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.

Imagine the Palestinians won the civil war in 1948 but there was an oppressed Jewish enclave or two in the State of Palestine, from there occassionally Likud terorists would send rockets into Palestine and the eilte Palestinian army would retaliate brutally.

The assumption that people would back Israel only because they lack objectivism, and thus must need a lesson in it, is unfounded and insulting to the intended "student."

The fact is, the Palestinians are victims. However, they're not victims of just the Israelis. They're a population that has been shoved around, beaten and killed by all the nations in that region. They've been used as a proxy weapon by all the Arab/Muslim states in the region.

To focus on the Israeli response, and not mention the influence of other players in driving the Palestinians, is unfair.

If it were just the Israelis and Palestinians in this thing, I think a solution would be much, MUCH more likely.

So, if you really have "compassion for the broken" you'll be just as angry at the Arab/Muslim forces using a poor, downtrodden people as political capital in their battle against Israel, as you are at Israel's lack of moderation and kindness in dealing with them.

Also: It's a mistake to get into the discussion of who shot first on the boat, who grabbed what, etc. etc. This isn't a murder trial. It's foreign policy. You have to focus on the policy choices of all involved players, and not dwell on split second decisions made by people in tough situations.

The ONLY decision that Israel has made in all this that can really be questioned, is the decision to blockade the ports. According to dogma, this is legal, so I'm going with that. Once it's decided to blockade, all that's left is enforcing it. Israel did this. They sent troops that were equipped for non-lethal action, and those troops were attacked, leading to gunfire and death.

So, should they have created a blockade in the first place? Many people feel this is unjust, and that's a debate to be had, but to dwell on this specific event, to act as if it shows that Israel wants to shoot people, or some other emotionalist garbage, is not helpful.

The question is if this blockade is just/fair/legal.

Frazzled wrote:
Elections have consequences. Thats what happens when you elect a terrorist group to represent you and that terrorist group laucnhes thousands of rockets into another nation. If Israel acted like Syria when the Palestianians rose up they would just drop artillery on all the major Gazan settlements until everyone and everything was dead. Timehonored tradition. But because its Israel they are bad.

No, both are bad. But please, continue to argue with strawmen, it only further elucidates your total ignorance with respect to the conversation.

Also, if the Palestinians are responsible for their electoral choices, are US citizens responsible for theirs? Is it now our fault that economic catastrophes ensue due to the election of certain leaders? Or that we suffer terrorist attacks due to interference in the Middle East? Seriously, you just made the explicit case against Israel, and you didn't even realize it.

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. Wikepdia HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

2. If even true,don't pick a fight with a superior country. There would be no blockade, no incursions back into Gaza, if Hamas didn't keep firing the missiles.

Here's twhy Hamas wants the embargo lifted. Since the embargo by Israel and Egypt, rocket attacks have dropped dramatically. Its actually working. Hamas doesn't want food for the Gazans. Thats already entering. They want the embargo lifted so they can bring in more Iranian Kazzam rockets and restart their bombing of Israel.

And face it. You're ok with that. Because you are willfully ignoring that the embargo has stopped the attacks, that food is still explicitly coming in, then its only reasonable to assume you too want the rockets to launch. You want to kill Israelis.

Frqazzie dont troll posts you mod. Accusing critics of Israel of actually welcoming rocket attacks is fething insulting. Its low, even for you.

Its accurate. You don't like it because its accurate. Your willful ignorance and attacks against only one side of the situation are prima facae evidence of your bias.

No, he doesn't like it because its inaccurate, equivocational nonsense.

Nope as accurate as the other crap being spewed on this and the Israeli thread. Ignoring one side to attack another is bias.

Ah I see lots of reports on me. Can't handle the truth. I love it, silence the critics if you can't argue with them.

Frazzled wrote:Nope as accurate as the other crap being spewed on this and the Israeli thread. Ignoring one side to attack another is bias.

