Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When discussing this issue let's keep in mind that blanket slurs on entire ethnic groups may be allowed on the MTA but they are not allowed on DakkaDakka.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Ragnar, are you suggesting that context matters? Typical liberal.

Weird, isn't it? The context we're in is one where people think, for some inexplicable reason, that censoring an arguably-racist billboard is somehow an "anti-blasphemy rule", which is so ridiculous I have a hard time imagining the thought process required to make that leap.

I think Relapse would like Giovanni's "Kidnap Poem" better. But the context we're in is that he probably hasn't read it. He's probably just read one angry poem she published in 1968, which some people took out of context forty years later as something for them to get angry about. On a more positive note:

Kidnap Poem
ever been kidnapped
by a poet
if i were a poet
i'd kidnap you
put you in my phrases and meter
you to jones beach
or maybe coney island
or maybe just to my house
lyric you in lilacs
dash you in the rain
blend into the beach
to complement my see
play the lyre for you
ode you with my love song
anything to win you
wrap you in the red Black green
show you off to mama
yeah if i were a poet i'd kid
nap you

A far better poem, to be sure.
Perhaps the anger in the bus signs could be interpreted to be the same kind of anger that led to the poem I linked to. Both attack people that are seen in the eyes of those that wrote them as oppressors or killers of loved ones.
It's all something I hate with a passion because of the division it causes, whether it's under the banner of poetry, art, or a crudely scrawled sign declaring that God/Allah/The Hometown Garden Society, etc., hates somebody because they don't think or live the way someone believes they should.

 Ratbarf wrote:
But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.

Its massivley disproportionate retaliation which then invites further aggression (which could just as easily be labelled retaliation). If Israel gave back all the land that they have stolen and genuinely tried to forge peaceful links with their neighbours they would eventually have peace. As it is though they never will.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
When discussing this issue let's keep in mind that blanket slurs on entire ethnic groups may be allowed on the MTA but they are not allowed on DakkaDakka.

I've not seen anything suggesting that blanket slurs on entire ethnic groups are allowed by the MTA. Is calling those who practice genocide savages making a blanket slur on, for example, Serbs?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Nobody is asking the Israelis to put down their weapons, we're asking them to stop using them aggressively. Israel's actions go way beyond any remotely sane definition of self defense, and in fact cause much of their problem. After all, if an occupying state just destroyed your home and built their own on top of it, after doing everything they could to keep you in eternal poverty, you might also feel that you have nothing to lose so you might as well fight back.

Or I might move.

Am I missing something?

Under the new policy, the authority will continue to allow so-called viewpoint ads, but each will be required to include a disclaimer noting that the ad does not imply the authority’s endorsement of its views.

So they are allowed with a disclaimer---or basically countering free speech with more free speech. Sounds like a ruling I can agree with.

Palindrome wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.

Its massivley disproportionate retaliation which then invites further aggression (which could just as easily be labelled retaliation). If Israel gave back all the land that they have stolen and genuinely tried to forge peaceful links with their neighbours they would eventually have peace. As it is though they never will.

That's easy to say, but that land was used by Israel's neighbors in 1967 to prepare an invasion that could very well have ended in it's destruction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Palastinians were'n't doing so hot under Arab rule, either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan

 Ratbarf wrote:
But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.

You can't partition a foreign country and expand into it's land in retaliation. It is not retaliatory, the Palestinians are right in this conflict by almost every reckoning. We just don't like them because they're a Muslim country and not the Jewish state that we created, so Israeli military aggression and land grabs aren't seen as the acts of war they would be by any other country on the planet. You are defending indefensible acts, the Israelis are aggressively taking territory and have killed more Palestinian children in a single year alone than the total combined Israeli deaths ever from this conflict. The Isrealis aren't signatories on the NPT, they commonly perform assassinations, They consistently fire on or otherwise attack peaceful demonstrations, and they have imposed a blockade that's illegal under international law. They are not a good or well acting country.

