 |
|
|
|
Friday, January 9, 2009 - 02:22 am  Just in case the other thread gets deleted due to it's length. Happened to the 5 word story game once. Keep on using the Jerusalem thread and every so often we'll up date this one. nix001 (Fearless Blue) Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 03:58 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How can we let Jerusalem be run by the Zionists? Especialy with what we are witnessing from them now towards the people of Gazza. The world has asked for a seize fire to help the thousands of wounded and dying, yet the Zionists have refused. What is it at the moment?...400+ Gazzans dead and thousands wounded over 3 days of bombardment and 4 Jews dead. What are the Zionists worried about? Maybe 400 dead is'nt enough for them at this stage. Maybe they have set themselves a target of 1000 dead before they will concider the innocent in all of this. What ever it is, to me the Jews have shown themselves to be aligned with the Zionists. Which will no doubt have a long lasting effect upon how the world will look at them from now on. Because of the Hollocaust the Zionists/Jews/Israelis have been aloud to do things that no other nation would be. But now they have crossed the line of reason and all compassion the world had for them will now be dissolved. I hope the USA realises that any support shown for the Jews of Israel will only bring them pain. Eye for an eye. How the USA can condone such actions is beyond me and I hope soon the Good people of the USA will make their feelings known to their leaders. Happy New Year. Nix001 GaiusJuliusCaesar (Kebir Blue) Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 05:54 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What do you think the USA would do if Mexico or Canada would start firing rockets over the border? I highly doubt that we would just "negotiate". You say an "eye for an eye", well, that's exactly what Israel is giving the people that are firing rockets. If you think that Hamas is the morally superior party here, you're sadly mistaken. Israel's actions are retribution for what's being done to them. Hamas is lucky that they're going this easy on them. nix001 Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 05:59 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What would Canada do if USA claimed Parts of Canada as theirs? nix001 (Fearless Blue) Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 08:47 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll be back in a bit. I'm just gonna take my dog for a walk around the park and think about life for a bit. GaiusJuliusCaesar Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 09:44 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ummmm.....read your history. It wasn't the USA that took the territory away from the palestinians. It was the world community. I'm not saying that was right or wrong, but if someone tries to hit me, I'm going to hit them back. To hell with what other people think, I'm not going to take that from someone, chances are that you wouldn't either. Israel has tried to make concessions, but there is no compromise with these people. You give them an inch and they try to take a foot. Or, for those you use the metric system, a centimeter to a meter. Jo Jo Hun (Fearless Blue) Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 11:52 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nix, man, have some respect for the rest of us. We peons have our opinions, and our rights, too. You're telling us where countries should have their capitals. You're telling us how countries should conduct their foreign policies and their wars. You're telling us not only that "humanity" should have a capital, but where it should be. You're telling us what the issues facing humanity are: "war, no, global warming, yes, etc". You're even telling God who and who not to resurrect. Man, you're not the boss of us. Take a few steps back and have some humility, thanks. nix001 Friday, January 2, 2009 - 08:41 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Happy new year GJC & Jo JO JO Humility: The state or quality of being humble; freedom from pride and arrogance; lowliness of mind; a modest estimate of one's own worth; a sense of one's own unworthiness through imperfection and sinfulness; self-abasement; humbleness. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An act of submission or courtesy. I GOOGLED the above. In times of peace, humility is the better way. In times of war, as stated above, humility is the worst way. I did not create these problems, I just live with them. And as my sense of self worthiness is greater than the unworthiness, I feel the need to solve these problems. If more people felt pride in themselves they would then feel that life is not only worth living, but also worth saving. Then we would have peace and for the sake of peace I would be humble. GJC. Great Britain had an agreement with the palistinians and the Arab world in the late 1920's, I think, on how many normal Jews (farmers, builders etc), could settle in Palestine to seed the creation of Israel. This was going to be a state created over hundreds of years. Through births and a steady population increase, over time, so to assimilate themselves (as they had been doing for hundreds of years around the world) into the surrounding population. All was well up until the holocaust. But once that horrific act had been done the need for a Jewish home land was put on top of the world agenda. The Americans wanted mass immigration to the Holy Land, but Great Britain said no, as it would go against the agreement made and due to the problems that would ensue because of it. With that and with support by the American, Jews and the up coming Zionist movement illegally flooded into the territory, creating what we have today. Alexander Platypus (Little Upsilon) Friday, January 2, 2009 - 09:16 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i think its pretty obvious that what israel is doing right now is not only deeply immoral and in fact counter to israel's own long term self interest, but is against all world norms and laws. Pesco (White Giant) Friday, January 2, 2009 - 11:32 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's my 2 cents... After the recent cease-fire expired, it was Hamas, not Israel, that resumed launching attacks. Hamas launched attacks on Dec 24th, 2008, and Israel waited over two days before responding with air attacks on Dec 27th. Why should Israel immediately agree to a cease-fire now? Should Hamas expect to have a cease-fire whenever they decide it's convenient for them? I'm sure Israel would have chosen to not have Hamas launch missiles in the first place. I think Israel is trying to demonstrate to Hamas that it may have the power to start hostilities, but it cannot dictate when Israel will cease hostilities. About the death toll on each side... If Hamas had more accurate & greater capabilities, isn't it likely many more Israelis would be dead? The only difference is that Israel attempts to focus on Hamas-related targets, while Hamas launches missiles indiscriminately and hides weapons in civilian areas. How is Israel supposed to negotiate with a fractured Palestinian leadership? Fatah is in charge in the West Bank, and Hamas in Gaza. And Hamas, of course, still advocates for the destruction of Israel. Hard to make peace with someone who still clings to the idea of your total destruction. I grieve for the Palestinian people who are subjected to some of the harshest living conditions on the planet in Gaza. It's too bad that Fatah's mismanagement and reputation for corruption gave Hamas some traction among the people. The historical baggage of this region will make a permanent peace settlement difficult but not impossible. While moderate leaders may be able to reach agreement, the extreme factions of each religious/ethnic group will decry the negotiators as "traitors" for giving something up. Just a note... Referring to the "Jew" or "Zionist" this or that has antisemitic overtones and only weakens your argument. nix001 (Fearless Blue) Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 12:16 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Pesco. You said 'Hard to make peace with someone who still clings to the idea of your total destruction.' The Zionists have been destroying palestine and killing Palestinians for 60 years. For the past God knows how many months the Gazans have been kept under conditions of a concentration camp. You have to remember, most of the Gazans are refugees. Thrown out of their homes and off their land by the Zionists. Would you want peace? You also said, 'Just a note... Referring to the "Jew" or "Zionist" this or that has antisemitic overtones and only weakens your argument.' This is what happens when you create a state for one kind of people. Do they not refer to Israel as the JEWish state? Do I not note the difference between a JEW and a ZIONIST? General Dirt (Golden Rainbow) Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 12:25 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The Zionists have been destroying palestine and killing Palestinians for 60 years. For the past God knows how many months the Gazans have been kept under conditions of a concentration camp. You have to remember, most of the Gazans are refugees. Why would they want peace? " This has been going on far longer than 60 years. This all stems back to the day of Abraham and has turned into the Hatfiedes and McCoys. Religious idealogy split and THATS when the war started. Pesco (White Giant) Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 01:07 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Nix, About half of the Palestinians are descended from those who lived in what is now Israel-proper. Unless you are proposing that the Jewish people abandon Israel, I really don't think the Palestinian people getting what their grandparents had in Israel is realistic. What the world community has proposed is a Palestinian state comprised of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with exact boundaries to be negotiated. The end of the Jewish state of Israel just isn't an option. I think Palestinians should be compensated for lands lost in Israel. If the Palestinians can't accept this in principle, then I think their suffering will continue for a long, long time. This has been true ever since Arafat walked away from the Camp David peace talks in 2000. Why would they want peace? Maybe so they and their families don't die, perhaps. Especially if you're in the weaker position militarily and economically. At least, that's what this game has taught me. You'll have to forgive me, I'm not sure what the custom is wherever you are writing from. In the media I see and read, the actual terms "Jew" and "Zionist" do have antisemitic overtones. "Jewish", however similar, is different, and is an acceptable term. I can't say why this is, but I'm just letting you know so that you understand how people may interpret your comments. You may be better off referring to moderate versus ultra-orthodox Israelis. nix001 (Fearless Blue) Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 02:35 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I did'nt know that. I'll heed your advice in future references. I also don't know what the custom is wherever you are writing from. But occupation from where I'm from is a crime. And as shown in Northern Ireland, if you don't play by the occupied rules you will forever meet resistance. You said, 'Why would they want peace? Maybe so they and their families don't die, perhaps. Especially if you're in the weaker position militarily and economically.' Try telling that to the Ewoks. 'What the world community has proposed' You want to have a look at the United Nations thread. Theres another one aswell, I'll look for it, where we discuss how the world community has no say in what Israel does. Pesco (White Giant) Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 04:03 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did you just compare the Palestinians to the Ewoks?! I am amused. I partially disagree with what you say about occupier rules... that if you don't play by the occupier's rules you will forever meet resistance. It is true that a nation's people shouldn't just roll over, but it's also true that perpetual violence isn't going to solve anything. Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. found another way to claim the moral high ground while still showing their protest. The fall of communism was for the most part bloodless. I know it's easy for me to just say this, but if the Palestinians adopted nonviolent methods they would probably have their own independent country by now. Any response to my comment about the Camp David peace talks in 2000? I can't refer to every single UN resolution since 1947 on the topic. But I am referring to the most recent peace initiatives such as the roadmap for peace and the Annapolis accord. To get back to the heart of your post, I do envision an international Jerusalem. I don't see it happening in the near future, however. I think the first thing is an independent Gaza & West Bank. Not sure how East Jerusalem is going to factor into things, but nobody will be willing to call all of Jerusalem an international city for at least a generation, in my view. Almohad117 (White Giant) Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 06:04 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crap. It's so easy to lecture the Palestinians on the virtues of nonviolence when Israeli rockets aren't raining down on you... As far as I'm concerned they have an absolute right to fire as many Qassams as they can. Nobody in the world gives a shit about Palestinian lives or rights so it's up to them to decide what to do about the horrific conditions the Israelis impose on them. They've shown a lot of maturity and restraint so far, but enough is enough. Jo Jo Hun (Fearless Blue) Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 07:15 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Happy New Year to you, Nix. My resolution is to let no patently absurd statement by seemingly intelligent people go by uncontested. "In times of peace, humility is the better way. In times of war, as stated above, humility is the worst way." Absurd, on the face of it. Humility has its place during peace, and during war. Arrogance too. Further, when you say "times of war," you're not referring to yourself being in a war. You're talking about other people, someplace on Earth, being at war. So you're saying that no one should ever be humble, since there have always been wars going on someplace. What a statement to make! "I did not create these problems, I just live with them. And as my sense of self worthiness is greater than the unworthiness, I feel the need to solve these problems." You're not that powerful. No one is. You physically cannot solve everyone's problems. It's impossible. Most of the problems you describe cannot be "solved." If you could help, in small but real ways, some real people to solve or manage or cope with one or a couple of the situations you write about, that would be real helpful to those people, maybe to all of us. If you could play a key role in helping many people with one of those situations, wow, you'd be a great man...Ghandi, Salk, Nix, wow. "If more people felt pride in themselves they would then feel that life is not only worth living, but also worth saving." I agree. I wish the guy on the other thread who says humans have no more right to live than do viruses and fungi would read that. "Then we would have peace and for the sake of peace I would be humble." You said before that during times of war humility is the worst way. Now you say that to get to peace you would be humble. That's a contradiction, nonsense! Sorry man, nothing personal, I just feel Logic and Reason aren't getting their due deference this year. Jo Jo Hun (Fearless Blue) Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 08:43 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And Almohad, what does this mean, "It's so easy to lecture the Palestinians on the virtues of nonviolence when Israeli rockets aren't raining down on you..." The guy said "I know it's easy for me to just say this, but if the Palestinians adopted nonviolent methods they would probably have their own independent country by now." He wasn't lecturing Palestinians. This isn't a forum for reaching Palestinians. There aren't more than a handful of Palestinians reading this. The guy was discussing this issue with people here, who are overwhelmingly non-Palestinians. He was stating his opinion about things, not lecturing anyone. And he already said "It's so easy for me to say this," so you didn't have to say it. Didn't you read what he wrote? You just repeated what he said. "As far as I'm concerned they have an absolute right to fire as many Qassams as they can. Your opinion. "Nobody in the world gives a shit about Palestinian lives or rights so it's up to them to decide what to do about the horrific conditions the Israelis impose on them. What's the difference whether anyone gives a shit about them or not? Of course it's up to them to decide what to do about their conditions! It's up to everyone to decide what to do about their conditions! Why wouldn't it be up to them to do something about their conditions? Are the Palestinian people feeble? Incompetent? Are their feelings easily hurt? They can't figure out how to live normal lives and support themselves like other people do? If anyone cared about them, you know what, they STILL should decide what to do about their conditions. Just like the Israelis, who should also decide what to do about their conditions. Right? Of COURSE they should, the Palestinians and the Israelis both, that's their own responsibility, not someone else's. "They've shown a lot of maturity and restraint so far, but enough is enough." What are you talking about, maturity? They're living in a shithole and getting bombed because they keep firing rockets at other people! Their strategy is to fire rockets from the middle of their cities and incite the Israelis to fire back and kill their people, then complain to the world how no one cares! Of course no one cares, they're idiots! No one cares if idiots who fire rockets at other people get killed! That's not mature, it's immature! Restraint? Their 6-month ceasefire with Israel ended Dec. 19th and they started firing rockets at Israel. That's not restraint, it's the opposite! You're a moron! "Enough is enough?" Apparently not, or they'd stop firing rockets at the Israelis! What are they going to do now....fire more rockets? That's not mature, it's not showing restraint, and it's not saying 'enough is enough.' Everything you say is wrong! Except your opinion, which is an opinion, and so isn't even wrong. Pesco (White Giant) Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 03:26 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Almohad, At the Annapolis accord, the starting basis for negotiation was to discuss an independant Palestinian state. That means Israel, by participating, has indicated that they would agree to that. Only when Hamas will agree to the existance of the Jewish state of Israel can peace go anywhere. "As far as I'm concerned they have an absolute right to fire as many Qassams as they can." Then I guess as far as I'm concerned Israel has an absolute right to keep attacking Hamas until the attacks stop. Doesn't seem very productive to helping the plight of the Palestinians, does it? The violence isn't about Israel occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. It's because some Palestinians, led by Hamas, will never accept a final peace agreement that lets Israel exist. Almohad117 (White Giant) Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 08:49 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You're kidding, right? Israel has no intention of allowing a truly independent Palestinian state and they never have. Full stop, end of story. The Palestinians elected Hamas in what has been described as the most free elections ever held in the Arab world, and what is the response of the US and Israel? To declare that legitimate government a terrorist organization and openly, brazenly attack its infrastructure, taking out hospitals, schools, mosques, medical stores, power stations, and imposing a complete blockade on food and medical supplies getting in until UN workers on the scene warn of an impending humanitarian crisis. Incidentally, blockading the necessaries of life is defined as an act of war by international convention, so the vaunted "truce" or "ceasefire" that existed between Israel and Hamas was really a situation where one side was allowed to starve the other into submission and the other side was expected to shut up and take it. And during that time most of the rocket-firing came in response to some Israeli incursion or attack. "They're living in a shithole and getting bombed because they keep firing rockets at other people." What an astounding thing to say. Where do you get this garbage - from the IDF public relations office? I doubt you seriously believe that there is some kind of symmetry or equality between the military might of nuclear-armed, US-supplied Israel and half-starved Hamas with its glorified fireworks, which by the way hadn't killed anyone in a year until the day Israel launched its latest round of atrocities (choosing to drop the first bombs at 11:30 am on a Saturday just as schoolchildren would be coming home). If it's still difficult for you, just do a simple body count. Of course the ongoing violence is about the Israeli Occupation!!! That is, and always has been, absolutely the central issue. No one in their right mind expects the Palestinians to surrender their right to self-defence against Israeli attacks, while Israel continues the Occupation and accelerates the building of illegal settlements on Palestinian land. The Israeli politicians and military planners don't expect it. In fact they want to marginalize Hamas as much as possible, and any provocation that can induce Hamas to fire a few more rockets plays right into their hands. The last thing they want is a Hamas - or any Palestinian authority - that shows itself capable of observing ceasefires and truces and thereby becomes a more legitimate negotiating partner. So any time a ceasefire seems to be holding and going on for a longer and longer period of time, the less the Israelis like it. C'mon guys - where are the accusations that I must be anti-Semitic? Isn't that the next step for you? Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 09:05 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can I shoot the same "glorified fireworks" at your house? nix001 Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 09:46 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JB.....If I had taken over your house and put you in the shed at the bottom of the garden, which I had built a fence around so you could'nt see anyone. Then starved and beat you every now and again. And then to top it off I build a tree house in the tree above the shed to keep an eye on you and every now and again shot one of your family. The least I would expect from you would be to make a rocket and fire it at me. I doubt you would ask for permission though. Almohad117 (White Giant) Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 10:06 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You took the words right out of my mouth, nix. And of course once he shot the rocket at you, you'd go around telling everyone how violent he is and how you can't expect reasonable behavior from a person like that who obviously has no respect for human life. "Floggings will continue until morale improves." Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 10:26 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was a war. They lost. 60 years of this bullshit. If people had been concerned for the "plight of the Palestinians" they should have done something constructive to provide them with education and a place to live 60 years ago. But since the Arab countries themselves are in the same pitiful state its not surprising. Israel serves a purpose. It diverts attention from the despotic regimes the Arab lives under. Its more productive to channel your populaces anger towards the evil Jews rather than having to answer tough questions about why they are in hovel while you live in a palace. Why you are eating and they are not. And why you ride in a Bentley and they ride a donkey. Those kind of questions usually involve angry mobs, torches, and firing squads. So of course the Oligarchy keeps the Palestinians exactly where they are. Its another kind of circus to keep the masses happy. It takes the other wise rebellious surly revolutionaries and directs them outward instead of inward. Its actually a brilliant system of retaining power. Almohad117 (White Giant) Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 11:11 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No question the Arab governments have behaved shamefully. But "It was a war. They lost" is just pathetic. Sounds like you have a hard time dealing with the basics about the origins of the situation. As for "finding them a place to live" - how about the place they got kicked out of? Not an option as far as you're concerned! No, let the Israeli settlers take it, and tell Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon to clean up the mess. Brilliant, JB!! And you wonder why the Palestinians feel that the world doesn't give a shit? FarmerBob (Little Upsilon) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 01:00 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't wonder why the Palestineans feel the world doesn't give a shit. It doesn't. These people left their homes by their own choice immediately prior to the '48 war of annihilation waged by their muslim brothers against the jewish settlers. There were no forced relocations. The Palestineans were not forced out at bayonet point. Read the damned history. They bet on the wrong horse and and have been paying for it ever since. They were kept in the camps and poverty by their muslim bothers despite the vast oil riches that flood into the region. They consistently supported a policy of extermination against the Israelis and several invasion attempts to make it reality. The jews were persecuted and nearly annhilated in Europe and some chose to go back to a land where they were hated and unwelcome. A land governed by the British Empire. Now these two groups point fingers and make war. There is no longer a moral high ground. Israel will defend itself and fight for its existence. The Palestineans will fight for whatever the hell they think it is that they are fighting for. The muslim, arab world will continue to be the world's greatest hypocrites and do nothing at all to help anyone. Americans saw, full well, the Palestineans cheering the 9/11 attacks and celebrating the perpetrators. We owe those people nothing. If you want to blame someone for the current mess. Blame arrogant and anti-semetic British colonial policies that created this mess from its outset. If you want to blame someone for the current violence, blame Israeli and Palestinean alike. If they want war, they will always have it. nix001 Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 01:10 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Great Britain had an agreement with the palistinians and the Arab world in the late 1920's, I think, on how many normal Jews (farmers, builders etc), could settle in Palestine to seed the creation of Israel. This was going to be a state created over hundreds of years. Through births and a steady population increase, over time, so to assimilate themselves (as they had been doing for hundreds of years around the world) into the surrounding population. All was well up until the holocaust. But once that horrific act had been done the need for a Jewish home land was put on top of the world agenda. The Americans wanted mass immigration to the Holy Land, but Great Britain said no, as it would go against the agreement made and due to the problems that would ensue because of it. With that and with support by the American, Jews and the up coming Zionist movement illegally flooded into the territory, creating what we have today. FarmerBob (Little Upsilon) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 01:18 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your grasp of the history is as piss poor as your grasp of environmental science, Nix. Historical revisionism is as pathetic and destructive as trans-science. Neither address the realities of two intractable populations that will not coexist peacefully. nix001 Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 01:32 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They did coexist until the holocaust. For once that horrific act had been done the need for a Jewish home land was put on top of the world agenda. The Americans wanted mass immigration to the Holy Land, but Great Britain said no, as it would go against the agreement made and due to the problems that would ensue because of it. With that and with support by the American, Jews and the up coming Zionist movement illegally flooded into the territory, creating what we have today. You see, now your making me repeat myself. Almohad117 (White Giant) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 02:28 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And you'll need to do it a few mores times if you hope to get through. I think Farmer B has spent too much time talking to the chickens and cows... Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 02:40 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought it was suicide bombers and random rocket and mortar attacks that made it what we had today? Never seen a culture more infatuated with death or as dismissive of life as Arabs. If the terrorists targeted military targets it would be a response to occupation. Ie: Resistance to German occupation, Red China working with Nationalist China during WWII..Ect. Deliberate targeting of cvilians removes any such notion from this issue. Its terror designed for a political purpose not an armed struggle against an occupying force. Its a self feeding culture of death. nix001 (Kebir Blue) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 02:55 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Almohad. I think FarmerBob is just getting pissed of with all these negative vibes man. JB. Have you ever tried to aim one of those rocket launchers? They are made out of old ironing boards and double sided sticky tape. If they were allowed an army and weapons they would be fighting on a battlefield. Tank V's Tank, plane V's plane, Navy V's Navy, cruise V's Cruise. But they are not, so they only have what they have, which is barely enough to be able to fly, let alone hit something that was aimed for like an Israeli Base. Váli (Fearless Blue) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 03:09 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well I think the problem is Hamas, the west bank under fatah seems to be a lot more peaceful. Removing the support to hamas by islamic nations should be the first objective, not a direct attack. This only increases their support. FarmerBob (Little Upsilon) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 04:03 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nonsense repeated ad nauseum is still nonsense. Perhaps if some of you brainwashed children started thinking for yourselves, you would see that. The truly ironic and frightening trend that I see in these forums is that the older members demonstrate more openmindedness and flexibility of thought than the young. How thoroughly indoctrinated are you? Do any of you even try to think critically? Do you even know what that is? You spout the politically correct nonsense of pop culture without pause to even consider the absurdity of what you are saying. Yes. The negative vibes do have me bummed. Where are the rebellious youth? All are I see are slaves to propaganda. Saying and thinking exactly what they are told. Are any of you more seasoned people seeing this, as well? The world is not black and white, kiddies. On this issue, like any others, both sides can simultaneously be right and wrong. Real people are dying in this real conflict today because they put their faith in ideology and leaders with their own agendas. One need not become an apologist for either Israeli or Palestinean merely by acknowledging the complexities of the dispute. Israeli society has become dangerously militarized by the constant threat of invasion and mindless rhetoric of its neighbors. This has, in turn, led to hyper-aggressive policies in their relations with the Palestineans who confirm their fears at every turn. Both sides are entrenched in self- imposed positions of inflexibility. Any concession on either side is viewed as betrayal and mortal defeat to be exploited in internal power struggles within both groups. Fatah is seen as going "soft" and Hamas takes up the banner of jihad. The Knesset of Israel is equally subject to major policy shifts with every new attack. Why? The people themselves are governed by fears that are too willingly played upon by their leadership. That is the reality. Too much bloodshed and bad history that can't soon be forgotten by anyone. Families on both sides of the line with dead children. Yet, the best commentary our free societies can make is to treat this conflict like another sporting event. Pick your team and cheer on your side. All right or all wrong. Black or white. Christ, and we wonder why there is no peace. Almohad117 (White Giant) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 06:29 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Farmer Bob, you just used up 2, 3, maybe 4 GB and said absolutely less than diddley-squat. That's an art form. I salute you, F Bob! What exactly were you trying to say???? Everyone's right and everyone's wrong?? Did the barnyard critters help you puzzle that one out? Now the Guardians of Truth, Democracy and Grooviness in the Middle East have rammed a boat full of medical supplies heading for Gaza from Cyprus. And they did it in international waters, where they have not even the colour of legal right. But hey, they can do whatever they want. So, to Davey Jones' locker with those terrorist antibiotics and Islamist anaesthetics! Maybe F Bob and his buddies Elsie, Babe and Jemima Puddleduck can tell the rest of us how this blatantly piratical attack is a blow for freedom, justice and lovement. As for Johanas "never-seen-an-Arab-without-a death-wish" Bilderburg, I think that someone in the wrong frame of mind might mistake you for a slavering, frothing racist nutbar head case, my friend. "A culture infatuated with death" - imagine someone saying that about, oh, Jews for instance. Take a deep breath and count to 10 trillion. Vali... oh my... Vali. The West Bank under Fatah is "a lot more peaceful." Wanna know why? Because Abbas doesn't raise a stink when Israel builds another settlement! The settler-fascists can take as much land as they like and the PLO won't raise a hand against them. That's not exactly the peace of the graveyard but it comes damn close. C'mon now: you can set your standards a little higher. I'm sorry Nix - didn't mean to spread the bad vibes so much. You and I think along the same lines. I'm just more mouthy. Almohad117 (White Giant) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 07:10 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And pissed off about the way Israeli war crimes get whitewashed as "self-defence" when no one else could get away with them... FarmerBob (Little Upsilon) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 08:49 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you, Almohad, for proving my point precisely. Váli (Fearless Blue) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 02:16 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The settler fascists.....lets not forget the entire arab world was created by settler fascists. Shit happens, get over it and move on. Israel is there to stay. Accept the price of peace is a few settlements, or fight a losing war. The palestians can choose to live in poverty and dispare or accept Israel and move on. The Arab countries have long realised they cant defeat Israel, so they have moved on, all be it they talk a little tough now and then and provide weapons for the palestians, but they are no longer that serious about it. They allow the palestians to die whilst keeping up the anti Israel front to keep the people happy. If the arab world wanted peace for the palestians they could have it. Stop giving the palestians weapons and peace would soon follow. well relatively speaking anyway. There will people palestians ready to kill israelis and israelis ready to kill palestians for years to come. Almohad117 (White Giant) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 04:41 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- F Bob: You don't have a point. Vali: Are you the Professor Vali who teaches international relations at the University of Eretz Israel?? Váli Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 04:57 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No I am Dr Vali, I put victums of suicide bombers back together as best I can. I really should go private, sooooo much money to be made in my field of work. Thanks to many millions of brain washed people across the world there would be no shortage of customers for me. Alas I, unlike the leaders in many arab countries do not wish to make my millions out of the suffering of others. Israel is apart of the international community, if it were not for the attacks by numerous terrorist organisations supported by the arab nations against Israel. Israel would not attack palestine. Even is crazy israelies wanted to attack palestians for fun, the international community would not allow it. Currently the world knows Israel is just doing what any other country would do it in its position. Defend itself. The pro palestian movement is just an anti israeli movemnet. Palestine has never been an independent country. The solution is really quite simple, stop supporting terrorists and peace will follow swiftly afterwards. The hate will remain, but most people really do enjoy living in peace. Pesco (White Giant) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 05:01 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Almohad & Nix, Simple questions, in order to renew a calmer discussion... Should Hamas agree that Israel has a right to exist? Do you really think Israel was lying when they discussed the possibility of an independent Palestinian state? If so, please support your comment. nix001 Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 05:19 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vali. The Arab leaders know that with the might of American mussel get it? mussel/tank And the fact that Israel has a couple of NUKES. Even SimCountry looks down upon those who use Nukes Of course the Arab leaders are'nt gonna start a war. Don't think they have moved on though for one moment. Jihad in the name of the occuption is being given all the fuel it needs. Unlike the rest of the world who thinks that war stops everytime our leaders make a victory statement, they live war through occupation, arrests, assassinations, evictions, destruction, discrimination, humiliation, seperation, every day of there lives. If the rockets stopped do you think Israel would stop all of those things? Stop building settlements? Knock down the new settlements? Give back the occupied territories? Re-connect Gaza with the West bank? Re-plant all the olive trees? Take down the wall? Let the palistinians have an army/air-force/navy with any weapon they want? Give the palistinians there own sea for trade? Let Palistine become powerful and great? You realy think they would do all of that if the resistance rockets stopped? And on the off chance you do. How long would the palistinians have to wait before they can just get on with living their lives? nix001 Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 05:22 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello Pesco did'nt know you had posted. I'm just gonna have a cuppa an a ciggi. I'll give what you posted some thought and get back too ya. Same with you Vali. I was replying to your post before your last one. nix001 Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 05:43 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok. Pesco. Have you seen the maps showing how much land Israel has alraedy taken over? There wont be any land left for a Palestinian state at the rate their land is going. If Israel went back to the pre 1966 borders then yes. Hammas/palestinians should agree to the state of Israel. As they did do with the Arab world in the agreement make with Britain around the 1920's. Vali, oh Vali oh Vali. You said, 'Even if crazy israelies wanted to attack palestians for fun, the international community would not allow it.' The world has already told the Israelies to stop. No UN resolution will be agreed if the US Jewish lobbyists don't like it. The USA have vetoed over 150 UN resolution made against Israel over the years. You should have a look at the United Nations thread. I'll go and get it for you. Váli (Fearless Blue) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 06:00 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- nix my friend, the US backs Israel because the terrorist organisations, backed by the arab nation attack Israel. What I meant was without the terrorist attacks to justify Israeli attacks, they would not be able to attack. Stop they attacks on Israel and the attack on palestine will stop. The UN may say stop....but they really mean hurry up and get it over with. It will take a few years of peace before israel hands back occupied land, trust takes time to develop. With the right motivation isreal will and does remove illegal settlements. As with all peace deals the fighting has to stop first, the fighting wont stop whilst Hamas exists in its current form. No country in the world is going to stans by whilst terrorists in a neighbouring country fire rockets into it on a daily basis. If someone throws stones at me in the street I am not going to wait unitl one hits me in the head before I do something about it. nix001 Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 06:03 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why should the Palestinians make the first move? No other country right now actively occupies another countries land. Except for the so called coalition forces. Even under the peace treaty Israel continued to do what the rest of the world had told it not to(the lists above). Would you trust Israel to do what is right by you? I also fear that there is a massive media gap. A gap where the truth should be. I watch all the news channels my digi box gives me. On the western channels all I see is men being rushed into hospital. On the Eastern all I see is women and children. The truth is everyone is getting killed. This is ethnic cleansing. And for what reason? resistance to an occupation. Tell me, where else in the world is there another active occupation taking place apart from Iraq and Afganistan? General Dirt (Little Upsilon) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 06:16 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I gotta agree with FB on his points, but I ask him to crank back the time machine a few hundred years. If that were possible we would all see the Jews and Muslims fighting like crazy, as they are today. Either way, war sux. I also noticed that CNN looks more and more like a Megadeth video everyday. Its a bad world we live in when we gotta turn off the news because of youngsters in the house. I don't know as much about mid-east policies as some of you others. I only know what lies the news tell us, the history channel, and the Bible. But being of Native American decent (Blackfoot, N Mont. tribe), I can relate to being squeezed out. If you really look there are terrible parrallels between the plight of the Palistinian and the American Indian. Back to my bowl! Dirt Almohad117 (White Giant) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 08:52 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The question of whether Hamas should recognize Israel's right to exist is not the proper question to ask, and is intended to deflect attention from the real issues. Israel has a state and the Palestinians do not. What's more, Israel's existence is under no threat from the Palestinians, despite the false "symmetry" that Israel wants the rest of the world to believe exists between it and the Palestinians. Hamas can kill a few Israeli citizens from time to time, which of course is a terrorist act, but poses no fundamental threat to the existence of the Jewish state - and simply pales into insignificance when compared to the treatment that Israel can and does mete out to the Palestinians on a sickeningly regular basis. The first item on the agenda is to recognize that the Palestinians have the right to a state of their own. General D: go ahead and agree with F Bob if you want (though I can't see why you would) but I have to differ sharply with your view that Jews and Muslims have always been at each others' throats. Sad though I am to say it, my "Christian" forebears are the ones that Jews have historically always had more to fear from. When the Moors/Arabs were driven from Spain (a tragedy, if you ask me) one of the first things the conquerors did was expel all the Jews, who had evidently been living quite well under the previous Muslim rulers. Ditto for the Crusades. After slaughtering Jewish communities across Europe on their way to retake the Holy Land from the Muslims, the Crusaders finally captured Jerusalem, where they found a thriving Jewish community. They soon took care of that! Muslim rule in this period was very tolerant of Christians and Jews, certainly by the standards of the day. The Muslims recognized Christians and Jews as fellow "People of the Book" who believed in the same God, even if they had strange notions like the Trinity that Muslims find bizarre and heretical. The intolerant ones have always been the Christians, going all the way back to the Roman Empire. You could even say that intolerance was hard-wired into Christianity from its very beginnings. FASCINATING FACT OF THE DAY: Iran has a thriving if small community of some 25,000 Persian Jews. They have full rights to observe their faith, are protected under the Iranian constitution, and have a seat in the Majlis (Iran's Parliament) reserved for them. General Dirt Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 10:29 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They have always been at each others throats in some degree. Things got progressivly worse once outsiders got involved. We all know how badly the Christians have treated folks thru-out history. Christians are the 'Raid for the cultures'. nix001 (Little Upsilon) Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 11:07 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An Arab leader has spoken about how the Zionists expect the children of Gaza to be when they grow older. But I guess the Zionists have already thought about that one. Gaza's gonna be covered in depleted Urainium, due to the ammo Israel is using. So by the time the children become men they will either be too ill to fight due to the cancers and leukemia or already dead from cancer or leukemia. The Israelies have been planning this for months. The more land they grab the more they have to take it over to feel safe on the land they have grabbed. Once they have Jerusalem they will need to control the surrounding areas to feel safe. Thats alot more Palestinian Territory from the West Bank. The Zionists want as many Jews to go to Israel, which means it will need more land to house them. The Brits got it right in the 1920's. Limit the amount of jews entering the territory. Then all would have been well. Váli (Fearless Blue) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 01:13 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Palestinian territory??? What is this? Never in the history of the world has there been an independent palestine. Under the turks palestine was occupied and the arabs before them, the romans, greeks, egyptians, persians etc have all occupied this area. The modern concept of palestine has only taken hold as it is anti israeli. I did not see the jordanians or the egyptians rushing to give the palestinians a home land. Only because israel took this land from them, and since they are unable to take it back themselves they support the idea of palestine. FarmerBob (Little Upsilon) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 01:35 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Careful. Vali. Logic and reason have no place in this argument. This is about the passions of Absolutists. One side /i{must} be pure as the wind driven snow and the other evil incarnate. Nuance and rationality are not welcome here. Almohad117 (White Giant) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 02:13 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vali - if the Palestinians have no legitimate claim to the land, then who are the "them" that you admit Israel took it away from?? And how is the claim of the dispossessors more legitimate than that of the dispossessed, except by the rule of might makes right (which you seem to feel should be the determining factor in international relations)? Hey, I just realized: if you really are a doctor who patches up the victims of suicide bombers, as you say you are, then I see a rational method behind your ridiculous opinions. Because as long as the powers that be tell the weak and dispossessed to shut the hell up and "move on" the way you say, and then beat them down if they dare to fight for their rights, you're always going to have lots and lots of work. Good plan. (Frankly, though, I very much doubt you're a doctor at all.) As for F Bob, man, you're not even trying any more, are you? "I am informed; you are opinionated; he is dogmatic." Don't give up on nuance and rationality though. If you try them you might like them! Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 02:32 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Limit the amount of jews entering the territory. Then all would have been well. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nationâ��s fury [while] any [Islamic leader] who recognises the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world . . . As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. " "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nix seems to fit right in there.. FarmerBob (Little Upsilon) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 02:38 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You aren't arguing anything, Almohad. You are spouting religious and political diatribe. See Sam's quotes above. Shall we talk about my conservation with a senior Israeli commander one afternoon on the Golan Heights? This was not long after their withdrawal from Lebanon and he talked at length about his fears for the effects of militarization on Israaeli society from the constant wars and threat of war. Perhaps, the settlers I met from Poland who were illegally building settlements on the West Bank? The doctors at a refugee camp in southern Lebanon that I visited? This is a complex issue with valid points on both sides. However, the Moral High Ground was surrendered by both sides over twenty years ago. Forgive me if I don't see this conflict in the same light as an election, philosophical argument, or sporting event. As long as the populations are whipped into patriotic frenzy and given full reign to their fears and suspicions by unscrupulous or misguided leaders, there will be no peace. As long as religious hysteria outweighs desire for life, there will be no peace. If what you are saying is sincere, you, and people like you, are part of the problem, Almohad. I don't take conflicts like this lightly. Real people are dying in a pointless war. I won't treat it like another academic debate. Deal with it. Almohad117 (White Giant) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 05:40 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nice quotes, JB. Um, your point is...? Oh right - anyone who thinks the Palestinians have a legitimate grievance is like Hitler! Well, that does seem to wrap it up, doesn't it? FBob: you just get better and better. Anyone who disagrees with you is simply "spouting political and religious diatribe." I bet you were the star of your school debating team! As for your alleged experiences in the area, which I presume are meant to impress me and shut me up, please just save it for someone else. Firsthand experience and contact can be as uninformative and bias-forming as reading the most untrustworthy second- and third-hand accounts. It's all what you make of it. By the way, what point are you trying to make about the Israeli commander's fear of militarization? Does this disprove or contradict something I said? "A complex issue with valid points on both sides..." So really there is no truth: it's all just a mess of competing narratives, each with its own validity, and collectively cancelling each other out so that all we wind up doing is talking everything to death. How postmodern! Why waste our time debating who blockaded whom in Gaza for two years, or whose helicopter gunships are destroying whose hospitals? No, only people who have spoken with Israeli commanders on the Golan, watched Polish settlers building settlements, and visited refugee camp doctors in southern Lebanon, can truly say that the scales have been lifted from their eyes. Do you mind going over for me once more what your actual argument is? You've been riffing on your own intellectual and moral superiority for so long that I've forgotten what, if any, points you were trying to make. And I honestly can't be bothered scrolling all the way up to find out what you were saying before you sidetracked yourself onto the obviously much more delicious theme of your own intellectual suppleness and sophistication. So just recap it for me, please, as concisely as you can, and preferably without once more proclaiming yourself uniquely equipped, intellectually and morally, to grapple with these weighty and complex issues. Believe me, that point is well and truly taken. Almohad117 (White Giant) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 06:24 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was the State of Israel which broke the truce, in the 'ticking tunnel' raid on the night of the US elections two months ago. Since then the Israeli army went on stoking the fires of escalation with calculated raids and killings, whenever the shooting of missiles on Israel decreased. The ceasefire can be restored immediately, and on firmer foundations. It is the right of Israel to demand a complete end to shooting on its territory and citizens, but it must stop all attacks from its side, end completely the siege and starvation of Gaza's million and half inhabitants, and stop interfering with the Palestinians' right to choose their own leaders. Ehud Barak's declaration that he is stopping the elections campaign in order to concentrate on the Gaza offensive is a joke. The war in Gaza is itself Barak's elections campaign, a cynical attempt to buy votes with the blood and suffering in Netivot and Sderot, Gaza and Beit Hanun. Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 06:42 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually it was the Hamas Charter, Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Nix. Just pointing out common threads. We can post some moderate Palestinian voices as well if you like. Perhaps Jihad Mickey Mouse? Hello Boys and Girls. Death to America! Or here where Micky becomes a martyr Váli (Fearless Blue) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 01:28 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the begining God created man, a few years later he was getting bored so he created the jews. He had a little fun poking them about then he decided he wanted something new. So he created the muslims, go forth and destoy the jews he said. after a few years of getting their butts kicked the muslim hordes gave up. Where did god go wrong..... Me thinks its those silly religions that are the cause of many of our griefs. The arrogance of humans that think they know Gods will. Religions are the creations of people who wish to enforce their way on others. I am sure God has a warm place for these people. John R Monday, January 5, 2009 - 01:30 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There's nothing inherently "evil" about religion. What is wrong is how people see it and use it. In a very deep historical sense, religion has been used as an excuse, as a means to justify petty acts. This is not its intent purpose. FarmerBob Monday, January 5, 2009 - 02:01 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Very well, Almohad. My point in a nutshell. The Israeli/Palestinean conflict is one that outside actors would do best to avoid. It will be settled by those two parties when they are both ready and not before. Not the US, UN, or anyone else possesses the diplomatic or military means to resolve this conflict for them. The conflict is both deplorable and outside the rest of the world's power to moderate or mitigate. Klarina has made a sound case as has Vali, both rationally expressing the opposing viewpoints. Since this has devolved into a shooting war, I grieve for the Palestinean civilians, members of the IDF for what some will do and what most will see and the psychological consequences of such. I grieve for the bood guilt on both sides of the border. End of statement. Do not use the word alleged with me again. I 've earned my experience in the real world. You would do well to remember that you are talking to not just doctors, but lawyers, business professionals, economists, retired military officers, very bright college kids, and many others with real world credentials in this community. Almohad117 (White Giant) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 04:17 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crito: But Bobcrates, if as you say man cannot truly know the Good, and if as you say human society is but an imperfect reflection of our already flawed natures, then surely you must admit that there is no point in attempting to perfect it? By your own argument society is thus at not one, but two removes from the perfection that you say we must seek. Instead, with this in mind, I propose to you that the purpose of a human life cannot be to do or even seek the good, but to seek pleasure and gratification wherever we may find it, and to use our fellow human beings as mere instruments for our own gratification. Bobcrates: Crito, you're so full of crap it's incredible. I'm not even going to argue with you anymore. Why don't you just crawl into a hole somewhere and die? Crito: WTF?? Bobcrates: "I have foresuffered all Enacted on this same divan or bed; I who have sat by Thebes below the wall And walked among the lowest of the dead..." Dr. Vali: There is no point in arguing, Crito. Truly he has gone to walk among the Great Ones... Almohad117 (White Giant) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 04:23 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've been this route with you postmodern 'intellectuals' before, and it always ends up the same way. The argument starts to get close and tight, and you throw up your hands and say "these are complex issues... nobody is right and everybody is right. Anyway I know more than you do so shut up." Archangel1 Monday, January 5, 2009 - 04:36 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do not grieve for the Palestinian civilians, though I do feel sad for them. They had the chance to stand up to Hamas. Israel has sat there for three long years taking rocket fire from terrorists and trying to allow the Palestinian people do the right thing and stop those terrorists. Not only did they not try to stop Hamas, they have provided support to Hamas. Now Israel has had enough. It is sad any of the are killed, but do not grieve as they have chosen their fate. Almohad117 (White Giant) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 04:53 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get your head out of the sand, Archangel. Israel never "sat there" - for two long years it has imposed a strangling blockade on food, medical supplies and other necessaries getting through to the Gaza population, and in spite of this aggressive, terrorist act aimed at a civilian population, Hamas has been extremely restrained in its use of rockets. It was only after the Israeli attack started that the world found out the rockets could reach farther than previously known. If Hamas is so dedicated to violence, what were they waiting for? What's more, Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinians. Israel is in effect saying - and you apparently agree - that they don't have the right to elect the government they want. What is going on in Gaza now is the same attack on a virtually helpless civilian population that the Israelis have been pursuing by other means for years. Váli (Fearless Blue) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 05:06 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Loyalties are often hard to understand, Most germans were not nazis yet thet fought for them. Most palestinians (I hope) dont want war with Israel but they support Hamas. Even though those you call 'your own' are wrong, you would rather side with them, than support your 'enemy'. Until people owe their loyalities to humanity as a whole and not a small sub group we will have these pointless conflicts. Remove Hamas and this problem gets a lot more solvable. Question is do other countries want this problem resolved? Váli (Fearless Blue) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 05:10 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Al, Israel is not attacking the civilian population. If it were the casualties would be in the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands. Hamas hide like all cowardly terrosists in population centers. If the palestianians voted for a party that openely states they want to destroy Irseal they can hardly complain when Israel strikes back. They bought it on themselves. Maybe they will vote for peace next time, but I doubt it. The hate in their hearts is too strong. Almohad117 (White Giant) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 05:31 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Hiding among the civilians" - this is what attackers throughout the ages have always said to justify the brutality of their attacks. And where else are they supposed to go in Gaza? It's one of the most crowded places on earth. Israel isn't attacking civilians?? Then maybe you can tell me what Israel's two-year blockade of medicines and food was intended to do. Who was it aimed at? Who are Israelis after when they destroy the Gaza port and airport, power plants, hospitals, schools, mosques etc. etc? Israeli politicians understand that destroying infrastructure and killing yet more civilians is going to increase Hamas support and militance. Their standard practice is to cut off any possibility of a negotiated compromise by launching attacks whenever the other side starts to talk about it, thereby provoking them to abandon any thought of negotiation and adopt a more militant response. Gush Shalom has already pointed out that every time Hamas rocket attacks decreased, Israel stepped up its own attacks. Hamas founder Sheikh Yassin brought up the possibility of a compromise with Israel and was promptly assassinated by them in 2004. It's to their advantage to cut off any attempt by any Palestinian organization to become more accommodating. That gives them a free hand to use the iron fist on the Palestinians, while the Western media looks on and cheers (accompanied by people like you who really ought to be able to do better). "The hate in their hearts..." I see - so all the Palestinians have is a psychological problem? They can't see things clearly? They need to understand that the F-16 pilots traumatizing their children are people just like they are? Next time they need to vote for the government Israel and the US want them to have. That's all it takes. You're a classic victim-blamer, doctor. FarmerBob Monday, January 5, 2009 - 05:37 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All right, Almohad. I shall pick up the gauntlet. Given the history of the region and the parties involved, the vociferous defense of Palestinean or Israeli actions since the early 1980's is particularly difficult to justify on moral grounds. My own experience in the area left me quite torn with professional sympathy for the Israeli position set against the undeniable evidence that many of their genuine security issues where being exacerbated by their own conduct. The heavy handed tactics of the IDF and security forces in the occupied areas clearly fueled Palestinean resentment and was a direct impediment to lasting political resolution. The Palestinean record of terrorist activities coupled with the fragmentary nature of their internal politics likewise made negotiated settlement highly dubious. The levels of hostility within both populations did not indicate to me that there was a great deal of hope for grass roots pressures on the leadership of either side to pursue meaningful dialogue. The rhetoric rampant through both camps was equally vitriolic and certainly not conducive to peace initiatives. Little has changed since. Attempts at settlement have brought temporary deescalation of the levels of violence, but the core behaviors and attitudes remained undiminished. Israel still seeks military solutions to an inherently political problem. Many Palestineans still embrace an unrealistic position that armed conflict will break Iraeli will to fight and continue to support the most extreme elements of their population. The rest of the Muslim world remains financially aloof from the plight of a large percentage of the Palestinean population who suffer in abject poverty, despite the relatively modest sums it would require to make a large difference in these peoples' lives. Further, Palestinean intrangience and rhetoric makes meaningful Western aid very difficult to justify politically. As Western observers of this gideon's knot, the temptation to intervene with "peacekeepers" and attempt to impose settlement frequently arises. The prospects for the success of such efforts are dismal. Placing foreign troops into this environment is the least likely to yield the desired results. As later experience in the former Yugoslavia reinforced for me the futility of trying to choose sides among equally belligerent adversaries, we Westerners must sometimes acknowledge that some conflicts are beyond mediation and external resolution. Despite the morally ambiguous positions of Israeli and Palestinean alike, this thread is a prime example of the insistence of some to take sides regardless of the evidence. You, Almohad, stridently paint the Palestineans as innocent victims of Israeli oppression, blantantly disregarding the legacy of terror that has been a staple of their tactical arsenal and the hostility and hatred it has fueled within Israeli society. Others vociferously defend Israeli actions as justifiable response to terrorist attacks, blantantly ignoring Israeli disregard of terms of previous settlements as well as tactics virtually guaranteed to reignite Palestinean anger. Anyone who honestly claims to see absolute right and wrong in this conflict must surely possess the wisdom of King Solomon. The actions of both sides have been deplorable; the violations of the terms of settlements egregious. The rational course of action for outside nations is not emotionally satisfying, but the least likely to further contribute to the hostilities. Do nothing but call for both sides to seek peaceful resolution. Peace will be achieved when both parties desire it sufficiently to prevent the extremist elements in their respective populations from violating it. If that opinion and assessment makes me Socrates, pass the hemlock. Váli (Kebir Blue) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 06:14 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With all the death and destruction in this world why does the palestinain question attract so much attention? 400 dead is a drop in the ocean of deaths that occur in africa. Is it because so many hate the jews simply for being jews? How many thousands of africans have islamic militia killed in sudan? Somalia makes gaza look like a holiday camp. Islamic propaganda and anti isreali attitudes turn a realively small local conflict into a global problem. My do muslims hate israel so much? My do they turn a blind eye to the suffering of their own people at the hands of their own leaders just to spite the israelis? The world is a crazy place. FarmerBob Monday, January 5, 2009 - 06:22 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: The world is a crazy place -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 years of military service and prolonged, intimate exposure to many of the world's cultures make me agree with statement completely, Vali. Almohad117 (White Giant) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 07:58 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Omigod - the anti-Semitism gambit. I shouldn't be surprised, except I guess you guys were actually starting to persuade me you had something serious to offer. My mistake. Almohad117 (White Giant) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 08:11 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here are my two cents worth, bearing in mind that I have never stood on the Golan with an Israeli commander etc. etc. and that I'm not a doctor, lawyer, lion tamer, Grand Poobah of the Water Buffaloes or whatever sort of thoroughbred you'd really rather be hearing from right now. Not me. I'm just an ordinary schmuck. But what the hell: en garde anyway. For someone who refers heavily to supposed personal experience in the region (I'll give you the benefit of a doubt since my scepticism seems to get your back up and I scare easily: out of courtesy I'll make Vali a doctor too, though I still have my doubts), your a priori determination to find symmetries between the two sides in this conflict leads you into some tortuous reasoning. Your decision, in the best academic tradition, that both sides must be equally to blame, forces you to adopt a shopping-list approach in which any fault on one side must be counterbalanced by an equal and symmetrical fault on the other side, with the desired final result being that we discover that neither side can be more aggrieved than the other. As a result, the conclusions you reach are only marginally better than what is regularly dished up by the American media by way of 'explanation' for what is going on. This approach, I think, leads you - forces you - to ignore some basics that are simply going to have to be grasped by anyone who genuinely wants to find a solution. Instead you turn away from the problem entirely on the grounds that both sides are up to their necks in blood and should best be left to sort it out themselves. It's just too much of a moral muddle, you tell us, for outsiders like ourselves to be able to properly sort it out. The reason I find this approach lacking is the blatant and overwhelming asymmetry that exists on the ground today, as we speak, between the warring parties, and that likewise colors the history of the conflict. The root cause, the Original Sin, the primum mobile as it were (good one, eh??) is and always has been the Occupation. And the Occupation simply cannot be reduced to an on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand proposition. One of the sides occupied and occupies the territory of the other side. (Vali dismisses the notion that there was anything like 'Palestinian territory' - and hence Palestinian rights of residence - before Israel was established, but this is a trifling objection, and moreover powerfully self-contradictory in someone who supports the Israeli cause.) I'm sorry but no matter through what lens you view the events in Mandate Palestine prior to and during the establishment of the State of Israel, a facile symmetry between the actions and moral or political claims of the two sides, and the results at the end of the day, is massively distorting. One population entered the territory of another and threw it out forcibly. As for the seemingly unkillable canard that the Palestinians left voluntarily or because the armies of neighboring Arab states ordered them to, a post-war internal report from the Haganah (a quasi-official Jewish militia) stated that of 391,000 Palestinians who had fled by June, 1948, some 73 percent had done so in response to Jewish military operations. To quote Israel's first president, David Ben-Gurion, in a conversation with Zionist Nahum Goldmann: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: We have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but 2,000 years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: We have come here and stolen their country." (Reported in Goldmann's book, "The Jewish Paradox.") -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since that event the asymmetry has been maintained and intensified, with Israel wielding absolute military superiority over the Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries (in no small part due to steadfast US military support - the reasons for which Vali likewise confuses), and exercising near-total control over what the Palestinians can and cannot do, where they can and cannot live, when they can and cannot get jobs, food, medical aid and so on. As for the "fragmented nature of their