Even if it is bias, it isn't racism, which is what you were claiming.

Additionally, the claims against Israel are accurate. The fact that there may be bias in the focus of those claims does not necessarily diminish their accuracy.

Your claims, on the other hand, have either been completely devoid of factual content (at best obliquely referencing facts), or blatantly incorrect.

Frazzled wrote:
Ah I see lots of reports on me. Can't handle the truth. I love it, silence the critics if you can't argue with them.

Didn't you close two threads based on argument pertaining to this very topic? Moreover, there have been 4 threads, including this one, full of argument against your position.

I really don't see how you can presume that you're being silenced, when you're continuing to speak.

Disappoint.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Relapse wrote:RIP to all the Israelis killed by rocket and terrorist attacks coming from Gaza over the years.

exactly. And the women and children killed in bombings and homicide attacks. And the soldiers kidnapped. And the soldiers that died defending Israel from FOUR invasions.

How many will die whe Iran gets the Bomb and combines it with their peaceful satellite campaign or just gives one to Hamas to set off in the center of Israel?

More innocent Gazans died when israel invaded it last then have ever died from hamas' rockets. But lets not let reality get in the way of your ludicrous and insane rants.

If you ever had facts to actually support any of the crap you type I'd have a heart attack.

Its estimated that ~500 Palestinian civilians died in the last Gaza war, as compared to 22 Israeli deaths as the result of rocket attacks.

Frazz: Take it from somebody who is pretty strongly pro-Israel... A LOT more Palestinians are dying than Israelis. It's really not even a question.

And it shouldn't be. The Israelis have one of the most modern, practiced militaries in the world. The Palestinians have... Rocks. Home made rockets.

The staunchly pro-Israeli argument that one would make here is that it's not Israel's responsibility to make sure to keep the "kill ratio" down, it's their responsibility to keep their citizens as safe as possible.

And, to their credit, the Israelis have been good about avoiding civilian casualties. The conduct of their military isn't the central area of concern in most cases.

Putting this in scale with what happens in africa, like Rwanda and Sierra Leone, why is it such a huge deal? Because its the holy land? Because Israel is supported by other countries like the US?

Hutus massacred Tutsis by the hundreds of thousands. That took place in about 3 months after thier president was killed. And the western world didnt seem to really care.

5 years later in Sierra Leone UN 'peace keepers' would only watch as RUF forces would mutilate civilians- chopping off arms, feet, lips, or ears, and that was only when they didnt burn the whole village down.

Some places in the world- when you shoot at your neighbors- they don't just blow up your stuff and your neighbors. They wipe out everything in sight, mutilate whats left, and give the finger to the rest of the world.

I could go into what happens in South America too, like with the FARC and all that, but people here seem to cling to thier beliefs past the point of logic.

Putting this in scale with what happens in africa, like Rwanda and Sierra Leone, why is it such a huge deal? Because its the holy land? Because Israel is supported by other countries like the US?

George bush doesn't like black people.

Hutus massacred Tutsis by the hundreds of thousands. That took place in about 3 months after thier president was killed. And the western world didnt seem to really care.

Hence the injection of a realist argument in this thread. America has few strategic interests in Africa. It quite simply doesn't have much of anything we want, and the same can be said for most world powers in regards to the region. A significant amount of aid is given to the region, but in this century the focus seems to be on encouragement and self governance for them. That can be said to changing given the increasing hold militant islam is gaining in northern africa, but only time will tell if we actually care enough to act.

I could go into what happens in South America too, like with the FARC and all that, but people here seem to cling to thier beliefs past the point of logic.

Well of course. The reason this thread isn't all about south Africa is because we just cling to our beliefs. I know I do. All those wacky black people in the dark continent with their menthols! How does it work?

Or we just don't talk about it because this thread isn't about that. You want to start a thread about it start one. I'm sure Dogma or Sebster will say something informed but distant or fateweaver and green git will tell you it's not our concern. Regardless though, this thread isn't about that and I'm confused as to why you think thats relevant at all.

ShumaGorath wrote:George bush doesn't like black people.

Aside from the general ignorance of such a statement, Clinton was in office during the Rwanda genocide.

And the examples listed were to provide some perspective, which you dont seem to grasp- as you'd rather be contrary just to have something to say(which you seem quite adept at )

Mistress of minis wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:George bush doesn't like black people.

Aside from the general ignorance of such a statement, Clinton was in office during the Rwanda genocide.

And the examples listed were to provide some perspective, which you dont seem to grasp- as you'd rather be contrary just to have something to say(which you seem quite adept at )

Mmm hmm. Yep. Perspective. Oh, did you say something? I was watching the video.




I'm somewhat intrigued though. How you think i lack perspective? Ignoring the fact that your post was essentially an unequivocated rant decrying the lack of perspective on an issue as presented when that issue you seek to see others have good perspective on is not being discussed because it is not the topic of discussion at hand; I do find it interesting that given my statements within this thread (hopefully within this thread, otherwise this conversations going nowhere) you find that I lack perspective.

Praytell magic genie bottle, what does the mirror say about how I lack perspective?

Mistress of minis wrote:Putting this in scale with what happens in africa, like Rwanda and Sierra Leone, why is it such a huge deal? Because its the holy land? Because Israel is supported by other countries like the US?

Pretty much. Israel is considered by many to be a strategic and moral ally of the US, so their issues get a lot of attention. Contrast this with Rwanda and Sierra Leone being widely considered lacking in such merits, though that started to change with the Bush Administration's Africa policy and the creation of AFRICOM. The same can also be said of South America, but that, again is starting to change.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Praytell magic genie bottle, what does the mirror say about how I lack perspective?

You'd rather be 'right' than look at other perspectives. Like the attempt at cleverness with the vid post. Should we say Obama hates the South since he didnt do much during the first weeks of the BP oil mess? It provides no substance to the conversation at hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Putting this in scale with what happens in africa, like Rwanda and Sierra Leone, why is it such a huge deal? Because its the holy land? Because Israel is supported by other countries like the US?

Pretty much. Israel is considered by many to be a strategic and moral ally of the US, so their issues get a lot of attention. Contrast this with Rwanda and Sierra Leone being widely considered lacking in such merits, though that started to change with the Bush Administration's Africa policy and the creation of AFRICOM. The same can also be said of South America, but that, again is starting to change.

Yep, it is changing as Africa slowly gets some fringe levels of modernization. Also, its strategic/economic importance is growing as it has the largest deposits of many rare metals that are essential in manufacturing many of the cutting edge technologies and electronics.

Its also a central feature of Chinese foreign policy; making it natural for the US to take interest regardless of anything else. Then there's the fact that there is a major shipping lane between two regions noted for extremist Islamism.

Africa is gonna be a happening place pretty soon. Darfur may even get some attention as the violence in the Sudan has started to spill into Egypt. With Mubarak on his last legs, and the Muslim Brotherhood thirsting for power that could be a very big problem. No one wants to see an extremist state control the Suez Canal.

You'd rather be 'right' than look at other perspectives. Like the attempt at cleverness with the vid post. Should we say Obama hates the South since he didnt do much during the first weeks of the BP oil mess? It provides no substance to the conversation at hand.

You didn't actually answer my question, you just used an alternative definition of the word perspective from what you had previously established was your chosen definition. You stated that I lacked perspective, now you equivocate by stating that I refuse to understand the perspectives of others. These are entirely different assertions, and neither one is particularly correct.

You don't take referential humor very well. Michael Myers face was priceless in that clip.

ShumaGorath wrote:

You'd rather be 'right' than look at other perspectives. Like the attempt at cleverness with the vid post. Should we say Obama hates the South since he didnt do much during the first weeks of the BP oil mess? It provides no substance to the conversation at hand.

You didn't actually answer my question, you just used an alternative definition of the word perspective from what you had previously established was your chosen definition. You stated that I lacked perspective, now you equivocate by stating that I refuse to understand the perspectives of others. These are entirely different assertions, and neither one is particularly correct.

You don't take referential humor very well. Michael Myers face was priceless in that clip.

I did answer your question- you just dont like my answer. And I made no statement that you refuse to understand other perspectives. Again, you're twisting peoples replies to suit your needs to be 'right'. I've seen you do it time and again to others, and its not a game Im going to play with you.


But- to get back on topic. Today another vessel was boarded and towed into an Israeli naval port- no one attacked that IDF forces upon boarding and no one got shot(or beaten with pipes and thrown overboard). Wonder if this means that a message was at least sent from the prior incident....

I did answer your question- you just dont like my answer.

Yes, and if I asked you how the weather was today the answer of 'the sky is composed largely of oxygen' wouldn't thrill me either.

And I made no statement that you refuse to understand other perspectives. Again, you're twisting peoples replies to suit your needs to be 'right'.

You'd rather be 'right' than look at other perspectives.

I'll admit, I love being right. That said, your statement could understandably construed in the way I did.

I've seen you do it time and again to others, and its not a game Im going to play with you.

It's not really a game I play. Other people are wrong, and I don't like to accept the excuse of "well i'm entitled to my opinion". I take people at the words they post, I don't pull hidden meanings from them.

Also if it's a game you're unwilling to play you certainly seem to be gaming it pretty hard.

But- to get back on topic. Today another vessel was boarded and towed into an Israeli naval port- no one attacked that IDF forces upon boarding and no one got shot(or beaten with pipes and thrown overboard). Wonder if this means that a message was at least sent from the prior incident....

It likely meant there was a more cowed or naturally less combative crew. It also likely means that the Israelis boarding operation went considerably more smoothly (as in it wasn't bungled totally). Likely every answer is correct as the event is directly influenced by the previous one.

George bush doesn't like black people.

No, he doesn't CARE about black people.

By comparison, Barack Obama loves black people so much, he wants us all to be made black by a nice thick coating of crude oil.

Or, maybe, Presidents just don't have magic, sea-god-like control over the GUlf of Mexico.

The same can also be said of South America, but that, again is starting to change.

The US has always been fairly interested in what's going on in South America, due to the role it plays in our drug policy. If not for that, we'd probably ignore them, though.

Yep, it is changing as Africa slowly gets some fringe levels of modernization.

I think this is what it comes down to. It's not that Africa doesn't have any strategic value to the US, it's just that the people there are viewed more like wildlife than actual people. They're so unstable and unpredictable, most foreign powers just try to circumvent them.

Africa is gonna be a happening place pretty soon.

It is now. It's rapidly becoming a major front in the war on terror. Another good way to get the US to take notice of you is to be scary to the US.

With Mubarak on his last legs, and the Muslim Brotherhood thirsting for power that could be a very big problem.

It's friggin horrifying that the Muslim Brotherhood has a credible chance at power on that scale, and to bring this slightly back to topic, that's the sort of people Israel is dealing with on a daily basis.

A lot of these top ranking AQ guys are coming out of Egypt. It's really not a sane part of the world that the Israelis decided to force the west to give them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I take people at the words they post, I don't pull hidden meanings from them.

I assure you, you do.

For example, in the other, now dead thread on this topic, you decided that I said the IHH was the Turkish government.

No, he doesn't CARE about black people.

By comparison, Barack Obama loves black people so much, he wants us all to be made black by a nice thick coating of crude oil.

Or, maybe, Presidents just don't have magic, sea-god-like control over the GUlf of Mexico.

Oh god, I said like not care. I'm gonna gut myself, I need someone to cut off my head if I start to scream (otherwise I can't keep my honor!). Forizzle though, I can't believe I made that mistake considering I went to find the video at the same time . As to your actual point, I suggest we vote Poseidon in the next election. Safer ports. Bush had significantly more culpability in Katrina than Obama has now, but only insofar as the head of FEMA as was appointed was totally incapable and unqualified and it just happened to bite him in the ass.

It's friggin horrifying that the Muslim Brotherhood has a credible chance at power on that scale, and to bring this slightly back to topic, that's the sort of people Israel is dealing with on a daily basis.

A lot of these top ranking AQ guys are coming out of Egypt. It's really not a sane part of the world that the Israelis decided to force the west to give them.

As a casual observation a not insignificant amount of the polarization of the mideast towards extremism can be attributed to the visible and antagonistic policies that Israel engages in. This in turn causes israel to engage in even harsher and more antagonistic policies. It's a vicious circle thats seen the fall of much of the secularism in the mideast and the rise of much of the fundamentalism. It's clearly just one contributing factor though.

Phryxis wrote:
No, he doesn't CARE about black people.

By comparison, Barack Obama loves black people so much, he wants us all to be made black by a nice thick coating of crude oil.

Or, maybe, Presidents just don't have magic, sea-god-like control over the GUlf of Mexico.

Imma let you finish, but that sea god crack was the most unAmericana repartee of all time.

Phryxis wrote:
The US has always been fairly interested in what's going on in South America, due to the role it plays in our drug policy. If not for that, we'd probably ignore them, though.

There's been a bit of lull since the Cold War ended and we became less concerned about defending the Western hemisphere, in the popular mind anyway. But with Brazil on the rise, and Chavez lurking about the region has garnered more press. Though that may also be the result of a 24 hour news cycle groping for stories.

Phryxis wrote:
It's friggin horrifying that the Muslim Brotherhood has a credible chance at power on that scale, and to bring this slightly back to topic, that's the sort of people Israel is dealing with on a daily basis.

A lot of these top ranking AQ guys are coming out of Egypt. It's really not a sane part of the world that the Israelis decided to force the west to give them.

Seriously. For all the flak that Mubarak takes for being a ruthless dictator he has been a massive boon to the US.

It looks like the Brotherhood has endorsed ElBaradei, which seems odd considering that he's a Western pawn. However, he's unlikely to be as hard on extremists as Mubarak, and wants to, reportedly, encourage democracy. This is a bad thing for us. We want a dictator in that country.

As to your actual point, I suggest we vote Poseidon in the next election.

And then what? Give merfolk the vote? Why do you hate freedom?

As a casual observation a not insignificant amount of the polarization of the mideast towards extremism can be attributed to the visible and antagonistic policies that Israel engages in.

Sure, but the Muslim Brotherhood was around in the 1920s, and they've always been (basically) sharia ultra-fundies.

I don't care how you slice it, any theocracy is antagonistic to the American worldview. It's just scary to me that we've got retroactives like that running things in so many places (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc).

And then what? Give merfolk the vote? Why do you hate freedom?

Freedom is what saw atlantis sunk before the seas. Never again.

Sure, but the Muslim Brotherhood was around in the 1920s, and they've always been (basically) sharia ultra-fundies.

I don't care how you slice it, any theocracy is antagonistic to the American worldview. It's just scary to me that we've got retroactives like that running things in so many places (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc)

Antagonistic in some ways, casually supportive in others. The harsh theocracy of saudi arabia gets us our oil on time, and that 'supports' the american worldview far better than a less greedy and more democratic and culturally aware mideastern state in its place would. The American worldview is best served by a complimentary Europe, a constantly fluctuating mideast, a politically unimportant africa, and a cheap and easily manipulated asia. Much of the economic strife America is currently enjoying is generated by the advancement of states that we could once simply 'use' or ignore.

Phryxis wrote:
The US has always been fairly interested in what's going on in South America, due to the role it plays in our drug policy. If not for that, we'd probably ignore them, though..

Actually- theres some major mineral wealth in South America thats garnering its own desire to keep the region economically stable. Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina have the worlds largest reserves of Lithium- with an estimated 18 million metric tons. Thats roughly 10 or 11 times what hte US and China combined have access too. And with lithium being the predominant battery base for high efficiency batteries which will be needed for most of our 'go green' technology- theres a vested interest in keeping South America happy. That way our cel phones, laptops, hybrid cars, and anything else that needs batteries can feed our tech reliance.

Mistress of minis wrote:Actually- theres some major mineral wealth in South America thats garnering its own desire to keep the region economically stable. Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina have the worlds largest reserves of Lithium- with an estimated 18 million metric tons. Thats roughly 10 or 11 times what hte US and China combined have access too. And with lithium being the predominant battery base for high efficiency batteries which will be needed for most of our 'go green' technology- theres a vested interest in keeping South America happy. That way our cel phones, laptops, hybrid cars, and anything else that needs batteries can feed our tech reliance.

In the greater scheme of things though, how much do you think the US actually cares about the 'Green' market emerging, hungry for.. Lithium? China's getting so heavily involved in Africa that it's going to be more and more a power thing. Already for China Africa's pretty important for oil and otherwise mainly wood. 10% of African Oil goes to China (however 32% goes to the USA) and 60% of all African Wood goes to China. That's a fuckload of wood.

Mais, je divague. Can't we just have a thread on World Diplomacy and talk it over there?

sA

smiling Assassin wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Actually- theres some major mineral wealth in South America thats garnering its own desire to keep the region economically stable. Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina have the worlds largest reserves of Lithium- with an estimated 18 million metric tons. Thats roughly 10 or 11 times what hte US and China combined have access too. And with lithium being the predominant battery base for high efficiency batteries which will be needed for most of our 'go green' technology- theres a vested interest in keeping South America happy. That way our cel phones, laptops, hybrid cars, and anything else that needs batteries can feed our tech reliance.

In the greater scheme of things though, how much do you think the US actually cares about the 'Green' market emerging, hungry for.. Lithium? China's getting so heavily involved in Africa that it's going to be more and more a power thing. Already for China Africa's pretty important for oil and otherwise mainly wood. 10% of African Oil goes to China (however 32% goes to the USA) and 60% of all African Wood goes to China. That's a fuckload of wood.

Mais, je divague. Can't we just have a thread on World Diplomacy and talk it over there?

sA

Do you have a cel phone? Everyone I know except my gramma has one. Thats a LithIon battery for how many people? Add to that every other battery operated gadget and gizmo, from laptops to construction tools- lithium based batteries. Anything that uses a rechargable battery is going to lithium, hybrid vehicles are jsut one of the ones that will need it in larger quantities. The US will start caring about a green market when it becomes cheaper than the traditional options. And China is buying up wood because theyre having their own industrial revolution- building infrastructure like the US did in the first half of the 20th century.

And where this is on topic- is we're talking about commodoties- Israel offers intelligence, as theyre far more in tune with the middle east than we are. Until oil isnt something that can strangle the world economy- the paradig for how we interact with Israel and the middle east is going to stay the same.

Phryxis wrote:Frazz: Take it from somebody who is pretty strongly pro-Israel... A LOT more Palestinians are dying than Israelis. It's really not even a question.

And it shouldn't be. The Israelis have one of the most modern, practiced militaries in the world. The Palestinians have... Rocks. Home made rockets.

The staunchly pro-Israeli argument that one would make here is that it's not Israel's responsibility to make sure to keep the "kill ratio" down, it's their responsibility to keep their citizens as safe as possible.

I'm sure you're right. Carry on the good fight as I am suspending myself for five days from everything but nonMod duties for violating Dakka Rule #1.

Link thanks to Henners91

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/86

was an american boy murdered

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results