That's easy to say, but that land was used by Israel's neighbors in 1967 to prepare an invasion that could very well have ended in it's destruction.

A defensive war that you win in six days and grab land from wasn't one that could very well have ended in your destruction.

The Palastinians were'n't doing so hot under Arab rule, either:

So that makes them sub humans for the israelis to murder at will?

 ShumaGorath wrote:

You can't partition a foreign country and expand into it's land in retaliation. It is not retaliatory, the Palestinians are right in this conflict by almost every reckoning. We just don't like them because they're a Muslim country and not the Jewish state that we created, so Israeli military aggression and land grabs aren't seen as the acts of war they would be by any other country on the planet. You are defending indefensible acts, the Israelis are aggressively taking territory and have killed more Palestinian children in a single year alone than the total combined Israeli deaths ever from this conflict. The Isrealis aren't signatories on the NPT, they commonly perform assassinations, They consistently fire on or otherwise attack peaceful demonstrations, and they have imposed a blockade that's illegal under international law. They are not a good or well acting country.

All perfectly true. After all, wasn't it from the Palestinians that Dr. King learned the tactics of non-violent resistance?

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.

You can't partition a foreign country and expand into it's land in retaliation. It is not retaliatory, the Palestinians are right in this conflict by almost every reckoning. We just don't like them[/i[ because they're a Muslim country and not the Jewish state that we created, so Israeli military aggression and land grabs aren't seen as the acts of war they would be by any other country on the planet. You are defending indefensible acts, the Israelis are aggressively taking territory and have killed more Palestinian children in a single year alone than the total combined Israeli deaths [i]ever from this conflict. The Isrealis aren't signatories on the NPT, they commonly perform assassinations, They consistently fire on or otherwise attack peaceful demonstrations, and they have imposed a blockade that's illegal under international law. They are not a good or well acting country.

That's easy to say, but that land was used by Israel's neighbors in 1967 to prepare an invasion that could very well have ended in it's destruction.

A defensive war that you win in six days and grab land from wasn't one that could very well have ended in your destruction.

Sooo much is wrong here.

Israel is aggressive because they have to be.

Every single country bordering them declared war on them within a week of Israel becoming independent of GB.

These so called "victims" of Israel's aggression regularly launch rocket and mortar attacks into Israel, indescriminately.

It is the Palastinians that decided they could not live in peace with their new Jewish neighbors and it is they that continue to decide they cannot.

The Jews couldn't really have cared less about living side by side with muslims. But decades of unending war, broken promises of peace, and general d-baggery by their muslim neighbors have forced Israel to wage a constant war just to stay alive.


The fact Israel won the 6 day war is a genuine miracle.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.

You can't partition a foreign country and expand into it's land in retaliation. It is not retaliatory, the Palestinians are right in this conflict by almost every reckoning. We just don't like them[/i[ because they're a Muslim country and not the Jewish state that we created, so Israeli military aggression and land grabs aren't seen as the acts of war they would be by any other country on the planet. You are defending indefensible acts, the Israelis are aggressively taking territory and have killed more Palestinian children in a single year alone than the total combined Israeli deaths [i]ever from this conflict. The Isrealis aren't signatories on the NPT, they commonly perform assassinations, They consistently fire on or otherwise attack peaceful demonstrations, and they have imposed a blockade that's illegal under international law. They are not a good or well acting country.

That's easy to say, but that land was used by Israel's neighbors in 1967 to prepare an invasion that could very well have ended in it's destruction.

A defensive war that you win in six days and grab land from wasn't one that could very well have ended in your destruction.

Sooo much is wrong here.

Israel is aggressive because they have to be.

Every single country bordering them declared war on them within a week of Israel becoming independent of GB.

These so called "victims" of Israel's aggression regularly launch rocket and mortar attacks into Israel, indescriminately.

It is the Palastinians that decided they could not live in peace with their new Jewish neighbors and it is they that continue to decide they cannot.

The Jews couldn't really have cared less about living side by side with muslims. But decades of unending war, broken promises of peace, and general d-baggery by their muslim neighbors have forced Israel to wage a constant war just to stay alive.


The fact Israel won the 6 day war is a genuine miracle.

I remember when the war started, everyone expected Israel to be wiped from the face of the map since they were facing the combined might of several Arab countries. It was against all odds that they did win, with any slip or miscalculation practically guaranteed to end in that country's obliteration. Given the size of Israel, combined with the history of attacks on it, there was no real surprise that a buffer zone was created from areas used to launch those attacks.
It is a tragedy for all concerned what is happening over there, and the Palistinians are a sad example of pawns caught in the middle. When Arab countries controlled the area they lived in, they were looked down upon and trodden over. The only use they have to the other Arab countries is to be used as a poster child against Israel.


http://www.palestinereport.ps/article.php?article=239

There is so much pride, hurt, and paranoia from both sides on this situation that goes back thousands of years, I really don't see any easy out.

How about the two-state solution? I don't see any reason why that can't be made to work, and that would certainly give the vast majority of Palestinians much less reason to hate Israel.

I don't think the outcome of the six-day war was miraculous. The Israeli forces had way better weapons, training, and morale than the attacking countries realized. I can understand them taking some territory for a better defensive position. Given that they were attacked, that's understandable and reasonable. I can't think that's a real justification for what they've done to the Palestinians. Nor is the fact that the Palestinians were also mistreated by the arab nations a justification. If Israel wants to be seen as the better nation, the more moral society, they shouldn't be resorting to the tactics they use against the Palestinians.

Relapse wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I think Relapse would like Giovanni's "Kidnap Poem" better. But the context we're in is that he probably hasn't read it. He's probably just read one angry poem she published in 1968, which some people took out of context forty years later as something for them to get angry about. On a more positive note:

Kidnap Poem
(snip)

A far better poem, to be sure.
Perhaps the anger in the bus signs could be interpreted to be the same kind of anger that led to the poem I linked to. Both attack people that are seen in the eyes of those that wrote them as oppressors or killers of loved ones.
It's all something I hate with a passion because of the division it causes, whether it's under the banner of poetry, art, or a crudely scrawled sign declaring that God/Allah/The Hometown Garden Society, etc., hates somebody because they don't think or live the way someone believes they should.

I don't know if I'd say it's a better poem. It's a lot lighter; it has no political message and IMO is less emotionally-resonant.

I don't think the angrier poem really attacks anyone, except black people who resort to racism themselves, and violence, over taking responsibility and taking action to be better than the inferior beings they as which they were regularly dismissed and denigrated. Again, the poem uses the word which is used against the author's own people. The MTA sign denigrates ANOTHER people, quoting the morally-bankrupt Ayn Rand to advance the idea that Israel is civilized, and everyone who opposes Israel are savages. I think that's kind of racist, and a blatantly slanted oversimplification. Israel does unconscionable things to the Palestinians. It hurts and kills them way more than would be necessary just to protect themselves.

 Mannahnin wrote:
How about the two-state solution? I don't see any reason why that can't be made to work, and that would certainly give the vast majority of Palestinians much less reason to hate Israel.

I don't think the outcome of the six-day war was miraculous. The Israeli forces had way better weapons, training, and morale than the attacking countries realized. I can understand them taking some territory for a better defensive position. Given that they were attacked, that's understandable and reasonable. I can't think that's a real justification for what they've done to the Palestinians. Nor is the fact that the Palestinians were also mistreated by the arab nations a justification. If Israel wants to be seen as the better nation, the more moral society, they shouldn't be resorting to the tactics they use against the Palestinians.

Relapse wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I think Relapse would like Giovanni's "Kidnap Poem" better. But the context we're in is that he probably hasn't read it. He's probably just read one angry poem she published in 1968, which some people took out of context forty years later as something for them to get angry about. On a more positive note:

Kidnap Poem
(snip)

A far better poem, to be sure.
Perhaps the anger in the bus signs could be interpreted to be the same kind of anger that led to the poem I linked to. Both attack people that are seen in the eyes of those that wrote them as oppressors or killers of loved ones.
It's all something I hate with a passion because of the division it causes, whether it's under the banner of poetry, art, or a crudely scrawled sign declaring that God/Allah/The Hometown Garden Society, etc., hates somebody because they don't think or live the way someone believes they should.

I don't know if I'd say it's a better poem. It's a lot lighter; it has no political message and IMO is less emotionally-resonant.

I don't think the angrier poem really attacks anyone, except black people who resort to racism themselves, and violence, over taking responsibility and taking action to be better than the inferior beings they as which they were regularly dismissed and denigrated. Again, the poem uses the word which is used against the author's own people. The MTA sign denigrates ANOTHER people, quoting the morally-bankrupt Ayn Rand to advance the idea that Israel is civilized, and everyone who opposes Israel are savages. I think that's kind of racist, and a blatantly slanted oversimplification. Israel does unconscionable things to the Palestinians. It hurts and kills them way more than would be necessary just to protect themselves.

I'm not saying there is any justification for mistreatment of the Palistinians, but pointing out that it seems they get no respect from any quarter and in this whole affair they are getting knocked around like a tennis ball.
In the case of the poem, the n word doesn't come across as an insult to me since I have hung out with enough black people that call each other that all the time as an affectIonate term. Among my friends in New Orleans, the real insult was to call someone "high yellow" if they were lighter colored or to compare them to a lump of coal if they were darker. All of this was a real education to me since I grew up in Northern Maine and didn't know anything about black people beyond what I saw in the news.

Absolutely agreed about the Palestinians, but I think there's a danger there of creating a false equivalence. Just because they've been mistreated by everyone, historically, doesn't justify the Israelis doing it too. In fact what's been done to them under Israel is the most damning argument AGAINST Israeli being the haven of democracy and civilization in the Middle East upon which our support of them is predicated.

As for the poem, it sounds to me like you're still taking it out of context. Remember, it's from 44 years ago. That word was different then. It was simultaneously more hateful and more commonly used. In most parts of America it was regularly used by white people in public. That was before it had been embraced by black pop culture as a way of defanging it.

New Orleans is another interesting case in racism and racial distinctions. Do you know about the quadroon balls?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pla%C3%A7age#The_quadroon_balls

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
But in retaliation not aggression. If the Arabs put down their weapons the fighting would stop, if the Israelis put down their weapons they would be killed.

You can't partition a foreign country and expand into it's land in retaliation. It is not retaliatory, the Palestinians are right in this conflict by almost every reckoning. We just don't like them[/i[ because they're a Muslim country and not the Jewish state that we created, so Israeli military aggression and land grabs aren't seen as the acts of war they would be by any other country on the planet. You are defending indefensible acts, the Israelis are aggressively taking territory and have killed more Palestinian children in a single year alone than the total combined Israeli deaths [i]ever from this conflict. The Isrealis aren't signatories on the NPT, they commonly perform assassinations, They consistently fire on or otherwise attack peaceful demonstrations, and they have imposed a blockade that's illegal under international law. They are not a good or well acting country.

That's easy to say, but that land was used by Israel's neighbors in 1967 to prepare an invasion that could very well have ended in it's destruction.

A defensive war that you win in six days and grab land from wasn't one that could very well have ended in your destruction.

Sooo much is wrong here.

Israel is aggressive because they have to be.

Every single country bordering them declared war on them within a week of Israel becoming independent of GB.

These so called "victims" of Israel's aggression regularly launch rocket and mortar attacks into Israel, indescriminately.