internal politics," your deliberately vague formulation suggests that this fragmentation is somehow entirely their fault, and has nothing to do with the constant attacks by Israel on any authority the Palestinians choose - or have thrust upon them - as part of whatever 'peace deal' is deemed acceptable to Israel and the US at any given time. Sorry, but it just ain't 50-50, Farmer Bob. Stop pretending otherwise: Israel is dominant, the Palestinians thoroughly dominated. The reporting we get in the West is similarly unbalanced. Although on this score the Palestinians can get some measure of fair play, with salutary antidotes to Western pro-Israel bias at least available, though not as readily, through Al-Jazeera and other organs. Of course both sides have engaged in terrorist acts, and while the murder of innocent civilians is a crime by any standards, here too straitjacketing reality into a false symmetry is profoundly distorting. As Noam Chomsky might put it, the difference is between wholesale and retail terror. Israeli terror is exercised on a mass scale and Palestinian terror is exercised on a much smaller, more intimate scale. Granted it doesn't matter much to a victim whether their family is killed by a gunship or a Qassam. But the numbers tell the story, as now in Gaza: 500 Palestinians, 5 Israelis. The thoroughgoing moralist will say it's crass to bandy numbers about such a matter, but I believe they are an important clue about the power available on either side. Look at the distortion required by the Washington Post on December 30 to impose a Farmer-Bob-style symmetry in reporting events in Gaza. On the front page are two pictures. One shows an Israeli woman, described as distraught over Hamas rocket attacks. The other shows a Palestinian mother who has lost a child to the Israeli assault, alongside another child who has been wounded. At the time Gazan casualties were pegged at 350, Israeli casualties at four. I'm sure living under the threat of Qassams is no picnic, and I'd probably piss myself repeatedly, but come on - you call this tit-for-tat?? I could go on (as I'm sure you wish I would) about Israeli destruction of anything resembling a Palestinian civil society, which isn't remotely matched by anything the Palestinians or Arabs could do or have done to Israel. The relentless hunt for symmetry is simply an excuse to throw up one's hands at the whole affair and say "who can say who's guilty or innocent any more? They all have blood on their hands. They'll have to sort it out themselves." To me that attitude of moral relativism is not simply an abdication of the duty to find whatever we can about what is happening in the world: it is also a willing acceptance of a state of ignorance about what is going on, and as such is also an act of complicity in the crimes that must be ignored or diminished in order to produce the bogus "symmetry" that such views are based on. John R Monday, January 5, 2009 - 08:16 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you don't mind, I'll remove those odd symbols from your post. Almohad117 (White Giant) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 08:22 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do!!! Damned if I could figure out why it did that. Thanks. Almohad117 (White Giant) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 08:22 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How did u do that? John R Monday, January 5, 2009 - 08:32 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The current software of the forum doesn't allow special characters. So, when there's a character that doesn't find correspondence here, such as â�¬ (euro sign), or â�� (the quotation mark MS Word uses), we get the those symbols. You probably wrote your post on Word and when you typed ', Word changed it to it's own variant (â��) because of auto-correct. If you notice the bar stating the date of each post, at the end there will be an icon resembling a pad with a pencil. If you click there, you can edit your post. Granted I'm the moderator, I can edit everyone's post, so I just exchanged the quotation marks and dashes to a acceptable sign. Almohad117 (White Giant) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 08:37 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks. I've used that bar a few times to edit my stuff. I did write in Word, as I knew I had a lot to say. Maybe next time I should try Wordpad or some such? Anyway thanks again. John R Monday, January 5, 2009 - 08:43 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes. To use Wordpad or Notepad or to turn off Word's auto-correct will prevent those symbols. No problem. nix001 (Little Upsilon) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 08:50 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Africa it is Army V's Army, country man V's country man. As it is all around the world exept for Palistine. In Palestine its occupation forces V's civilians. Civilians V's the most powerful weapons in the world. This is why it's different. The only way a Palestinian could target a military target was by carrying the bomb to the target themselves. Firing a home made rocket into the general direction of Israel and hitting a school is not targeting. Wake up. How did we end up with a country as hypicritical as America running the show? Do as I say, but not as I do. Be free but on our terms. Why is America not stopping the murder? America is about to go into melt down. With being able to show just how hopeless life can realy be, your rulers hope that you wont feel that life for you is hopeless. As for the Zionists, this ethnic cleansing is being done because: 1) They realy do believe that they are the chosen ones, and like Islamic fundamentalists, have no conscience about taken the lives of the innocent unworthy. They also know that the world has enough problems at the moment, so now would be as good a time as any to break the will of the Palestinian resistance to their unlawful occupation. I've spoken to alot of religious people from all religions. Nearly all speak of the book of revelations. Has anyone thought that Afganistan, Iraq and now Palestine is all a plot by the Fundamental Christians who believe the book of revelations to the point where they are willing to create the reason for the destuction and wars that will create the 1000 years of peace that is promised? But then saying that, for you to think anything other than what your 10 min sound bits say on Fox, BBC, SKY, CNN ect you would have to want to find the truth, which can take you down the road of despair. Alot of you make me feel sick with the thought that you can't bring yourselves to look beyond these 10 min sound bites. But then with alot of you being from America I can understand the reluctance to look at issues of the past. The Past made the Present. The Past and Present make the Future. Miss out the Past and you know nothing of the Present. Wake up America. You created this problem by taking it out of the hands of the British in the Past and by Presently letting Israel do what Germany did. Almohad117 (White Giant) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 10:20 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ben-Gurion was the first PM, not Prez as I said. My bad. Jo Jo Hun (Fearless Blue) Monday, January 5, 2009 - 11:49 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought Almohad started with nothing, but I've got him ahead now, scoring increasingly strongly both on substance and on style. Váli (Fearless Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 02:12 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Israelis occuppied jordanian, egyptian and syrian land. The palestian state has never existed before now. Many countries that exist today do so on occupied land, turkey, america, arab states in north africa etc....these things happen. The weaker party just has to live with it. This is by no means right but its reality. Nix sudan is not army versus army, there is government backed islamic militia against african civilians. It is a totally one sided genocide. For all the bad things israel do, they do not seek genocide. Palestine is the weaker side here, this they need to realise. Firing rockets into isreal is just defeating themselves. Any idiot knows the way to get your way in democracy is to talk the talk. The day Hamas stop attacking Israel is the day Hamas gets past israels military. The world will support a peaceful palestine against an aggressive israel, they will not however support a terrorist state against a largely law abiding state. Hamas has the worlds atttention, fighting now just harms the cause of palestian independence. Remove hamas from power and western aid will flood into palestine. Hamas is the obstacle to peace. The world will make israel except peace if hamas stops attacking israel as they know the conflict fuels world wide terrorism. The way for palestine to win is to stop fighting. 5 Star General (Fearless Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 02:44 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .... Váli (Fearless Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 02:47 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- well said general. All the talk in the world aint going to change a thing. The Grand Poobah Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 03:00 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vali- The U.N has been sending aide to Palestine. Other relief groups as well. However, Isreal has rammed and detoured aide boats into Palestine. Besides. What if someone came to you and said "We're gonna need several acres of your land to put people on. Did I mention they're members of a religion that you don't get along with? did I also mention that you will be the treated like a bag of shit in the mean time? And don't believe you have a say in this." I'd be kinda pissed too. Almohad117 (White Giant) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 03:02 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since when is it reasonable to take the position that the weak must cease resistance while the strong have carte blanche to continue what they're doing? Why is the resistance of the weak made out to be the main obstacle to a just solution? Have you even remotely considered that perhaps the stronger side should stop its attacks if peace is to have a chance? What prevents this idea from entering your head? Have you ever considered that the occupier should perhaps give up its occupation if it expects those fighting against occupation to lay down their arms? Why do we never hear these thought from you, Vali? Why do we instead hear you lecturing the weak that "these things happen" and they "have to live with it"? Why do you expect and demand that the Palestinians should do what no oppressed people in history has ever done? What kind of warped sensibility solemnly declares that resistance to repression is a bigger problem than the repression itself? How can you glibly accept the crimes of the powerful as "just the way it is" while insisting that the resistance of the victims - equally inevitable - is the true problem? What planet do you live on, Vali? And what kind of planet would you be living on where anyone stronger than you could do whatever they wanted to you and your only recourse would be to lie down and take it until some kind-hearted third parties made them stop? Presumably without actually forcibly restraining them, since I imagine you would consider this to be continuing the cycle of violence - so maybe by joining hands in a large circle and singing cum-bai-ya until your attacker gets bored or everyone realizes you're dead and leaves...? Since it's now firmly established beyond all reasonable doubt that you are indeed a doctor who patches up the victims of suicide bombers, let me restate the thought that your empty, twisted views are probably your way of making sure you're never out of work... No? Then explain, Vali, if you can. Explain how that mind of yours works these things out! Váli (Fearless Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 03:10 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I for one do not judge people my religion colour nationlaity etc. Only by their actions. I am a minority in my own country, but I am free to do as I wish within the law. Same as everybody else. You are naive to think 'aid' goes to those in need. First in line are the power player in hamas etc..Its the same all over the world. Aid just keeps bad cycles going round. Targeted development in peaceful countries gets results. Not misplaced sympathy. The day the palestians start building their own future is the day they will get a future. Supporting Hamas just keeps them where they are. Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 03:20 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I smell Marxist Dogma at work. Yep. Ok back to arguing. Almohad117 (White Giant) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 03:21 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A beautiful moment on BBC today. The Israel rep to the UN or some such is being interviewed and is insisting that Hamas rockets must stop before a ceasefire can take place, yada yada yada. The interviewer jumps in: "but this would be inconvenient for you, wouldn't it? Because if Hamas stopped firing rockets, you'd have to stop your attacks?" Priceless. I actually yelled out "Alright!" It's so great to see Israeli diplomats, who usually get such an easy ride in the media, actually facing a real, tough question. It reminded me of Soviet parliamentarians squirming uncomfortably as they were asked pointed questions by Russian journalists emboldened by the spread of 'glasnost' in the Soviet Union. Of course the moment won't last, and once Israel decides it's wasted enough civilians and allows a ceasefire everything will go back to the status quo ante, media-wise at least. But it's nice to see Israel getting a bit of actual heat, even if only briefly. We sure as hell don't get that from our media on this side of the pond! It was also good to see (well, not really) that the BBC have a producer inside Gaza who was able to take us inside a Gaza hospital and blow apart the Israeli BS about there being no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. (Hmm, I wonder if that hospital is still standing... no matter, since they're all basically out of supplies and pretty soon will be nothing more than morgues anyway.) And no, Vali, if Hamas rockets stopped, peace would not suddenly break out. The value of the interviewer's question was that it at long last exposed Israel's vested interest in provoking and increasing Hamas militance. A vested interest that is especially strong now, considering that what they're doing to the Gazans is simply an extension of the Israeli election campaign. Almohad117 (White Giant) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 03:24 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Always ready with a name, JB. You know, if you ran up a flag that said "OUT OF IDEAS" it would actually be more subtle. Váli (Fearless Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 03:29 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AL...please. To win a fight you only fight against those you can beat. The Palestinians can not defeat israel militarily. The way for palestinians to be free is to stop fighting. Israel does not occupy palestine because palestine does not exist! It has never existed. It is a region not a country. Gaza and the west bank are former areas of jordan and egypt. The palestians have a chance now for their own country. Stop attacking israel and israel will be made to tow the line. People have to live with it because they die if they do not. The strong have always taken from the weak. Its reality al not right or wrong just reality. I live on a planet where the strong rule over the weak. Eurpoean settlers defeated the native americans to form america. The turkish defeated the byzantians to form turkey. The arabs defeated the africans to form the north african countries. Russia, australia, china, all the south american countries...need I go on? The strong rule this world. The losers adapt or die. The palestians can have their own country if they stop supporting Hamas. The day palestian is free from Hamas is the day they start building the future. You wont like it AL but its the easiest way forward. Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 03:34 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have an idea. Pave Gaza over. It would make a nice parking lot. Problem solved. But it would mean less Neo-Marxist posers arguing passionately over a region they could not walk the streets in alone without being a target for kidnapping or execution. I am going to watch Jihad Mickey again..... That always makes me laugh. Almohad117 (White Giant) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 03:35 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- News flash for Vali: Israel has blockaded humanitarian supplies from Gaza for 18 months. They only lifted the blockade (partially) a day before their attacks. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you'd blame Hamas and the Palestinians for this too. But dammit, I keep hoping. I'm pullin' for ya, buddy, I really am... we'll de-program you yet. Put on another pot of coffee, doctor. Incidentally, the Geneva Convention defines such a blockade as an act of war. So this great 'truce' and 'ceasefire' that everyone says was broken by Hamas was in fact a situation where one side pursued aggression while the other side was expected to keep its hands in its pockets. Hey Vali, that's just the kind of thing you think we all need more of in this world, isn't it? I guess that it must have been a good time for you while it lasted! Almohad117 (White Giant) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 03:37 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And so Channel JB is formally off the air. He was just calling them in at the end there anyway. FarmerBob Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 03:39 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was thinking more Leninist, Sam.LOL Thank God, we have such an enlightened Google intellectual to educate us poor, ignorant souls. I never realized how apparently simple it is to establish moral superiority through Diktat. One only need ignore any fact which doesn't fit into one's preconceived notion. Ah. The logic of the dialectic is alive and well. Váli (Fearless Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 03:40 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No cars in Gaza, they have all been blown up. Rumour is due to declining sales and the threat of car manufactures going out of business in the US, George W asked the israleis to increase the demand for cars by taking out the palestians cars. Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 03:41 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I did not want to break in on the preaching. I can almost see you foaming at the mouth at the incredulous insult that knuckledraggers don't understand the whole big picture of South-West Asia as well as you. Lulz. Váli (Fearless Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 03:45 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Remove Hamas and you remove Israels excuse. Simple enough for you AL? Almohad117 (White Giant) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 05:02 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh, it's so much more than merely "simple enough," Dr. Vali. "It's all the Palestinians' fault." "It's all the Palestinians' fault." "It's all the Palestinians' fault." "It's all the Palestinians' fault." "It's all the Palestinians' fault." "It's all the Palestinians' fault." "It's all the Palestinians' fault." Almohad117 (White Giant) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 05:11 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow - I think I could get the hang of that. And I bet it's just as insightful and pertinent the millionth time as it is the first time. It obviously works for you! The Grand Poobah Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 05:59 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What really makes this situation dumb is that innocent people die. In every war, corrupt gov't lead their poor people to war over dumb, greedy reasons. This always results in innocent deaths. It's honestly sad. Who do you blame when all parties are at fault. Almohad117 (White Giant) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 06:11 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ask Dr. Vali - he blames the victims. "It's all the Palestinians' fault." "It's all the Palestinians' fault." "It's all the Palestinians' fault." "It's all the Palestinians' fault." "It's all the Palestinians' fault." "It's all the Palestinians' fault." "It's all the Palestinians' fault." Mmmm... I wish I'd known about this before. It's so darn easy on the grey matter. I can actually do a crossword puzzle and watch Jihad Johanas at the same time! Almohad117 (White Giant) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 02:55 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm so sorry: that's a really crude statement of Vali's views. Of course he believes everyone is a victim, so the way I stated it is actually very sloppy. Apologies. A more accurate statement would be as follows: Everyone is a victim. But some victims are more victimized than others. Some of them way, way more. If you want to find out who is to blame, simply find these victims, the ones who are getting the absolute worst of it, have the least to do with starting things and the least power to stop things. Apply blame right between the eyes, with both barrels. If blame isn't your thing, and you're very, very easy to entertain, watch Rihab Sickey and make jokes about the plight of the worst off while yelling "Nazis! Marxists!" over and over again at anyone who behaves differently. If you're above it all, just refuse to engage with the topic entirely, since reality would be sullied by any attempt to understand it or describe it. Walk away - but not too far that you can't make your own biases known while you pretend not to be dirtied by having any biases. If someone gets a little too up close and personal, say "you know nothing! We are doctors, lawyers, smart college kids and ex-military men! You are unfit to converse with us: begone!" There are other ways to approach the topic, but they don't seem very important now, do they? Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 04:27 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Or we can just laugh at your pompous ,aggrandizing, posts. Either way its all good. Váli (Little Upsilon) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 04:33 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Al, you seem to take this very personnaly. Are you palestinian? My opinion is that Hamas is most to blame. The IDF obviously use too much force in attacking Hamas, but thats what years of conflict do to you. The average palestinain probably does not think too highly of israel and see Hamas as away of striking back at Israel and the great satan. Peace will only come about if there is a ceasefire from both sides..no doubt a few will continue to fight on both sides. The peaceful will have to overcome these. Removing Hamas is in my opinion the quickest way to a ceasefire. The Isrealis try to do this by force, the palestinians will resist. The average palestinian will have to realsie Hamas is the root of their problem, and the Israelis will have to change a few of the generals in charge for less militant ones. Both sides will need to change, A change in Hamas will be the trigger for change on both sides. Almohad117 (White Giant) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 05:07 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Laugh, JB, laugh - dance with the lady that brung you, after all. That and coming up with new names to yell. Marxist, Nazi, anti-Semite, pompous, aggrandizing (?) - indeed, it's all good. Very, very good. Never been better. Now, off you go - I think I hear Bibab Schmeagol calling. Okay Vali - let's see: the IDF uses too much force, but hey, it's not really their fault because they've faced "years of conflict" (I love how neutral that sounds, but anyway...) so they have an excuse not to change. Hamas uses way less force, and has also been "conditioned by years of conflict" but they are not to claim that as an excuse for anything. They're the main problem and will simply have to change. Are you telling me there's no contradiction there? nix001 Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 05:53 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Almohad. Nice to see your still resisting. If you are an American I apologize if anything that I have said has offended you. Vali, you said 'Remove Hamas and you remove Israels excuse.' Did you know that Israel supported Hamas to weaken Fata back in the day? You also said, 'A change in Hamas will be the trigger for change on both sides.' Your right there, Israel will be able to land grab without resistance and the Palistinians will end up in the refugee camps in Lebanon. You asked Almohad if he was a Palestinian. I wonder if you are a Zionist? Johanas Bilderburg AKA SAM. What is it with you with writing something yet saying nothing? You did the same in the Enviromental and UN threads. Are you in training to be a Joker? Anyway, how can Tank, Artillery and cluster bombs be classed as precision targeting? Almohad117 (White Giant) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 06:32 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks nix. Good to see you: fight the good fight! The Palestinians can't fight back against the Israelis so the least we can do is keep Israel's apologists in their verbal bunkers. Or in JB/Sam's case, wandering around in no-man's-land in some sort of neuroleptic state... Good point about Israel helping Hamas build up in the early days as a counterweight to Fatah. Same as the US helping the Taliban against the USSR in Afghanistan. These critters always slip the leash eventually! I'm not American, so no worries. And there's plenty of Americans who say way worse about the US than you or I do. Same as there are Israelis who criticize Israel way more strongly than I would ever dare to. Frankly, I'm still a bit scared about the anti-Semite bomb that gets thrown at critics of Israel. So far, though, only Sam has tossed that one, and that's clearly the fault of the mother ship he gets his orders from, not him. Vali did bring it up, but kind of indirectly, and I have to say Farmer B hasn't trotted it out yet. Maybe his stockpile of actual arguments isn't quite depleted yet. Or maybe he's just genuinely better than that. Speaking of depleted, apparently the Israelis are using white phosphorus and depleted uranium in Gaza now. I guess that's no surprise. But just imagine the reaction of the world if Hamas put that stuff in their Qassam rockets! I think we'd see mushroom clouds over Gaza for sure. One more tidbit: BBC spoke to a doctor in a Hamas hospital yesterday and he said that of the hundreds of injured he had seen, two were Hamas fighters. So I bet the civilian casualty figures we're getting now are way understated. BorderC (Kebir Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 06:42 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- White Phosporous and Depleted Uranium are pretty common. As an ex-mortarman we used WP very often for smoke. Depleted Uranium is used in armor, mostly Abrams Tanks. I don't know how it is used in weapons... "BBC spoke to a doctor in a Hamas hospital yesterday and he said that of the hundreds of injured he had seen, two were Hamas fighters. So I bet the civilian casualty figures we're getting now are way understated." Or the doctor exaggerated/lied. There's always that option. I don't pretend to know much about this conflict, but exaggerating civilian casualties is a pretty common tactic. There's always room for some skepticism. Almohad117 (White Giant) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 06:50 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For sure we have to be skeptical. As we have to be skeptical of the claims we're getting now. And frankly I'm putting way more faith in a doctor who isn't even Palestinian and obviously came to Gaza and put his life at risk to help others, and sees the casualties face to face, than I'm putting in the word of the Israelis who are overflying some hundreds of feet in the air and at high speed. Until we know for sure, I think that past civilian death counts in Israeli operations should also be taken as at least a rough guide to what we can expect this time around. Also some intuition can be exercised to estimate how much 'precision' the Israelis can employ (that's assuming they want to - again, skepticism is well justified) in using weapons of mass destruction in one of the most crowded places on earth. Almohad117 (White Giant) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 06:54 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WP is used for smoke but is also highly toxic. Whether or not it's common is really beside the point. http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/dts/docs/detwp.pdf For those of you watching footage of Gaza, those puffs of smoke that then send tendrils down to the ground and look spiderlike are 'deployments' of WP. nix001 Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 06:54 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BC. 'Depleted Uranium is used in armor, mostly Abrams Tanks. I don't know how it is used in weapons...' It is used in the tips to make the bang that little bit bigger. The Yanks used them in Iraq. It also causes cancers and leukemia, which on a battlefield would be no problem, but in populated area's it sticks to the dust and buildings and like all nuclear material, will stay around for generations. BorderC (Kebir Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 07:03 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since when did Hamas worry about civilian casualties anyways? What are suicide bombers for? Killing mostly civilians, correct? What moral difference is there between Israel killing civilians to get to Hamas and Hamas hiding behind civilians to get Israel? I think I've expressed my opinion on this trhead or another that I believe that the Palestinians have a legitimate beef with the Israelis. But, if they want to bring it to war, then they should be willing to suffer any consequences. They want to be martyrs, then bloody let them. There won't be a "civilized" war. When has there EVER been one? The problem with this war is that the world won't let either side bring it to final resolution, so it drags on. Sorry, if all of these points have been made previously but I'm not reading this entire arguement. It's far too long. BC Almohad117 (White Giant) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 07:04 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The depleted uranium hardens the metal, right? nix001 Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 07:08 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BC. Wrong. Suicide bombers are the only way they can hit a military target. Due to the crude devices thay can go off without the bomber wanting them too. Hence the civilian casualties. If they had F16's, they would have no need to use suicide bombers. If they had cruise missiles they would have no need to use rockets that cannot be aimed. BorderC (Kebir Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 07:08 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "WP is used for smoke but is also highly toxic. Whether or not it's common is really beside the point." It'll chemically burn the everliving shit out of you! And it wasn't "beside the point". You said that if Hamas used it then there would be "mushroom clouds over Gaza for sure". That's BS BECAUSE it IS commonly used. nix: "It is used in the tips to make the bang that little bit bigger." Cool. Thanks. nix001 Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 07:13 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'And it wasn't "beside the point". You said that if Hamas used it then there would be "mushroom clouds over Gaza for sure". That's BS BECAUSE it IS commonly used.' Does Hamas use it? That is what Almohad is getting at. BorderC (Kebir Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 07:14 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "BC. Wrong. Suicide bombers are the only way they can hit a military target. Due to the crude devices thay can go off without the bomber wanting them too. Hence the civilian casualties." Strangely enough many of their targets have not been military but civilian. I don;t know how it is in Israel, but I doubt they hae military installations in crowded markets, buses, hotels, etc. There are some pretty clear things about this conflict. Israel has done some bad shit and Hamas has done some bad shit. Let's not try and ignore/misrepresent/change the facts. I'm not trying to defend Israel. I'd love to see them go at it in a real war. I don't care who wins. It just keeps dragging it on because of the peace efforts! BorderC (Kebir Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 07:16 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does Hamas use it? That is what Almohad is getting at. No, but the fact that they are a commonly used military weapon leads to a VERY reasonable conclusion that there would be no retaliation against the enemy using it, ESPECIALLY one of nuclear proportions. That's my point and it seems pretty clear to me. nix001 Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 07:21 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who uses them? There was an out cry when the Yanks used them in Iraq. They are dirty bombs. As I said, If Hamas had F16's, they would have no need to use suicide bombers. If they had cruise missiles they would have no need to use rockets that cannot be aimed. They would be able to defend themselves. Creating a situation where Hamas could have military bases outside residential areas. (Do you know how small Gaza is?) Dood, they are not even allowed an army. They build their rocket, go into a field and fire it. Same as what did the French resistance did against the occupation forces of Germany. I bet the Germans called The French resistance terrorists aswell. John R Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 07:27 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why, that's a brilliant idea, Nix. Why didn't we supply Palestine with F16s? We are so stupid. But why give F16s, when we can give them a nuclear weapon? If they blow eachother out of the map, this will be all over and I can resume picking daisies. Quit filling the CIA's shoes, Nix. Whenever someone tries to balance one side in war by supplying technology, that always curbs the wrong way. For the record, this conflict interests me little. nix001 Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 07:28 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I doubt Israel would do what it's doing if the Palistinians could fight back. Anyway, up until the around the 1960's, the forces of Israel where classed by Britain and many other countries around the world as Terrorists. Yet the Yanks gave them weapons. BorderC (Fearless Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 07:30 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't have a problem with what you've just said. Give them an army, give them F16s, and give them as many fields and rockets as they need. Just let them fight it out until the end. But, the issue was civilian casualties. I said that Hamas doesn't have much ground to stand on when it comes to condemning civilian casualties when they directly target civilians with their suicide bombs. Doesn't matter what weapons they use. Even if they only have crude bombs to use why does that give them the right to kill civilians? If they want to fight the way they do, then fine. But they bear an equal responsibility of their own civilian casualties. nix001 Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 07:33 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who has told you that they target civilians? 90% of Israels men/women are soldiers, even when they are not playing soldiers. The occupation directly targets civilians, as do the blockades and everything else the UN has drafted in their resolutions against Israel which have beed vetoed by the US. Unlike every other conflict where civilians can leave the area, in Gaza they have no where to go. Why has'nt Israel opened up the borders to let out children and women? BorderC (Fearless Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 07:35 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Who uses them? There was an out cry when the Yanks used them in Iraq. They are dirty bombs." Are you talking about WP? That's not a dirty bomb. It's usually used in a mortar or artillery round for signaling, primarily. It can cause serious/fatal chemical burns as well..... but it's a weapon... they injure/kill. There hasn't been any outcry over WP. I think you have it confused. BorderC (Fearless Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 07:37 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "90% of Israels men/women are soldiers, even when they are not playing soldiers." Ok, well this conversation is obviously over... We have some serious bias going on. nix001 Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 07:39 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, depleated Urainium. All, except the too old and too young, are soldiers. You don't even give a shite about this conflict. Get interested, learn some facts and then maybe you will see whats going on. Hamas build a rocket, go into a field and fire it. Same as what the French resistance did against the occupation forces of Germany. I bet the Germans called The French resistance terrorists aswell. Up until the around the 1960's, the forces of Israel where classed by Britain and many other countries around the world as Terrorists. BorderC (Little Upsilon) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 08:01 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "No, depleated Urainium." Ah, Ok. But I didn't have much to say about DU except that I didn't know how it was used in weapons. Nothing to argue. "90% of Israels men/women are soldiers, even when they are not playing soldiers." "All, except the too old and too young, are soldiers." Ok, how's this one for you: "90% of Hamas have AIDS and are trying to spread it to the Israelis to wipe out the race." or "88.3666 (repeating)% of Hamas practice pedastry." Can you deny that with FACT? We can do this all day long. Sticking a percentage next to a statement doesn't make it true. Do you REALLY think I'm going to argue about whether 90% of Israeli's are soldiers? A great majority may have served at some point because of compulsary service but that doesn't mean they're still soldiers. You're showing blind bias and there isn't much I can say to refute made up numbers. "Hamas build a rocket, go into a field and fire it. Same as what the French resistance did against the occupation forces of Germany. I bet the Germans called The French resistance terrorists aswell." I think I said that I don't have a problem with that. No need to bring it up again. nix001 (Kebir Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 08:07 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chill out BC. You said 'this conversation is obviously over' I replied to your question and the rest was for everyone else. 'A great majority may have served at some point because of compulsary service but that doesn't mean they're still soldiers.' They are at times of war. BorderC (Kebir Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 08:12 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I felt I needed to explain my point. It's not very respectful to "conclude a conversation" without at least explaining why. That was my fault. But you're right. I do care little about this conflict, I do need to learn facts. Unfortunately that will be near impossible with all of the BS, from all sides, floating around. BC nix001 (Kebir Blue) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 09:02 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know Bro. But if you watch All news channels, listen to All radio talk and phone in shows, use All means of getting info, you can get a round about grasp on whats going on. I've been following this conflict for years, even more so when I realised just how much of a role Britain has had in this conflict. I know I have a responsability for the actions of my past governments. While sitting one night outside the Damascus Gate of the Old City of Jerusalem I was challenged by a Palestinian who was angry about what's going on in Palestine. I told him that I accept reponsability for the actions of my people and that if he wishes to slay me I would be all too willing to allow him to do so. I bowed my head and he walked off. All most want is a return to the 1966 borders, A land to call their own and freedom to live their lives. The way I see it is that unless the governments who created the State of Israel enforce the rules of it's creation. And the governments that back Israel reel them in. There will be no peace. And every day there is blood shed, it will be mine and your hands that are covered in the blood of the innocent. Almohad117 (White Giant) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 11:20 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Apparently there actually was an outcry (well, as much of an outcry as 'good guys' like Israel or the US ever have to face for anything they do) over the US using WP in Iraq. Depleted uranium too, of course, but there was a kerfuffle over the use of WP in their attack on Fallujah (and no, I'm not confusing this with Saddam Hussein's alleged massacres in Fallujah years before). The US military first said they used WP just for screening smoke, the way BorderC explained. Then they said they fired it to provide illumination at night (which seems to me to be an odd use for a smoke device, but maybe BorderC can tell us more about this). Ultimately when the UK newspaper The Independent presented evidence that they had used it for its toxic, anti-personnel properties, the US military took back its previous stories and said "well, yes, but we only targeted fighters with it." From the way we can see the stuff going in over Gaza, this is a pretty dubious statement. The stuff 'pops' above ground and showers down over a wide area. As the Israelis use it anyway. Pretty hard to call that precision targeting. But then I've never fired it or tried to run away from it. Maybe it only seeks out people with "too much hate in their hearts"? As part of the controversy, here's a description from the magazine Field Artillery where some of the US soldiers involved in the Fallujah episode described their use of WP: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions . . . and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against insurgents in trench lines and spider holes . . . We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents using WP to flush them out and high explosive shells (HE) to take them out." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BorderC (Little Upsilon) Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 11:50 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If they are using WP on civilians, then yes, that's bad. But, how is it different than HE? It's as precise as any indirect projectile is. Moreso now that it is computerized. It doesn't rain on people... it's a cloud. That's why it can be used for screening. Most of it goes up in the air and eventually dissipates. Do you think they would prefer HE instead? And we never used WP for illumination. There are illumination rounds for that. Though, there are still reasons to screen at night. Especially in the desert. Váli (Fearless Blue) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 12:09 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depleted uranium is used to penertrate armoured vehicles, as Hamas dont have these I pressume the isrealis wont use any/many. Depleted uranium does not make bangs bigger, it is a very dense material that is better able to penertrate armour than steel. They may well use it to attack bunkers etc. Terrorist use child to carry suicide bomb...no complaints...israeli kills a child and we have screams of complaint. Both sides are of course wrong but please dont forget hamas etc have little reguard for life and are more than able to parade dead children for the sake of good PR and then go and strap a bomb to one. My saving israel uses too much force, I mean the US army I hope would not target the enemy with indirct shell if they are next to a school but use more precise force such as a sniper..the isralis will however just bomb them and civilian casualites are excepted. they have become desensitised to war. Hamas however will deliberaly target civilians to cause terror. Without Hamas Israel would have no justification to contiune their actions, they would have to withdraw. The US would not be able to continue to support them. The Grand Poobah (Golden Rainbow) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 12:27 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- prophecy prevents peace. Christians and Muslims are so wrapped up in there dogmatic belief system that they forget the truths. In both religions, killing of one's own kind is explicetely shunned. Thus, there are other evils at play. Greed, ignorance, hatred and suffering. Untill there is a social maturation, war will never end. Gaius Brutus (Little Upsilon) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 02:22 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Its all Hamas fault because they decided to attack Israel and publicly told everyone about it. Soooo duh none of this is Israels fault. Yall must of forgot in war there are no rules. The citizens of Gaza new that Hamas was gonna attack Israel they could of left then before the attacks dduuuhhhhhhhh!!!!! I appluad Israel for their decision to invade. They have taken alot of crap from Palestians in the area. Especially back in 1960. I can't wait until Obama becomes the official president cause when he does and decides to send Marines out there to help Israel, I'll be one of the first to sign up. FYI, when God sent out his armies to conquere a city they would either burn the whole city to the ground with everyone still inside burning to death. THERES NO SUCH THING AS MERCY IN WAR!!!!! IF YOU DON"T WANT TO DIE THEN GET OUT OF THE WAY!!! MOVING FROM ONE PLACE TO THE OTHER DOESN'T ANY MONEY ALL YOU NEED IS YOUR LEGS AND FEET AND ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO TAKE WITH YOU DUUUUHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! Almohad117 (White Giant) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 02:45 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Terrorists use children to carry suicide bombs - no complaint. Israelis kill a child and we have screams of complaint." ???? The whole world denounces Hamas terror. It's Israeli terror that passes with little or no comment. It's only finally getting a bit of attention right now because they've really outdone themselves in brutality and bloodshed. (A UN school - keep up the good work guys!) Man, the world condemns Hamas even for stuff it does NOT do, for example breaking the recent ceasefire. Israel broke it, not Hamas. But Israel's PR machine is so deeply entrenched, especially in the US where the Israeli view dominates all the media, that you never hear anyone articulate this simple truth. On BBC's "HardTalk" today, for example, they "grilled" the Israeli ambassador to the UK. The host did manage to give the guy a genuinely hard time, which was nice to see, but he made no comment when the ambassador blamed Hamas for unilaterally breaking the truce. Israel has managed to get this lie universally accepted. I don't call that anti-Israel bias. You "presume Israel won't use depleted uranium" because Hamas has no armored vehicles. But depleted uranium has other effects besides easing the penetration of armor. Don't forget it's radioactive. Iraqis are still suffering the effects of US depleted uranium munitions. Let me ask you something. You say that without Hamas, Israel would have no excuse to continue the attack. Okay then: so why can't it work the other way around? Why shouldn't Israel stop its attacks and leave Hamas with no pretext for firing rockets? Shouldn't that work just as well according to you? Grand Poobah: I agree. Religion is BS. Worse than BS, it's a major problem standing in the way of human advancement. Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 02:56 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bibab Schmeagol? She is a topless dancer I think... Anyway I went and had a great day working outdoors and it looks like you gentlemen had a great Left wing mutual masturbation session. Anything solved? No? I am shocked! I expected a grand peace plan when I returned. Gaius Brutus (Little Upsilon) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 03:00 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only way Hamas will stop firing rockets in Israel is if THERE IS NO ISRAEL!!! Don't yall get it. Its in the Quaran, ALL MUSLIMS WANT ISRAEL TO BE GONE. NOT ONLY THAT BUT ALL JEWS MUST DIE ALSO. THATS WHAT THE QUARAN TEACHES. If I'm not mistaken. Without religion why are we alive then? We didn't just appeared hear. Váli (Fearless Blue) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 03:21 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The grand peace plan as you requested.... 1) Al and I shall agree to differ. 2) Al will deactivate the suicide bombing kids and send them back to school. 3) I will stop bombing said schools to take out the future bomber recruits. 4) Al shall research depleted uranium and discover its very limited radioactivity. 5) Al shall realise Hamas seeks Israels distruction and needs no excuse to attack israel. Its mere existance is reason enough. 6) I shall except some israelis are in fact Hamas agents that have infiltrated the IDF with the aim of provocing the conflict via indiscriminate attacks on Gaza. 7) Gaius brutus enters reconditioning to deprogramme his anti islamic views. 8) Johanas posts video of bibab schmeagol so we can assess the validity of her pressumed occupation. Almohad117 (White Giant) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 03:22 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Its all Hamas fault because they decided to attack Israel and publicly told everyone about it. Soooo duh none of this is Israels fault. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I honestly thought you were being sarcastic, GB, because that's such a load of bullshit... All I can say is, another buddy for Farmer Bob and Vali!! Almohad117 (White Giant) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 03:25 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bebop Schmeagol is a he, not a she. Take a walk on the wild side... Almohad117 (White Giant) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 03:26 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It's in the Quran - all Muslims want Israel to be gone." Man, this guy is gooood....! Almohad117 (White Giant) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 03:31 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Very limited radioactivity" - whatever. Enough to generate cancer clusters around the sites where depleted uranium munitions were used, not only in Iraq but also in the Balkans. Peace, man. But no way am I sending my kiddies to school after what happened today. Almohad117 (White Giant) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 03:33 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ("A great day working outdoors" - I think this is what he says when the boys in the white coats come calling. But nobody say anything... shhh....) Hi, Jaybeeeee!! Love youuuuuu! Johanas Bilderburg Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 03:39 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: The whole world denounces Hamas terror -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Really? Lets rework that into something more truthful, less Chomsky. The whole world denounces the response to Hamas terror Váli (Little Upsilon) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 03:41 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depleted uranium has a very low radiaoactivity al. You could surround yourself in the stuff and not suffer any radioactive damage to your body. Trust me I am a Dr ;-) Almohad117 (White Giant) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 04:31 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sure thing, JB. Everyone hates Israel. That's why no one mentions the fact that Israel maintained a crippling blockade of Gaza for almost two years - a literal act of war, as defined by international convention. Tell me where you hear the world crying about that because I'd be interested to know. And where in any major media are you going to find out that once the "truce" was established, Hamas scrupulously observed it, firing no rockets even though the Israeli blockade continued to destroy Palestinian life, and only fired rockets again once Israel itself broke the truce with an incursion into Gaza that killed several Palestinians. You heard choruses of criticism when Israel did these things?? And now everyone, everywhere, including people who consider themselves critical thinkers, accepts as "fact" the Israeli lies that Hamas was responsible for breaking the truce. Hamas gets blamed even for crimes it doesn't commit, while Israel doesn't get blamed for the ones it does, unless the really go over the top the way they are now in Gaza. (Even now they're getting off lightly.) Vali - maybe you're right. But the issue of cancers caused by depleted uranium was raised in the aftermath of US operations in the Balkans and Iraq, by doctors like you, it wasn't dreamed up by righto-lefto-Marxo-Nazo crazies like me (hi Jaybeeee!) Maybe the problem was the long exposure periods that occurred when DU fragments were lying around in urban areas? Almohad117 (White Giant) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 04:33 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: A 1991 study by the UK Atomic Energy Authority predicted that if less than 10 percent of the particles released by depleted uranium weapons used in Iraq and Kuwait were inhaled it could result in as many as "300,000 probable deaths." The British estimate assumed that the only radioactive ingredient in the bombs dropped on Iraq was depleted uranium. It wasn't. A new study of the materials inside these weapons describes them as a "nuclear cocktail," containing a mix of radioactive elements, including plutonium and the highly radioactive isotope uranium-236. These elements are 100,000 times more dangerous than depleted uranium. ... Doug Rokke, the health physicist for the US Army who oversaw the partial clean up of depleted uranium bomb fragments in Kuwait, is now sick. His body registers 5,000 times the level of radiation considered "safe". He knows where to place the blame. "There can be no reasonable doubt about this," Rokke recently told British journalist John Pilger. "As a result of heavy metal and radiological poison of DU, people in southern Iraq are experiencing respiratory problems, kidney problems, cancers. Members of my own team have died or are dying from cancer." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Almohad117 (White Giant) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 04:44 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Depleted uranium (DU) is a waste product of the uranium enrichment process that fuels both our nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear power programs. In fact, over 99% of the uranium enrichment process results in this waste product, which has a half life of 4.5 billion years. DU is both a toxic heavy metal and a radiological poison. The U.S. currently has over 10 million tons of DU. As we all know, the disposal of nuclear waste is one of the unintended consequences or blowback of the development of nuclear power. A solution to the problem of DU has, however, been found. DU is now used in virtually every weapon employed by the U.S. in Iraq (and in Afghanistan and in Kosovo). To cite the most conspicuous example: every penetrator rod in the shell shot from an Abrams tank contains 10 pounds of DU. DU is selected for weapons for three reasons: it's cheap (was made available to arms manufacturers free of charge and is easy to develop); it's heavy, 1.7 times the density of lead and thus most effective at killing because it penetrates anything it hits; it's pyrophoric, igniting and burning on contact with air and breaking up on contact with its target into extremely small particles of radioactive dust dispersed into the atmosphere. The result: permanent contamination of air, water, and soil. DU was first used by the U.S. in Desert Storm. The amount used was between 315-350 tons. Five times as much was used during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Over a third of the U.S. soldiers who served in the first Gulf War are now permanently disabled. VA reports indicate 27,571 U.S. soldiers already disabled from the current war and occupation.. The Department of Energy and the Department of Defense of course continue to deny that DU has any harmful effects. A U.N. sub-commission on Human Rights has ruled that DU, which fits the definition of a "dirty bomb," is an illegal weapon. Huge chunks of radioactive debris full of DU now litter the cities and countryside of Iraq. Fine radioactive dust permeates the entire country. The problem of clean-up is insoluble. The entire ecosystem of Iraq is permanently contaminated. The Iraq people are the new hibakusha. Their fate, like that of the "survivors" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is a condition of death-in-life. The long term health effects of DU on the Iraqui people (and on our own troops) are incalculable. There is no mask or protective clothing that can be devised to prevent radioactive dust from entering the lungs or penetrating the skin. Moreover, DU targets the DNA and the Master Code (histone), altering the genetic future of exposed populations. Because it is the perfect weapon for delivering nanoparticles of poison, radiation, and nano-pollution directly into living cells, DU is the perfect weapon for extinguishing entire populations. The Iraqi's are not alone. Vast regions of the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Balkans have been permanently contaminated with radioactive dust and debris. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: "Weapons of Mass Destruction Found in Iraq," by Walter Davis, 2005 Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 04:59 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obviously from the numbers of rockets fired not crippling enough. If I were advising the Israeli government I would suggest a much harsher blockade. Nothing in or out. And whoever said these were fireworks is an idiot. A 42 pound warhead will take down a medium sized building. Váli (Fearless Blue) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 05:18 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I prefer to obtain my information from published scientific reports rather than controversial books. Uranium is easily removed from the body. over 90% of uranium taken into the body is excreted in urine within a day. The actual amount of DU absoped by people in the war zone is small. Long term exposure i.e months or years to large amounts of DU dust may and I say may result in some health problems. Most of which are soon overcome. Certainly not on the grand scales above. Soldiers with DU scrapnel in the bodies have not been observed to suffer from any DU related illnesses. Information can be presented to lead you to false conclusions. your referal to a 1991 study is misleading 'could' and 'probable' actually turns out to be exceedingly rare. The basic science in your above quote is flawed. 'Master code (histone)' even this basic science is wrong. histones are proteins and contain no genetic information. I would not beleive a word this writer tells you. Illness in soldiers from the gulf war are most likely linked to the cocktail of drugs they were given not DU. Almohad117 (White Giant) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 06:48 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay Vali - you win on the science of DU, even though what you say seems at variance with the views given by Doug Rokke in the first quote. Anyway we still have the statement that the UN has declared DU an illegal weapon. Maybe "could" and "probable" are good enough for them? Or is this statement false? JB: I called Qassams glorified fireworks. Which they are compared to what Israel is using. Twenty Israelis have been killed by rockets fired from Gaza since 2001, or about 1/100th the number of Palestinians killed by Israel in that time. And these numbers are all from before the latest attacks by Israel. The rockets Hamas fires are also totally unguided and inaccurate. If a Qassam had ever levelled a mid-sized building, Israel's PR machine would have had the photos splashed over the world's front pages. And the seven-year death toll would be higher than 20. Instead the photos we see show holes in walls or roofs partially blown off. Hardly comparable to the Gaza mosque that truly was levelled, or the UN school that Israel hit today - I saw no photos of that but dozens inside were killed, so even if it wasn't levelled the building obviously took near-total damage. If I'm an idiot for calling the Qassams glorified fireworks, you're a raving genocidal lunatic for thinking a "nothing in or out" blockade would amount to anything other than a wholesale slaughter of the Gazan population, which is overwhelmingly dependent on humanitarian aid. (Yeah, yeah: their fault, I know.) But I'll listen. Tell me how it would in fact usher in a new era of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Other than by simply eliminating all of the latter, that is. nix001 (Kebir Blue) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 03:11 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Almohad. The IDF have hit 3 schools now. I think 2 of them are UN schools. The IDF have the Sat Nav positions of these schools as well. I guess it's like what Vali said, 'My saying israel uses too much force, I mean the US army I hope would not target the enemy with indirect shell if they are next to a school but use more precise force such as a sniper..the isralis will however just bomb them and civilian casualites are excepted. they have become desensitised to war.' Vali. You said, 'The actual amount of DU absoped by people in the war zone is small.' Remember, almost 50% of the Gazan population are children. Weakened children, ill children, children with no water to pass the DU through their body by the means of urine. You also said, 'Long term exposure i.e months or years to large amounts of DU dust may and I say may result in some health problems.' Do you agree with the use of DU in a populated area of children? Where there will be no clean up after the slaughter? Where these children will be exposed to DU for the rest of their lives. If you don't agree, maybe you could have a word with your fellow Dr's and set up a petition for a clean up? Brutas. You said, 'The citizens of Gaza new that Hamas was gonna attack Israel they could of left then before the attacks dduuuhhhhhhhh!!!!!' Israel has had a blockade enforced for months. No one is allowed to enter or leave as far as I can gather. Why did'nt the IDF open up the blockade to let the women and children out? They could have set up another refugee camp and then sent them back after the cull. Who ever said blockade Gaza so nothing can go in or out is an idiot. Unless they like the idea of children dying, for then they are just sick and need help. FarmerBob Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 03:26 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Almohad. It is quite curious to me how you keep referring to my position as one of being apologetic to the Israeli position in their conflict with Palestineans. I do support Israel's right to exist and shamelessly champion their society over the other nations of the Middle East. Perhaps you unable or unwilling to grasp the difference. Therefore, I will attempt to reiterate it and clarify it in the simplist terms possible. Forgive my post-modern intellectualism. Forgive me, but I must begin with two relevant quotes. They are lengthy, I apologize. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: If, in the future, war will be waged for the souls of men, the the importance of extending territorial control will go down. Long past are the days when provinces, even entire countries, were regarded as simply as items of real estate to be exchenged among rulers by means of inheritance, agreement or force. The triumph of nationalism has brought about a situation where people do not occupy a piece of land because it valuable; on the contrary, a piece of however remote or desolate is considered valuable because it is occupied by this people or that. ...Between 1979 and 1988, Egypt spent nine years of political effort to recover Taba. Now Taba,south of Elath, is a half mile stretch of worthless desert beach whose very existence had gone unnoticed by both Egyptians and Israelis prior to the Camp David Peace Agreements; all of a sudden it became part of each side's "sacred" patrimony, and coffehouses on Cairo were named after it.... Another effect of the postulated breakdown of conventional war will probably be a greater emphasis on the interests of men at the head of organizations, as opposed to the interest, of the organization as such.... As the distinctions between combatants and noncombatants break down, the least we can expect is that such things will be tolerated to a greater extent than is supposed to be the case under the rules of so-called civilized warfare. In many of the low-intensity conflict currently being waged in developing countries this is already true, and has, indeed, always been true. --Martin van Creveld, The Transformation of War -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: It will be agreed that the aim of strategy is to fulfill the objectives laid down by policy, making the best use of the resources available. Now the objective may be ofensive in nature (e.g,. conquest or the imposition of severe terms), it may be defensive (e.g,. the protection of certain areas or interests) or it may merely be the maintainence of the political staus quo. It is therefore obvious straight away that formulae such as that attributed to Clausewitz, 'decision as a result of victory in battle',are not applicable to all types of objective. There is only one general rule applicable to all: disregard the method by which the decision is to be reached and consider only the outcome which is desired to achieve. The outcome desired is to force the enemy to accept the terms we wish to impose on him. In this dialectic of wills, a decision is achieved when a certain psychological effect has been produced on the enemy: when he becomes convinced that it is useless to start or alternatively to continue the struggle. --General D'Armee Andre Beaufre, An Introduction to Strategy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The ability of Palestinean or Israeli to achieve that decision is beyond the capacities of their respective militaries to accomplish for a simple reason: both populations possess the resolve to endure any hardship to ultimately achieve their respective objectives. This was a lesson learned the hard way by the people of the United States from their teachers, the people of North Vietnam. That the Israeli/Palestinean conflict has eluded successful settlement for so long, confirms this premise. Therefore, without hope of military decision, short of genocide, for either party, the establishment of a lasting peace must be political. Definition of term: Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions. The body politic of each group must be sufficiently satisfied with the terms of resolution for any hope of cessation of hostilities to transform into lasting peace, lest those dissatisfied elements, within both or either, rekindle conflict. Given the oppositional natures of Palestinean and Israeli objectives, neither side can achieve total victory through negotiation without the other modifying their objectives. Thus far, such diplomatically negotiated modifications have failed to satisfy a sufficient part of each population to prevent the renewal of hostilities. There is little in evidence to indicate that either society is willing to stomach further such modifications. Therefore, despite recent Israeli tactical successes on the ground, there is no prospect that this offensive will yield any more decisive results than previous such militarily successful operations of the past. Gaza may be reoccupied and governed with the brutal efficiency of der SS-Staat, but Palestinean will to resist will not break. Israeli terms will not be successfully imposed in a manner such as to prevent further violence at some future point. The argument of moral positions or legal niceties of either side is wholly irrelevent and pointless for two reasons. At this point in time, 1. neither side acknowledges, much less respects, the opposing position. 2. no actor or combination of actors of the world community posess(es) the will or means to impose terms or either or both parties. The time for moral and legal argument is when both parties seek permanent resolution and are genuinely willing to compromise their own objectives to secure lasting peace. My personal belief is that there will be hope for both Israeli and Palestinean alike when they and their leaders, figuratively, cease seeking means to victory in the works of Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, and Mao and instead explore methods for peace in the philosophies of Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela. We may all play word games among each other to seek victory in argument in these forums, but real people are dying every day due their own intransigence. That is tragic. But maybe you can learn something from it. FarmerBob Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 03:56 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post Script. The application of Occam's Razor to human activity most often yields a conspiracy theory. You might factor that into your thinking. John R Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 04:41 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why don't one or more of you write an article for your blogs? Not saying to cease the conversation, but to serve as a way to make some kind of personal summary of all that was discussed here. Also, it may potentially serve as a way to attract more readers, thus more opinions on the same matter, than those in this game and/or be a way to track your on opinion on a subject through time. There may be other utilities, of course. Just a thought. Almohad117 (White Giant) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 04:54 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Farmer Bob - Almost nothing of what you say is at any variance whatsoever with anything I believe. I'm afraid you spent a great deal of time arguing with eloquence, passion and clarity... against a straw man. I'll ignore the comment about conspiracy theories, except to offer "I'm skeptical, you're paranoid, he's a conspiracy theorist." The label is just an avoidance tactic, offered with no supporting arguments. (I also think you've misapplied Occam's razor, but that's just me being a Google intellectual.) The one thing I do believe that stands in stark contrast to your own position, is that the Palestinians - people and leadership alike - have shown a very real understanding of the difficulties of their situation over the years. This is perhaps to be expected from the party that is clearly getting much the worse of the engagement. Of course their approach has been marred by the use of terror! But various Palestinian factions at different times have demonstrated a realism and flexibility which A) far exceed anything shown by Israel and B) are totally under-reported and misunderstood around the world, especially here in North America. The latest events in Gaza only strengthen this position. In my opinion Israel has, on the other hand, been unwilling to put any real proposals forward in negotiation. Every move they've made, even when ostensibly offered in the spirit of compromise and negotiation, has been undertaken with a view to maintaining their advantage. This is a rational course of action for the party that holds almost all the cards to begin with. They know full well that they hold an overwhelming superiority on the military and political fronts - which is a second point where we differ, or maybe a second aspect of the first point. I think you approach this topic determined to find a moral, material and political symmetry between the Palestinians and Israelis (which nonetheless doesn't keep you from assigning the Palestinians the majority of the blame for their own problems, or at least assigning them a greater responsibility than Israel has for finding the way to peace). My position is that while yes, both sides have innocent blood on their hands, it is first and foremost incumbent on the party with the overwhelming advantage to cease its attacks on a vastly weaker adversary, especially when that adversary has proven its willingness to compromise. If peace truly is Israel's main goal, its continued attacks on the Palestinians