Sept 1st, 1982 article in Bamahane, the IDF version of Stars and Stripes, quoted a Phalangist "the question we are putting to ourselves is — how to begin, by raping or killing?"
Zionist extremists have done bad things a lot more recently than 70 years ago.
Following the assassination of Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel, then Israeli defense minister Ariel Sharon met with revenge seeking Lebanese Phalangists, informing them that the PLO was behind the assassination (a lie, the real killer was a member of Syrian intelligence). IDF then permitted the Phalangists entry to the refugee camps. By the time pressure from outside reached sufficient levels to warrant intervention by the IDF, between 2k, and 3500 civilians had been slaughtered, creating a scene more appropriate to the rule of Vlad Tepes than a modern nation.
"I saw dead women in their houses with their skirts up to their waists and their legs spread apart; dozens of young men shot after being lined up against an alley wall; children with their throats slit, a pregnant woman with her stomach chopped open, her eyes still wide open, her blackened face silently screaming in horror; countless babies and toddlers who had been stabbed or ripped apart and who had been thrown into garbage piles." - Journalist Janet Lee Stevens on the Sabra and Shatila massacre
While IDF didn't commit the butchery themselves, they let the Phalangists in, they refused to allow anyone to flee, during the night the Israeli forces fired illuminating flares over the camps, and they sat there and watched it happen for two days before attempting to stop it. The Kahan Commission's report, Israel in Lebanon, concluded that the Israeli authorities or forces were directly or indirectly responsible in the massacres and other killings that have been reported to have been carried out by Lebanese militiamen in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in the Beirut area between the 16th and 18th.
Most reliable accounts place the death toll between 2,000 and 3,500 civies.
Seaward, I really, I mean I really really, I cannot fathom your position. I cannot fathom how you can hold those opinions in the face of the evidence.
It just completely baffles me. I think I'm going to avoid Israel/Palestine debates for a while. My blood pressure can't hack it. It's one of the few topic that really makes me angry, because the lack of empathy is so intense and the arguments so poisonous.
Honestly I don't even know why Seaward is a member he has no concern or respect towards the people he/she replies to, as evidenced by him/her frequently taking other posters words out of context, not acknowledging certain points, assuming things they didn't say, not even bothering to
read people's responses properly or just plain making gak up. He's/she's not even interested in having a discussion he's just here to spout his/her often flawed views and anytime someone sees fault with them he/she just misrepresents there replies (essentially arguing with arguments
that don't even exist) and tells them they're wrong without even having a clear understanding of what they said in the first place. If you can't be arsed to listen to what others have to say, how about not posting at all the whole point of a forum is to share and exchange ideas if you have no
interest in hearing what others have to say then go spend your internet time on a place where you aren't interacting with people. Mind you I suppose we're all at fault here as well, some of us actually bother to listen and reply (which arguably makes us more dignified) to his inane dribble.
No one is clean and pure. There are points from both sides. That doesn't prevent others from making a decision to agree with one side or the other. Nor should it. I personally side with Israel. It's a decision based on having visited the region and having friends from several families who fled various areas in the region or who have relatives living in Israel. It's based on my personal viewpoint and knowledge.
I know how I want my country to react should our civilian population be targeted. I applaud Israel for it's discretion. It's not a fight where both sides are standing up and there is no easy solution. One of our civilians is one too many so how can I codemn Israel for the same mentality. My personal opinion but there you go.
My true issue with this is that the UN voted to grant Palestine recognized statehood. I'll be interested in seeing how this develops. Personally I think it was a mistake for the UN. The Palestinian "Territories" are held by different governments so which one is the real Palestinian government?
The UN's authority is already a moderate joke so what happens if they try to flex it's muscles on a nation like Israel? How will the UN react when the next missile from it's newly recognized nation hits Israel and Israel retaliates?
I just think the UN opened a can of worms that it didn't fully consider before it voted.
Hulksmash wrote:No one is clean and pure. There are points from both sides. That doesn't prevent others from making a decision to agree with one side or the other. Nor should it. I personally side with Israel. It's a decision based on having visited the region and having friends from several families who fled various areas in the region or who have relatives living in Israel. It's based on my personal viewpoint and knowledge.
He's probably asleep so I'll do it.
sebster wrote:you have no idea what you're talking about. You just come in this thread with a simplistic yada yada. Read up yada yada. And someday you'll know as much as I do.
Or Vietnam, or Bosnia, or heck the British. 