It is the Palastinians that decided they could not live in peace with their new Jewish neighbors and it is they that continue to decide they cannot.

The Jews couldn't really have cared less about living side by side with muslims. But decades of unending war, broken promises of peace, and general d-baggery by their muslim neighbors have forced Israel to wage a constant war just to stay alive.


The fact Israel won the 6 day war is a genuine miracle.

No, it was an artifact of their massively superior military and the shambling state of their neighbors. To pretend otherwise is to ignore history. Nothing I have stated is wrong. Israel doesn't want peace, they want palestine to be israeli. They have been taking action to make it such for decades and it has been becoming such. The "victims" of Israels aggression are dying at literally a 50 to 1 ratio to Israelis. Fifty Palestinians die for every Israeli. How you people can call that proportional or even pretend it's ok is beyond me. They are bulldozing peoples homes and expanding into palestine, this isn't up for debate. This is an aggressive territorial war under the cover of defense and you actually manage to believe it. That is insane. In the other thread we had people complaining about how the japanese rewrite history books to make America seem bad, you're doing that in real time to defend a militant theocratic state in perpetual aggressive war.

The hold israel has over north America is stunning. It's like they have a mind control machine.

Quadroon balls!!! First time I've heard of that...

O.o

Things I learn on Dakkadakka...

 Mannahnin wrote:
Absolutely agreed about the Palestinians, but I think there's a danger there of creating a false equivalence. Just because they've been mistreated by everyone, historically, doesn't justify the Israelis doing it too. In fact what's been done to them under Israel is the most damning argument AGAINST Israeli being the haven of democracy and civilization in the Middle East upon which our support of them is predicated.

As for the poem, it sounds to me like you're still taking it out of context. Remember, it's from 44 years ago. That word was different then. It was simultaneously more hateful and more commonly used. In most parts of America it was regularly used by white people in public. That was before it had been embraced by black pop culture as a way of defanging it.

New Orleans is another interesting case in racism and racial distinctions. Do you know about the quadroon balls?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pla%C3%A7age#The_quadroon_balls

An interesting bit of history there I didn't know. It was a real case of immersion culture for me since I went from not knowing any black people to being the about the only white guy in my group of friends.

The thing I worry about with the Palistinians is that even if the Isralies were to turn the land back over to them tomorrow, the other Arabs in the region would move in and try treating them as before.

 whembly wrote:
Quadroon balls!!! First time I've heard of that...

O.o

Things I learn on Dakkadakka...

Yeah, because they don't like to talk about it on the 24 hours, it'd make them sound really liberal (which is what I mean by america being fethed in the head over this). Being a conservative I doubt you've got much idea at all what's going on over there, your circles don't like to stay very well informed when it's a muslim who is being oppressed. Just take a critical look at israel, what they're actively doing in another countries territory and the casualties on both sides. Look at their vast military supremacy in the region that has grown significanly stronger since the six day war while all of their neighbors have gotten much weaker. Look at how much money we give them for no reason and look at the fact that their blockade doesn't let things like chocolate and concrete into the gaza strip. Luxuries and basic building materials. They've been trying to cause the flight of the Palestinians into other countries for decades through starvation and aggression and it's working.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#Legal_status
Seriously, if the U.S. wasn't mysteriously in their pocket no one would like them at all.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Quadroon balls!!! First time I've heard of that...

O.o

Things I learn on Dakkadakka...

Yeah, because they don't like to talk about it on the 24 hours, it'd make them sound really liberal (which is what I mean by america being fethed in the head over this). Being a conservative I doubt you've got much idea at all what's going on over there, your circles don't like to stay very well informed when it's a muslim who is being oppressed. Just take a critical look at israel, what they're actively doing in another countries territory and the casualties on both sides. Look at their vast military supremacy in the region that has grown significanly stronger since the six day war while all of their neighbors have gotten much weaker. Look at how much money we give them for no reason and look at the fact that their blockade doesn't let things like chocolate and concrete into the gaza strip. Luxuries and basic building materials. They've been trying to cause the flight of the Palestinians into other countries for decades through starvation and aggression and it's working.

Is that directed at me dude?

 whembly wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Quadroon balls!!! First time I've heard of that...

O.o

Things I learn on Dakkadakka...

Yeah, because they don't like to talk about it on the 24 hours, it'd make them sound really liberal (which is what I mean by america being fethed in the head over this). Being a conservative I doubt you've got much idea at all what's going on over there, your circles don't like to stay very well informed when it's a muslim who is being oppressed. Just take a critical look at israel, what they're actively doing in another countries territory and the casualties on both sides. Look at their vast military supremacy in the region that has grown significanly stronger since the six day war while all of their neighbors have gotten much weaker. Look at how much money we give them for no reason and look at the fact that their blockade doesn't let things like chocolate and concrete into the gaza strip. Luxuries and basic building materials. They've been trying to cause the flight of the Palestinians into other countries for decades through starvation and aggression and it's working.

Is that directed at me dude?

I don't even know. I think so, I figured you were being somewhat dismissal of my post. It's something I get a lot whenever this kind of thing comes up. If not I apologize.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

The hold israel has over north America is stunning. It's like they have a mind control machine.

You don't need mind control when the other side is doing your PR for you. Palestine lost any chance of ever seriously getting the West when it decided that suicide bombings were the way to victory.

As to your numbers...I doubt them, for one, and would absolutely love to see citations, but for the sake of argument, for now, let's assume they're not hilarious. So? We killed, by some estimates, 52 Somalis for every American we lost in Mogadishu. That make us terrible, terrible monsters? I certainly don't think so.

I'll tell you this much, though: if I was fighting a battle for over half a century, and not only was I not winning, but I was making my situation worse with each passing year, well...an old saying springs to mind: "Winners never quit. Quitters never win. But those who never win and never quit are idiots."

=whembley]If that's true, then yeah, that's fethed up. I thought the blockade was only to prevent weapons and such...?? Got any source on this info? I'd like to read up on it...

Portland cement and lime (in bulk, bags or barrels)
Natural and Quarry aggregates and all varieties of gravel
Ready concrete
Precast concrete elements and products
Steel elements and/or construction products
Iron for foundations and columns, at any diameter (including wielded steel nets)
Steel cables of any width
Forms for construction elements (plastics or galvanized iron)
Industrialized forms for casting concrete
Plastic or composite beams more than 4 mm thick
Thermal isolation materials and products
Blocs (at any width) - Concrete; Silicate; Ytong or its equivalent; or gypsum
Materials and products for sealing structures
Asphalt and its components (Bitumen, emulsion) in aggregate or packaged
Steel elements or framing products for construction
Cast concrete elements and products for drainage over 1 m in diameter
Precast units and sea-borne containers
Vehicles, excluding private cars and including 4X4 vehicles and other categories of motor vehicles liable to be used in terror activities
Lumber beams and boards more than 2 cm thick, (liable to be used in "offensive" tunneling aimed at penetrating Israeli territory), unless incorporated in finished products
Specific procedures, on a case by case basis, will be established so as to permit the transfer of such lumber for other purposes in Gaza.

Hope you don't like 4 wheelers, gravel, home insulation, caulking, or cabling. That landscaping, roof repair and plumbing biz probably isn't going to succeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_allowed_or_banned_for_import_into_Gaza
http://www.economist.com/node/16264970

Since 2006 Israel has limited the import of various goods to the Hamas-controlled territory to a “humanitarian minimum”, though there is no official list for traders to observe. Instead, Israel makes decisions on a case-by-case basis, which has resulted in an odd assortment of prohibited items, as detailed by Gisha, an Israeli human-rights organisation. Newspapers, tea, A4 paper and chocolate are among the items that have at one point been barred.