are not simply unnecessary, but seriously counterproductive. Because I believe the Israelis are smart enough to understand this, I have to conclude that peace - a real peace, where they would have to make serious concessions - not only isn't their goal, but is what they're very much trying to prevent. Almohad117 (White Giant) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 04:55 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not a bad idea, John R. Váli (Fearless Blue) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 06:12 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To what end al? Why would isreal wish to continue fighting people in a poor worthless strip of land? FarmerBob (Little Upsilon) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 06:29 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Symmetry is only relevant to action or course of action or inaction or nothing at all. From my perspective, the Question is: What to do? The answer: Not a thing. Reasons above. Morality cannot be quantified, only qualified. Attempts to do so are specious and wrongheaded when applied to geopolitics. My symmetry is "a pox on both your houses". Reasons above. The Palestineans could have a state and world support overnight. You know exactly how. They were shown the path over 50 years ago. Thus far, they have chosen not to take it. I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill. Mohandas Gandhi Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 07:19 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Poor marksmanship does not lessen the intent or danger behind random rocket and mortar attacks on civilian population centers. The launch sites are situated in populated areas. If they were in the open then the colateral damage would be excessive I agree. As the situation stands. No. The losses are unavoidable and sad but by no means excessive. Its not easy to fight terrorists who hide amongst their women and children. Almohad117 (White Giant) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 07:46 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vali - do you think there might be more at stake here than just the land itself? Does it seem wrong-headed to you to think that Israel is targeting Hamas and the Palestinians? Farmer Bob - do you think that "a pox on both your houses" is truly an equitable response? Do you think taking such a position has no effects in the real world? Does it mean that you are simply removed from having any role at all in what is going on? How's this for an analogy: you pass a man raping a woman in the street. He's subduing her by striking her repeatedly. She's responding by biting, kicking and scratching as much as she can, and of course isn't very likely to fight off the attacker even if she does manage to give him a few bruises and cuts. She's also yelling for help. Is the analogy flawed? How? And how is your taking a "pox on both your houses" position in this case different from your taking the same position on the Israel/Palestine conflict? Granted, we aren't able to intervene in the Israel-Palestinian conflict in the way we can in a mugging or rape. But because we can't prevent the deaths that are occurring, does that mean that there's nothing at all that we can do? Should we shut up and make no attempt to decide for ourselves what is really going on? Why do both parties appeal to world opinion? Do they have nothing better to do, our do our views actually matter? I think naming things by their real names is the least we can do. Is this stupid of me? Do you feel that refusing to make the attempt is a refusal to take an existing responsibility, or that we have no responsibility to begin with? Is it contradictory or not to say "a pox on both your houses" at the same time that you tell one of the "houses" to wise up and practice non-violence? Why do you place the onus for non-violence on one side only (and the weaker side at that)? Why is non-violence a path for the Palestinians and not also for Israel? Does saying "a pox on both your houses" help to sustain a situation in which one side has a state and the other does not, or does it have no effect? Has Hamas refrained or not from suicide bombings in Israel for a couple of years now? Did they or didn't they also refrain from Gaza rocket attacks into Israel during the ceasefire until Israel broke it? How does their observance of the ceasefire fail to qualify as the non-violent approach you advocate for them? And what did it achieve? Was this a practical test of the value of non-violence, or is it irrelevant? Maxwell (Little Upsilon) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 08:09 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was unaware the rocket attacks into Israel had ever ceased from either Palestinian held lands or southern Lebanon. Is this true Almohad117 that prior to the Israeli attacks the sirens in Israel have been quiet? the rockets have not been coming in daily? Max Almohad117 (White Giant) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 09:39 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to a Nov 5 article in the UK newspaper The Guardian, the truce was broken Nov 4 by an Israeli military raid into Gaza, which they claimed was to destroy a tunnel out of Gaza. The article notes that this was the first breach of the ceasefire by either side, which was established June 19th. Hamas responded by firing rockets into southern Israel. The Israeli peace group Gush Shalom also says that the ceasefire was breached by Israel, but they say this occurred with Israel's raid on the night of the US elections. Again, Israel said the objective was to destroy tunnels, and again, Hamas fired rockets in response. None of this necessarily means that the sirens in Southern Israel have literally been quiet. I imagine in the two above cases, they were plenty noisy when the retaliatory rockets started to fly! As for Southern Lebanon, I don't know. Was a ceasefire in force in Southern Lebanon? Either way, in both above cases Israel seems to have made no claim that their Gaza raids were made in response to any ceasefire breaches in Southern Lebanon. nix001 Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 10:47 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also about 2 years ago Hamas had stopped firing rockets. But due to the blockade that Israel imposed on Gaza during this time of calm, cutting off supplies and stopping families from leaving or entering, Hamas restarted it's offensive against Israel. Hamas said to Israel that if it lifted it's blockade they would stop, but Israel refused to do so. There are also statements from Israelie top officials saying how they would never allow a Palistinian State. Almohad117 (White Giant) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 10:52 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And the blockade itself, defined by international convention as an act of war, continued unabated throughout this entire period. In other words, there were long stretches of time when Hamas was holding fire while an act of war was maintained by the Israelis. It's my understanding that Hamas has abandoned suicide attacks on Israel during this period as well - although now after the premeditated carnage in Gaza I'm sure all bets are off. nix001 Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 11:09 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree mate. But as Hamas and the Arab states are no match against Israel or the USA I fear the Muslim people will take matters into their own hands and suicide attacks will be carried out in countries such as our own, Israel and the USA. The concequences of us and the USA not stopping Israel will be felt for years to come. And where as before the targets would have been people who play apart in the machine of power (workers, soldiers, police), I fear that now anything will go. I truly hope the British Muslims understand that most Britains are horrified at what they see in Gaza and don't class our women and children as legitimate targets. Almohad117 (White Giant) Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 11:55 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You're right. There is more likely to be a backlash after the Gaza slaughter - and I think that's part of Israel's plan. At least they have a vested interest in increased Palestinian/Arab militancy, since that reduces any pressure on them to negotiate. Just another reason to fight to get the truth out. The guys on here say it's "just talk" and makes no difference, but it definitely makes a difference. Good point too about the US needing to finally start applying some pressure to Israel. This is one of the really important points that needs to be made much more frequently. I'm not holding my breath that it will happen anytime soon, since the US Congress is pretty much a branch of the IDF, but pressure has to be applied. On the BBC James Zogby of the Arab American Institute said the Gaza "conflict" could be stopped tomorrow if the US simply told Israel to stop. The last president to have the balls to do that was Eisenhower. Since then, saying anything against Israeli policies is political suicide in the US. Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 12:41 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: I truly hope the British Muslims understand that most Britains are horrified at what they see in Gaza and don't class our women and children as legitimate targets. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Didn't they blow up subway train and a bus in London? Keep on apologizing for Islamic ignorance and cultural brutality. The enemy is inside the gates. Now its too late. Unless mass deportations are brought back. Almohad117 (White Giant) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 12:58 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you advocating mass deportations? Do you feel Muslims have no reason to feel aggrieved? Are you saying their religion/culture is inherently ignorant and brutal? nix001 (Kebir Blue) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 01:14 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now now JB AKA Sam. Your starting to sound like the racist I F#@%ed up not so long ago for attacking my friend who told him that it was wrong to go around saying that all Blacks and Asians should be killed at birth. FarmerBob Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 01:50 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Good point too about the US needing to finally start applying some pressure to Israel. This is one of the really important points that needs to be made much more frequently. I'm not holding my breath that it will happen anytime soon, since the US Congress is pretty much a branch of the IDF, but pressure has to be applied. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you really claiming that your analysis of this conflict is based upon objective, neutral mindset and world view? You are putting a lot of admirable effort into researching the very recent developements of this situation, while patently ignoring the effects of previous actions by both parties over generations. Persective, Perspective, Persective. Proof incontrovertible: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: On the BBC James Zogby of the Arab American Institute said the Gaza "conflict" could be stopped tomorrow if the US simply told Israel to stop. The last president to have the balls to do that was Eisenhower. Since then, saying anything against Israeli policies is political suicide in the US. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The falseness of this statement is so patently obvious that it requires no effort to dispute. You forget that some of us have lived through much of this. We have seen the back and forth with our own eyes for years. Northern Ireland, Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, the list goes on and on. Some conflicts defy the easy assignation of blame and fault. The scales of justice may balance easily in the minds of some who look no further than the immediate suface, but the real world does not conform to our opinions. There is no rape taking place, there is a long standing dispute between political entities that will not honor their agreements, not conduct themselves within standards of acceptable international behaviors, and will place their own political objectives before the long term health of their societies. The correlation of forces is totally irrelevant to the situation. Underdog status conveys no moral superiority. Overwhelming force conveys no claim to "might makes right". Dedicated statesmen with intelligence, education, and experience far greater than yours and mine, with access to the full resources of their national intelligence services, have worked tirelessly to assist in the settlement of this conflict for generations. They have all failed. There are reasons for that. Your repeated oversimplifications are the hallmarks of the amateur. With all due respect to your honest efforts, you are in way over your head on this issue. We all are. The world is. Irrational hatreds cannot be subjected to arguments of reason because they are irrational. You are utterly ignoring the human dimensions of this conflict. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: We make war that we may live in peace. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Aristotle Where is the peace that the violence on either side serves? nix001 (Kebir Blue) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 02:00 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What? That a people have had their land taken off them, their freedoms removed and their children killed? What rationality can come from that? Can you explain to us what you mean by human dimensions. FarmerBob Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 02:06 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- yes nix. Israeli and Palestinean, alike, can ask that question. nix001 (Kebir Blue) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 02:07 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What land and freedoms have the Israelies lost? How many Israelies have lost a child or their entire family? I've seen the graves of the Palistinians. An old Palistinian soldier took me there. Tourists wont see them as they are off the tourist trail. Unlike the Jewish graves which are in full view of the tourists. Graves of entire Palistinian families, killed all at once. How can anyone come back from that? John R Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 02:10 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does it matter if it was a child? And how much do the number of deaths matter? A life is a life, as valuable as any other. But as some may say "a single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." Don't play the ball to your side of the court disrespecting what you were defending: human rights. FarmerBob Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 02:24 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you, John. I doubt that many here grasp the principle that there is no difference between one life and one thousand. Only the soldier is morally required to place, or have placed, a numerical value on his existence. nix001 (Kebir Blue) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 02:29 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JR. I knew someone would say that It explains why so many Gazans are willing to die and why so many Jews are'nt. It explains why the Gazans will fight to the death and why the Jews will fire missiles and cluster bombs from F16's killing even more children so they don't loose soldiers. I bet most Palistinian soldier's are fathers, motivated to fight because they have lost loved one's. I bet most Israelie soldiers are soldiers, motivated to fight because they know there's little chance of them getting themselves killed. FB. Is that what the Army taught you? If so, it explains alot about why the US/Israeli Army does what it does. You talk about us utterly ignoring the human dimensions of this conflict, yet you make a comment like that. If you two don't look back tomorrow at what you have just wrote and wish that you had'nt...........well, what hope is there? FarmerBob Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 03:02 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- nix. That post demonstrates complete and utter ignorance of nearly every facet of human existence. I say that without rancor. Only sadness for you. FarmerBob Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 03:08 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You edited a post above. I will answer your question of the human dimensions with two words. love hate Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 03:22 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Are you advocating mass deportations? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes. Islam in its current state has no place in the civilized world. You cannot be a "good" Muslim and a good citizen of a Liberal Democracy. The two are not compatible. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Do you feel Muslims have no reason to feel aggrieved? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't care. Many cultures are aggrieved without resorting to acts of random terror. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Are you saying their religion/culture is inherently ignorant and brutal? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes. Islam is a religion/culture of hate, pedophelia, racism, brutality, sexism, and ignorance. All the explanations in the world pale in comparison to the reality of the Middle East and acts of cowardice committed in the name of Allah. If you don't like it change your religion. Christianity had to evolve past the Crusades, The Inquisition, and burning witches. Islam must evolve past the Middle Ages as well. This is the 21st century. Act like it. @Nix... Pointing out terror attacks is not racism. Sucks to have such a glaring contradiction to the whole Islam is peace lie. You can come up with a good apology for that horrible day in London I am sure. Try telling it to the victims.... nix001 (Kebir Blue) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 04:09 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I said you were starting to sound like a racist. And no. I can't and won't even try. Shall we start a thread about Islam? as it seems we have found a subject that you are willing to be serious about. Anyone else heard that the Zionists are now using chemical weapons in Gaza? If it's true thats three types of weapons that the Zionists are using thats illegal. nix001 (Kebir Blue) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 05:17 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So lets go through the facts from after the arrival of the first Jews, to the slaughter we have today. 1) The Zionists turned up after the war with the help of the USA and through terrorist means, according to Britain and many other countries, occupied land of the Palistinians and forced them to live in refugee camps. 2) The 1967 war started and Zionists took over land to get to the border with Egypt, cutting the Palistinian land into two. But when the war was over, the Zionists kept the land. 3) The Palistinians created a liberation army to fight the Zionists. 4) The Zionists assassinated it's members with War planes, killing anyone who was near by. 5) The Palistinians retaliated with suicide bombers, killing anyone who was near by. 6) The Zionists started to build a wall seperating more Palistinian communities and gained some more land. 7) The Zionists support Hamas to divide the Palistinian people and to weaken Fata. 8) The Palistinians in Gaza voted in Hamas as Fata consolidated it's self in the West Bank. 9) The international community put sanctions on the Gazans for voting in Hamas. 10) Hamas stopped it's attacks. 11) The Zionists blockaded Gaza. 12) Hamas re-started it's attacks. 13) Hamas agreed to a seize fire while still under a blockade. 14) The Zionists broke the seize fire by assassinating Hamas members and killing Palistinians in the process. 15) Hamas retaliated with firing rockets. 16) The Zionist started their offensive. Please correct me if I've missed anything out. WildEyes (Little Upsilon) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 05:21 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- one more thing: 17) COAL!!!!! nix001 (Kebir Blue) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 05:24 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thats the second time you've said that. Please tell me what you mean. Please. WildEyes (Little Upsilon) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 05:31 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://old.tcfreenet.org/people/hale/articles/bucket.htm Coal, yes? nix001 (Fearless Blue) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 06:03 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who needs coal when these boys have got Gas? Almohad117 (White Giant) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 04:10 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Curtain rises) Farmer Bob: Numbers don't matter. One death is as bad as a million. Everyone is evil. These problems have roots we can never possibly understand. (Washes hands and walks offstage.) (Reappears briefly) Farmer Bob: And I know more than you do about it so shut up. I stood on the Golan and... (Curtain falls) Almohad117 (White Giant) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 04:20 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Yes, Israelis deserve security. Twenty Israelis dead in 10 years around Gaza is a grim figure indeed. But 600 Palestinians dead in just over a week, thousands over the years since 1948 - when the Israeli massacre at Deir Yassin helped to kick-start the flight of Palestinians from that part of Palestine that was to become Israel - is on a quite different scale. This recalls not a normal Middle East bloodletting but an atrocity on the level of the Balkan wars of the 1990s. And of course, when an Arab bestirs himself with unrestrained fury and takes out his incendiary, blind anger on the West, we will say it has nothing to do with us. Why do they hate us, we will ask? But let us not say we do not know the answer. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Fisk, The Independent, Jan 7 Farmer Bob: Robert Fisk has been covering the Mideast for decades, and has seen some incredibly horrific stuff up-close and personal, including Israeli atrocities. I'll bet he's even spoken to more Israeli commanders than you have! He's no apologist for Arab terror either. Read his book The Great War for Civilization. But that would be an attempt to inform yourself, which you seem to regard as somehow immoral... Almohad117 (White Giant) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 04:23 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the full article: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-why-do-they-hate-the-west-so-much-we-will-ask-1230046.html Have a read. FarmerBob (Little Upsilon) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 05:26 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good article. I disagree with none of it. The point? Fisk is a respected journalist, but we aren't governed by journalists, have our diplomacy conducted by them, nor do they lead our militaries. No doubt that there are many journalists, among others, that would echo Fisk's statement completely. What of it? You just can't grasp that I will not demonize or dehumanize Israeli or Palestinean? Nor will I be an apologist for either's behaviors? That recognizing that a blood feud is beyond outside resolution in the long term? Apparently I am not alone in that view. Where are the nations lining up to commit troops to peacekeeping initiatives? My humble suggestion that the Palestineans have the best hope of achieving their objectives through the nonviolent approach of Ghandi's political philosophies is not particularly insightful, unique, or mine originally. The idea has been proposed by others far more qualified than I. You are growing tiresome. Continue, if you wish, for the lulz of the community, but you are not worth any more of my time. I see little point in repeating myself endlessly. There are others here that will entertain your thirst for pointless squabbling. It would seem that you wish to hear that Israel is evil incarnate, and Palestineans are and always have been helpless victims of their brutal repression and that is all there is to it. You want to believe that? Go ahead. What's one more mindless, programmed fool in this world? You are in good company. nix001 Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 06:08 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Where are the nations lining up to commit troops to peacekeeping initiatives?' Already been Vetoed by the USA Vetoes by USA: 1972-1982 Subject Date & Meeting US Rep Casting Veto Vote Palestine: Syrian-Lebanese Complaint. 3 power draft resolution 2/10784 9/10/1972 Bush 13-1(U.S.), 1 Palestine: Examination of Middle East Situation. 8-power draft resolution (S/10974) 7/2/1973 Scali 13-1(U.S.), 0 (China not partic.) Palestine: Egyptian-Lebanese Complaint. 5-power draft power resolution (S/11898) 12/8/1975 Moynihan 13-1(U.S.), 1 Palestine: Middle East Problem, including Palestinian question. 6-power draft resolution (S/11940) 1/26/1976 Moynihan 9-1(U.S.),3 (China & Libya not partic.) Palestine: Situation in Occupied Arab Territories. 5-power draft resolution (S/12022) 3/25/1976 Scranton 14-1(U.S.),0 Palestine: Report on Committee on Rights of Palestinian People. 4-power draft resolution (S/121119) 6/29/1976 Sherer 10-1(U.S.),4 Palestine: Palestinian Rights. Tunisian draft resolution. (S/13911) 4/30/1980 McHenry 10-1(U.S.),4 Palestine: Golan Heights. Jordan draft resolution. (S/14832/Rev. 2) 1/20/1982 Kirkpatrick 9-1(U.S.),5 Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, Jordan draft resolution (S/14943) 4/2/1982 Lichenstein 13-1(U.S.),1 Palestine: Incident at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. 4-power draft resolution 4/20/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1(U.S.), 0 Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. Spain draft resolution. (S/15185) 6/8/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1(U.S.),0 Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. France draft resolution. (S/15255/Rev. 2) 6/26/1982 Lichenstein 14-1(U.S.) Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. USSR draft resolution. (S/15347/Rev. 1, as orally amended) 8/6/1982 Lichenstein 11-1(U.S.),3 Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, 20-power draft resolution (S/15895) 8/2/1983 Lichenstein 13-1(U.S.),1 Security Council Vetoes/Negative voting 1983-present Subject Date Vote Occupied Arab Territories: Wholesale condemnation of Israeli settlement policies - not adopted 1983 S. Lebanon: Condemns Israeli action in southern Lebanon. S/16732 9/6/1984 Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK) Occupied Territories: Deplores "repressive measures" by Israel against Arab population. S/19459. 9/13/1985 Vetoed: 10-1 (U.S.), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK, France) Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17000. 3/12/1985 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK) Occupied Territories: Calls upon Israel to respect Muslim holy places. S/17769/Rev. 1 1/30/1986 Vetoed: 13-1 (US), with one abstention (Thailand) Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17730/Rev. 2. 1/17/1986 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK) Libya/Israel: Condemns Israeli interception of Libyan plane. S/17796/Rev. 1. 2/6/1986 Vetoed: 10 -1 (US), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, UK) Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored repeated Israeli attacks against Lebanese territory and other measures and practices against the civilian population; (S/19434) 1/18/1988 vetoed 13-1 (US), with 1 abstention (UK) Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory; (S/19868) 5/10/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) 12/14/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Draft called on Israel to accept de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention; (S/19466) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; (S/19780) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel's continued disregard of relevant Security Council decisions. 2/17/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Condemned Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories. 6/9/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied territories. 11/7/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. 5/31/1990 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993 5/17/1995 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. 3/7/1997 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Middle East: Demands that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories 3/21/1997 Vetoed 13-1 (US),1 Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza 3/27/2001 Vetoed 9-1 (US), with four abstentions (Britain, France, Ireland and Norway) Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. 12/14/2001 Vetoed 12-1 (US) with two abstentions (Britain and Norway) On the killing by Israeli forces of several UN employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse 12/19/2002 12-1 (US) with two abstentions (Bulgaria and Cameroon) Demand that Israel halt threats to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat 9/16/03 Vetoed 11-1 (US) with three abstentions (Britain, Germany and Bulgaria) Seeks to bar Israel from extending security fence 10/14/03 Vetoed 10-1 (US) with four absentations (Britain, Germany, Bulgaria and Cameroon) Condemns Israel for killing Ahmed Yassin 3/25/04 Vetoed 11-1 (US) with three absentations (Britain, Germany, Romania) Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 10/05/04 Vetoed 11-1 (US) with three absentations (Britain, Germany, Romania) Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 7/13/06 Vetoed 10-1 (US) with four absentations (Britain, Peru, Denmark and Slovakia) Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 11/11/06 Vetoed 10-1 (US) with four absentations (Britain, Denmark, Japan and Slovakia) Almohad117 (White Giant) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 09:36 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nice post, nix. And so Farmer Bob disappears over the horizon, in a blaze of moral certitude and self-righteousness that is visible from space. Well, maybe now we'll find someone who's willing to look at what's actually going on, and not accuse anyone who disagrees with him of being a moral troglodyte. Or put words in their mouth - apparently I believe "Israel is evil incarnate" - If I got to distort what my opponent says I guess I'd win every argument too! To tell the truth I was getting a little tired of repeating myself too. It was stupid of me to expect much from this discussion. I have to remember this is the Internet, and for every person who's capable of intelligent discussion there are 10,000 Sams. Or others who aren't Sams but refuse to use their intelligence. Almohad117 (White Giant) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 10:29 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Farmer Bob's vision: All the Hamas fighters in Gaza throw down their weapons. Everyone who lives in Gaza, from the week-old baby in its mother's arms to the 98-year-old farmer, gets up and walks out into the street. In their hundreds of thousands, the crowds join together, swelling into a mass one and a half million strong. Together they march out of Gaza, simply surging past the Israeli checkpoints, under the eyes of the stunned Israeli soldiers, beneath the barrels of the massed Merkavas. The Apaches, hovering overhead, hold their fire. Surrounding the Israeli troops but not lifting a finger to harm them, the massed Palestinians simply sit down where they are. Apart from the crackle of radios as confused Israeli commanders plead for instructions, and the whump-whump-whump of the helicopters, the only sound is the whirring of cameras relaying the amazing images around the world. I think that's something along the lines of what Farmer Bob has in mind. And it's a stunning, intoxicating prospect, I have to admit. If it ever happened I think Israel would indeed find that it had to deal fairly with the Palestinian question. I think a lot of Palestinians would die in the process, however - at least at the beginning. But, leaving aside the question of likelihood or practicality, I part company with Farmer Bob for two reasons: A) I won't insist that this is the only means the Palestinians have to solve their problem (or tell them their problems are their own damn fault if they choose a different course of action); and B) I don't consider them "as bad as Israel" because they attempt to ward off the Israeli attacks, or try to retaliate as best they can. Almohad117 (White Giant) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 10:41 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and another thing... I think that the conflict is very much a battle of hearts and minds, which in turn is a battle for information. The situation is badly misunderstood in "the West" because the media by and large present the Israeli view. I think if enough people in the US, and elsewhere, really understood how willing the Palestinians have been to negotiate before, let alone what a dire situation they're in, and - in the case of the US - how their tax dollars are being used by the Israeli forces, there would be a lot more pressure on Israel to get real about talking to the Palestinians. Misconceptions rule, and no that is not by mistake and no, that is not a goddam conspiracy theory. So I believe that what Farmer B calls "pointless squabbling" is actually anything but. Granted this forum is probably the most idiotic and useless place for it, but hey, you fight the fights that come your way. nix001 (Fearless Blue) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 10:48 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicely put and well fought Unlike our own government. How many abstentions? And so the indiscriminate killing goes on. Even UN aid workers and medics seem to be targets. I hope the American people soon understand just how involved their governments over the years have been in preparing the ground for this genocide. Without their vetoes there might be peace in the Middle East. Váli (Fearless Blue) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 11:02 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It seems Israeli is getting the job done. Lack of fighting seems to suggest some of those 'civilian' casualities were actually Hamas fighters. Afterall they dont walk around in uniform. It will be interesting how fast this ceasefire proposal develops, with it already been agreed in priciple. If my above assumption is even slightly correct and Hamas has taken a beating peace might not be too far away. Then again they may have all been civilians and Hamas is just waiting for the Israelis to go home before resuming the party. It was interesting to see Israeli soldiers praying on operations...2 religious forces fighting it out....maybe peace is not so near.... People often consider isreal to be 'western' but maybe their religious zeal makes them less western than you might think. More ramblings from me! John R Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 11:08 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: If you two don't look back tomorrow at what you have just wrote and wish that you had'nt...........well, what hope is there? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I regret nothing. Prepare and embrace for impact. Here comes the apocalypse! Váli (Fearless Blue) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 11:17 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well one thing to come out of this war is an increase in the hate directed at Israel and by default the US. I have seen many young people of middle eastern heritage sitting watching video after video of the war in gaza. All speaking bad of the Israel and the west. Facebook oh what joy terrosists around the world must find in facebook. Propaganda spread across the world and excepted blindly. If it fits your preconcieved views of the injustice of it all then it must be correct. Brace yourself for the fallout. I think it might be raining suicide bombers. The Grand Poobah Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 11:52 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The war is dumb. Isreal's Dumb. Palistine is Dumb. The U.S. is dumb. It's just so Freakin Dumb. Why is it needed? They don't even know why their fighting anymore. 1st misconception- "Isreal is victims". The only victims are the innocents who die. 2nd- Iran wants to nuke Isreal. That is just dumb. They wouldn't nuke the holliest ground on earth. 3rd- Peace is impossible. Peace is never impossible. This is nothing more than a misguided Cock and Balls contest. 4th- Kids are dieing. And everyone is pointing the finger. Both sides are guilty and it is time to be responsible. if not, I say lets Glass the entire region. Problem solved. Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 11:52 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- America has seen plenty about Palestine. We saw hijackings in the 70's Kidnappings in the 80's Suicide bombings in the 90's And we saw the Arab hags dancing in the streets and clucking like chickens after 9/11. All I really needed to see. Why help the people who hate us? Why waste my tax dollars on my enemies? I won't dance in the streets because they are dying. But I wont shed a tear for them. If Israel needs more of my tax dollars to knock those angry little asshats down... I consider it a sound investment. And it really pisses Left Wingers off. Its win-win in my book. Almohad117 (White Giant) Friday, January 9, 2009 - 12:06 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think odds are very good there's going to be an increase in terrorism around the world, and especially in Israel. Hamas has held off suicide bombing for a couple of years but Gaza could well have put an end to that. I doubt any falloff in fighting means Israel has killed off enough Hamas fighters to turn the tide. For one thing, I bet for every Hamas fighter they've killed, the horror they've inflicted on so many innocents is going to bring that organization way more recruits. From what we're allowed to see and understand of the operation, so far it looks to me as if Israel has surrounded and cut off the really dense urban areas for the most part, without going into them. Israel has always been really wary of taking heavy casualties, and I think they know that once they go into a Hamas area they'll start taking more losses. Not that they couldn't prevail ultimately - but it wouldn't be easy. It's hard to imagine many forms of conflict that are as difficult and brutal as urban fighting - and I bet it would tend to nullify Israel's advantage in weapons to some degree. nix001 (Kebir Blue) Friday, January 9, 2009 - 12:17 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JB. Have you ever wondered why they hate the USA? Lets think about that one. The USA helped the Zionist to destroy the agreement between Britain, the Arabs and the Jews in the 40's. The USA supported the Zionist terrorists in the 50's. The USA veto the worlds wishes to create peace (I advise any new comers to this thread to scroll up and read the US veto post) The USA threaten anyone they don't agree with you with war. Why can't the USA just stay out of it and let the rest of the world sort it out? Oh thats right, $ and the Zionist lobbyists.
| |
| Friday, January 9, 2009 - 02:59 pm You really do spend some time on this, don't you Nix?
| |
| Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 02:00 am I just copied it. Done in 60 seconds. To you who thinks your about to be funny. Ha HA funny.
| |
| Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 02:17 am Almohad, thank you for your good questions. Here are my responses: "Let's start with point number one: the occupation. Does Israel occupy Palestinian territory or not? Is this occupation legal or not?" In the Gaza Strip, Israel occupies lands that were occupied by Egypt when the 1967 war began. So there's a precedent for the occupation of that territory. In the West Bank, Israel occupies lands Jordan annexed, giving West Bank residents Jordanian passports. So this wasn't even "Palestine" anymore, according to the Arabs. "Also, have the Palestinians - Hamas included - offered to negotiate with Israel on the basis of a return to 1967 borders or not?" The answer about Hamas is on Wikipedia: "Hamas later announced publicly an offer for a 10 year hudna or truce with Israel, should they decide to return to their 1967 borders and allow the return of all Palestinian refugees." Ok, so Israel is supposed to give up permanent claim on the West Bank and Gaza and allow Palestinians to get their old property back within Israel proper in exchange for a *temporary* truce?! From a group who still clings to the goal of Israel's destruction? Who in the world would agree to such terms? "What has been Israel's response to those offers?" ROTFL, I imagine. And rightfully so. "Do the Palestinians deserve a state of their own or not?" Yes, assuming the Palestinian state respects the sovereignty of Israel. "By what rationale is that right subject to certain conditions imposed by third parties?" Because Hamas has, by its own statements, said it has no inclination to recognize the right of Israel to exist. Again, from Wikipedia: "After the establishment of Hamas government [in 2006], Dr Al-Zahar stated his 'dreams of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it...I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (including Israel). This dream will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land'." 'Nuff said.
| |
| Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 02:48 am In 1946, Jewish terrorists agitating for their own state in British-occupied Palestine blew up Jerusalem's King David Hotel, killing 91 including women and children. Two years later, an independent Israel was established. During the fight for Jewish statehood, extremist military groups sometimes resorted to the use of terrorist tactics. One such instance occurred in 1948 when members of the Jewish underground organization LEHI (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) killed UN Peace Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte to protest his diplomatic efforts to modify the Palestine partition plan. In order to create and consolidate a Jewish State in 1948, Zionists expelled 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland and never allowed them or their descendants to return. In addition, Israeli forces destroyed over 400 Palestinian villages and perpetrated about three dozen massacres. Would you want them living next door to you?
| |
| Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 02:58 am Unfortunately al the world we live in is not the world we would like to live in. The strong rule the weak, its the way of the world. The world is changing slowly but not fast enough. Those of us lucky enough to live in the west probably dont realise how much the rest of the world differs from us. Our freedoms we take for granted are very rare in other parts. Our liberal attitudes would be laughed at in other countries. Women, homosexuals, the right for every adult to vote, the law applying to most of us equally...still a few find their way arouind it... access to information, the right basically to do what we like as long as we dont interfer with others. We are very lucky. Something our too liberal friends need to remember. There are many in this world that do not respect liberalism and would take it from us given the chance. I really do hope the palestians get their own country, but not at the price of surrendering to terrorism. Israel is here and its staying like it or not. They need to tone down their actions but they unlike Hamas are mostly repectable.
| |
| Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 04:32 am Pesco are you aware a hudna is not a peace deal as such. A hudna is a peace deal whilst a muslim force is weaker than its enemy. It is designed to allow the muslim force to grow stronger until it becomes stronger than its enemy then the hudna is over.
| |
| Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 05:10 am What? Like the agreement that Britain, the Arabs and the Jews had? It's an agreement until the Jews were strong enough to no longer agree to it? Even after everything the Palestinians had gone through over the 20 years before hand, they still offered a peace deal. Why did Israel not accept it? It's Because all they are bothered about is building Israel. they are not bothered about peace. Infact, they probably know that if they had peace they would'nt be able to get the land to be able to build Israel into the bigger and stronger Israel the Zionists dream of. One track mind. With no concideration for others. Especialy those who get in their way. Lets say your neighbour(Israel) robs you(Palestine) at gun point in front of your children, what are you going to do? You phone the police(UN). The police(UN) say they can't help you. Now what are you gonna do? You go next door and ask for the most important things back and say that he can keep the money. He shuts the door. Now what are you gonna do? You leave it. Two weeks later he come around and rob you again, but this time your kid gets hurt in the struggle. Now what you gonna do? You phone the police(UN). Again the police(UN) say they can't help you. Now what? You find him and challenge him. He cuts you with a knife. What now? Again the police(UN) wont help you. What do you do now? You know he has got a gun and that he will probably use it, but if you don't do anything this could go on forever. What would you do?
| |
| Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 01:22 pm I was on about the meaning of a word. Nothing else. Hudna a word used in the koran by the prophet to describe the action of pretending peace until you are strong enough to attack.
| |
| Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 05:49 pm I can see that now. Sorry dood, I had been out on the beer and took it the wrong way  I did'nt know that. I think we should start up a religious thread from each one of the three main religions? We could talk about the good and bad points of that religion? I know Sam would like that, init Sam 
| |
| Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 09:21 pm Watch what you write everyone(read the last bit of 'meeting log' thread) it would be a shame if any of us got banned. OK peps, I've gotta go and win a poker game Peace
| |
| Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 03:08 pm Almohad117 (White Giant) Friday, January 9, 2009 - 06:13 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Woo hoo! Another opponent! Let's start with point number one: the occupation. Does Israel occupy Palestinian territory or not? Is this occupation legal or not? Also, have the Palestinians - Hamas included - offered to negotiate with Israel on the basis of a return to 1967 borders or not? What has been Israel's response to those offers? Do the Palestinians deserve a state of their own or not? By what rationale is that right subject to certain conditions imposed by third parties? Almohad117 (White Giant) Friday, January 9, 2009 - 06:16 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: What the myths ignore is, first and foremost, that Barak's offers both at Camp David and six months later at the final negotiating session at Taba, Egypt, were not generous by any objective measure. The offers went further than any previous Israeli proposal had, but, since Israel had never before put forth any proposals on the key, so-called final-status issues, this says nothing. In fact, what the supposedly generous offer would have given the Palestinians would have been a state in four pieces, three in the West Bank plus Gaza, with a capital made up of Palestinian neighborhoods not contiguous either to each other or to the rest of the state. The major Israeli settlements, housing fully 80 percent of the 200,000 West Bank settlers and 100 percent of the almost 200,000 additional settlers in East Jerusalem, would have remained in place; the 300-mile road network throughout the West Bank built to connect the settlements and accessible only to Israelis would have remained in place; the "state" left to the Palestinians would have been a mere colony of Israel -- non-viable and indefensible, without borders with any state but Israel, totally at Israel's mercy. Jeff Halper, the Israeli anthropologist and activist who heads the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and has extensively studied all aspects of the occupation, frequently points out that territory does not equate to sovereignty and that even a prison gives 95 percent of its space to the prisoners, while the prison walls, the cell doors, and occasional towers and other points of control constitute the controlling five percent. