Three murdered, more than 20 wounded in 5 attacks
Over a dozen wounded in two simultaneous attacks in Jerusalem's East Talpiot and Geula neighborhoods; in two Ra'anana attacks: 1 seriously hurt, 3 moderately and 1 lightly; fifth stabbing takes place near IKEA in northern city of Kiryat Ata.
I used to live in Kiryat Ata...didn't know they even had a mall. These have been happening all over Israel for about a week now, and all attacks follow the same pattern pretty much. Arab terrorist sometimes initiates by running as many people over as possible with a car, then commences to stab people until he's shot.
Thus far there's been no significant Israeli response, which is probably why there's been zero US media coverage about this.
Ya
I saw the video of the one who drove into the bus stop and hopped out swinging away with a butcher knife. Then some Israeli pulled a side arm out and engage the attacker. Thinking he opted out the guy with the butcher knife
Overheard quite a few kids talking about this on campus today.
My personal opinion? Big ups to the guy that shot that one dude after he'd stabbed a bunch of people. Big ups to the crowd that hospitalized the other one.
This is the so-called 'Lone Wolf' scenario. I don't think there is very much that can be done to anticipate and prevent this kind of attack.
It's impossible to mass screen users of public and private transport. It's impossible to regulate knives when every household needs several of them for normal cooking purposes. It's impossible to detect a conspiracy that consists of one guy deciding to make this kind of attack by himself.
You can only wait for the attack to happen, then react as quickly and effectively as possible.
Three murdered, more than 20 wounded in 5 attacks
Over a dozen wounded in two simultaneous attacks in Jerusalem's East Talpiot and Geula neighborhoods; in two Ra'anana attacks: 1 seriously hurt, 3 moderately and 1 lightly; fifth stabbing takes place near IKEA in northern city of Kiryat Ata.
I used to live in Kiryat Ata...didn't know they even had a mall. These have been happening all over Israel for about a week now, and all attacks follow the same pattern pretty much. Arab terrorist sometimes initiates by running as many people over as possible with a car, then commences to stab people until he's shot.
Thus far there's been no significant Israeli response, which is probably why there's been zero US media coverage about this.
AJ is covering but not from the perspective you would like.
Clearly Jerusalem needs some common sense knife control legislation.
Kilkrazy wrote: This is the so-called 'Lone Wolf' scenario. I don't think there is very much that can be done to anticipate and prevent this kind of attack.
It's impossible to mass screen users of public and private transport. It's impossible to regulate knives when every household needs several of them for normal cooking purposes. It's impossible to detect a conspiracy that consists of one guy deciding to make this kind of attack by himself.
You can only wait for the attack to happen, then react as quickly and effectively as possible.
That's just fatalism talk. Be proactive and ban all knife ownership for citizens, obviously.
But trying to avoid the normal Israel/Palestine argument In regards to what they can do I'm not seeing a lot that can be done except to deal with it. If it's coordinated (which I feel like it has to be) they'll find the links at some point and if it's not then you just have to treat like we do random shootings by crazies and get on with your life.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Since you're clearly rational and open to discussion I'd love to hear your ideas on how exactly Israel should treat them "as people."
Israeli doctors are even providing medical care to these terrorists. That alone speaks volumes.
I don't even know why I'm bothering since you're clearly one of those people who think that good end evil is defined by allegiances, not actions, but for starters:
Stop treating them as second class citizens (on both Israeli and Palestinian land)
Stop occupying their land
Stop using them as slave labour
Stop executing them without trial
Stop shooting at them completely at random
Stop retaliating with massively uneven force
In general, stop the policy of subjugation and extermination of an entire people (we call this apartheid and genocide in civilized lands) and stop being outraged at the meager resistance the victims can mount.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Since you're clearly rational and open to discussion I'd love to hear your ideas on how exactly Israel should treat them "as people."
Israeli doctors are even providing medical care to these terrorists. That alone speaks volumes.
I don't even know why I'm bothering since you're clearly one of those people who think that good end evil is defined by allegiances, not actions, but for starters:
Stop treating them as second class citizens (on both Israeli and Palestinian land)
Stop occupying their land
Stop using them as slave labour
Stop executing them without trial
Stop shooting at them completely at random
Stop retaliating with massively uneven force
In general, stop the policy of subjugation and extermination of an entire people (we call this apartheid and genocide in civilized lands) and stop being outraged at the meager resistance the victims can mount.
Implying that a group which has been known for suicide bombings against civilian targets is "meager resistance"
The temple is way more holy that the dome of the rock, which was created after muhammad died so how could he have traveled to the furthest north mosque on the night he died.
There are no rocket or mortar positions to attack .
No mobs throwing stones with which to counter with CS gas, water cannons or small arms.
No outside agency is taking credit.
I wonder if the number of such attacks will increase. If so what can the state do?
Does Israel have Capital Punishment? If not, then it should be an automatic life sentence. Punish the crime as severely as the law permits. Deterring future attacks via harsh sentencing is about all they can do, short of abandoning the rule of Law (e.g. commit an attack like this, and your entire family will be made to suffer).
Its also only a matter of time till this sort of thing becomes more commonplace in the west. In fact I'm surprised we haven't already had more Lee Rigbys. This is something that literally takes ZERO planning and preperation. Just grab a bunch of kitchen knives, hop in your car and off you go.
Ustrello wrote: The temple is way more holy that the dome of the rock, which was created after muhammad died so how could he have traveled to the furthest north mosque on the night he died.
As a 3rd party individual I'm just going to accept that both are holy places and leave it at that. Can Israel move the Wall?
Ustrello wrote: The temple is way more holy that the dome of the rock, which was created after muhammad died so how could he have traveled to the furthest north mosque on the night he died.
As a 3rd party individual I'm just going to accept that both are holy places and leave it at that. Can Israel move the Wall?
Not without provoking a wave of violence and retaliation from Ultra Orthodox Jews.
Ustrello wrote: The temple is way more holy that the dome of the rock, which was created after muhammad died so how could he have traveled to the furthest north mosque on the night he died.
As a 3rd party individual I'm just going to accept that both are holy places and leave it at that. Can Israel move the Wall?
Not without damaging both the wall AND potentially endangering the mosque. Way too risky...
There are no rocket or mortar positions to attack .
No mobs throwing stones with which to counter with CS gas, water cannons or small arms.
No outside agency is taking credit.
I wonder if the number of such attacks will increase. If so what can the state do?
Does Israel have Capital Punishment? If not, then it should be an automatic life sentence. Punish the crime as severely as the law permits. Deterring future attacks via harsh sentencing is about all they can do, short of abandoning the rule of Law (e.g. commit an attack like this, and your entire family will be made to suffer).
Its also only a matter of time till this sort of thing becomes more commonplace in the west. In fact I'm surprised we haven't already had more Lee Rigbys. This is something that literally takes ZERO planning and preperation. Just grab a bunch of kitchen knives, hop in your car and off you go.
Pretty sure Israel doesn't do capital punishment and Arabs are treated too well in prison to make it a legitimate threat.
It's also impossible to act as though these are truly lone wolf incidents as weeks ago Hamas reps were calling for this specific type of attack.
Imo the problem is Hamas, and if the people elected Hamas then they are accountable for their actions. When the Arabs want peace they will elect a peaceful government. As it is they've shown that they want terrorism.
Eta: I think Israel makes exceptions for Nazis though.
You can argue the other points you made, but this doesn't even reach the coherent test.
1) What do you think the purpose of retaliation is?
2) If Israel were really retaliating, there would be no Palestinians left alive.
To anyone who has been over there, could Israel split Jerusalem with a wall, one side to Israel, one side to Palestine?
Alternatively, could Israel move the Wailing Wall itself, stone by stone, to another location?
Forgive my ignorance here.
Jerusalem is a holy city to two religions with good reason, Christianity and Judaism. Islam took the city over and destroyed almost every holy site that wasn't islam. The reason that Palestinians want Jerusalem is because jews have it. If there were enough Muslims in Tel-Aviv they would start claiming it as a holy city as well and attempting to take it over.
I am just trying to think out the box here. Don't know why, both sides are locked into the cycle of vendetta, with special dripping of religious fervor for that extra zing.
Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
Frazzled wrote: How are you going to force five countries to take Palestinians? That could be difficult.
Well Jordan should probably shoulder most of that responsibility since most "Palestinians" were Jordanian citizens at one point. But other then that, how are we forcing the European Union and UN countries to take in Syrian refugees?
Frazzled wrote: How are you going to force five countries to take Palestinians? That could be difficult.
The world has gone as far as condoning suicide bombing and the stabbing of infants in order to force one country to take them. Forcing 5 more to take their supposedly beloved Muslim brothers really isn't any less reasonable.
Frazzled wrote: How are you going to force five countries to take Palestinians? That could be difficult.
The world has gone as far as condoning suicide bombing and the stabbing of infants in order to force one country to take them. Forcing 5 more to take their supposedly beloved Muslim brothers really isn't any less reasonable.
Frazzled wrote: How are you going to force five countries to take Palestinians? That could be difficult.
Well Jordan should probably shoulder most of that responsibility since most "Palestinians" were Jordanian citizens at one point. But other then that, how are we forcing the European Union and UN countries to take in Syrian refugees?
Frazzled wrote: How are you going to force five countries to take Palestinians? That could be difficult.
The world has gone as far as condoning suicide bombing and the stabbing of infants in order to force one country to take them. Forcing 5 more to take their supposedly beloved Muslim brothers really isn't any less reasonable.
Something something oil shutdown world economy depression something something.
Ghazkuul wrote: Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
3 of those countries are unstable. One is experiencing a 4 year long civil war, with possibly millions of people fleeing the country. And you want to force a big wave of Palestinian immigrants onto them against their will?
Besides, Islamic countries have for decades largely refused to take in Palestinians. The Islamic world prefers Palestinians exactly where they are - as human shields and a thorn in Israel's side. A proverbial stick for the rest of the world to beat Israel with.
Frazzled wrote: How are you going to force five countries to take Palestinians? That could be difficult.
Well Jordan should probably shoulder most of that responsibility since most "Palestinians" were Jordanian citizens at one point. But other then that, how are we forcing the European Union and UN countries to take in Syrian refugees?
Imo the problem is Hamas, and if the people elected Hamas then they are accountable for their actions. When the Arabs want peace they will elect a peaceful government. As it is they've shown that they want terrorism.
This line has been used by many others in many other situations to justify terrible things. "When X want Peace they'll do Y, but they've shown they want Z instead"
By the same logic, are the American people to be held responsible for the actions of the US government?
Now, let me state that I'm not in any way condoning what Hamas does, just taking issues with the line of thinking above.
Let's look at things from the Palestinians perspective. The government that chose to negotiate in the 90's turned out to be absurdly corrupt once in power and then got blasted to smithereens in 2000, losing the means to provide services and to police the population. A power gap develops, and the crazier guys come in an start their own brand of policing but also are the ones that fulfill the services that were no longer being carried out like garbage collection and medical services and schools and pay salaries that the Palestinian Authority no longer was paying. Now, of course they use such services to advance their political agendas ans spread their ideology, but when the only people who have been collecting the garbage and running schools to teach your children and running clinics for the sick and providing food and paychecks, and policing the streets at night, where the former Palestinian Authority could not (or would not), it's not hard to see why many would then start to vote for Hamas.
It's a pattern seen all over the middle east (and many other instances throughout history), where one ostensibly "bad" group falls and is replaced by something even more combative and militant, and people are continually surprised by it for some reason.
Ghazkuul wrote: Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
And the fact that most of these people have lived in the area for generations since before there was an Israel means nothing? You're literally advocating ethnic cleansing, like, by definition.
Well Jordan should probably shoulder most of that responsibility since most "Palestinians" were Jordanian citizens at one point.
They were only Jordanian for a short period of time, about 20 years, as a result of Jordan annexing areas formerly part of the British Palestine Mandate, but the Israeli's kicked them out. Before that they were under British rule, and were Ottoman citizens before that.
Ghazkuul wrote: Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
That's insane, and disgusting. Forced displacement of people is arguably what caused the conflict in the first place. How you'd thing that this idea would solve anything at all is well beyond my capacity to comprehend.
Back to the topic, what can be done in part depends on what exactly is going on.
If, as put forth, these are just 'lone wolf' attacks by disaffected youths, there is not really a short term solution, but an immediate MISO type campaign getting respected Imams and other leaders to put forth sanctity of life/violence against innocents = bad messages and Friday prayer sermons would be a start. Have mothers/sisters of perps crying and while a father sadly speaks about how he wishes his son had taken a different path in life and not destroyed his family as well as that of others. Start pushing commonality of the youth age groups among Jewish and Arab youth (same styles, music, social media, problems with unemployment and strict parents/whatever. Couple these efforts with an effort (both kinetic and not) to take out the radicalizing elements, be they people or more nebulous social media sites.
If these are not just 'lone wolf' and are in fact some type of probing/coordinated efforts to judge timeliness/willingness of the population to initiate another intifada some of the above still work as counters to the message, but you really need to find the planning and coordinating support and leadership cells/nodes and destroy them.
Kilkrazy wrote: This is the so-called 'Lone Wolf' scenario. I don't think there is very much that can be done to anticipate and prevent this kind of attack.
It's impossible to mass screen users of public and private transport. It's impossible to regulate knives when every household needs several of them for normal cooking purposes. It's impossible to detect a conspiracy that consists of one guy deciding to make this kind of attack by himself.
You can only wait for the attack to happen, then react as quickly and effectively as possible.
Like with a personal firearm carried for self defense?
Ghazkuul wrote: Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
Seriously? Thats what caused the whole problem in the first place! Forcefully relocating people never ends well. These people have lived there looong before Israel was a thing, and Im shocked that people would even consider forcefully removing palestinians from their homes. Not to invoke Godwins law, but thats really damn close to what the Nazis did. And its bound to end in open civil war, because *noone* is going to be happy to leave their home, their work, everything theyve worked so hard for to achieve. And you can bet your ass that the current problems in the area would seem absolutely insignificant in comparison to what would happen if your idea was implemented.
I'm also going to state in the strongest possible terms that it is nauseating (if not downright evil) to see members of this community attempting to rationalize and/or legitimize the fact that Jews are intentionally being targeted for murder by knife (or gun, or car, or cleaver), on the street, in broad daylight, due to their ethnicity, while simply going about their daily routines. That is as racist as racism can POSSIBLY get.
Ghazkuul wrote: Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
Seriously? Thats what caused the whole problem in the first place! Forcefully relocating people never ends well. These people have lived there looong before Israel was a thing, and Im shocked that people would even consider forcefully removing palestinians from their homes. Not to invoke Godwins law, but thats really damn close to what the Nazis did. And its bound to end in open civil war, because *noone* is going to be happy to leave their home, their work, everything theyve worked so hard for to achieve. And you can bet your ass that the current problems in the area would seem absolutely insignificant in comparison to what would happen if your idea was implemented.
Well 1: Israel existed before Islam so.......
2: Nazi's didn't relocate, they exterminated ......the jews. So comparing a religious group being relocated to the dozen or so countries in the surrounding area with similar beliefs and culture is in no way remotely close to Nazism. But you weren't trying to make sense you were more concerned with PC and looking like you care.
3: Palestinian is a term to describe ALL residents who lived within a specific area, in this case the area in/around Israel, it INCLUDES the Jews as well, somehow the world has forgotten about that.
4: Israel exists because the world is a racist place and hated/hates the jews. Give them a TINY country of their own and let them live as they wish, this BS about how Israel is holy Muslim ground is absolutely trash.
Ghazkuul wrote: Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
Seriously? Thats what caused the whole problem in the first place! Forcefully relocating people never ends well. These people have lived there looong before Israel was a thing, and Im shocked that people would even consider forcefully removing palestinians from their homes. Not to invoke Godwins law, but thats really damn close to what the Nazis did. And its bound to end in open civil war, because *noone* is going to be happy to leave their home, their work, everything theyve worked so hard for to achieve. And you can bet your ass that the current problems in the area would seem absolutely insignificant in comparison to what would happen if your idea was implemented.
Well 1: Israel existed before Islam so.......
2: Nazi's didn't relocate, they exterminated ......the jews. So comparing a religious group being relocated to the dozen or so countries in the surrounding area with similar beliefs and culture is in no way remotely close to Nazism. But you weren't trying to make sense you were more concerned with PC and looking like you care.
3: Palestinian is a term to describe ALL residents who lived within a specific area, in this case the area in/around Israel, it INCLUDES the Jews as well, somehow the world has forgotten about that.
4: Israel exists because the world is a racist place and hated/hates the jews. Give them a TINY country of their own and let them live as they wish, this BS about how Israel is holy Muslim ground is absolutely trash.
You're still advocating ethnic cleansing (which doesn't require extermination, though relocation is typically the precursor) of people who have lived there at least as long as anyone else (Israel wasn't the only nation to ever exist there) based just on their religion (in an area which has seen a dozen or more religions come and go over the centuries, of which neither Judaism nor Islam is the oldest).
Ghazkuul wrote: Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
Seriously? Thats what caused the whole problem in the first place! Forcefully relocating people never ends well. These people have lived there looong before Israel was a thing, and Im shocked that people would even consider forcefully removing palestinians from their homes. Not to invoke Godwins law, but thats really damn close to what the Nazis did. And its bound to end in open civil war, because *noone* is going to be happy to leave their home, their work, everything theyve worked so hard for to achieve. And you can bet your ass that the current problems in the area would seem absolutely insignificant in comparison to what would happen if your idea was implemented.
Well 1: Israel existed before Islam so.......
2: Nazi's didn't relocate, they exterminated ......the jews. So comparing a religious group being relocated to the dozen or so countries in the surrounding area with similar beliefs and culture is in no way remotely close to Nazism. But you weren't trying to make sense you were more concerned with PC and looking like you care.
3: Palestinian is a term to describe ALL residents who lived within a specific area, in this case the area in/around Israel, it INCLUDES the Jews as well, somehow the world has forgotten about that.
4: Israel exists because the world is a racist place and hated/hates the jews. Give them a TINY country of their own and let them live as they wish, this BS about how Israel is holy Muslim ground is absolutely trash.
You're still advocating ethnic cleansing (which doesn't require extermination, though relocation is typically the precursor) of people who have lived there at least as long as anyone else (Israel wasn't the only nation to ever exist there) based just on their religion (in an area which has seen a dozen or more religions come and go over the centuries, of which neither Judaism nor Islam is the oldest).
Palestinian is not an ethnicity. They are exactly the same as Syrians and Jordanians.
Furthermore there are plenty of Arab Christians, Druze and Bedouins who coexist perfectly well with Israel and even serve in the IDF. The notion that Israel is an apartheid state is intellectually disingenuous and incorrect. Non-Jews in Israel can become full citizens.
Ghazkuul wrote: Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
Seriously? Thats what caused the whole problem in the first place! Forcefully relocating people never ends well. These people have lived there looong before Israel was a thing, and Im shocked that people would even consider forcefully removing palestinians from their homes. Not to invoke Godwins law, but thats really damn close to what the Nazis did. And its bound to end in open civil war, because *noone* is going to be happy to leave their home, their work, everything theyve worked so hard for to achieve. And you can bet your ass that the current problems in the area would seem absolutely insignificant in comparison to what would happen if your idea was implemented.
Well 1: Israel existed before Islam so.......
2: Nazi's didn't relocate, they exterminated ......the jews. So comparing a religious group being relocated to the dozen or so countries in the surrounding area with similar beliefs and culture is in no way remotely close to Nazism. But you weren't trying to make sense you were more concerned with PC and looking like you care.
3: Palestinian is a term to describe ALL residents who lived within a specific area, in this case the area in/around Israel, it INCLUDES the Jews as well, somehow the world has forgotten about that.
4: Israel exists because the world is a racist place and hated/hates the jews. Give them a TINY country of their own and let them live as they wish, this BS about how Israel is holy Muslim ground is absolutely trash.
You're still advocating ethnic cleansing (which doesn't require extermination, though relocation is typically the precursor) of people who have lived there at least as long as anyone else (Israel wasn't the only nation to ever exist there) based just on their religion (in an area which has seen a dozen or more religions come and go over the centuries, of which neither Judaism nor Islam is the oldest).
Palestinian is not an ethnicity. They are exactly the same as Syrians and Jordanians.
You're getting into pedantic semantics. Ultimately we're talking about removing a group of people from an area where they've lived, often with land deeds from the Ottoman Empire, for being different from another group of people.
Let's also not forget that places like Syria aren't exactly homogenous groups either, they're remnants of political borders drawn by imperialistic powers, and are in many cases tearing themselves apart to reorder themselves.
Ghazkuul wrote: Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
Seriously? Thats what caused the whole problem in the first place! Forcefully relocating people never ends well. These people have lived there looong before Israel was a thing, and Im shocked that people would even consider forcefully removing palestinians from their homes. Not to invoke Godwins law, but thats really damn close to what the Nazis did. And its bound to end in open civil war, because *noone* is going to be happy to leave their home, their work, everything theyve worked so hard for to achieve. And you can bet your ass that the current problems in the area would seem absolutely insignificant in comparison to what would happen if your idea was implemented.
Well 1: Israel existed before Islam so.......
2: Nazi's didn't relocate, they exterminated ......the jews. So comparing a religious group being relocated to the dozen or so countries in the surrounding area with similar beliefs and culture is in no way remotely close to Nazism. But you weren't trying to make sense you were more concerned with PC and looking like you care.
3: Palestinian is a term to describe ALL residents who lived within a specific area, in this case the area in/around Israel, it INCLUDES the Jews as well, somehow the world has forgotten about that.
4: Israel exists because the world is a racist place and hated/hates the jews. Give them a TINY country of their own and let them live as they wish, this BS about how Israel is holy Muslim ground is absolutely trash.
You're still advocating ethnic cleansing (which doesn't require extermination, though relocation is typically the precursor) of people who have lived there at least as long as anyone else (Israel wasn't the only nation to ever exist there) based just on their religion (in an area which has seen a dozen or more religions come and go over the centuries, of which neither Judaism nor Islam is the oldest).
Palestinian is not an ethnicity. They are exactly the same as Syrians and Jordanians.
You're getting into pedantic semantics. Ultimately we're talking about removing a group of people from an area where they've lived, often with land deeds from the Ottoman Empire, for being different from another group of people.
For being different? No. See my edit. Plenty of non-Jews get along perfectly fine in Israel as full citizens.
You're getting into pedantic semantics. Ultimately we're talking about removing a group of people from an area where they've lived, often with land deeds from the Ottoman Empire, for being different from another group of people.
No were advocating the removal of a group from a country. Thisgroup is responsible for some of the most violent terrorist attacks in the world and do not wish to live in peace with the country but instead wish to take it over and force the other religions to obey them.
Under jewish rule, Jerusalem has not had religious sites demolished and had graves expunged for the sake of defacing them. Under Muslim rule, Jerusalem saw several thousand year old religious sites defaced and destroyed, had christian/jewish graves dug up and used the Grave stones for the bottoms of septic tanks and other such things.
The Jews deserve a country of their own and Israel is the best option because that is historically where there entire religion lived. Islam on the other hand has Saudi Arabia for most of its holy sites and instead of moving there they are far more interested in fighting the jews for a small part of the middle east, even though there is no oil or other natural resources there to exploit.
4: Israel exists because the world is a racist place and hated/hates the jews. Give them a TINY country of their own and let them live as they wish, this BS about how Israel is holy Muslim ground is absolutely trash.
Oh but its the THIRD holiest site in islam don't you know!
How far down the heirarchy of "holiness" in the eyes of islam does one go down before things become meaningless?
Remember folks, what touched this round of escalation was not Israel killing a kid or anything like that....its was the collective sentiment that JEWS might enter (or even start praying at!) one of the multitude of muslim "holy" places. What touched this off was racial/ethnic inclusivity in regards to a religious site. Ponder that for a few minutes.
Ghazkuul wrote: No were advocating the removal of a group from a country. Thisgroup is responsible for some of the most violent terrorist attacks in the world and do not wish to live in peace with the country but instead wish to take it over and force the other religions to obey them.
You're right, we should deport Israel's current government and place the country under more sensible and peaceful rule.
The Jews deserve a country of their own
Why?
Islam on the other hand has Saudi Arabia for most of its holy sites and instead of moving there they are far more interested in fighting the jews for a small part of the middle east, even though there is no oil or other natural resources there to exploit.
Yeah, "we were already living here when you arrived" is such a horrible reason to want to continue to live somewhere. They should just uproot their entire lives and move to Saudi Arabia because that's where Muslims naturally want to live, when they're not trying to kill all the Jews.
PS: are you aware that Islam is not a monolithic culture, and there are vast numbers of Muslims who share very little culturally with Saudi Arabia?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peter Wiggin wrote: Oh but its the THIRD holiest site in islam don't you know!
How far down the heirarchy of "holiness" in the eyes of islam does one go down before things become meaningless?
I see, so religions are only allowed to have two holy sites, and should be forced to give up the rest? I guess that means the world can only have two Christian churches, so we'll have to close all of the rest.
Remember folks, what touched this round of escalation was not Israel killing a kid or anything like that....its was the collective sentiment that JEWS might enter (or even start praying at!) one of the multitude of muslim "holy" places. What touched this off was racial/ethnic inclusivity in regards to a religious site. Ponder that for a few minutes.
And next week we'll have a thread about how Israel bombed a bunch of innocent people or bulldozed a town to make room for their own settlers. Let's not pretend that Israel's hands are clean in this mess.
Ghazkuul wrote: No were advocating the removal of a group from a country. Thisgroup is responsible for some of the most violent terrorist attacks in the world and do not wish to live in peace with the country but instead wish to take it over and force the other religions to obey them.
You're right, we should deport Israel's current government and place the country under more sensible and peaceful rule.
The Jews deserve a country of their own
Why?
Islam on the other hand has Saudi Arabia for most of its holy sites and instead of moving there they are far more interested in fighting the jews for a small part of the middle east, even though there is no oil or other natural resources there to exploit.
Yeah, "we were already living here when you arrived" is such a horrible reason to want to continue to live somewhere. They should just uproot their entire lives and move to Saudi Arabia because that's where Muslims naturally want to live, when they're not trying to kill all the Jews.
PS: are you aware that Islam is not a monolithic culture, and there are vast numbers of Muslims who share very little culturally with Saudi Arabia?
are you aware that all muslims in the Gaza strip slums were offered Israeli citizenship if they would simply integrate into the society and not attempt to destroy it from within? were you aware that almost all of them said no we would rather sit in squalor then be ruled by a jew. Were also aware that the only reason they aren't in Jordan or Syria or Lebannon, egypt or iraq is because those countries want the Palestinians there so they can use it for political maneuvering in the hopes of one day removing the jewish homeland?
Ghazkuul wrote: Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
Seriously? Thats what caused the whole problem in the first place! Forcefully relocating people never ends well. These people have lived there looong before Israel was a thing, and Im shocked that people would even consider forcefully removing palestinians from their homes. Not to invoke Godwins law, but thats really damn close to what the Nazis did. And its bound to end in open civil war, because *noone* is going to be happy to leave their home, their work, everything theyve worked so hard for to achieve. And you can bet your ass that the current problems in the area would seem absolutely insignificant in comparison to what would happen if your idea was implemented.
Well 1: Israel existed before Islam so.......
2: Nazi's didn't relocate, they exterminated ......the jews. So comparing a religious group being relocated to the dozen or so countries in the surrounding area with similar beliefs and culture is in no way remotely close to Nazism. But you weren't trying to make sense you were more concerned with PC and looking like you care.
3: Palestinian is a term to describe ALL residents who lived within a specific area, in this case the area in/around Israel, it INCLUDES the Jews as well, somehow the world has forgotten about that.
4: Israel exists because the world is a racist place and hated/hates the jews. Give them a TINY country of their own and let them live as they wish, this BS about how Israel is holy Muslim ground is absolutely trash.
1. Phoenicians existed as a people and city states way before the Jews decided to stop wandering around so......... (you may have noticed that there is a marked difference between those people living on the Mediterranean and those further east? that difference is Phoenecian blood. People from Algiers and the Levant (somehow I forgot tunisia) are Phoenician, sure there's Arab mixed in but they are Phoenician.)
2. the Nazi's did relocate, you know, Warsaw ghetto , trains to the extermination centres.
3. I'll remember this next time you are cheering Palestinians being killed (see page 1)
4. They are also free to live in many other countries. I got a big thumbs up from an orthodox kid the other day as he was coming back from synagogue . Kinda proud of my ultra-orthodox beard now, and now understand why half the Lebanese I meet ask me if I'm Jewish I will say that it is perfectly reasonable for a religion to gain religious sites in countries it lives in. I mean feth , Christianity has so many sites in Europe when clearly they should all be pagan.....
Ghazkuul wrote: No were advocating the removal of a group from a country. Thisgroup is responsible for some of the most violent terrorist attacks in the world and do not wish to live in peace with the country but instead wish to take it over and force the other religions to obey them.
You're right, we should deport Israel's current government and place the country under more sensible and peaceful rule.
The Jews deserve a country of their own
Why?
Islam on the other hand has Saudi Arabia for most of its holy sites and instead of moving there they are far more interested in fighting the jews for a small part of the middle east, even though there is no oil or other natural resources there to exploit.
Yeah, "we were already living here when you arrived" is such a horrible reason to want to continue to live somewhere. They should just uproot their entire lives and move to Saudi Arabia because that's where Muslims naturally want to live, when they're not trying to kill all the Jews.
PS: are you aware that Islam is not a monolithic culture, and there are vast numbers of Muslims who share very little culturally with Saudi Arabia?
are you aware that all muslims in the Gaza strip slums were offered Israeli citizenship if they would simply integrate into the society and not attempt to destroy it from within? were you aware that almost all of them said no we would rather sit in squalor then be ruled by a jew. Were also aware that the only reason they aren't in Jordan or Syria or Lebannon, egypt or iraq is because those countries want the Palestinians there so they can use it for political maneuvering in the hopes of one day removing the jewish homeland?
The PLO offered the Israeli Govt. the whole of Jerusalem except for a suburb on the outskirts in the early to late 1990s and the offer was not taken. I'd like to see the govt Israel would have now if those new citizens were given full voting rights - hopefully with less of anything to the right of Likud and with more added Meretz. I mean parts of likud are already starting to make rumbling noises about being outbred by the Israeli muslims and losing control of the government. I truly hope this happens.
I've always thought that the only real solution would be a three state one. Israel, Palestine, and Jerusalem as it's own separate city-state, with a very strong constitution affirming the normal civil rights (voting, speech, press, assembly) as well as religion and separation of church and state. And with laws that make sure that the various religious site are protected and preserved.
Everyone here pontificating about ethnic cleansing ought to keep in mind that that is exactly what Hamas and all Israel's neighbours wish to do to the Jews.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Everyone here pontificating about ethnic cleansing ought to keep in mind that that is exactly what Hamas and all Israel's neighbours wish to do to the Jews.
I don't think anyone is condoning that, I don't think anyone is trying to stick up for them either, but rather pointing out that these ideas, concepts, feelings, and horrible acts aren't unidirectional.
Kilkrazy wrote: This is the so-called 'Lone Wolf' scenario. I don't think there is very much that can be done to anticipate and prevent this kind of attack.
It's impossible to mass screen users of public and private transport. It's impossible to regulate knives when every household needs several of them for normal cooking purposes. It's impossible to detect a conspiracy that consists of one guy deciding to make this kind of attack by himself.
You can only wait for the attack to happen, then react as quickly and effectively as possible.
Like with a personal firearm carried for self defense?
Welcome to the fold
To be frank I think that would result in even more carnage as random bystanders open up on the perp, then on each other, then get shot by the police, since only the actual criminal(s) would know who was the right person to shoot.
You can argue the other points you made, but this doesn't even reach the coherent test.
1) What do you think the purpose of retaliation is?
2) If Israel were really retaliating, there would be no Palestinians left alive.
To anyone who has been over there, could Israel split Jerusalem with a wall, one side to Israel, one side to Palestine?
Alternatively, could Israel move the Wailing Wall itself, stone by stone, to another location?
Forgive my ignorance here.
Best solution(well, the best solution would be for Israel to accept that a Jewish state is an untenable idea unless they're willing to perpetrate total genocide on the Palestinians, which they would also hopefully refuse to do on the grounds it's despicable, and on the basis of that admission honestly and genuinely move forward with a one-state scenario, but nobody's naive enough to think the USA will remove its tongue from Israel's backside long enough to put them in a position where they'd have to commit to honest self-reflection and compromise); neither side is capable of being an adult, so take away their toys. Jerusalem needs to be made an independent city-state under the control of an elected council with equal numbers of Israelis & Palestinians with a tiebreaker member appointed by the UN from a neutral country, access to all parts of the city for all peoples & faiths should be guaranteed by the deployment of a substantial contingent of UN Peacekeepers. Israel can claim it as a symbolic capital city, but only after they get the settler lobby under control and stop stealing the West Bank out from under the Palestinians. Palestine can claim it as a symbolic capital city, but only after Hamas agree to an IRA-style monitored disarmament.
Why is Kerry and the US getting involved? A few stabbings...thats just your average high school party in most cioties in the US. Meanwhile a few miles West, if there's an accident Red Storm starts up.
Again, silly interpretation of history. They held it against multiple attackers in 67 and 73. They've forced all of their opponents to the bargaining table and even gone as far as to return land won in defensive wars.
This Palestinian problem is little more than civil unrest. If push came to shove they could solve the problem in a 1 week expulsion campaign. You're conflating their good will with an inability to hold the land. There is no scenario under which the Palestinians will ever retake Israel aside from trying to breed out the Jewish and Christian population.
Ghazkuul wrote: Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
Personally, I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first, but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Israelis from Israel. Force the European countries to take in the "Israelis" and then enforce a strict border polity to protect Palestine. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks, but in the end, the removal of the Israeli problem would probably calm the Middle East and not continuously inflame it.
Ghazkuul wrote: No were advocating the removal of a group from a country. Thisgroup is responsible for some of the most violent terrorist attacks in the world and do not wish to live in peace with the country but instead wish to take it over and force the other religions to obey them.
You're right, we should deport Israel's current government and place the country under more sensible and peaceful rule.
The Jews deserve a country of their own
Why?
Islam on the other hand has Saudi Arabia for most of its holy sites and instead of moving there they are far more interested in fighting the jews for a small part of the middle east, even though there is no oil or other natural resources there to exploit.
Yeah, "we were already living here when you arrived" is such a horrible reason to want to continue to live somewhere. They should just uproot their entire lives and move to Saudi Arabia because that's where Muslims naturally want to live, when they're not trying to kill all the Jews.
PS: are you aware that Islam is not a monolithic culture, and there are vast numbers of Muslims who share very little culturally with Saudi Arabia?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peter Wiggin wrote: Oh but its the THIRD holiest site in islam don't you know!
How far down the heirarchy of "holiness" in the eyes of islam does one go down before things become meaningless?
I see, so religions are only allowed to have two holy sites, and should be forced to give up the rest? I guess that means the world can only have two Christian churches, so we'll have to close all of the rest.
Remember folks, what touched this round of escalation was not Israel killing a kid or anything like that....its was the collective sentiment that JEWS might enter (or even start praying at!) one of the multitude of muslim "holy" places. What touched this off was racial/ethnic inclusivity in regards to a religious site. Ponder that for a few minutes.
And next week we'll have a thread about how Israel bombed a bunch of innocent people or bulldozed a town to make room for their own settlers. Let's not pretend that Israel's hands are clean in this mess.
Implying Dome of the Rock is actually holy and wasn't a political ploy by the Umayyad caliphate to subvert the monopoly Ibn al-Zubayr had on pilgrimage because of the Ka'ba
Ghazkuul wrote: Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
Personally, I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first, but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Israelis from Israel. Force the European countries to take in the "Israelis" and then enforce a strict border polity to protect Palestine. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks, but in the end, the removal of the Israeli problem would probably calm the Middle East and not continuously inflame it.
Or, more likely, we would find out the existence of a Jewish Israel is not the source of unrest in the middle east.
Ghazkuul wrote: Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
Personally, I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first, but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Israelis from Israel. Force the European countries to take in the "Israelis" and then enforce a strict border polity to protect Palestine. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks, but in the end, the removal of the Israeli problem would probably calm the Middle East and not continuously inflame it.
Or, more likely, we would find out the existence of a Jewish Israel is not the source of unrest in the middle east.
Well...yea.
The problem I see is that if Israel went back to the 1967 borders, nothing would change. As a historical reminder, PLO attacks were occurring BEFORE 1967.
you're already seeing arguments that Israel won't have peace until there is one state-aka Palestinians return to Israel proper. That means the elimination of Israel as a nation under current politics so thats not going to happen.
So Israel pulls back to 1967 borders. It seals its borders and declares Gaza etc can do whatever they want, Israel will view them as separate countries and will no longer occupy.
Then what?
We'll be back here in 50 years talking about another wave of stabbings/bombings/violence.
I've long came to the conclusion that neither side is serious about peace. I honestly think a permanent undercurrent of violence suits extreme elements on both sides.
For the Palestinians, it allows the victimhood mentality to continue. For Israel, it allows them to keep up the us against the world mentality.
For people in Britain, it reminds us of the Northern Ireland situation, and after a while, people don't want to hear about it.
For want of a better word, it just gets...boring...
Ghazkuul wrote: Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
Personally, I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first, but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Israelis from Israel. Force the European countries to take in the "Israelis" and then enforce a strict border polity to protect Palestine. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks, but in the end, the removal of the Israeli problem would probably calm the Middle East and not continuously inflame it.
Or, more likely, we would find out the existence of a Jewish Israel is not the source of unrest in the middle east.
You don't know what your talking about CptJake, Arabs all love one another, in fact no Arab state has ever gone to war with another Arab state. Besides Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran......wait..crap, nevermind.
Automatically Appended Next Post: and on the note that Israel couldn't hold its own territory. I refer you to the 6 day war and the Yom Kippur War. Several Arab countries spent years preparing an invasion of Israel only to be stopped by Israel and then in turn invaded by israeli armies. You can say nonsense such as "well without the US helping" the US supplied arms and munitions...thats it. Every Arab state except Jordan was taking HUGE amounts of Soviet aid. Israel was out numbered several times over by the forces arranged against it, even after arming its reserves (most of the population) and Israel still won. It would take a few weeks to remove every Muslim Palestinian from the entirety of Israel, but Israel doesn't do that because they aren't butchers like everyone tries to portray them as. Have you ever noticed that every single Israeli air attack, artillery strike or Small Arms engagement seems to always result in only woman and children dying? Are the Israeli's that bad at aiming or do you think maybe, just maybe, the Muslims are lying constantly to try and get world opinion against Israel, A tactic i would remind you they have been using since the 1950s. According to Sadat the US Shot down all the Egyptian Air force, and that the Egyptians in turn shot down the entirety of the Israeli air force.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And on a last note, I just heard on NPR this morning that the new policy in Jerusalem is for any Muslim convicted of a terrorist attack such as attacking people with a knife, will have their House confiscated and their family evicted from Jerusalem. Pretty good policy to remove the rabble from Jerusalem.
Ghazkuul wrote: Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
Personally, I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first, but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Israelis from Israel. Force the European countries to take in the "Israelis" and then enforce a strict border polity to protect Palestine. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks, but in the end, the removal of the Israeli problem would probably calm the Middle East and not continuously inflame it.
Sure. That mighty work. Until the next Holocaust.
Do you really think the solution for peace is to forcibly relocate the middle east' s population of Jews and send them back to the countries that either tried to exterminate their grandparents or turned a blind eye not too long ago?
It still won't solve things in the long run. Muslims of all sects are united in their hatred of Israel. Without Israel to unite them, they'd just go back to fighting themselves sectarian style. Sunni vs Shia vs Alawite. Like Syria but on a much grander scale.
It'll also have the effect of displacing the Israel-Islam conflict to Europe. There are big populations of Muslims living in Europe, how do you think they'll feel if there was a sudden influx of Jews?
Do you really think the solution for peace is to forcibly relocate the middle east' s population of Jews and send them back to the countries that either tried to exterminate their grandparents or turned a blind eye not too long ago?
Of course not. It's just as asinine a statement as "Get rid of all the damn Muslims", which is a point people are missing.
There will never be peace in the region.
Drill that Alaskan oil. Mine that Virginia Coal. Turn Nevada into a giant fething Solar Power Cell.
Do whatever you have to do so that we can stop giving a gak about the region.
Do you really think the solution for peace is to forcibly relocate the middle east' s population of Jews and send them back to the countries that either tried to exterminate their grandparents or turned a blind eye not too long ago?
Of course not. It's just as asinine a statement as "Get rid of all the damn Muslims", which is a point people are missing.
There will never be peace in the region.
Drill that Alaskan oil. Mine that Virginia Coal. Turn Nevada into a giant fething Solar Power Cell.
Do whatever you have to do so that we can stop giving a gak about the region.
I don't give a gak about the region at all, I just care about Israel. WHich is weird because im a catholic but whatever.
Ghazkuul wrote: Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.
Personally, I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first, but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Israelis from Israel. Force the European countries to take in the "Israelis" and then enforce a strict border polity to protect Palestine. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks, but in the end, the removal of the Israeli problem would probably calm the Middle East and not continuously inflame it.
Sure. That mighty work. Until the next Holocaust.
Do you really think the solution for peace is to forcibly relocate the middle east' s population of Jews and send them back to the countries that either tried to exterminate their grandparents or turned a blind eye not too long ago?
It still won't solve things in the long run. Muslims of all sects are united in their hatred of Israel. Without Israel to unite them, they'd just go back to fighting themselves sectarian style. Sunni vs Shia vs Alawite. Like Syria but on a much grander scale.
It'll also have the effect of displacing the Israel-Islam conflict to Europe. There are big populations of Muslims living in Europe, how do you think they'll feel if there was a sudden influx of Jews?
They should move to the US, specifically Texas. Bring forth the matza ball TexMex.
Do you really think the solution for peace is to forcibly relocate the middle east' s population of Jews and send them back to the countries that either tried to exterminate their grandparents or turned a blind eye not too long ago?
Of course not. It's just as asinine a statement as "Get rid of all the damn Muslims", which is a point people are missing.
There will never be peace in the region.
Drill that Alaskan oil. Mine that Virginia Coal. Turn Nevada into a giant fething Solar Power Cell.
Do whatever you have to do so that we can stop giving a gak about the region.
I don't give a gak about the region at all, I just care about Israel. WHich is weird because im a catholic but whatever.
I don't care at all about Israel, which is weird because I'm also Catholic.
not only that but the extremists on both sides still think they can 'win' (and basically remove the other from the country)
but it's just not going to happen
I may not like the Israeli governments policies but at least it has a (relatively) stable government that does it's best to run a functional state.
The Palestinians suffer from factionalism and ingrained corruption and their instability further reduces the pressure for Israel to actually negotiate.... why bother as even if they do accept a treaty a significant proportion of the population will not abide by it
so maybe the way to go is to get somebody else to run the basic services of government for the Palestinians for a few decades thus stabilising the food/water/shelter/policing aspect of things meaning there will be far fewer people driven to militancy be desperation
smaller millitias will be less inclined to 'spend' lives, and will have more incentive to stick by negociated treaties, which means Israel in turn will loose the excuse of 'just reacting', and will also feel safer and so more likely to negociate too
not only that but the extremists on both sides still think they can 'win' (and basically remove the other from the country)
but it's just not going to happen
I may not like the Israeli governments policies but at least it has a (relatively) stable government that does it's best to run a functional state.
The Palestinians suffer from factionalism and ingrained corruption and their instability further reduces the pressure for Israel to actually negotiate.... why bother as even if they do accept a treaty a significant proportion of the population will not abide by it
so maybe the way to go is to get somebody else to run the basic services of government for the Palestinians for a few decades thus stabilising the food/water/shelter/policing aspect of things meaning there will be far fewer people driven to militancy be desperation
smaller millitias will be less inclined to 'spend' lives, and will have more incentive to stick by negociated treaties, which means Israel in turn will loose the excuse of 'just reacting', and will also feel safer and so more likely to negociate too
Well in my longer post above I mentioned that Israel has come up with a solution. If you act in this manner, stabbing people, throwing rocks at the government forces and such you and your family will lose your home and be forcefully removed from Jerusalem. So what Israel has done is told the Muslim and jewish hardliners that if you want to live in Jerusalem you will be peaceful or we will kick you the feth out.
As has been mentioned already, there will never be peace there. Only way is to wipe out whole civilizations. And no one except the Muslims are willing to do that.
yellowfever wrote: As has been mentioned already, there will never be peace there. Only way is to wipe out whole civilizations. And no one except the Muslims are willing to do that.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Same way Catholics will always fight heretics, and Japanese will always fight Europeans?
Perceptions change, people change, religions change.
True. However we're till waiting for Islam to reform and modernise, unlike Christianity which started the process like 5 centuries ago (the enlightenment) and is still reforming (under duress of course) with regards to things like gay marriage and female bishops.
Do we have gay female Imams yet?
Not only that, but you may be surprised to learn that not all Muslims are jihadist. They have the same variations in extremism as any other religion.
You don't have to be an active, violent jihadist to be an extremist. Many Islamic beliefs are extreme by European standards, like the attitudes to homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, women's rights and status etc. The vast majority might not act on those beliefs, but they do hold them.
Kilkrazy wrote: This is the so-called 'Lone Wolf' scenario. I don't think there is very much that can be done to anticipate and prevent this kind of attack.
It's impossible to mass screen users of public and private transport. It's impossible to regulate knives when every household needs several of them for normal cooking purposes. It's impossible to detect a conspiracy that consists of one guy deciding to make this kind of attack by himself.
You can only wait for the attack to happen, then react as quickly and effectively as possible.
Like with a personal firearm carried for self defense?
Welcome to the fold
To be frank I think that would result in even more carnage as random bystanders open up on the perp, then on each other, then get shot by the police, since only the actual criminal(s) would know who was the right person to shoot.
It's called situational awareness, something that many people who often carry firearms regularly practice. But I wouldn't expect someone from a country where weapons are not allowed to be carried for self-defense would know much about that.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Same way Catholics will always fight heretics, and Japanese will always fight Europeans?
Perceptions change, people change, religions change.
True. However we're till waiting for Islam to reform and modernise, unlike Christianity which started the process like 5 centuries ago (the enlightenment) and is still reforming (under duress of course) with regards to things like gay marriage and female bishops.
Do we have gay female Imams yet?
Not only that, but you may be surprised to learn that not all Muslims are jihadist. They have the same variations in extremism as any other religion.
You don't have to be an active, violent jihadist to be an extremist. Many Islamic beliefs are extreme by European standards, like the attitudes to homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, women's rights and status etc. The vast majority might not act on those beliefs, but they do hold them.
Hrm, it's hard to paint these things as Islam-specific. You can find passages telling you to stone adulterers, kill apostates, basically treat women as property, etc in the Old Testament (often the exact same ones that exist in the Koran). They're in every Abrahamic religion, they're not an Islam-specific thing, you just have more Muslims paying attention to them and taking them literally than you do in other religions. You can see many of the same attitudes and actions (such as honor killings) among people of other religions, including many Arab Christians and Indian Hindus and Kurdish Yazidis.
We're seeing gargantuan pressures on social and cultural norms and customs that haven't had time to adapt and advance. and they're not specific to any one particular religion or group of people. Throughout the "world of Islam", from the Atlantic coast of Africa to Pacific Indonesians, attitudes and worldviews vary wildly, as they have over time as well. Cultures and people's need time to adapt, some more than others.
I wasn't aware giving my honest opinion automatically made me a troll. I'll try to remember that. And people can go ahead and ignore my opinion. I ignore many opinions on here also.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Same way Catholics will always fight heretics, and Japanese will always fight Europeans?
Perceptions change, people change, religions change.
True. However we're till waiting for Islam to reform and modernise, unlike Christianity which started the process like 5 centuries ago (the enlightenment) and is still reforming (under duress of course) with regards to things like gay marriage and female bishops.
Do we have gay female Imams yet?
Not only that, but you may be surprised to learn that not all Muslims are jihadist. They have the same variations in extremism as any other religion.
You don't have to be an active, violent jihadist to be an extremist. Many Islamic beliefs are extreme by European standards, like the attitudes to homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, women's rights and status etc. The vast majority might not act on those beliefs, but they do hold them.
Hrm, it's hard to paint these things as Islam-specific. You can find passages telling you to stone adulterers, kill apostates, basically treat women as property, etc in the Old Testament (often the exact same ones that exist in the Koran). They're in every Abrahamic religion, they're not an Islam-specific thing, you just have more Muslims paying attention to them and taking them literally than you do in other religions. You can see many of the same attitudes and actions (such as honor killings) among people of other religions, including many Arab Christians and Indian Hindus and Kurdish Yazidis.
We're seeing gargantuan pressures on social and cultural norms and customs that haven't had time to adapt and advance. and they're not specific to any one particular religion or group of people. Throughout the "world of Islam", from the Atlantic coast of Africa to Pacific Indonesians, attitudes and worldviews vary wildly, as they have over time as well. Cultures and people's need time to adapt, some more than others.
The problem with that, btw I agree with you a bit, is that Islam hasn't advanced and compared to its radical members, the moderates trying to make headway are falling rapidly behind. I beg you to read/listen to these
These are individuals who were terrorists, who believed in radical Islam until finally seeing the light and are now actively fighting against radical Islam, Tawfik Hamid is especially interesting.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: True. However we're till waiting for Islam to reform and modernise, unlike Christianity which started the process like 5 centuries ago (the enlightenment) and is still reforming (under duress of course) with regards to things like gay marriage and female bishops.
Has Christianity really modernized that much? We still have Christians who want to impose a theocracy that rivals any Islamic efforts, progress in some versions of Christianity in things like gay marriage is matched by a complete lack of progress in others (with some Christians even calling for executing gay people, not just preventing them from marrying), Christian homeschooling to avoid having to educate children is still a thing, treating women as property and baby factories is still a thing, etc. The main difference is that most of the majority-Christian countries have been in a better situation with wealth/power/etc and have a more stable situation, while a lot of majority-Muslim countries have been on the wrong end of imperialism and lacked those advantages.
Now, some version of Christianity have certainly modernized a bit, but it's kind of dishonest to portray Christianity as a monolithic block that is moving forward and adopting decent moral positions.
yellowfever wrote: I wasn't aware giving my honest opinion automatically made me a troll. I'll try to remember that. And people can go ahead and ignore my opinion. I ignore many opinions on here also.
It only makes you a troll if you are saying it to get a rise out of people. I don't know you, so I have no idea. If you legitimately mean that ("I personally don't trust any of them."), then you are just prejudiced against Muslims instead. You wouldn't listen to an anti-Semite about Jews, you wouldn't listen to a racist/white supremacist about black people, and, in turn, you wouldn't listen to someone who is prejudiced against Muslims about Muslims/Islam.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: True. However we're till waiting for Islam to reform and modernise, unlike Christianity which started the process like 5 centuries ago (the enlightenment) and is still reforming (under duress of course) with regards to things like gay marriage and female bishops.
Has Christianity really modernized that much? We still have Christians who want to impose a theocracy that rivals any Islamic efforts, progress in some versions of Christianity in things like gay marriage is matched by a complete lack of progress in others (with some Christians even calling for executing gay people, not just preventing them from marrying), Christian homeschooling to avoid having to educate children is still a thing, treating women as property and baby factories is still a thing, etc. The main difference is that most of the majority-Christian countries have been in a better situation with wealth/power/etc and have a more stable situation, while a lot of majority-Muslim countries have been on the wrong end of imperialism and lacked those advantages.
Now, some version of Christianity have certainly modernized a bit, but it's kind of dishonest to portray Christianity as a monolithic block that is moving forward and adopting decent moral positions.
Well except that you are comparing the 1/100th of a percent of Christianity to a significantly larger percentage of Islam. That and your almost 100% off with the Wealth comment. The middle East has pretty much had the run of the Oil market for the better part of 60 years and yet they still haven't come as far as other countries such as Ireland that just legalized Gay marriage.
I honestly don't know any person that treats woman as property or baby factories, Im sure they exist, west boros are nut jobs but thats what? a couple hundred people at most? On the flip side I know a huge number of Muslims who believe in bestiality, and molesting children as a way of life. I know im biased because I was in Afghanistan but what does that tell you about the state of the religion?
Back on topic. The point I was making about moving the Muslim Palestinians was that from the very start of the British Mandate they fought against the Idea of jews having any kind of state. It has nothing to do with their homeland and everything to do with denying another religion any kind of tolerance/freedom.
Israel traded back the entirety of the Sinai peninsula to get a peace treaty with Egypt. So the idea that the Israeli's are only after land is shot to hell right there.
Ghazkuul wrote: Well except that you are comparing the 1/100th of a percent of Christianity to a significantly larger percentage of Islam.
Citation needed for this 1/100th of a percent claim.
The middle East has pretty much had the run of the Oil market for the better part of 60 years and yet they still haven't come as far as other countries such as Ireland that just legalized Gay marriage.
60 years is a very short time for this kind of thing, and even that oil wealth is incredibly unequal in its distribution.
I honestly don't know any person that treats woman as property or baby factories, Im sure they exist, west boros are nut jobs but thats what? a couple hundred people at most?
It's not just the Westboro trolls. And it is way more than a couple hundred people. I'm not going to claim that most Christians are that bad, but it's a non-trivial minority. And there's a much larger percentage that have similar values with things like obsessive emphasis on modesty and purity for girls, male leadership in the family, etc.
And let's not overlook the fact that this kind of stuff is considered a slightly odd but harmless subject of entertainment by society as a whole. The Duggars didn't lose their TV show until they got caught covering up sexual abuse by the favorite son, their appalling religious beliefs were just something to laugh about.
On the flip side I know a huge number of Muslims who believe in bestiality, and molesting children as a way of life. I know im biased because I was in Afghanistan but what does that tell you about the state of the religion?
You are aware that Islam exists outside of Afghanistan, right? Afghanistan has its problems, but those things you mention are problems with Afghanistan, not Islam as a whole.
The point I was making about moving the Muslim Palestinians was that from the very start of the British Mandate they fought against the Idea of jews having any kind of state. It has nothing to do with their homeland and everything to do with denying another religion any kind of tolerance/freedom.
And, I'll ask you again: why do the Jews (or any other religion) need their own state? Why should we support the idea of a state defined by membership in a religion?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Many Islamic beliefs are extreme by European standards, like the attitudes to homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, women's rights and status etc. The vast majority might not act on those beliefs, but they do hold them.
Many Christian beliefs are extreme by European standards, like the attitudes to homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, women's rights and status etc. The vast majority might not act on those beliefs, but they do hold them.
All I had to do to point out how bad of an argument that is was to exchange "Islamic" for "Christian".
The varnish of civilization isn't really as thick in Europe and the US as we'd like to think.
We've got about 2 million Muslims here in the UK who obviously didn't listen to their lessons because they aren't fighting infidels. In fact they are the ones currently in danger from hate attacks by the nominally Christian population.
Kilkrazy wrote: This is the so-called 'Lone Wolf' scenario. I don't think there is very much that can be done to anticipate and prevent this kind of attack.
It's impossible to mass screen users of public and private transport. It's impossible to regulate knives when every household needs several of them for normal cooking purposes. It's impossible to detect a conspiracy that consists of one guy deciding to make this kind of attack by himself.
You can only wait for the attack to happen, then react as quickly and effectively as possible.
Like with a personal firearm carried for self defense?
Welcome to the fold
To be frank I think that would result in even more carnage as random bystanders open up on the perp, then on each other, then get shot by the police, since only the actual criminal(s) would know who was the right person to shoot.
It's called situational awareness, something that many people who often carry firearms regularly practice. But I wouldn't expect someone from a country where weapons are not allowed to be carried for self-defense would know much about that.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Same way Catholics will always fight heretics, and Japanese will always fight Europeans?
Perceptions change, people change, religions change.
True. However we're till waiting for Islam to reform and modernise, unlike Christianity which started the process like 5 centuries ago (the enlightenment) and is still reforming (under duress of course) with regards to things like gay marriage and female bishops.
Do we have gay female Imams yet?
Not only that, but you may be surprised to learn that not all Muslims are jihadist. They have the same variations in extremism as any other religion.
You don't have to be an active, violent jihadist to be an extremist. Many Islamic beliefs are extreme by European standards, like the attitudes to homosexuality, apostasy, adultery, women's rights and status etc. The vast majority might not act on those beliefs, but they do hold them.
Hrm, it's hard to paint these things as Islam-specific. You can find passages telling you to stone adulterers, kill apostates, basically treat women as property, etc in the Old Testament (often the exact same ones that exist in the Koran). They're in every Abrahamic religion, they're not an Islam-specific thing, you just have more Muslims paying attention to them and taking them literally than you do in other religions. You can see many of the same attitudes and actions (such as honor killings) among people of other religions, including many Arab Christians and Indian Hindus and Kurdish Yazidis.
We're seeing gargantuan pressures on social and cultural norms and customs that haven't had time to adapt and advance. and they're not specific to any one particular religion or group of people. Throughout the "world of Islam", from the Atlantic coast of Africa to Pacific Indonesians, attitudes and worldviews vary wildly, as they have over time as well. Cultures and people's need time to adapt, some more than others.
The problem with that, btw I agree with you a bit, is that Islam hasn't advanced and compared to its radical members, the moderates trying to make headway are falling rapidly behind. I beg you to read/listen to these
Yes, many places where Islam is the dominant religion have in many ways regressed, that's true. However, there's some reasons to that as well. Partly it's a political control thing. The Iranian Ayotollah's and Saudi royal family and other rulers used/use religion as a tool of political control, same way ISIS does, if you're against them then they can turn around and say you're violating the law of god. In other ways it's an identity thing and a post-imperialism reaction. A lot of these places have only recently acquired "independent" identities, within living memory, and in many instances that comes from nothing more than lines drawn on a map by other powers thousands of miles away, whether it was Istanbul or Sykes-Picot or whatever.
Christian Rwanda suffered hundreds of thousands being butchered in just a few weeks, at a pace ISIS has only dreamt of, just a few years ago, and for many similar underlying reasons. In the fighting in Ukraine you saw a great resurgence of christian imagery and fervor, particularly on the rebels side, as an identity driver and political motivator, and accompanying repression of non-orthodox churches. (it also wasn't *that* long ago that European armies went to war with cries equivalent to "Allah Ackbar" on their lips, and things like "Gott Mit Uns"/"God Is With Us" on their belt buckles)
A lot of these places are basically in the process or organically reorganizing themselves now the the artificial lines they've been stuffed into are starting to break and there's no lid to keep everything under control anymore. You look at a nation like Iraq and it never really was a unified country, it was a creation of western powers held together by strongmen and consisting of varied & competing ethic groups, with Syria being very similar. These places are now undergoing to reorganization along lines that should have been taken into account after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, and religion is being used as a major driver of that.
Then you get something like Afghanistan which has never really been a coherent nation even under a strongman government, and is backward, bombed back nearly to the stone age, incredibly isolated, ignorant, and fractured on almost every conceivable level that there's just no way anyone can expect anything out of a place like that, and it's done to the US what it's done to just about every other empire that's stuck its nose in there, both pre and post islamization.
These are individuals who were terrorists, who believed in radical Islam until finally seeing the light and are now actively fighting against radical Islam, Tawfik Hamid is especially interesting.
Oh I don't doubt that there are some that think this way, but the issues are staggeringly complex, and it's a multi-generational process that's going to be required.
This is ultimately the result of Israeli mistreatment and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians which has been on going since 1948. The Palestinians have no real other way to engage in this situation politically at this point, and Israel has no want for them to. Israel's ultimate goals are to annex all of Palestine, presumably pushing out the native population or exterminating them. Also, to the user who claims the issue is Hamas, why was this a problem before Hamas was created (by Israel in order to destroy Fatah and the PLO)? Also, there are numerous accounts of torture and mistreatment of the local Palestinians, as well as executions by well armed settlers. Israel have been doing this for years, and have no intent of stopping. They thrive off the success of "Islamic Extremists" and have been dong so for far too long, with the ultimate intent to annex this country. They do not want a peace process. If they wanted peace, they would have had it by now.
I mean at this point you have Israel's placing stone throwers into crowds of occupied Palestinians just so that the IDF can open fire on them.
Palestinians Set Fire To Joseph's Tomb In The West Bank October 16, 2015 6:45 AM ET Eyder Peralta Twitter
In yet another sign of escalating violence in the region, the Israeli military says that Palestinians set fire to Joseph's Tomb in the city of Nablus in the West Bank on Friday morning.
As CNN explains, Nablus is controlled by the Palestinian Authority and the tomb is venerated by Jews.
شبان يحرقون قبر يوسف في مدينة #نابلس ويرفعون العلم الفلسطيني فوقه Posted by نابلس البلدة القديمة on Thursday, October 15, 2015
"Judaism considers the site to be the resting place of the Old Testament figure Joseph son of Jacob, a high Israelite patriarch who, according to religious accounts, was sold into slavery as a boy but then rose to become one of the most powerful figures in ancient Egypt, second only to the pharaoh," CNN reports.
NBC News reports that in the early hours of Friday, hundreds of Palestinians entered the compound and set it on fire.
The network adds:
"The overnight violence came amid calls for another "day of rage" in the region and looked set to further escalate tensions in which at least 39 people have been killed over the past two weeks.
"The Israel Defense Forces immediately pledged to hunt down those behind the attack on what is believed to contain the remains of the biblical patriarch, Joseph.
"IDF spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner said: 'The burning and desecration of Joseph's tomb ... is a blatant violation and contradiction of the basic value of freedom of worship. The IDF will take all measures to bring the perpetrators of this despicable act to justice, restore the site to its previous condition and ensure that the freedom of worship returns to Joseph's Tomb.'"
The Jerusalem Post reports that the crowds were dispersed and the fire was put out by local forces.
"The religious site suffered severe damage in the fire," the Post reports. "There were no reports of injuries."
Agence France Presse reports that Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas condemned the attack.
"Abbas called the arson attack on the flashpoint Joseph's Tomb in Nablus irresponsible and said a committee was being formed to investigate," AFP reports. "The overnight fire was started with molotov cocktails."
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Everyone here pontificating about ethnic cleansing ought to keep in mind that that is exactly what Hamas and all Israel's neighbours wish to do to the Jews.
Except they have no way of doing it, while Jews lived alongside Muslims in these regions together long before Israel existed. Israel on the other hand does have a way of doing it.
The classic "Israel is in danger" defence argument is so incredibly delusional. Israel have only really lost one war with their Arab neighbours, which was in Lebanon, a country they occupied and tried to create a puppet state in (part of the Greater Israel plan). Hezbollah forced them out, and now Israel has to deal with that embarrassment by trying to remove the Palestinians at a much quicker rate.
It's insane how black and white the situation really is.
Imposter101 wrote: This is ultimately the result of Israeli mistreatment and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians which has been on going since 1948. The Palestinians have no real other way to engage in this situation politically at this point, and Israel has no want for them to. Israel's ultimate goals are to annex all of Palestine, presumably pushing out the native population or exterminating them. Also, to the user who claims the issue is Hamas, why was this a problem before Hamas was created (by Israel in order to destroy Fatah and the PLO)? Also, there are numerous accounts of torture and mistreatment of the local Palestinians, as well as executions by well armed settlers. Israel have been doing this for years, and have no intent of stopping. They thrive off the success of "Islamic Extremists" and have been dong so for far too long, with the ultimate intent to annex this country. They do not want a peace process. If they wanted peace, they would have had it by now.
I mean at this point you have Israel's placing stone throwers into crowds of occupied Palestinians just so that the IDF can open fire on them.
Sources
Beyond Chutzpah
Method and Madness
Are you aware of the origins of Israel? The British Mandate and the resulting conflicts? You are basically claiming that the Israeli's are responsible for almost the whole conflict. Furthermore, please explain to me how the jews are "Ethnically cleansing" the Muslims out of Israel? There are accounts of executions, torture and mistreatment of Palestinians.......im sorry but I tend to take these stories with a grain of salt. The Palestinians have lied so often about such things that it borders on the insane and the Israeli's have lied about certain things as well, but overall it is the Palestinian side of the story that can never be truly believed.
According to the PLO/Hamas every single rocket fired into Gaza kills woman and children. Israeli apparently has civilian seeking munitions. On the flip side, every time the PLO/Hamas fires rockets into Israel they either never strike anything or they hit civilian targets, that tends to be more believable since the difference in technology is vast.
Imposter101 wrote: This is ultimately the result of Israeli mistreatment and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians which has been on going since 1948. The Palestinians have no real other way to engage in this situation politically at this point, and Israel has no want for them to. Israel's ultimate goals are to annex all of Palestine, presumably pushing out the native population or exterminating them. Also, to the user who claims the issue is Hamas, why was this a problem before Hamas was created (by Israel in order to destroy Fatah and the PLO)? Also, there are numerous accounts of torture and mistreatment of the local Palestinians, as well as executions by well armed settlers. Israel have been doing this for years, and have no intent of stopping. They thrive off the success of "Islamic Extremists" and have been dong so for far too long, with the ultimate intent to annex this country. They do not want a peace process. If they wanted peace, they would have had it by now.
I mean at this point you have Israel's placing stone throwers into crowds of occupied Palestinians just so that the IDF can open fire on them.
Sources
Beyond Chutzpah
Method and Madness
Are you aware of the origins of Israel? The British Mandate and the resulting conflicts? You are basically claiming that the Israeli's are responsible for almost the whole conflict. Furthermore, please explain to me how the jews are "Ethnically cleansing" the Muslims out of Israel? There are accounts of executions, torture and mistreatment of Palestinians.......im sorry but I tend to take these stories with a grain of salt. The Palestinians have lied so often about such things that it borders on the insane and the Israeli's have lied about certain things as well, but overall it is the Palestinian side of the story that can never be truly believed.
According to the PLO/Hamas every single rocket fired into Gaza kills woman and children. Israeli apparently has civilian seeking munitions. On the flip side, every time the PLO/Hamas fires rockets into Israel they either never strike anything or they hit civilian targets, that tends to be more believable since the difference in technology is vast.
Yes, I am aware of the origins of Israel, and no, I am talking about the current conflict. Israel does not want to resolve the current conflict, the others have been resolved because the Arab nations lost or lost interest.
They are ethnically cleansing them by forcing them out of their homes and out of their country so that they can be replaced by Jewish settlers.
Would you like the accounts of Israeli soldiers then?
"Israel has civilian seeking munitions"
Yes, in the form of artillery fire. It's hard to not hit anything with it.
Except they have no way of doing it, while Jews lived alongside Muslims in these regions together long before Israel existed. Israel on the other hand does have a way of doing it.
The classic "Israel is in danger" defence argument is so incredibly delusional. Israel have only really lost one war with their Arab neighbours, which was in Lebanon, a country they occupied and tried to create a puppet state in (part of the Greater Israel plan). Hezbollah forced them out, and now Israel has to deal with that embarrassment by trying to remove the Palestinians at a much quicker rate.
It's insane how black and white the situation really is.
I am really trying to not throw personal insults into this thread but you are making it extremely hard.
6 Day war (1967) Israel vs Egypt Syria Jordan Iraq Lebanon Supported by: Algeria Kuwait Libya Morocco Pakistan PLO Saudi Arabia Suda Tunisia
Yom Kippur War (1973): Israel Vs Egypt Syria Combat support: Iraq Jordan Saudi Arabia Algeria Cuba Morocco Libya LibyaTunisia Kuwait North Korea
So 42 years ago Israel was invaded by two countries that prepared for 6 years a surprise attack, they were reinforced considerably by other arab nations, most notably Iraq, whose armored divisions kept Israel from taking over Damascus.
Within the lives of a large percentage of Israeli Citizens their country was attacked by every single neighbor they possess. Do you think that Israel forces its entire population to serve in the military for some kind of political maneuver or because at any given point it might need those reserves to defend itself from the open aggression of EVERY muslim country in the Middle East?
Several leaders of middle Eastern countries have outwardly proclaimed their desire to destroy Israel and remove all trace of Judaism from the Middle East. That is why I tend to give Israel the benefit of the doubt more often then not, they are the ones getting bullied on a daily basis and they are the ones who are usually making the concessions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you would like I could get interviews of US troops who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan who will say the same things. In any military your going to have accidents and have people unfit for the position they are in.
Compare how Israel attacks targets in Gaza to how the US strikes targets in Afghanistan.
Israel will literally CALL the house in question to warn of an impending strike, they will then use a loud speaker to tell the residents to flee, lastly they will fire a mortar into the front yard to hopefully SCARE them out of the area. Finally after all those measure they blow the house up.
IN contrast the US and every other nation on the earth in a war will just drop the bomb and ohh fething well if civilians got in the wya.
Except they have no way of doing it, while Jews lived alongside Muslims in these regions together long before Israel existed. Israel on the other hand does have a way of doing it.
The classic "Israel is in danger" defence argument is so incredibly delusional. Israel have only really lost one war with their Arab neighbours, which was in Lebanon, a country they occupied and tried to create a puppet state in (part of the Greater Israel plan). Hezbollah forced them out, and now Israel has to deal with that embarrassment by trying to remove the Palestinians at a much quicker rate.
It's insane how black and white the situation really is.
I am really trying to not throw personal insults into this thread but you are making it extremely hard.
6 Day war (1967) Israel vs Egypt Syria Jordan Iraq Lebanon Supported by: Algeria Kuwait Libya Morocco Pakistan PLO Saudi Arabia Suda Tunisia
Yom Kippur War (1973): Israel Vs Egypt Syria Combat support: Iraq Jordan Saudi Arabia Algeria Cuba Morocco Libya LibyaTunisia Kuwait North Korea
So 42 years ago Israel was invaded by two countries that prepared for 6 years a surprise attack, they were reinforced considerably by other arab nations, most notably Iraq, whose armored divisions kept Israel from taking over Damascus.
Within the lives of a large percentage of Israeli Citizens their country was attacked by every single neighbor they possess. Do you think that Israel forces its entire population to serve in the military for some kind of political maneuver or because at any given point it might need those reserves to defend itself from the open aggression of EVERY muslim country in the Middle East?
Several leaders of middle Eastern countries have outwardly proclaimed their desire to destroy Israel and remove all trace of Judaism from the Middle East. That is why I tend to give Israel the benefit of the doubt more often then not, they are the ones getting bullied on a daily basis and they are the ones who are usually making the concessions.
During the 6 Day War Israel attacked how many other nations and won?
During Yom Kipper, Israel was still successful.
So 42 years ago, Israel invaded and them was attacked by it's neighbours and successfully defeated both because of Arab incompetence. The Arabs have yet to do this again, and probably won't because there is no benefit to it. The Palestinians do because they want their land back, mainly back to the 1967 borders.
The threats of Iran really aren't meaningful. Iran's been making petty threats for how long? Do you think they could do this?
Except they have no way of doing it, while Jews lived alongside Muslims in these regions together long before Israel existed. Israel on the other hand does have a way of doing it.
The classic "Israel is in danger" defence argument is so incredibly delusional. Israel have only really lost one war with their Arab neighbours, which was in Lebanon, a country they occupied and tried to create a puppet state in (part of the Greater Israel plan). Hezbollah forced them out, and now Israel has to deal with that embarrassment by trying to remove the Palestinians at a much quicker rate.
It's insane how black and white the situation really is.
I am really trying to not throw personal insults into this thread but you are making it extremely hard.
6 Day war (1967) Israel vs Egypt Syria Jordan Iraq Lebanon Supported by: Algeria Kuwait Libya Morocco Pakistan PLO Saudi Arabia Suda Tunisia
Yom Kippur War (1973): Israel Vs Egypt Syria Combat support: Iraq Jordan Saudi Arabia Algeria Cuba Morocco Libya LibyaTunisia Kuwait North Korea
So 42 years ago Israel was invaded by two countries that prepared for 6 years a surprise attack, they were reinforced considerably by other arab nations, most notably Iraq, whose armored divisions kept Israel from taking over Damascus.
Within the lives of a large percentage of Israeli Citizens their country was attacked by every single neighbor they possess. Do you think that Israel forces its entire population to serve in the military for some kind of political maneuver or because at any given point it might need those reserves to defend itself from the open aggression of EVERY muslim country in the Middle East?
Several leaders of middle Eastern countries have outwardly proclaimed their desire to destroy Israel and remove all trace of Judaism from the Middle East. That is why I tend to give Israel the benefit of the doubt more often then not, they are the ones getting bullied on a daily basis and they are the ones who are usually making the concessions.
During the 6 Day War Israel attacked how many other nations and won?
During Yom Kipper, Israel was still successful.
So 42 years ago, Israel invaded and them was attacked by it's neighbours and successfully defeated both because of Arab incompetence. The Arabs have yet to do this again, and probably won't because there is no benefit to it. The Palestinians do because they want their land back, mainly back to the 1967 borders.
The threats of Iran really aren't meaningful. Iran's been making petty threats for how long? Do you think they could do this?
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you would like I could get interviews of US troops who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan who will say the same things. In any military your going to have accidents and have people unfit for the position they are in.
Compare how Israel attacks targets in Gaza to how the US strikes targets in Afghanistan.
Israel will literally CALL the house in question to warn of an impending strike, they will then use a loud speaker to tell the residents to flee, lastly they will fire a mortar into the front yard to hopefully SCARE them out of the area. Finally after all those measure they blow the house up.
IN contrast the US and every other nation on the earth in a war will just drop the bomb and ohh fething well if civilians got in the wya.
"Accidents"
These aren't accidents. These are orders. Direct orders to exterminate the locals.
During the 6 Day War Israel attacked how many other nations and won?
During Yom Kipper, Israel was still successful.
So 42 years ago, Israel invaded and them was attacked by it's neighbours and successfully defeated both because of Arab incompetence. The Arabs have yet to do this again, and probably won't because there is no benefit to it. The Palestinians do because they want their land back, mainly back to the 1967 borders.
The threats of Iran really aren't meaningful. Iran's been making petty threats for how long? Do you think they could do this?
So because Israeli managed to scrape victories out of defeat they aren't threatened anymore and have never faced a real threat?
Go read Six Days of War and then go Read The Yom Kippur War, Israel was on the brink of defeat and only won by having amazing commanders who were able to marshal the reserves flooding in from Israeli Communities and put them where they were needed the most. Syrian Tanks could have actually reached Tel-Aviv if they hadn't stopped.
Your entire argument that Israel isn't threatened is Bull Gak.
During the 6 Day War Israel attacked how many other nations and won?
During Yom Kipper, Israel was still successful.
So 42 years ago, Israel invaded and them was attacked by it's neighbours and successfully defeated both because of Arab incompetence. The Arabs have yet to do this again, and probably won't because there is no benefit to it. The Palestinians do because they want their land back, mainly back to the 1967 borders.
The threats of Iran really aren't meaningful. Iran's been making petty threats for how long? Do you think they could do this?
So because Israeli managed to scrape victories out of defeat they aren't threatened anymore and have never faced a real threat?
Go read Six Days of War and then go Read The Yom Kippur War, Israel was on the brink of defeat and only won by having amazing commanders who were able to marshal the reserves flooding in from Israeli Communities and put them where they were needed the most. Syrian Tanks could have actually reached Tel-Aviv if they hadn't stopped.
Your entire argument that Israel isn't threatened is Bull Gak.
Yom Kipper maybe, even then you had Israel threatening the United States with the Samson Option. Six Days War saw the Israel invade their neighbours and defeat them in Six Days.
Now the Arabs are disunited and have little support. Israel has a 1st class military (well, in terms of equipment). The Arabs have nothing to gain from this.
They are not a threat to Israel, nor do they benefit from attacking it. They are not in danger. They want to believe they are in danger.
Yom Kipper maybe, even then you had Israel threatening the United States with the Samson Option. Six Days War saw the Israel invade their neighbours and defeat them in Six Days.
Now the Arabs are disunited and have little support. Israel has a 1st class military (well, in terms of equipment).
They are not a threat to Israel, nor do they benefit from attacking it. They are not in danger.
I believe the British and French shared your beliefs after WW1, and they were proven correct.....right until the next world war kicked off.
A wonderfully fallacious argument from analogy on your part though, but I'll embrace it just to prove how wrong it is.
Germany
> Single, unified state
> Planned for war against Poland the the USSR
> 1st tier army and military. Well equipped and well trained.
> Possesses a distinct goal
The Arabs
> Several states
> Have varying plans and contradictory
> Kind of planned for war against Israel, some involve it's destruction some involve the return of land to the rightful owners
> Mediocre to average armies. Inferior equipment to their opponent
> Nothing to really gain except a United States task force marching into their capital(s) from an invasion or attack on Israel
So 42 years ago, Israel invaded and them was attacked by it's neighbours and successfully defeated both because of Arab incompetence. The Arabs have yet to do this again, and probably won't because there is no benefit to it. The Palestinians do because they want their land back, mainly back to the 1967 borders.
And if they returned to that everything would be just fine?
What about PLO attacks that occurred before 1967?
What if Israel is still attacked? Can it then declare war and obliterate that region utterly?
So 42 years ago, Israel invaded and them was attacked by it's neighbours and successfully defeated both because of Arab incompetence. The Arabs have yet to do this again, and probably won't because there is no benefit to it. The Palestinians do because they want their land back, mainly back to the 1967 borders.
And if they returned to that everything would be just fine?
What about PLO attacks that occurred before 1967?
What if Israel is still attacked? Can it then declare war and obliterate that region utterly?
Returned to what?
If the PLO attacks, Israel has the right to attack the PLO, as does any state. Israel did, and even tried to exterminate the PLO a few times.
But if Israel attacks or tries to dispute the rights of a sovereign power, that power has the right to return fire and engage in combat.
Frazzled wrote: Palestinians just set fire to Joseph's tomb. I'd say the Dome is now fair game. This is not going to end well.
Unlikely. By attacking the dome, they risk damaging the founding stone, one of holiest Jewish sites. This would be untenable to all but the most radical Jews (that's not to say that someone hasn't already suggested it).
Imposter101 wrote: A wonderfully fallacious argument from analogy on your part though, but I'll embrace it just to prove how wrong it is.
Germany
> Single, unified state
> Planned for war against Poland the the USSR
> 1st tier army and military. Well equipped and well trained.
> Possesses a distinct goal
The Arabs
> Several states
> Have varying plans and contradictory
> Kind of planned for war against Israel, some involve it's destruction some involve the return of land to the rightful owners
> Mediocre to average armies. Inferior equipment to their opponent
> Nothing to really gain except a United States task force marching into their capital(s) from an invasion or attack on Israel
Germany had no army directly after WW1, they rebuilt it in secrecy and then launched a well planned surprise attack against Poland and then France.
But your right in the sense that the Arabs are not united as well as they could be. Granted, most of Israel's neighbors are bigger then it.
As far as equipment? I would say they are about level, the only true gap is in the aircraft and tanks, Israel has their own tanks which are amazing while most arab states are using older Soviet era tanks. And in the Air? mostly F16s and equivalent, while again the Arabs are utilizing older soviet MIGs.
I am not saying these countries are currently looking to start a long war with Israel im just pointing out that in the very recent past Israel was almost destroyed TWICE because arab states joined together to attack Israel. The only reason that the 6 Day war went as well as it did was that Israel pre-empted the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian invasions by launching a massive air attack that neutered those countries air forces. You can argue that the arabs had no plans to attack Israel and that Israel was the aggressor, but I would point out that staging 4/5ths of your military in attack formations on the border with another country is generally considered an act of war, and when three countries do it at the same time? yeah that's a declaration in all but name.
Imposter101 wrote: A wonderfully fallacious argument from analogy on your part though, but I'll embrace it just to prove how wrong it is.
Germany
> Single, unified state
> Planned for war against Poland the the USSR
> 1st tier army and military. Well equipped and well trained.
> Possesses a distinct goal
The Arabs
> Several states
> Have varying plans and contradictory
> Kind of planned for war against Israel, some involve it's destruction some involve the return of land to the rightful owners
> Mediocre to average armies. Inferior equipment to their opponent
> Nothing to really gain except a United States task force marching into their capital(s) from an invasion or attack on Israel
Germany had no army directly after WW1, they rebuilt it in secrecy and then launched a well planned surprise attack against Poland and then France.
But your right in the sense that the Arabs are not united as well as they could be. Granted, most of Israel's neighbors are bigger then it.
As far as equipment? I would say they are about level, the only true gap is in the aircraft and tanks, Israel has their own tanks which are amazing while most arab states are using older Soviet era tanks. And in the Air? mostly F16s and equivalent, while again the Arabs are utilizing older soviet MIGs.
I am not saying these countries are currently looking to start a long war with Israel im just pointing out that in the very recent past Israel was almost destroyed TWICE because arab states joined together to attack Israel. The only reason that the 6 Day war went as well as it did was that Israel pre-empted the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian invasions by launching a massive air attack that neutered those countries air forces. You can argue that the arabs had no plans to attack Israel and that Israel was the aggressor, but I would point out that staging 4/5ths of your military in attack formations on the border with another country is generally considered an act of war, and when three countries do it at the same time? yeah that's a declaration in all but name.
"Germany had no army"
WRONG. Germany's army had not been defeated during WW1 and still had significant numbers. The Treaty of Versailles was ignored from the start and the Germans had been focussing on rebuilding from the get go for an invasion of Poland, with most plans having it occur alongside the Soviet Union. (Evens and Jenkins, Weimar).
I wouldn't say they are level.
I would say Israel are the aggressor. There's a lot of dubious planning and Israeli information about 1967 that shows they had some interesting reasons for it.
Even then, what do they have to gain? They have nothing to gain. Most of these states pay lip service to Israel, some are even allies now.
So 42 years ago, Israel invaded and them was attacked by it's neighbours and successfully defeated both because of Arab incompetence. The Arabs have yet to do this again, and probably won't because there is no benefit to it. The Palestinians do because they want their land back, mainly back to the 1967 borders.
And if they returned to that everything would be just fine?
What about PLO attacks that occurred before 1967?
What if Israel is still attacked? Can it then declare war and obliterate that region utterly?
Returned to what?
Frazzled: Returned to the 1967 borders.
If the PLO attacks, Israel has the right to attack the PLO, as does any state. Israel did, and even tried to exterminate the PLO a few times.
You obviously misread the definition of exterminate. Considering you're speaking of Israelis I think if anyone knows what the definition of extermination is, they would.
But if Israel attacks or tries to dispute the rights of a sovereign power, that power has the right to return fire and engage in combat.
Wait, under your own definition (disputing the rights of a sovereign power, Israel can wipe out the Middle East including Iran right now. Iran after all, says it doesn't even have a right to exist. Thats definitely a dispute. Do you stand by your statement?
So 42 years ago, Israel invaded and them was attacked by it's neighbours and successfully defeated both because of Arab incompetence. The Arabs have yet to do this again, and probably won't because there is no benefit to it. The Palestinians do because they want their land back, mainly back to the 1967 borders.
And if they returned to that everything would be just fine?
What about PLO attacks that occurred before 1967?
What if Israel is still attacked? Can it then declare war and obliterate that region utterly?
Returned to what?
Frazzled: Returned to the 1967 borders.
If the PLO attacks, Israel has the right to attack the PLO, as does any state. Israel did, and even tried to exterminate the PLO a few times.
You obviously misread the definition of exterminate. Considering you're speaking of Israelis I think if anyone knows what the definition of extermination is, they would.
But if Israel attacks or tries to dispute the rights of a sovereign power, that power has the right to return fire and engage in combat.
Wait, under your own definition (disputing the rights of a sovereign power, Israel can wipe out the Middle East including Iran right now. Iran after all, says it doesn't even have a right to exist. Thats definitely a dispute. Do you stand by your statement?
Yes, a return to the 1967 borders under the 2 state solution, possibly the most opted for (or called for) way to end the issue.
And by my definition. Palestine can do the same. Iran are however not occupying or invading Israel, nor have they blockading or subjected it's peoples. Until they actually act, Iran is doing very little. They don't even have relations with Israel, which most Middle Eastern States do, most of whom also recognise Israel. I don't know where I said they could wipe them out though.
However under your own definition, Israel is free to nuke Iran or as you say: "dispute the rights of a sovereign power, that power has the right to return fire and engage in combat. "
Because that is how the big boys play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Implying the 1967 borders would actually work, which a person would be very naive to think so
Its a non-issue. When Israel starts saying-hey maybe so-instantly there are calls for one state etc.
Frazzled wrote: However under your own definition, Israel is free to nuke Iran or as you say: "dispute the rights of a sovereign power, that power has the right to return fire and engage in combat. "
Because that is how the big boys play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Implying the 1967 borders would actually work, which a person would be very naive to think so
Its a non-issue. When Israel starts saying-hey maybe so-instantly there are calls for one state etc.
There can be no peace there.
Iran has yet to attack Israel. Israel also knows that radiation doesn't stop at borders.
Ustrello wrote: Guess you are conveniently forgetting how Iran arms hezbollah and formerly hamas
Hezbollah have a sovereign right to defend themselves from Israel. As do Hamas. Both were elected, and one even drove out the occupying Israelis.
So, Hez are now a nation state with sovereign rights?
Your interpretation/understanding of the situation just gets better and better.
Hezbollah were the elected party in Lebanon in 2006. They were the leaders of a state, which possessed sovereign rights. They had a right to defend themselves against Israel.
When the Israeli's occupied Lebanon, they emerged to push them out.
Ustrello wrote: Guess you are conveniently forgetting how Iran arms hezbollah and formerly hamas
Hezbollah have a sovereign right to defend themselves from Israel. As do Hamas. Both were elected, and one even drove out the occupying Israelis.
A political terrorist party have sovereign rights?
They were the elected head of the state of Lebanon. They have the sovereign right to defend themselves being in that position. Your definition of "terrorist" is also limited to it's military brigades in most countries that try to classify it as a "terrorist" group.
Except they aren't anymore, and you danced around the question I posed earlier. Iran armed terrorist groups that regularly attack Israel and by your logic engaged in a true proxy war with Israel in 2006 (date may be wrong). Also you are forgetting that Hezbollah attack Israel first in that war, so really your entire argument is null at that point.
Ustrello wrote: Except they aren't anymore, and you danced around the question I posed earlier. Iran armed terrorist groups that regularly attack Israel and by your logic engaged in a true proxy war with Israel in 2006 (date may be wrong). Also you are forgetting that Hezbollah attack Israel first in that war, so really your entire argument is null at that point.
"Danced around the question"
I answered it.
"Iran armed terrorist groups"
It doesn't make Hezbollah any less of a political party or entity. They operate as a largely separate group.
"Hezbollah attacked Israel in that first war"
Because Israel had occupied Lebanon, their home country. Hezbollah fought back.
Simply deciding my point is null and void does not make it "null and void".
Do people really believe that the Palestinians will be satisfied with the 1967 borders?
Also, since when the feth did we start caring about the sovereign rights of nations? The USA and allies didn't care about the sovereign rights of Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Libya, or Syria, when we started interfering in, bombing and invading them.
And if your response is "Those countries weren't democratic, they were ruled by brutal dictators and totalitarian regimes that oppress their people"...then why do the Saudi's get a free pass?
Frazzled wrote: However under your own definition, Israel is free to nuke Iran or as you say: "dispute the rights of a sovereign power, that power has the right to return fire and engage in combat. "
Because that is how the big boys play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Implying the 1967 borders would actually work, which a person would be very naive to think so
Its a non-issue. When Israel starts saying-hey maybe so-instantly there are calls for one state etc.
There can be no peace there.
Iran has yet to attack Israel. Israel also knows that radiation doesn't stop at borders.
Thats not required under your definition. You said mere "dispute the rights of a sovereign power." Thats almost literally nothing. But hey its your definition.
Plus -as noted the whole Hamas/Hezzbullah thing.
Ustrello wrote: Guess you are conveniently forgetting how Iran arms hezbollah and formerly hamas
Hezbollah have a sovereign right to defend themselves from Israel. As do Hamas. Both were elected, and one even drove out the occupying Israelis.
So, Hez are now a nation state with sovereign rights?
Your interpretation/understanding of the situation just gets better and better.
Hezbollah were the elected party in Lebanon in 2006. They were the leaders of a state, which possessed sovereign rights. They had a right to defend themselves against Israel.
When the Israeli's occupied Lebanon, they emerged to push them out.
This is news to Lebanon that Hezzbullah was elected to run Lebanon. Where do you get your news from, the Syrian Ministry of Truth?
Frazzled wrote: However under your own definition, Israel is free to nuke Iran or as you say: "dispute the rights of a sovereign power, that power has the right to return fire and engage in combat. "
Because that is how the big boys play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Implying the 1967 borders would actually work, which a person would be very naive to think so
Its a non-issue. When Israel starts saying-hey maybe so-instantly there are calls for one state etc.
There can be no peace there.
Iran has yet to attack Israel. Israel also knows that radiation doesn't stop at borders.
Thats not required under your definition. You said mere "dispute the rights of a sovereign power." Thats almost literally nothing. But hey its your definition.
Plus -as noted the whole Hamas/Hezzbullah thing.
Ustrello wrote: Guess you are conveniently forgetting how Iran arms hezbollah and formerly hamas
Hezbollah have a sovereign right to defend themselves from Israel. As do Hamas. Both were elected, and one even drove out the occupying Israelis.
So, Hez are now a nation state with sovereign rights?
Your interpretation/understanding of the situation just gets better and better.
Hezbollah were the elected party in Lebanon in 2006. They were the leaders of a state, which possessed sovereign rights. They had a right to defend themselves against Israel.
When the Israeli's occupied Lebanon, they emerged to push them out.
This is news to Lebanon that Hezzbullah was elected to run Lebanon. Where do you get your news from, the Syrian Ministry of Truth?
Okay then. The state has a right to defend itself. Hezbollah were part of the Lebanese state and thus have right to defend the Lebanese state as part of the government.
Hezbollah have been part of the Lebanese government since 2005.
And, I'll ask you again: why do the Jews (or any other religion) need their own state? Why should we support the idea of a state defined by membership in a religion?
If you're going with this line of thinking... you'll have to include both Pakistan and Inda, as they were partitioned into a Muslim (Pakistan) and Hindu (India) state.
Ustrello wrote: Except they aren't anymore, and you danced around the question I posed earlier. Iran armed terrorist groups that regularly attack Israel and by your logic engaged in a true proxy war with Israel in 2006 (date may be wrong). Also you are forgetting that Hezbollah attack Israel first in that war, so really your entire argument is null at that point.
"Danced around the question"
I answered it.
"Iran armed terrorist groups"
It doesn't make Hezbollah any less of a political party or entity. They operate as a largely separate group.
"Hezbollah attacked Israel in that first war"
Because Israel had occupied Lebanon, their home country. Hezbollah fought back.
Simply deciding my point is null and void does not make it "null and void".
Alright by that logic I could arm Sinn Fein and have them attack england since you know they are a political party and have a sovereign right to defend themselves from the oppressing brits
Ustrello wrote: Except they aren't anymore, and you danced around the question I posed earlier. Iran armed terrorist groups that regularly attack Israel and by your logic engaged in a true proxy war with Israel in 2006 (date may be wrong). Also you are forgetting that Hezbollah attack Israel first in that war, so really your entire argument is null at that point.
"Danced around the question"
I answered it.
"Iran armed terrorist groups"
It doesn't make Hezbollah any less of a political party or entity. They operate as a largely separate group.
"Hezbollah attacked Israel in that first war"
Because Israel had occupied Lebanon, their home country. Hezbollah fought back.
Simply deciding my point is null and void does not make it "null and void".
Alright by that logic I could arm Sinn Fein and have them attack england since you know they are a political party and have a sovereign right to defend themselves from the oppressing brits
Where Sinn Fein lawfully elected as part of a separate government in another country?
Where Sinn Fein attacked first?
Again, another argument from analogy that doesn't work.
Yes they hold seats both in the republic of ireland and north ireland. And they are linked with the IRA so yes in a way they did attack first. So yes the analogy works
Ustrello wrote: Yes they hold seats both in the republic of ireland and north ireland. And they are linked with the IRA so yes in a way they did attack first. So yes the analogy works
Saying a political party with ties to a terrorist organization who attacked the UK is a red herring? Are you just throwing out debate terms and hoping they stick at this point?
Ustrello wrote: Saying a political party with ties to a terrorist organization who attacked the UK is a red herring? Are you just throwing out debate terms and hoping they stick at this point?
No, we are discussing the nature of Hezbollah, who formed in 1985 to remove the Israel occupiers of Lebanon.
The IRA has existed in numerous forms since 1905 if I am correct. They were fighting against the British ruled areas of Ireland that have existed for some time.
The groups are different, and the argument comes off like a Red Herring because it pushing the conversation off it's original course just like the old WW1 argument made earlier.
They are different how? Both are terrorist organizations who are fighting against a country that they consider detestable, just because one has been around for longer doesnt make them different.
Ustrello wrote: They are different how? Both are terrorist organizations who are fighting against a country that they consider detestable, just because one has been around for longer doesnt make them different.
They have differences. I don't think the IRA was ever used as a proxy army to attack other nations as Iran has used Hezbollah.
Okay then. The state has a right to defend itself. Hezbollah were part of the Lebanese state and thus have right to defend the Lebanese state as part of the government.
Being a part of a government does not mean you are in charge of said government. Please revisit your civics classes. When did Israel last attack Lebanon (not Hezzbullah-Lebanon)? When did Hezzbullah last attack Israel. I think you'll see a gross time differential.
Hezbollah have been part of the Lebanese government since 2005.
Again, thats doesn't mean they are in charge. The Texas Rangers are part of the Texas and therafter US government. That does not mean the Texas Rangers get to make policy and launch rocket attacks on Mexico. The arguments asinine actually.
Implying Dome of the Rock is actually holy and wasn't a political ploy by the Umayyad caliphate to subvert the monopoly Ibn al-Zubayr had on pilgrimage because of the Ka'ba
Everything "holy" or related to religion is, by definition, a political ploy.
Not totally against the existence of Israel, but I must admit that I'm currently thinking they're kinda responsible for what is happening.
Still hope Israelis and Palestinians will finally get along, tho.
LethalShade wrote: Not totally against the existence of Israel, but I must admit that I'm currently thinking they're kinda responsible for what is happening.
I'd love to hear how it is the fault of a 72 year old woman waiting at a bus stop that hate ridden teenager decided to pull out a knife and stab her to death.
Well, when you treat people like second class citizens while rejecting all form of talk with said people, you can expect them to be pissed off.
Sure, ISIS probably have some influence in what's going on there. Not going to deny it. But Palestinians are pissed off for a reason.
But, sure, stabbing innocent civilians in the street will not help at all and things will get worse for both sides.
Ustrello wrote: Guess you are conveniently forgetting how Iran arms hezbollah and formerly hamas
Hezbollah have a sovereign right to defend themselves from Israel. As do Hamas. Both were elected, and one even drove out the occupying Israelis.
So, Hez are now a nation state with sovereign rights?
Your interpretation/understanding of the situation just gets better and better.
Was the USA s sovereign state when the colonists began their campaign against Britain?
Yes because a rebellion in another countries territory = a terrorist political party of a country
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LethalShade wrote: Well, when you treat people like second class citizens while rejecting all form of talk with said people, you can expect them to be pissed off.
Sure, ISIS probably have some influence in what's going on there. Not going to deny it. But Palestinians are pissed off for a reason.
But, sure, stabbing innocent civilians in the street will not help at all and things will get worse for both sides.
Would you be trustful of people who have tried to destroy your country more than once?
LethalShade wrote: Well, when you treat people like second class citizens while rejecting all form of talk with said people, you can expect them to be pissed off.
Sure, ISIS probably have some influence in what's going on there. Not going to deny it. But Palestinians are pissed off for a reason.
But, sure, stabbing innocent civilians in the street will not help at all and things will get worse for both sides.
Would you be trustful of people who have tried to destroy your country more than once?
The French seem to get along with their German neighbours......
Until a line is drawn there can be no agreements and no end to violence.
Would you be trustful of people who have tried to destroy your country more than once?
Would I ? Probably not. But Israel need to do the first step, and Palestinians need to be smart. Hell, both sides need to be smart, and currently they're not.
LethalShade wrote: Well, when you treat people like second class citizens while rejecting all form of talk with said people, you can expect them to be pissed off.
Sure, ISIS probably have some influence in what's going on there. Not going to deny it. But Palestinians are pissed off for a reason.
But, sure, stabbing innocent civilians in the street will not help at all and things will get worse for both sides.
Would you be trustful of people who have tried to destroy your country more than once?
The French seem to get along with their German neighbours......
Until a line is drawn there can be no agreements and no end to violence.
Sure, but did the Kaiser or Hitler want to exterminate all of the french and possibly destroy all of their culture?
LethalShade wrote: Well, when you treat people like second class citizens while rejecting all form of talk with said people, you can expect them to be pissed off.
Sure, ISIS probably have some influence in what's going on there. Not going to deny it. But Palestinians are pissed off for a reason.
But, sure, stabbing innocent civilians in the street will not help at all and things will get worse for both sides.
I'm astounded at the rationalization of targeted ethnic killings of Jews while they go about their daily routines. Just look at the press releases from Hamas lionizing the stabbers as "heroes".....or did you not see the video reenactment they released of the bus slayings? Now a mob of youths burned a Jewish religious site in Nablus?
Thats functionally identical to the KKK burning crosses on black people's lawns, and lynching folks only a LOT worse.
Peter Wiggin wrote: I'm astounded at the rationalization of targeted ethnic killings of Jews
How do you rationalize the killing and stealing of land from Palestinians? Or is this just a one way street where Israel is fetishized and Palestinians are demonized? Both need to get their gak together; both have blood on their hands.
Peter Wiggin wrote: I'm astounded at the rationalization of targeted ethnic killings of Jews
How do you rationalize the killing and stealing of land from Palestinians? Or is this just a one way street where Israel is fetishized and Palestinians are demonized? Both need to get their gak together; both have blood on their hands.
One side declared war on another, one side lost and lost territory because of it. Pretty simple
Peter Wiggin wrote: I'm astounded at the rationalization of targeted ethnic killings of Jews
How do you rationalize the killing and stealing of land from Palestinians? Or is this just a one way street where Israel is fetishized and Palestinians are demonized? Both need to get their gak together; both have blood on their hands.
You're not addressing my points, you are conflating your own ideological values with "on the ground" reality.
If a cohesive group of individuals were running around in your city stabbing senior citizens and ramming cars into bus stops what would you do?
Peter Wiggin wrote: I'm astounded at the rationalization of targeted ethnic killings of Jews
How do you rationalize the killing and stealing of land from Palestinians? Or is this just a one way street where Israel is fetishized and Palestinians are demonized? Both need to get their gak together; both have blood on their hands.
One side declared war on another, one side lost and lost territory because of it. Pretty simple
Exactly.
Thats the way the world works, whether people like it or not.
Peter Wiggin wrote: I'm astounded at the rationalization of targeted ethnic killings of Jews
How do you rationalize the killing and stealing of land from Palestinians? Or is this just a one way street where Israel is fetishized and Palestinians are demonized? Both need to get their gak together; both have blood on their hands.
One side declared war on another, one side lost and lost territory because of it. Pretty simple
One side declared war on another with extermination in mind, then played victim after it lost is more like it
LethalShade wrote: Well, when you treat people like second class citizens while rejecting all form of talk with said people, you can expect them to be pissed off.
Sure, ISIS probably have some influence in what's going on there. Not going to deny it. But Palestinians are pissed off for a reason.
But, sure, stabbing innocent civilians in the street will not help at all and things will get worse for both sides.
I'm astounded at the rationalization of targeted ethnic killings of Jews while they go about their daily routines. Just look at the press releases from Hamas lionizing the stabbers as "heroes".....or did you not see the video reenactment they released of the bus slayings? Now a mob of youths burned a Jewish religious site in Nablus?
Thats functionally identical to the KKK burning crosses on black people's lawns, and lynching folks only a LOT worse.
Yes, it's insane and Hamas' actions are outrageous, however the violence also not a one-way street. Israeli settler attacks on Palestinians are not at all uncommon, often just as unprovoked, and attacks on economic resources (such olive harvests) by settlers are almost a weekly occurrence.
Peter Wiggin wrote: I'm astounded at the rationalization of targeted ethnic killings of Jews
How do you rationalize the killing and stealing of land from Palestinians? Or is this just a one way street where Israel is fetishized and Palestinians are demonized? Both need to get their gak together; both have blood on their hands.
One side declared war on another, one side lost and lost territory because of it. Pretty simple
One side declared war on another with extermination in mind, then played victim after it lost is more like it
Let's not forget the actions & attitudes of groups like Lehi, Irgun, etc either here in that original conflict, that actively engaged in terrorist bombings, hangings, massacres, etc of their own, groups that, much like Hezbhollah, later formed the core of a national military and had members later go on to attain very high political standing.
Peter Wiggin wrote: I'm astounded at the rationalization of targeted ethnic killings of Jews
How do you rationalize the killing and stealing of land from Palestinians? Or is this just a one way street where Israel is fetishized and Palestinians are demonized? Both need to get their gak together; both have blood on their hands.
You're not addressing my points, you are conflating your own ideological values with "on the ground" reality.
If a cohesive group of individuals were running around in your city stabbing senior citizens and ramming cars into bus stops what would you do?
I'd throw ebola at them.
More seriously, why are you acting like the stabbings are occurring in a vacuum? You seem to be ignoring 60 years of historical context in your drive to make the Palestinians look like mindless, stab-crazy monsters.
Sure, stabbing civilians is ugly, ugly business. I don't think anyone here is condoning the stabbings, but to just focus on the stabbings and ignore everything that has occurred between the Palestinians and the Israelis is disingenuous at best. At best.
Your question could be flipped around and in place of stabbings and car attacks you could list all of the atrocities inflicted on the Palestinians by Israelis and the question would be just as obtuse.
The issue is that no one is clean there. Everyone has blood on their hands. For every stabbing there is a house bulldozed, or collateral damage from shelling. For every bus attack there is an air strike.
LethalShade wrote: Well, when you treat people like second class citizens while rejecting all form of talk with said people, you can expect them to be pissed off.
Sure, ISIS probably have some influence in what's going on there. Not going to deny it. But Palestinians are pissed off for a reason.
But, sure, stabbing innocent civilians in the street will not help at all and things will get worse for both sides.
Would you be trustful of people who have tried to destroy your country more than once?
The French seem to get along with their German neighbours......
Until a line is drawn there can be no agreements and no end to violence.
Sure, but did the Kaiser or Hitler want to exterminate all of the french and possibly destroy all of their culture?
Some in the middle east want Israel and its inhabitants exterminated.
Some want Israel to stop killing its own population.
Some want Israel to stop killing other countries citizens.
Some want violence and opposition to Israels right to exist to end.
Some want violence towards Israeli jews to end.
I would suggest that a far greater number just want things settled once and for all. Which would take all sides to stop posturing. All ethnicities to begin at day 0. For The Israeli leadership and Hammas et al this would be impossible.
Peter Wiggin wrote: I'm astounded at the rationalization of targeted ethnic killings of Jews
How do you rationalize the killing and stealing of land from Palestinians? Or is this just a one way street where Israel is fetishized and Palestinians are demonized? Both need to get their gak together; both have blood on their hands.
One side declared war on another, one side lost and lost territory because of it. Pretty simple
One side declared war on another with extermination in mind, then played victim after it lost is more like it
Let's not forget the actions & attitudes of groups like Lehi, Irgun, etc either here in that original conflict, that actively engaged in terrorist bombings, hangings, massacres, etc of their own, groups that, much like Hezbhollah, later formed the core of a national military and had members later go on to attain very high political standing.
Aye. Lehi killed UN mediator Folke Bernadotte in '48, Lehi member Yitzhak Shamir went on to become Prime Minister of Israel twice.
Relapse wrote: There is no excusing murder on either side, but the Arab share of agitation is far greater.
This is because the Palestinians are living under occupation, and Israeli Arabs are second class citizens, Israeli Jews aren't.
There is a lot of room for anger and agitation.
The fairer point would be what would happen to Israel if it ceased to oppress the Palestinians. Would there be peace and justice? Likely not.
Relapse wrote: There is no excusing murder on either side, but the Arab share of agitation is far greater.
This is because the Palestinians are living under occupation, and Israeli Arabs are second class citizens, Israeli Jews aren't.
There is a lot of room for anger and agitation.
The fairer point would be what would happen to Israel if it ceased to oppress the Palestinians. Would there be peace and justice? Likely not.
The answers might be found in 1948, 1967, and 1973.
Every one thought it was horrible Israel clamped down on cement and other construction materials, yet months later, what do we find? Massive cement tunnels leading toward civilian areas, validating Israels clamp down.
Relapse wrote: There is no excusing murder on either side, but the Arab share of agitation is far greater.
This is because the Palestinians are living under occupation, and Israeli Arabs are second class citizens, Israeli Jews aren't.
There is a lot of room for anger and agitation.
The fairer point would be what would happen to Israel if it ceased to oppress the Palestinians. Would there be peace and justice? Likely not.
The answers might be found in 1948, 1967, and 1973.
Every one thought it was horrible Israel clamped down on cement and other construction materials, yet months later, what do we find? Massive cement tunnels leading toward civilian areas, validating Israels clamp down.
The clamp down didn't stop the construction of the tunnels because there's enough rubble and recyclable concrete and other material to build simple tunnels with for decades already lying around if the guys building the tunnels can't get anything else. The tunnels also served as an economic life-support to bring in items like gasoline, clothing, etc.
Peter Wiggin wrote: I'm astounded at the rationalization of targeted ethnic killings of Jews
How do you rationalize the killing and stealing of land from Palestinians? Or is this just a one way street where Israel is fetishized and Palestinians are demonized? Both need to get their gak together; both have blood on their hands.
You are sitting on land taken from its rightful owner because its rightful owner didn't have the numbers and repeating rifles until it was too late. That land in turn was likely stolen from someone else, who stole it from the resident bear and wolf populations.
Thats just the US. Now imagine someplace with a history measured in millenniums.
Did you have a similar opinion about the UK after Bishopsgate?
Sure.
Events like Operation Demetrius which introduced mass arrest and internment are considered now to be a breach of human rights and certainly inspired the next generation of activists, as Israel's actions against Palestine have done and currently continue to do.
It is exactly the same as America's treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay: if they weren't your enemy before, they sure as hell are going to be afterwards.
Does that answer your question?
Someone coming into a thread this late like that is clearly not interested in proper discussion. Just ignore it guys
Again, as a 3rd party who doesn't have a dog in the hunt, I don't see how the relevant peoples separate themselves from it.
Israel: Evidently they aren't going to pull up the Wailing Wall and move lock stock and barrel to Brownsville. So they are stuck in. If they pulled completely back to the 1967 and left those areas completely, building a giant WWZ type wall, I don't think there would be a hint of difference and the Wall would probably be torn down. Their building of settlements and occupation foster further attacks.
Palestine: dude you're stabbing grandmothers. In any other place they other side could firebomb your entire country. However, we have a region were the people are being used as political tools by other parties, and have no hope. Jordan doesn't want them, and they are so small they can't exist as a separate state with any kind of industry. Israel can't assimilate them, as they would destroy Israel.
Gaza: See Palestine but even worse. Egypt has them walled off and occasionally battles extremists in the borderlands near it. The place is the size of my back yard. How could they be independent?
Can you really group the Palestinians under one heading with regards to the current knife attacks?
It is unlikely that they are being orchestrated by the government, if at all.
Rocket attacks and bombings indicate some level of group co-ordination, the recent spate of attacks on the other hand all appear to be committed by individuals.
These are desperate acts by desperate people.
Their actions aside, they have the right to be desperate. The rest of the world has stood by, or even been vetoed by the US, whenever anything comes along that could upset the current one sided affair (see the Palestinian statehood vote in late 2014/ early 2015).
The Israeli government doesn't want change, because every year they gain more territory. The longer the current dispute goes on, the more they will get when it finally comes to an end.
Having their BFF America with a veto ensures the conflict won't end unless it is on their terms.
The knife attacks are a tragedy, but they are not the problem, merely a symptom.
Frazzled wrote: You seem to think a UN vote means something. Thats funny.
I think you are missing the point.
America's power to veto means something, as it blocked Palestine from becoming a recognised state.
Palestine doesn't want the power to vote at the UN, it wants to be declared as a state.
If it is recognised as a state then it will be much more protected under international law, and the motion would set precedent for further diplomatic discussions: something Israel does not wish to see.
Frazzled wrote: You seem to think a UN vote means something. Thats funny.
That teamed with the bias in the UN. Hamas fires thousands of rockets indiscriminately at Israel, hitting anything and everything, the UN is ok with this. Israel launches precision strikes after warning the residents nearby to take cover because it just got real. UN has large in depth discussions on how to punish Israel for its human rights violations.
Let me summarize that video for you in a single quote. "I don't think that there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza"
Reducing civilian casualties in a one sided conflict which has world media coverage sure is good of them...
...how about not displacing civilian populations and not withholding water for blackmail when the cameras are turned the other way?
When the established global system for global conflict resolution won't even recognise the Palestinian state as a state, and won't let them sit at the table as an equal, it should be no surprise that people turn away from diplomacy.
Frazzled wrote: You seem to think a UN vote means something. Thats funny.
That teamed with the bias in the UN. Hamas fires thousands of rockets indiscriminately at Israel, hitting anything and everything, the UN is ok with this.
Well, most of the time they do not hit anything at all.
Ghazkuul wrote: Israel launches precision strikes after warning the residents nearby to take cover because it just got real. UN has large in depth discussions on how to punish Israel for its human rights violations.
Let me summarize that video for you in a single quote. "I don't think that there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza"
The problem here is that despite the efforts the IDF is doing a very, very lousy job at reducing innocent casualties. Let's look at the violent conflict last year for example. 5 Israeli civilians got killed, and 66 Israeli soldiers. That is like 8% civilian casualties. On the other hand, the UNHRC estimates that of the 2251 Palestinians killed, 65% were civilians. Even the Israeli foreign ministry estimated that at least 30% had been civilians. Now who is doing a better job? Hamas or the IDF? The main problem however as I see it, is proportionality. The Palestinians throw rocks and fire a few homemade rockets, the Israelis strike back with fighter jets, armoured vehicles and artillery. The Isreali government of course has an obligation to protect its citizens, but its response is out of proportion.
Did you have a similar opinion about the UK after Bishopsgate?
Sure.
Events like Operation Demetrius which introduced mass arrest and internment are considered now to be a breach of human rights and certainly inspired the next generation of activists, as Israel's actions against Palestine have done and currently continue to do.
It is exactly the same as America's treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay: if they weren't your enemy before, they sure as hell are going to be afterwards.
Does that answer your question?
Someone coming into a thread this late like that is clearly not interested in proper discussion. Just ignore it guys
Thanks?
Two wrongs don't make a right. All that will achieve is a cycle of revenge and never ending violence. And its self defeating - using terror tactics and deliberate targeting of civilians as a response to humans rights abuses (which are of course wrong and should be prosecuted) like Guantanamo will ultimately help justify those human rights abuses in the long term.
Are you really saying that you think terror attacks are a justifiable response?
Frazzled wrote: You seem to think a UN vote means something. Thats funny.
I think you are missing the point.
America's power to veto means something, as it blocked Palestine from becoming a recognised state.
Palestine doesn't want the power to vote at the UN, it wants to be declared as a state.
If it is recognised as a state then it will be much more protected under international law, and the motion would set precedent for further diplomatic discussions: something Israel does not wish to see.
If it were a state Israel could have already annihilated it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, most of the time they do not hit anything at all.
Cool so the US can fire rockets at Moscow, as long as they aren't accurate. Good to know.
Frazzled wrote: You seem to think a UN vote means something. Thats funny.
I think you are missing the point.
America's power to veto means something, as it blocked Palestine from becoming a recognised state.
Palestine doesn't want the power to vote at the UN, it wants to be declared as a state.
If it is recognised as a state then it will be much more protected under international law, and the motion would set precedent for further diplomatic discussions: something Israel does not wish to see.
If it were a state Israel could have already annihilated it.
Exactly... it would've been conquered long ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, most of the time they do not hit anything at all.
Cool so the US can fire rockets at Moscow, as long as they aren't accurate. Good to know.
The problem here is that despite the efforts the IDF is doing a very, very lousy job at reducing innocent casualties. Let's look at the violent conflict last year for example. 5 Israeli civilians got killed, and 66 Israeli soldiers. That is like 8% civilian casualties. On the other hand, the UNHRC estimates that of the 2251 Palestinians killed, 65% were civilians. Even the Israeli foreign ministry estimated that at least 30% had been civilians. Now who is doing a better job? Hamas or the IDF?
The main problem however as I see it, is proportionality. The Palestinians throw rocks and fire a few homemade rockets, the Israelis strike back with fighter jets, armoured vehicles and artillery. The Isreali government of course has an obligation to protect its citizens, but its response is out of proportion.
1: if Georgia fired rockets indiscriminately into Russia, Putin would invade the country and slaughter tens of thousands.
2: No other army in the history of armed conflict sends text message warnings and calls the residence before bombing a house, HAMAS forcing them to remain in the homes is the problem.
3: Who is doing the better job? Israel is. Why? Because Israel isn't hiding its military components inside civilian buildings, including schools and hospitals.
The problem here is that despite the efforts the IDF is doing a very, very lousy job at reducing innocent casualties. Let's look at the violent conflict last year for example. 5 Israeli civilians got killed, and 66 Israeli soldiers. That is like 8% civilian casualties. On the other hand, the UNHRC estimates that of the 2251 Palestinians killed, 65% were civilians. Even the Israeli foreign ministry estimated that at least 30% had been civilians. Now who is doing a better job? Hamas or the IDF? The main problem however as I see it, is proportionality. The Palestinians throw rocks and fire a few homemade rockets, the Israelis strike back with fighter jets, armoured vehicles and artillery. The Isreali government of course has an obligation to protect its citizens, but its response is out of proportion.
1: if Georgia fired rockets indiscriminately into Russia, Putin would invade the country and slaughter tens of thousands. 2: No other army in the history of armed conflict sends text message warnings and calls the residence before bombing a house, HAMAS forcing them to remain in the homes is the problem. 3: Who is doing the better job? Israel is. Why? Because Israel isn't hiding its military components inside civilian buildings, including schools and hospitals.
1. If I would have said that, it would have been called a "whataboutism" or some similar hypocritical nonsense. Regardless: In 2008, Georgia attacked and killed Russian soldiers and civilians. Russia responded by invading Georgia. 224 Georgian civilians were killed in the following conflict, most of them due to action by Ossetian and Abchazian, rather than Russian forces.
2. Yet the Israelis bomb the house anyways? You can't blame Hamas when it is the IDF, not Hamas, who does the bombing. Imagine a situation where a criminal holds a hostage at gunpoint. The police shouts to the hostage to get out of the way, but the hostage obviously can't. The police then proceeds to shoot both hostage and criminal. People then cheer the police for doing such a good job warning the hostage and avoiding innocent casualties. Sounds right? Also as a side note, when Russia warned the citizens of Grozny that the city was about to be bombed and they had a few days to leave before the bombardments started, the West was absolutely outraged and even considered economic sanctions. Double standards much?
3. Of course Hamas is not nice or anything, but the imbalance of force is such that Hamas has little choice but to hide in civilian buildings, they'd be bombed the minute they would establish themselves in the open. Besides, the Gaza strip is so small and crowded, it is hard not to be near a civilian building. Finally, it is still the choice of the IDF whether they bomb that school or not. Apparently Israel views taking out a few terrorists as important enough to bomb an entire schoold or hospital (war crime) to oblivion. They could also decide not to bomb, they are the only ones responsible.
The problem here is that despite the efforts the IDF is doing a very, very lousy job at reducing innocent casualties. Let's look at the violent conflict last year for example. 5 Israeli civilians got killed, and 66 Israeli soldiers. That is like 8% civilian casualties. On the other hand, the UNHRC estimates that of the 2251 Palestinians killed, 65% were civilians. Even the Israeli foreign ministry estimated that at least 30% had been civilians. Now who is doing a better job? Hamas or the IDF?
The main problem however as I see it, is proportionality. The Palestinians throw rocks and fire a few homemade rockets, the Israelis strike back with fighter jets, armoured vehicles and artillery. The Isreali government of course has an obligation to protect its citizens, but its response is out of proportion.
1: if Georgia fired rockets indiscriminately into Russia, Putin would invade the country and slaughter tens of thousands.
2: No other army in the history of armed conflict sends text message warnings and calls the residence before bombing a house, HAMAS forcing them to remain in the homes is the problem.
3: Who is doing the better job? Israel is. Why? Because Israel isn't hiding its military components inside civilian buildings, including schools and hospitals.
1. If I would have said that, it would have been called a "whataboutism" or some similar hypocritical nonsense. Regardless:
In 2008, Georgia attacked and killed Russian soldiers and civilians. Russia responded by invading Georgia. 224 Georgian civilians were killed in the following conflict, most of them due to action by Ossetian and Abchazian, rather than Russian forces.
2. Yet the Israelis bomb the house anyways? You can't blame Hamas when it is the IDF, not Hamas, who does the bombing. Imagine a situation where a criminal holds a hostage at gunpoint. The police shouts to the hostage to get out of the way, but the hostage obviously can't. The police then proceeds to shoot both hostage and criminal. People then cheer the police for doing such a good job warning the hostage and avoiding innocent casualties. Sounds right?
3. Of course Hamas is not nice or anything, but the imbalance of force is such that Hamas has little choice but to hide in civilian buildings, they'd be bombed the minute they would establish themselves in the open. Besides, the Gaza strip is so small and crowded, it is hard not to be near a civilian building. Finally, it is still the choice of the IDF whether they bomb that school or not. Apparently Israel views taking out a few terrorists as important enough to bomb an entire schoold or hospital (war crime) to oblivion. They could also decide not to bomb, they are the only ones responsible.
Georgia never killed russian soldiers/civilians the entire world knew that was BS and Russia did it to "Free" parts of Georgia.
Yes, Israel still bombs the house because they have a duty to protect Israeli's not Palestinians. The point I was making though is that Israel bends over backwards to send warnings and prevent civilian casualties. The difference in the scenario is that HAMAS isn't holding anyone hostage. These civilians WILLINGLY keep weapons and personnel in their homes, which under the rules of war makes those homes legitimate military targets.
Yes it is Israels choice to bomb those schools and hospitals, WHICH ISNT A WARCRIME. The fact that UN personnel allowed Hamas to hide weapons and fighters inside these hospitals and schools is more of a war crime then Israel targeting them with bombers/artillery after yet again sending out several warnings.
The problem here is that despite the efforts the IDF is doing a very, very lousy job at reducing innocent casualties. Let's look at the violent conflict last year for example. 5 Israeli civilians got killed, and 66 Israeli soldiers. That is like 8% civilian casualties. On the other hand, the UNHRC estimates that of the 2251 Palestinians killed, 65% were civilians. Even the Israeli foreign ministry estimated that at least 30% had been civilians. Now who is doing a better job? Hamas or the IDF? The main problem however as I see it, is proportionality. The Palestinians throw rocks and fire a few homemade rockets, the Israelis strike back with fighter jets, armoured vehicles and artillery. The Isreali government of course has an obligation to protect its citizens, but its response is out of proportion.
1: if Georgia fired rockets indiscriminately into Russia, Putin would invade the country and slaughter tens of thousands. 2: No other army in the history of armed conflict sends text message warnings and calls the residence before bombing a house, HAMAS forcing them to remain in the homes is the problem. 3: Who is doing the better job? Israel is. Why? Because Israel isn't hiding its military components inside civilian buildings, including schools and hospitals.
1. If I would have said that, it would have been called a "whataboutism" or some similar hypocritical nonsense. Regardless: In 2008, Georgia attacked and killed Russian soldiers and civilians. Russia responded by invading Georgia. 224 Georgian civilians were killed in the following conflict, most of them due to action by Ossetian and Abchazian, rather than Russian forces.
2. Yet the Israelis bomb the house anyways? You can't blame Hamas when it is the IDF, not Hamas, who does the bombing. Imagine a situation where a criminal holds a hostage at gunpoint. The police shouts to the hostage to get out of the way, but the hostage obviously can't. The police then proceeds to shoot both hostage and criminal. People then cheer the police for doing such a good job warning the hostage and avoiding innocent casualties. Sounds right?
3. Of course Hamas is not nice or anything, but the imbalance of force is such that Hamas has little choice but to hide in civilian buildings, they'd be bombed the minute they would establish themselves in the open. Besides, the Gaza strip is so small and crowded, it is hard not to be near a civilian building. Finally, it is still the choice of the IDF whether they bomb that school or not. Apparently Israel views taking out a few terrorists as important enough to bomb an entire schoold or hospital (war crime) to oblivion. They could also decide not to bomb, they are the only ones responsible.
Georgia never killed russian soldiers/civilians the entire world knew that was BS and Russia did it to "Free" parts of Georgia.
Ghazkuul wrote: Yes, Israel still bombs the house because they have a duty to protect Israeli's not Palestinians. The point I was making though is that Israel bends over backwards to send warnings and prevent civilian casualties. The difference in the scenario is that HAMAS isn't holding anyone hostage. These civilians WILLINGLY keep weapons and personnel in their homes, which under the rules of war makes those homes legitimate military targets.
And just before you said that Hamas was "holding them at gunpoint". Israel does have a duty to protect Israelis, but in the same way you could argue Hamas has a duty to protect Palestinians. In any case, their duty does not give them a license to kill Palestinians whenever they see fit. Wars have rules, and Israel is not following them.
Ghazkuul wrote: Yes it is Israels choice to bomb those schools and hospitals, WHICH ISNT A WARCRIME. The fact that UN personnel allowed Hamas to hide weapons and fighters inside these hospitals and schools is more of a war crime then Israel targeting them with bombers/artillery after yet again sending out several warnings.
The Geneva Conventions (Article 19, 4th Convention) explicitly state that the presence of enemies or weapons in a hospital is not a valid reason for an attack, and not adhering to the Geneva Conventions is a warcrime.
Ghazkuul wrote: Yes, Israel still bombs the house because they have a duty to protect Israeli's not Palestinians. The point I was making though is that Israel bends over backwards to send warnings and prevent civilian casualties. The difference in the scenario is that HAMAS isn't holding anyone hostage. These civilians WILLINGLY keep weapons and personnel in their homes, which under the rules of war makes those homes legitimate military targets.
Iron_Captain wrote: And just before you said that Hamas was "holding them at gunpoint". Israel does have a duty to protect Israelis, but in the same way you could argue Hamas has a duty to protect Palestinians. In any case, their duty does not give them a license to kill Palestinians whenever they see fit. Wars have rules, and Israel is not following them.
Ghazkuul wrote: Yes it is Israels choice to bomb those schools and hospitals, WHICH ISNT A WARCRIME. The fact that UN personnel allowed Hamas to hide weapons and fighters inside these hospitals and schools is more of a war crime then Israel targeting them with bombers/artillery after yet again sending out several warnings.
Iron_Captain wrote: The Geneva Conventions (Article 19, 4th Convention) explicitly state that the presence of enemies or weapons in a hospital is not a valid reason for an attack, and not adhering to the Geneva Conventions is a warcrime.
If they have a duty to protect palestinians why are they holding them at gunpoint in the line of fire? doesn't that directly contradict what you just said about trying to protect them?
And I highly suggest you go read the Geneva convention instead of just posting bits and pieces. It specifically says that enemy personnel can be there, and small arms that are going to be turned into the proper authorities. Utilizing a hospital/school to store military equipment is specifically forbidden by the Geneva convention and you would know that if you had spent 10 minutes reading instead of cherry picking.
If it were a state Israel could have already annihilated it.
Firstly, this has absolutely nothing to do with what has been said previously.
The point is that Palestine would be less of a target for illegal Israeli activities if it achieved greater international recognition. Why are you talking about annihilating it?
Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that it would be a viable political move for Israel to openly annex all of Palestine? Total nonsense, but also unnecessary due to the current situation.
It makes far more sense for them to carry on as they currently are: taking all the fertile land and water sources slowly as international help is blocked, and degrading the Palestinians down to a sub-human level, forcing them to live in camps, and making them beg for food and water.
Let me summarize that video for you in a single quote. "I don't think that there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza"
I don't see how Kemp can make that comment. In one week of operations in Gaza the IDF killed far more collateral civilian casualties than the British army did in Northern Ireland over a course of several decades. They were also out of synch with casualty figures from the Basra occupation in the last decade. This only accounts the British and recent history and thus doesn't look at the record in Malaysia either. Going for the 'history of warfare' on more than one occasion whole nations have been taken over with less overall casualties than the collateral Palestinian casualties of the campaign he was speaking about, which were well over 2000.
The Geneva Conventions (Article 19, 4th Convention) explicitly state that the presence of enemies or weapons in a hospital is not a valid reason for an attack, and not adhering to the Geneva Conventions is a warcrime.
And I highly suggest you go read the Geneva convention instead of just posting bits and pieces. It specifically says that enemy personnel can be there, and small arms that are going to be turned into the proper authorities. Utilizing a hospital/school to store military equipment is specifically forbidden by the Geneva convention and you would know that if you had spent 10 minutes reading instead of cherry picking.
Iron_Captain is not cherry picking, he is right in his interpretation of the law.
Irregular fighters might store weapons in a hospital, that is illegal, but it is what irregular fighters do. The culpability is local and individual. The IDF is a national armed force though, operating directly from a nation state with command resources, it has a conscious governmental control. Thus the conscious decision to bomb a hospital is not only a crime, it is a worse crime. It is a national war crime.
Also storing weapons and directing large scale ordnance are two different things. If the hospital contained WMD there would be some leeway.
The thing is those opposing terrorists are expected to be better than the terrorists, not on a par, or in this case worse. and apologists for hospital bombings share the guilt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peter Wiggin wrote: I blame it on the respective Abrahamic faiths involved. Another example of how god so loved the world that he gave it humanity.
Ugh.
Dont worry Atheism is catching up fast. Fanatics of the cult of no-god, as found in revolutionary communism are making up for not having a powerbase in the last three millenia by murdering more people in one century than the crusades killed over their entire history. And are still racking up a body count of deaths, and numerous more imprisonments of people who express a faith in, China, Tibet and North Korea in the current day. You might claim as a defence that you are not a communist Peter Wiggin, but then any Moslem or Jew here is also not necessarily an extremist either.
Just have to lay this one out for you in case you like to propogate the myth that removing organised religion removes the violence of religion.
Just have to lay this one out for you in case you like to propogate the myth that removing organised religion removes the violence of religion.
Oh no, let me be very very clear. I'm not talking about "organized religion", I am specifically pointing the finger at the Abrahamic faiths as being an absolute blight on humanity. Humans are violent by their very nature, and Abrahamic faith is the perfect steroid for that violence. I sincerely wish that the billions of people who hold those faiths were capable of letting go of them.
Hope that makes my position crystal clear, since you want to try and sound smart/snarky.
Peter Wiggin wrote: I blame it on the respective Abrahamic faiths involved. Another example of how god so loved the world that he gave it humanity.
Ugh.
Modern conflict around Israel and Palestine didn't heavily centre around religion until the 1980's, which saw a rise of Islamism in the region.
Whilst religious sites and groups have always played key roles in the conflict, the heart of the issue has always been secular.
Groups like Hamas (which was formed in 1988) have benefitted from the conflict, as they offer the dejected Palestinian people an alternative to the main politicians, politicians who have been unable to make any progress due to their actions being blocked by both Israel and the US. If diplomacy was actually given a chance, then the number of extremist-religious groups would decrease.
Just have to lay this one out for you in case you like to propogate the myth that removing organised religion removes the violence of religion.
Oh no, let me be very very clear. I'm not talking about "organized religion", I am specifically pointing the finger at the Abrahamic faiths as being an absolute blight on humanity. Humans are violent by their very nature, and Abrahamic faith is the perfect steroid for that violence. I sincerely wish that the billions of people who hold those faiths were capable of letting go of them.
Hope that makes my position crystal clear, since you want to try and sound smart/snarky.
Thankyou for clarifying. Though I saw that as your position.
So the Abrahamic faiths are a blight are they. Ok, its not snarky to call you out on that. You wouldn't have to go far from your home in Europe or America to find a Jewish, a Christian and a Moslem community that want nothing more than to be left alone. I cant say there wont be any extremists lurking within, but the majority will be opposed to them. Also those communities and indidivuals would have nothing to gain by being forced into 'letting go' of theri faiths because atheists want them to. Surely the choice is theirs. Neverthless If theses faith groups are are a 'blight' nonetheless what solution do you have to end it. The shining light of Atheism?
Do you really think that because people say 'we are Atheists' this is a pass that means they are immune to religious hatred or violence. History will disagree with you. In fact Dakka will disagree with you, if it was honest with itself. You are far from the only person here who wishes religion went away and is very vocal in their opposition to it, to the point where in some cases the anti-relgious comments are frequent and fervent enough one could fairly question if they have a hate issue. Sure you might not be the type to round up religious people when the revolution comes, but sad to say many other people thought so too. A lot of atheism is already radicalised, and motivated to end religion, there are quotes from atheist leaders which in come ways mimic the words of extremist Islamic hate preachers, and differ only in the target. Sure you wont join a hate mob, just as most Moslems wont either, but some would.
You also need to look at the herd mentality of humans and how people groups are dehumanised by it. An open minded educated society can be turned into hate filled fanatics in a few years, I wont Godwin the thread with examples.
I am not saying that a militant atheist rise is on the horizon, our society is more robust than that.
What I am saying is that the same hatreds poisoning religious extremists such as hardline Zionists, militant Islamists and Christian extremists is also found amongst hardcore atheists who want nothing more than for religion to go away.
One of the cruelest spiritual self deceptions in the western world today is the idea that Reason and Atheism are intertwined. Reason is a state of mind and one can be a man of reason and a man of faith, just as one can be reasoned and be an atheist or choose to be an atheist or not without being reasoned.. Reason is sadly a watchword hijacked for atheism and many atheists are brainwashed into believing that because they are atheists they are also by definition men of reason. Meanwhile for a porion of those who are not their raging and their hating gets worse and worse, fueled by a self deception of believing themselves entirely rational.
The Soviet Union and its satellite states had an identical phenomenon, and those who were deluded enough to be militant atheists convinced of their own superior rationality were easy to channel into becoming violent tools of the oppressor state.
Just have to lay this one out for you in case you like to propogate the myth that removing organised religion removes the violence of religion.
Oh no, let me be very very clear. I'm not talking about "organized religion", I am specifically pointing the finger at the Abrahamic faiths as being an absolute blight on humanity. Humans are violent by their very nature, and Abrahamic faith is the perfect steroid for that violence. I sincerely wish that the billions of people who hold those faiths were capable of letting go of them.
Hope that makes my position crystal clear, since you want to try and sound smart/snarky.
I could go with that. A portion of people of any religious persuasion including the choice not to believe in any gods are subject to irrational hatred of those who follow a different belief system. the proportion of those affected by these hatreds can vary based on how society is organised and if hate ideologies are propagated.
This is part of human nature and it is as you say 'human stupidity' to be so led. Atheism is not immune to this and is no different from any other faith choice.
However some people believe their milieu is inherently superior, as opposed to being right, anyone can think they are right, those who think they are superior are more dangerous. As superiority measn they have no obligation to respect the opinions or lives of others.
This illusion of superiority manifests in different ways, and is normally a radicalisation of a mundane message of the creed. So the ideal of Jews being a chosen people can lead hardcore Zionists to beleive that only Jewish life has any value, and thus dehumanise non-Jews. Militant Islamist Jihadists, those who took the Crusader oath, some militant Hindu and Buddhist sects also believed they were a special chosen.
In the case of Atheism the superiority came from being super-right. Marxism and Maoism and their offshoots are atheist doctrines. Marx is pure rationalism, as is atheism in the eyes of the Party doctrine. It was super-right and the Party elite being more correct than anyone else had the power and authority to pass judgement......
The majority of atheists don't, and it's wildly off topic. So stop it now. This topic is bad enough as it is without THAT whole kettle of fish being injected for some unknown reason.
motyak wrote: The majority of atheists don't, and it's wildly off topic. So stop it now. This topic is bad enough as it is without THAT whole kettle of fish being injected for some unknown reason.
Just to be clear that wasn't directed at you, but the general course of the thread not needing to head that way. It just got posted then so it was right below yours by chance rather than design
Peter Wiggin wrote: I blame it on the respective Abrahamic faiths involved. Another example of how god so loved the world that he gave it humanity.
Ugh.
Modern conflict around Israel and Palestine didn't heavily centre around religion until the 1980's, which saw a rise of Islamism in the region.
Whilst religious sites and groups have always played key roles in the conflict, the heart of the issue has always been secular.
Groups like Hamas (which was formed in 1988) have benefitted from the conflict, as they offer the dejected Palestinian people an alternative to the main politicians, politicians who have been unable to make any progress due to their actions being blocked by both Israel and the US. If diplomacy was actually given a chance, then the number of extremist-religious groups would decrease.
Lets start with this one....WRONG. Go read "Six Days of War" and "The Yom Kippur War" by MIchael Oren and Abraham Rabinovich. Its pretty obvious that the entire conflict involving Israel and the entirety of the Middle East, has been because the Israeli's are Jewish, and the Muslims of the region can't allow another religion to exist in any kind of free state. The reason for each of these wars was ostensibly to "Free the Palestinians" while at the same time the leaders of most Muslims countries would make inflammatory speeches about destroying the jews and removing the Jewish faith from the Muslim holy lands. So the conflict centered around religion at the exact same time that the idea of a independent Israel was mentioned, not when it existed, but when it was first thought of after WWII.
Iron_Captain is not cherry picking, he is right in his interpretation of the law.
Irregular fighters might store weapons in a hospital, that is illegal, but it is what irregular fighters do. The culpability is local and individual. The IDF is a national armed force though, operating directly from a nation state with command resources, it has a conscious governmental control. Thus the conscious decision to bomb a hospital is not only a crime, it is a worse crime. It is a national war crime.
Also storing weapons and directing large scale ordnance are two different things. If the hospital contained WMD there would be some leeway.
The thing is those opposing terrorists are expected to be better than the terrorists, not on a par, or in this case worse. and apologists for hospital bombings share the guilt.
He is in fact cherry picking, which is different from what you are doing. You either didn't bother to read the geneva convention as well or you think that you can modify what the convention means based on the size of a countries army and how it operates in conflict. It doesn't matter that Israel has better weapons or a stronger military, the second you utilize a hospital to store weapons and munitions that hospital or school loses its protection under the Geneva convention. Hamas not only knows this,they count on it, because what looks better in the news "Israel destroys Weapons Cache" Or "Jews destroy Hospital". Hamas doesn't want military victories they want publicity victories which when people like you propagate the myth that the Israeli's slaughter thousands of innocent Palestinians, your giving them that victory on a platter.
So by your own admission then, Hamas is a terrorist organization " those opposing terrorists are expected to be better than the terrorists" and further more, I would say that Israel broadcasting its intentions internationally and then sending written warnings, phone calls and even text messages to those about to be bombed is sufficient warning. But heres the thing, not only does Israel Broadcast its intentions, put out radio warnings, send phone calls and text messages but it also will fire a single mortar infront of the target as a last warning. Then and only after every ridiculous precaution has been taken do the Israeli's bomb the target.
Do you know what most western armies do in those situations? Declare their intentions IE were here to fight in this area. And then blow up whatever the hell they want because guess what? that is how armed conflict is. Israel hamstrings itself trying to avoid casualties, HAMAS hates that and forces its own people to die so it can have its publicity wins.
motyak wrote: The majority of atheists don't, and it's wildly off topic. So stop it now. This topic is bad enough as it is without THAT whole kettle of fish being injected for some unknown reason.
Here we go again.
Why is it off topic?
This thread is about religious violence in Israel and the occupied territories, this is inseparable from the religions concerned. Some have hypothecised that religion in general is to blame and that religion should be removed aka mandatory atheism. If those comments are allowed to stand then there should be fair reply to them.
If you want to moderate what is and what is not off topic you need to understand basic causality. This isn't an 'unknown reason' its direct chain of logic. Allow me to explain: If criticising atheism is off topic then proposing atheism is off topic which means wholecloth criticism of religion is off topic. However you didn't seem to have a problem with those comments.
Lets start with this one....WRONG. Go read "Six Days of War" and "The Yom Kippur War" by MIchael Oren and Abraham Rabinovich. Its pretty obvious that the entire conflict involving Israel and the entirety of the Middle East, has been because the Israeli's are Jewish, and the Muslims of the region can't allow another religion to exist in any kind of free state.
Its pretty obvious by one specific pro-Israeli source doesnt make it pretty obvious.
Iron_Captain is not cherry picking, he is right in his interpretation of the law.
Irregular fighters might store weapons in a hospital, that is illegal, but it is what irregular fighters do. The culpability is local and individual. The IDF is a national armed force though, operating directly from a nation state with command resources, it has a conscious governmental control. Thus the conscious decision to bomb a hospital is not only a crime, it is a worse crime. It is a national war crime.
Also storing weapons and directing large scale ordnance are two different things. If the hospital contained WMD there would be some leeway.
The thing is those opposing terrorists are expected to be better than the terrorists, not on a par, or in this case worse. and apologists for hospital bombings share the guilt.
He is in fact cherry picking, which is different from what you are doing.
You either didn't bother to read the geneva convention as well or you think that you can modify what the convention means based on the size of a countries army and how it operates in conflict.
I didn't make that point. I made the point that morally there is a higher bar for a nation state over an individual. Individual terrorists do individual things, it needds to be handled like crime. A state run army however is a corporate national body and has a higher duty.
It doesn't matter that Israel has better weapons or a stronger military, the second you utilize a hospital to store weapons and munitions that hospital or school loses its protection under the Geneva convention.
Actually that isnt true. The moment terrorists store weapons in a hospital is the moment you can send in police, or soldiers in a policing role. It doesn't make the hospital a free fire target for bombing and never will.
By keeping a moral par with the terrorists by overacting as a state Israel as a society is keeping a moral par with the worst of Hamas, not even its regular members or Palestinian civilians. Can't you yet see what that means.
Hamas not only knows this,they count on it, because what looks better in the news "Israel destroys Weapons Cache" Or "Jews destroy Hospital".
Actually it would be IDF destroys hospital. Also as the IDF has been transparently been seen victimising peoples in buildings without any weapons inside by their bulldozer campaign, there is no moral high ground here.
Hamas doesn't want military victories they want publicity victories which when people like you propagate the myth that the Israeli's slaughter thousands of innocent Palestinians, your giving them that victory on a platter.
The death toll is only a myth if you are corrupted to the extent where you no longer see the dead Palestinians as human suffering. A figure for over two thousand collateral civilians deaths was given earlier on Dakka. Explain how this is not 'Israeli's slaughter thousands of innocent Palestinians'. Remember that they are also under illegal occupation.
So by your own admission then, Hamas is a terrorist organization " those opposing terrorists are expected to be better than the terrorists" and further more,
There are terrorists in Hamas, I cant speak of the organisation as a whole, not do I want to. Hamas also has a political wing, and it is unrealistic to brush them all as terrorists, especially when it is just for convenience. There was also war criminals in Israel who launch airstrikes and artillery at hospitals, knowing they are hospitals. So here is your moral high ground?
I would say that Israel broadcasting its intentions internationally and then sending written warnings, phone calls and even text messages to those about to be bombed is sufficient warning. But heres the thing, not only does Israel Broadcast its intentions, put out radio warnings, send phone calls and text messages but it also will fire a single mortar infront of the target as a last warning. Then and only after every ridiculous precaution has been taken do the Israeli's bomb the target.
How does that help those stuck in hospital beds? Where would they go. Also it doesnt in any way justify large scale infrastructure destruction, which is what Israel policy is about.
Do you know what most western armies do in those situations? Declare their intentions IE were here to fight in this area. And then blow up whatever the hell they want because guess what? that is how armed conflict is.
That isnt necessarily so. In fact that would not be excusable if there is a hospital in the area. A warning may be given, but troops would be sent in and avoid places where fighting is prohibited.
Israel hamstrings itself trying to avoid casualties,
No it doesn't. It demolished infrastructure wholescale. It bulldozes entire neighbourhoods and leaves the people with nowhere to go. Also obviously unarmed people stay to try and plead for their homes to be spared. And event witnessed directly by the worlds press, on its own, not only via Hamas.
This doesn't avoid casualties, in the case of those dispossessed fact it just changes the death from wounds to cholera. UIt also escalates further conflict.
If Israel was actually serious about avoiding casualties they would pursue a different policy. Their policy however is working, but its goal is to keep Hamas riled enough that the Palestinians are in no position to suit down for peace. Gaza is essentially a prison and most amenities the Palestinians erect to provide a quality of life are systemically reduced to rubble. This keeps the residents permanently pissed off and readily recruitable for extremism. The Israeli government doesn't fear Hamas, they fear a Ghandiesque figure rising amongst the Palestinians calling for a peaceful protest. Israel would lose their excuses to bulldoze and landgrab then, which is all this is about.
Peter Wiggin wrote: I blame it on the respective Abrahamic faiths involved. Another example of how god so loved the world that he gave it humanity.
Ugh.
Modern conflict around Israel and Palestine didn't heavily centre around religion until the 1980's, which saw a rise of Islamism in the region.
Whilst religious sites and groups have always played key roles in the conflict, the heart of the issue has always been secular.
Groups like Hamas (which was formed in 1988) have benefitted from the conflict, as they offer the dejected Palestinian people an alternative to the main politicians, politicians who have been unable to make any progress due to their actions being blocked by both Israel and the US. If diplomacy was actually given a chance, then the number of extremist-religious groups would decrease.
Lets start with this one....WRONG. Go read "Six Days of War" and "The Yom Kippur War" by MIchael Oren and Abraham Rabinovich. Its pretty obvious that the entire conflict involving Israel and the entirety of the Middle East, has been because the Israeli's are Jewish, and the Muslims of the region can't allow another religion to exist in any kind of free state.
It's a fact. Naming book titles which you clearly haven't read or understood doesn't mean anything.
Religious differences helped to alienate Israel from its neighbors, but it is was not a reason for the conflict.
These reasons were entirely geopolitical and secular.
Peter Wiggin wrote: I blame it on the respective Abrahamic faiths involved. Another example of how god so loved the world that he gave it humanity.
Ugh.
Modern conflict around Israel and Palestine didn't heavily centre around religion until the 1980's, which saw a rise of Islamism in the region.
Whilst religious sites and groups have always played key roles in the conflict, the heart of the issue has always been secular.
Groups like Hamas (which was formed in 1988) have benefitted from the conflict, as they offer the dejected Palestinian people an alternative to the main politicians, politicians who have been unable to make any progress due to their actions being blocked by both Israel and the US. If diplomacy was actually given a chance, then the number of extremist-religious groups would decrease.
Lets start with this one....WRONG. Go read "Six Days of War" and "The Yom Kippur War" by MIchael Oren and Abraham Rabinovich. Its pretty obvious that the entire conflict involving Israel and the entirety of the Middle East, has been because the Israeli's are Jewish, and the Muslims of the region can't allow another religion to exist in any kind of free state.
It's a fact. Naming book titles which you clearly haven't read or understood doesn't mean anything.
Religious differences helped to alienate Israel from its neighbors, but it is was not a reason for the conflict.
These reasons were entirely geopolitical and secular.
Clarify why you think its geopolitical and secular.
Clarify the reason(s) you think cause the conflict
Peter Wiggin wrote: I blame it on the respective Abrahamic faiths involved. Another example of how god so loved the world that he gave it humanity.
Ugh.
Modern conflict around Israel and Palestine didn't heavily centre around religion until the 1980's, which saw a rise of Islamism in the region.
Whilst religious sites and groups have always played key roles in the conflict, the heart of the issue has always been secular.
Groups like Hamas (which was formed in 1988) have benefitted from the conflict, as they offer the dejected Palestinian people an alternative to the main politicians, politicians who have been unable to make any progress due to their actions being blocked by both Israel and the US. If diplomacy was actually given a chance, then the number of extremist-religious groups would decrease.
Lets start with this one....WRONG. Go read "Six Days of War" and "The Yom Kippur War" by MIchael Oren and Abraham Rabinovich. Its pretty obvious that the entire conflict involving Israel and the entirety of the Middle East, has been because the Israeli's are Jewish, and the Muslims of the region can't allow another religion to exist in any kind of free state.
It's a fact. Naming book titles which you clearly haven't read or understood doesn't mean anything.
Religious differences helped to alienate Israel from its neighbors, but it is was not a reason for the conflict.
These reasons were entirely geopolitical and secular.
Clarify why you think its geopolitical and secular.
Clarify the reason(s) you think cause the conflict
Clarify why it's not.
I'm not going to explain the whole history to you. Open a book or use google.
Maybe I have more in depth knowledge since NCOPD's involved courses on that subject matter.
Since you seem to be the Subject Matter Expert on this I leave you be
The situation in the levant is not separable from the three Abrahamic religions.
However there are many geopolitical and secular arguments.
All of the Levant was carved out of the Ottoman Empire and had been Arab land for longer than most western countries including European ones had been around.
Israel is a land claim which had lapsed for two thousand years, and while there was good reason for the return of Jews to Palestine a lot of secular thinking of the time was to create a homeland for Jews from a portion of Germany. Parceling out German land was happening at the time, and the Germans were responsible for the fate of the Jews which had garnered them most sympathy. Also most Jews were Europeanised.
On a purely secular level there was a reason to do this, and it was proposed as an alternate to creating the state of Israel.
Personally I think creating Israel where it was was the right decision, but that decision was controversial on many levels.
As for geopolitics:. When you add in J-street lobbying, OPEC, Suez, etc etc yes it is a geopolitical issue.
Jihadin wrote: Maybe I have more in depth knowledge since NCOPD's involved courses on that subject matter.
Since you seem to be the Subject Matter Expert on this I leave you be
Appeal to authority all you like, I've studied it at university too, so you are not impressing anyone with your snide comments.
Does the NCOPD seriously consider this a conflict primarily caused by religion? Seriously?
Religion has since become more prominent since the 1980's, and has always been part of the background, but saying it is a primary cause of the conflict is ridiculous.
It doesn't matter that Israel has better weapons or a stronger military, the second you utilize a hospital to store weapons and munitions that hospital or school loses its protection under the Geneva convention.
Actually that isnt true. The moment terrorists store weapons in a hospital is the moment you can send in police, or soldiers in a policing role. It doesn't make the hospital a free fire target for bombing and never will.
I guess America didn't get that memo...remember that Afghan hospital they bombed?
Peter Wiggin wrote: I blame it on the respective Abrahamic faiths involved. Another example of how god so loved the world that he gave it humanity.
Ugh.
Modern conflict around Israel and Palestine didn't heavily centre around religion until the 1980's, which saw a rise of Islamism in the region.
Whilst religious sites and groups have always played key roles in the conflict, the heart of the issue has always been secular.
Groups like Hamas (which was formed in 1988) have benefitted from the conflict, as they offer the dejected Palestinian people an alternative to the main politicians, politicians who have been unable to make any progress due to their actions being blocked by both Israel and the US. If diplomacy was actually given a chance, then the number of extremist-religious groups would decrease.
Lets start with this one....WRONG. Go read "Six Days of War" and "The Yom Kippur War" by MIchael Oren and Abraham Rabinovich. Its pretty obvious that the entire conflict involving Israel and the entirety of the Middle East, has been because the Israeli's are Jewish, and the Muslims of the region can't allow another religion to exist in any kind of free state.
It's a fact. Naming book titles which you clearly haven't read or understood doesn't mean anything.
Religious differences helped to alienate Israel from its neighbors, but it is was not a reason for the conflict.
These reasons were entirely geopolitical and secular.
Clarify why you think its geopolitical and secular.
Clarify the reason(s) you think cause the conflict
Clarify why it's not.
I'm not going to explain the whole history to you. Open a book or use google.
Peter Wiggin wrote: I blame it on the respective Abrahamic faiths involved. Another example of how god so loved the world that he gave it humanity.
Ugh.
Modern conflict around Israel and Palestine didn't heavily centre around religion until the 1980's, which saw a rise of Islamism in the region.
Whilst religious sites and groups have always played key roles in the conflict, the heart of the issue has always been secular.
Groups like Hamas (which was formed in 1988) have benefitted from the conflict, as they offer the dejected Palestinian people an alternative to the main politicians, politicians who have been unable to make any progress due to their actions being blocked by both Israel and the US. If diplomacy was actually given a chance, then the number of extremist-religious groups would decrease.
Lets start with this one....WRONG. Go read "Six Days of War" and "The Yom Kippur War" by MIchael Oren and Abraham Rabinovich. Its pretty obvious that the entire conflict involving Israel and the entirety of the Middle East, has been because the Israeli's are Jewish, and the Muslims of the region can't allow another religion to exist in any kind of free state.
It's a fact. Naming book titles which you clearly haven't read or understood doesn't mean anything.
Religious differences helped to alienate Israel from its neighbors, but it is was not a reason for the conflict.
These reasons were entirely geopolitical and secular.
Clarify why you think its geopolitical and secular.
Clarify the reason(s) you think cause the conflict
Clarify why it's not.
I'm not going to explain the whole history to you. Open a book or use google.
Burden of proof is on you
Because? Love to hear your logic on this one. I'll humour you never the less.
For a quick example open up the wikipedia page on the article and scan through firstly for the history, so you can learn why this was originally a political problem, and secondly for anything pertaining to religion as a cause for the conflict.
Hint for the second part: You won't find it.
Almost all other books on the source material which are not written by Israelis trying to make themselves out as a victim follow the pattern.
I cant see any argument for the Israeli-Arab conflict not being geopolitical.
It involves all of the worlds major powers on some level, it is heavily tied in with the oil states than their foreign policy. It is tied directly into massive lobbying blocs in the US and some European countries and the lobbying cannot be separated from the will of the elected governments of those countries.
It also links to European Holocaust guilt, Islamophobia, immigration, and extremism.
The Arab Israeli conflicts touch the entire globe either directly or indirectly. It is very clearly geopolitical.
I will leave for others to claim it is entirely religious or entirely secular. It is obvious at least to me that it is both, but I will be happy to hear arguments either way.
Peter Wiggin wrote: I blame it on the respective Abrahamic faiths involved. Another example of how god so loved the world that he gave it humanity.
Ugh.
Modern conflict around Israel and Palestine didn't heavily centre around religion until the 1980's, which saw a rise of Islamism in the region.
Whilst religious sites and groups have always played key roles in the conflict, the heart of the issue has always been secular.
Groups like Hamas (which was formed in 1988) have benefitted from the conflict, as they offer the dejected Palestinian people an alternative to the main politicians, politicians who have been unable to make any progress due to their actions being blocked by both Israel and the US. If diplomacy was actually given a chance, then the number of extremist-religious groups would decrease.
Lets start with this one....WRONG. Go read "Six Days of War" and "The Yom Kippur War" by MIchael Oren and Abraham Rabinovich. Its pretty obvious that the entire conflict involving Israel and the entirety of the Middle East, has been because the Israeli's are Jewish, and the Muslims of the region can't allow another religion to exist in any kind of free state.
It's a fact. Naming book titles which you clearly haven't read or understood doesn't mean anything.
Religious differences helped to alienate Israel from its neighbors, but it is was not a reason for the conflict.
These reasons were entirely geopolitical and secular.
Clarify why you think its geopolitical and secular.
Clarify the reason(s) you think cause the conflict
Clarify why it's not.
I'm not going to explain the whole history to you. Open a book or use google.
Burden of proof is on you
Because? Love to hear your logic on this one. I'll humour you never the less.
For a quick example open up the wikipedia page on the article and scan through firstly for the history, so you can learn why this was originally a political problem, and secondly for anything pertaining to religion as a cause for the conflict.
Hint for the second part: You won't find it.
Almost all other books on the source material which are not written by Israelis trying to make themselves out as a victim follow the pattern.
Because it's basic fething manners in a debate. If you make a claim, you back it up. Otherwise everyone has the right to dismiss it out of hand.
As for Geopolitical vs religion...It's both, and always has been.
Orlanth, your personal feelings and beliefs aren't worth a damn in a debate so keep them out of this. If you are going to state facts that don't exist then stop. Also if your going to quote to me how i am wrong about the geneva convention then you need to back it up with facts instead of how you think the geneva convention states it. Also HAMAS is listed as a terrorist organization, yes it does have a political wing, but the problem is that the political wing instigates rebellion and acts of terrorism. Hence the entire organization is listed as a TERRORIST organization.
Big Blind Bill, not only do I own those two books, I have read them several times. my copy of the Yom Kippur war is actually destroyed basically, but luckily for me I have the hardback version of Six Days of War and I can literally see it on my book shelf from where im sitting. I also have "History of Israel's War of Independence Vol III.
If your going to throw my evidence out the window because it was written by a Jewish author and then state your position as fact because you read it on Wikipedia im going to have to tell you that your argument holds no water. I have credible sources of known academic backgrounds, you have Wikipedia.
Ghazkuul wrote: Orlanth, your personal feelings and beliefs aren't worth a damn in a debate so keep them out of this.
Sorry I didnt know this thread was for Zionists only.
By the way are you trying to argue that you are not personally engaged and are posting from a genuine bias free neutral point of view. I would like to see how you back that one up.
If you are going to state facts that don't exist then stop.
My facts did exist. For example, Dakka was able to back up with facts that Israel has killed several thousands Palestinian civilians in its campaign as collateral damage.
Also if your going to quote to me how i am wrong about the geneva convention then you need to back it up with facts instead of how you think the geneva convention states it.
I didn't think I needed to prove to anyone that bombing hospital would be considered a war crime. You have to provide proof that a hospital not only had enemy combatants in it, but that they were firing from that location.
Having armed Hamas in a hospital is not a crime, a hospital related to a faction can have armed guards.
In fact it is the duty of hospital staff and guards to defend their patients. A lot of medical staff in front line hospitals don't know this, I recall tales that some were shocked when told of this stipulation in the Geneva conventions by ICRC legal professionals in military law, when I spoke to one of them on the subject.
So far all you have said was that Israel bombed a Palestinian hospital because Hamas had weapons stored there. You made no proofs that the weapons were illegal, and certainly gave no testimony to suggest that the hospital itself was uased as a figing platform. The only circumstancs in which an attack can be orchestrated legally, and then with caveats.
Also HAMAS is listed as a terrorist organization, yes it does have a political wing, but the problem is that the political wing instigates rebellion and acts of terrorism. Hence the entire organization is listed as a TERRORIST organization.
Actually no. For example Sinn Fein is a political wing of the Provisional IRA. Because Sinn Fein of itself doesnt commit attacks it is a political wing and not a terrorist organisation.
Hamas political wing can claim the same.
Clarify why you think its geopolitical and secular. Clarify the reason(s) you think cause the conflict
Jews had been living in Palestine and other islamic areas alongside muslims for centuries before Israel came along. Clearly religion is not the cause of the conflict, altough it undeniably plays a role.
And Ghazkuul, about your books: The problem with the book "Six Days of War" is that is was written not just by a jew as you say, but it was written by the Israeli ambassador to the US. Being written by an Israeli government representative makes it about as reliable as Lavrov writing a book about how there are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine. That is not to say it is a bad book or that what written in it is false, just that you need to keep in mind that the author was not an impartial 3rd party. "History of Israel's War of Independence Vol III" was also written by an Israeli author. In fact, this same Uri Milstein also appears to be known for denying Israeli massacres of Arabs such as at Deir Yassin. Again, a biased source at best. If you only read books from a certain side, a certain viewpoint, you are never going to get a good picture. Why do you not read books written by Palestinians and more independent 3rd parties as well?
If you are going to state facts that don't exist then stop.
My facts did exist. For example, Dakka was able to back up with facts that Israel has killed several thousands Palestinian civilians in its campaign as collateral damage.
Also if your going to quote to me how i am wrong about the geneva convention then you need to back it up with facts instead of how you think the geneva convention states it.
I didn't think I needed to prove to anyone that bombing hospital would be considered a war crime. You have to provide proof that a hospital not only had enemy combatants in it, but that they were firing from that location.
Having armed Hamas in a hospital is not a crime, a hospital related to a faction can have armed guards.
In fact it is the duty of hospital staff and guards to defend their patients. A lot of medical staff in front line hospitals don't know this, I recall tales that some were shocked when told of this stipulation in the Geneva conventions by ICRC legal professionals in military law, when I spoke to one of them on the subject.
So far all you have said was that Israel bombed a Palestinian hospital because Hamas had weapons stored there. You made no proofs that the weapons were illegal, and certainly gave no testimony to suggest that the hospital itself was uased as a figing platform. The only circumstancs in which an attack can be orchestrated legally, and then with caveats.
Also HAMAS is listed as a terrorist organization, yes it does have a political wing, but the problem is that the political wing instigates rebellion and acts of terrorism. Hence the entire organization is listed as a TERRORIST organization.
Actually no. For example Sinn Fein is a political wing of the Provisional IRA. Because Sinn Fein of itself doesnt commit attacks it is a political wing and not a terrorist organisation.
Hamas political wing can claim the same.
I am not denying that 2k Palestinian civilians were killed. I am saying that they were given repeated warnings to evacuate or move to a different area, and instead of listening they chose to shield HAMAS with their bodies.
Also as far as the Geneva convention is concerned, since you are in fact cherry picking let me put the relevant part up for you to read
"9.69 Military medical personnel, facilities and equipment are also entitled to general protection. However, they may lose this protection if they engage in acts harmful to the enemy. Before the protection of medical personnel and facilities is lost, a warning will normally be provided and reasonable time allowed to permit cessation of improper activities. In extreme cases, overriding military necessity may preclude such a warning. Protection will not be lost if medical members act in self-defence. Weapons may be carried."
Military Planning and the utilization of a hospital as a supply depot or staging area are acts considered harmful to the enemy. There does not need to be enemy fighters inside actively shooting for the hospital to lose its protected status.
So utilizing a Hospital for military operations would make that hospital a legitimate Military target. As I said, it wasn't just the fact that Hamas had fighters in the hospitals/schools it was the fact that they were utilizing them for storing military equipment and personnel which is a violation of the terms set forth by the Geneva convention which again means that those are legitimate military targets, and as I showed above, Israel gives numerous warnings that criteria, which doesn't have to be met, was in fact met.
Sinn Fein and the IRA are a completely different story, why? because the Sinn Fein never publicly announced its plans to kill every British soldier/civilian it ever came across. Nor did it advocate to the Irish as a population, to resist British rule with violence in the streets. Horrible comparison.
I am not denying that 2k Palestinian civilians were killed. I am saying that they were given repeated warnings to evacuate or move to a different area, and instead of listening they chose to shield HAMAS with their bodies.
All 2k got those notices and repeated warnings. Citation please.
Also as far as the Geneva convention is concerned, since you are in fact cherry picking let me put the relevant part up for you to read
"9.69 Military medical personnel, facilities and equipment are also entitled to general protection. However, they may lose this protection if they engage in acts harmful to the enemy. Before the protection of medical personnel and facilities is lost, a warning will normally be provided and reasonable time allowed to permit cessation of improper activities. In extreme cases, overriding military necessity may preclude such a warning. Protection will not be lost if medical members act in self-defence. Weapons may be carried."
Acts harmful to the enemy measn utilisation of weapons, not storage of them.
Military Planning and the utilization of a hospital as a supply depot or staging area are acts considered harmful to the enemy. There does not need to be enemy fighters inside actively shooting for the hospital to lose its protected status.
Supply depots are not 'harmful acts', as weapons may be stored and carried. Firing weapons outside of self defence is a harmful ct, and that is about it.
So utilizing a Hospital for military operations would make that hospital a legitimate Military target. As I said, it wasn't just the fact that Hamas had fighters in the hospitals/schools it was the fact that they were utilizing them for storing military equipment and personnel which is a violation of the terms set forth by the Geneva convention which again means that those are legitimate military targets, and as I showed above, Israel gives numerous warnings that criteria, which doesn't have to be met, was in fact met.
Sinn Fein and the IRA are a completely different story, why? because the Sinn Fein never publicly announced its plans to kill every British soldier/civilian it ever came across. Nor did it advocate to the Irish as a population, to resist British rule with violence in the streets. Horrible comparison.
Sinn Fein publically endorsed the killings of soldiers and civilian targets.; They didn't engage them directly.
Fair comparison.
Orlandth: citation? go look at the IDF releases and information. Go look at the video I posted. if your not going to bother reading or watching things that go against your personal bias then I don't know what I can do. And the Geneva convention thing? Sure, I was in a combat zone and had to deal with it on a regular basis, but your right.......
Ghazkuul wrote: Orlandth: citation? go look at the IDF releases and information. Go look at the video I posted. if your not going to bother reading or watching things that go against your personal bias then I don't know what I can do. And the Geneva convention thing? Sure, I was in a combat zone and had to deal with it on a regular basis, but your right.......
Well, I'd rather check independent releases/information, if it still exists.
Ghazkuul wrote: Orlandth: citation? go look at the IDF releases and information. Go look at the video I posted. if your not going to bother reading or watching things that go against your personal bias then I don't know what I can do. And the Geneva convention thing? Sure, I was in a combat zone and had to deal with it on a regular basis, but your right.......
Well, I'd rather check independent releases/information, if it still exists.
theres no such thing as independent or neutral when it concerns the middle east.
Just have to lay this one out for you in case you like to propogate the myth that removing organised religion removes the violence of religion.
Oh no, let me be very very clear. I'm not talking about "organized religion", I am specifically pointing the finger at the Abrahamic faiths as being an absolute blight on humanity. Humans are violent by their very nature, and Abrahamic faith is the perfect steroid for that violence. I sincerely wish that the billions of people who hold those faiths were capable of letting go of them.
Hope that makes my position crystal clear, since you want to try and sound smart/snarky.
Blame it on human stupidity.
Human stupidity is compounded when the steroid of abrahamic faith is applied.
The binary division centered on "god's chosen" aspect of things, combined with the logical extreme's of fundamentalism in any of the three faiths is a recipe for the atrocities that are part of the historical and modern record. I'll also be very clear in that I am not applying these statements to all monotheistic faiths. Only islam, christianity, and jeudaism.
The Soviet Union and its satellite states had an identical phenomenon, and those who were deluded enough to be militant atheists convinced of their own superior rationality were easy to channel into becoming violent tools of the oppressor state.
Why do you keep referencing aethism and the soviets?
I've never said I'm an aethist, and I've never advocated for international socialism. I'm against abrahamic faith, I beleive the abrahamic god is pure fething evil, and I think that the "big three" religions are more dangerous than the total stockpile of nuclear weapons on this planet.
The binary division centered on "god's chosen" aspect of things, combined with the logical extreme's of fundamentalism in any of the three faiths is a recipe for the atrocities that are part of the historical and modern record. I'll also be very clear in that I am not applying these statements to all monotheistic faiths. Only islam, christianity, and jeudaism.
So other religions and religious choices do not have fundamentalism. Yeah right.
Try a google search on Budhist/Hindu/Shinto extremism, you will find stuff too.
I've never said I'm an aethist, and I've never advocated for international socialism. I'm against abrahamic faith, I beleive the abrahamic god is pure fething evil, and I think that the "big three" religions are more dangerous than the total stockpile of nuclear weapons on this planet.
Worse than nukes. That bad eh, you appear to really hate them.
Some people think Judaism is evil, society calls that anti-Semitism. There are similar concepts for the other two religions you want to expunge.
Also what final solution to you envisage to obtain your goals, and how would you justify it.
I cant see how your comments are in any way morally indistinguishable from those who think it would be better if there were no blacks, .
Well for one, religion is not a fething race. Saying you wish people wouldn't believe in and practice faith systems which you consider repugnant is in no way comparable to wishing a certain skin colour didn't exist. A accurate comparison would be wishing people weren't superstitious.
The fact that you're making that false comparison shows that you're not arguing in good faith here.
Human stupidity is compounded when the steroid of abrahamic faith is applied.
So blame them all wholecloth. How is that not bigotry?
It is. I'm totally bigoted against abrhamic faiths. I don't form super close associations with anyone that has evangelical leanings, regardless of which of the three religions they follow.
If it were a state Israel could have already annihilated it.
Firstly, this has absolutely nothing to do with what has been said previously.
The point is that Palestine would be less of a target for illegal Israeli activities if it achieved greater international recognition. Why are you talking about annihilating it?
If Palestine was a separate and performed these activities, those are acts of war.
Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that it would be a viable political move for Israel to openly annex all of Palestine?
No I think I argued the opposite. Israel can't integrate Palestine and remain...Israel.
Ghazkuul wrote: Orlandth: citation? go look at the IDF releases and information. Go look at the video I posted. if your not going to bother reading or watching things that go against your personal bias then I don't know what I can do. And the Geneva convention thing? Sure, I was in a combat zone and had to deal with it on a regular basis, but your right.......
Just have to lay this one out for you in case you like to propogate the myth that removing organised religion removes the violence of religion.
Oh no, let me be very very clear. I'm not talking about "organized religion", I am specifically pointing the finger at the Abrahamic faiths as being an absolute blight on humanity. Humans are violent by their very nature, and Abrahamic faith is the perfect steroid for that violence. I sincerely wish that the billions of people who hold those faiths were capable of letting go of them.
Hope that makes my position crystal clear, since you want to try and sound smart/snarky.
Blame it on human stupidity.
Human stupidity is compounded when the steroid of abrahamic faith is applied.
The binary division centered on "god's chosen" aspect of things, combined with the logical extreme's of fundamentalism in any of the three faiths is a recipe for the atrocities that are part of the historical and modern record. I'll also be very clear in that I am not applying these statements to all monotheistic faiths. Only islam, christianity, and jeudaism.
Yeah right. How are other religions better? What about Hindu violence against Sikhs in India, or radical Buddhist extremism and Buddhist attacks on religious minorities? What about ancient Roman pagans burning Christians for entertainment?
Or what about ancient Norse paganism? Blood sacrifice of thralls, religious veneration of war and raiding and the only way to get in heaven is by dying in battle? How is that not reinforcing human violent nature? How evil are Abrahamic faiths compared to religions that demand human sacrifice? Or what about radical atheism? Radical nationalism? Radical socialism? Radical conservatism? People have been killed in the name of pretty much anything, the Abrahamic faiths are not any different here.
Also, the idea that only Abrahamic faiths have a concept of being "God's chosen" (which is only really present in Judaism, btw) is quite frankly, ridiculous. All religions and ideologies declare themselves to be the one, universal truth.
Don't you think it is funny that there has never been an atheist state that did not commit huge massacres? How can you say Abrahamic faiths are more likely to be extremist or lead to violence than other religions, when this is evidently not so? Why is extremism of an Abrahamic religion more evil to you than atheist extremism or extremism in other religions? Atheism, despite being much smaller, has managed to rank up a body count much higher than any religion in the past 2 centuries. Is that not evil? Or what about political extremism, which kills far more people?
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been criticised for saying a Palestinian leader persuaded the Nazis to carry out the Holocaust.
Mr Netanyahu insisted Adolf Hitler had only wanted to expel Jews from Europe, but that Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini told him: "Burn them."
However, the chief historian at Israel's memorial to the Holocaust said this account was factually incorrect.
Israel's opposition leader called it "a dangerous historical distortion".
A senior Palestinian official meanwhile said it showed Mr Netanyahu hated Palestinians so much he was willing to absolve Hitler.
Tensions have been worsened since early October by a spate of stabbing and shooting attacks - several of them fatal - on Israelis by Palestinians, and one apparent revenge stabbing by an Israeli.
Israeli security forces have also clashed with rioting Palestinians, leading to deaths on the Palestinian side. The violence has also spread to the border with Gaza.
'Sad day'
Husseini, who died in 1974, was a Palestinian nationalist leader who led violent campaigns against Jews and the British authorities in what was then British Mandate Palestine in the 1920s and 1930s.
He fled the territory in 1937, but continued his campaign to oppose British plans to partition it into a Jewish state and an Arab one, allying himself with the Nazis during World War Two.
Husseini met Hitler in Berlin in November 1941, when he tried to persuade the Nazi leader to declare his support for the creation of an Arab state, according to German press reports at the time.
But in a speech at the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem on Tuesday, Mr Netanyahu gave a different account.
Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem (20 October 2015)Image copyrightReuters
Image caption
Israel's opposition leader demanded that Benjamin Netanyahu "correct" his remarks immediately
"Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews at the time - he wanted to expel the Jews," the Israeli prime minister said.
"And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said: 'If you expel them, they'll all come here.'
"'So what should I do with them?' he [Hitler] asked. He [Husseini] said: 'Burn them.'"
However, the chief historian of the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, Professor Dina Porat, said Mr Netanyahu's statement was factually incorrect.
"You cannot say that it was the mufti who gave Hitler the idea to kill or burn Jews," she told the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. "It's not true. Their meeting occurred after a series of events that point to this."
Opposition leader Isaac Herzog said the prime minister's remarks played into the hands of Holocaust deniers.
"This is a dangerous historical distortion and I demand Netanyahu correct it immediately as it minimises the Holocaust, Nazism and... Hitler's part in our people's terrible disaster," he wrote on his Facebook page.
The Palestine Liberation Organisation's Secretary General, Saeb Erekat, said in a statement: "It is a sad day in history when the leader of the Israeli government hates his neighbour so much that he is willing to absolve the most notorious war criminal in history, Adolf Hitler, of the murder of six million Jews."
Mr Netanyahu later responded to the criticism, saying: "I had absolutely no intention of absolving Hitler of his diabolical responsibility for the extermination of Europe's Jews."
But, he added, it was "absurd to ignore the role played by the mufti", citing the testimony of the deputy of Adolf Eichmann - considered the architect of the Holocaust - at the Nuremberg trials.
"He said: 'The mufti played a role in the decision of the German government to exterminate the European Jews, the importance of which must not be disregarded.
"He has repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he has been in contact - above all before Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler - the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution for the Palestine problem.'"
Husseini was sought for war crimes but never appeared at Nuremberg.
Iron_Captain wrote: Netanyahu is now officially a crazy nutjob. Which is a pity, because he was a good guy.
When was he a good guy? Before Ehud Barak? I can't really recall Netanyahu coming across as a mensch, so much as a moderate compared to some of the more extreme Israeli politicians.