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

The hold israel has over north America is stunning. It's like they have a mind control machine.

You don't need mind control when the other side is doing your PR for you. Palestine lost any chance of ever seriously getting the West when it decided that suicide bombings were the way to victory.

As to your numbers...I doubt them, for one, and would absolutely love to see citations, but for the sake of argument, for now, let's assume they're not hilarious. So? We killed, by some estimates, 52 Somalis for every American we lost in Mogadishu. That make us terrible, terrible monsters? I certainly don't think so.

I'll tell you this much, though: if I was fighting a battle for over half a century, and not only was I not winning, but I was making my situation worse with each passing year, well...an old saying springs to mind: "Winners never quit. Quitters never win. But those who never win and never quit are idiots."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict It's a pretty well cited article. There is a historical trend of about fifteen to one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_War During the gaza war a few years ago the total was roughly one hundred to one, with most of the thirteen israelis killed killed in friendly fire incidents while the majority of the between 1100 and 1500 palestinians killed were killed in aerial bombardments or shelling. Two thirds were civilian (israelis count police and civil workers as combatants, so they consider two thirds to be hostile), about one in nine was a child.

Sure, they could throw up their arms and quit, and they've tried repeatedly. There are extremist fringes on both sides, with Israel having plenty. The problem there is, while palestine can't really do anything about it's fringes, it also can't punish israel for it's own, while Israel can bomb an apartment block every time a mortar misses something. To act like the side that is losing is at fault wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence
They're acting like thugs.

Nobody is asking the Israelis to put down their weapons, we're asking them to stop using them aggressively. Israel's actions go way beyond any remotely sane definition of self defense, and in fact cause much of their problem. After all, if an occupying state just destroyed your home and built their own on top of it, after doing everything they could to keep you in eternal poverty, you might also feel that you have nothing to lose so you might as well fight back.

The best defence is a good offence.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Nobody is asking the Israelis to put down their weapons, we're asking them to stop using them aggressively. Israel's actions go way beyond any remotely sane definition of self defense, and in fact cause much of their problem. After all, if an occupying state just destroyed your home and built their own on top of it, after doing everything they could to keep you in eternal poverty, you might also feel that you have nothing to lose so you might as well fight back.

The best defence is a good offence.

That's pretty fethed up.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

Nobody is asking the Israelis to put down their weapons, we're asking them to stop using them aggressively. Israel's actions go way beyond any remotely sane definition of self defense, and in fact cause much of their problem. After all, if an occupying state just destroyed your home and built their own on top of it, after doing everything they could to keep you in eternal poverty, you might also feel that you have nothing to lose so you might as well fight back.

The best defence is a good offence.

That's pretty fethed up.

Yet very true as evidenced throughout history.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

Nobody is asking the Israelis to put down their weapons, we're asking them to stop using them aggressively. Israel's actions go way beyond any remotely sane definition of self defense, and in fact cause much of their problem. After all, if an occupying state just destroyed your home and built their own on top of it, after doing everything they could to keep you in eternal poverty, you might also feel that you have nothing to lose so you might as well fight back.

The best defence is a good offence.

That's pretty fethed up.

Yet very true as evidenced throughout history.

Just so we're clear, this does invalidate almost any morality based arguments either of you will make for a while. The notion that might makes right to the exclusion of basic human rights is pretty extreme.

I never claimed Might makes Right.

Its not the same as the Best Defense is a Good Offence.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I never claimed Might makes Right.

Its not the same as the Best Defense is a Good Offence.

It does in the context of Israeli Palestinian conflict.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I never claimed Might makes Right.

Its not the same as the Best Defense is a Good Offence.

It does in the context of Israeli Palestinian conflict.

How so?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I never claimed Might makes Right.

Its not the same as the Best Defense is a Good Offence.

It does in the context of Israeli Palestinian conflict.

How so?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/479234.page#4821478
Read posts.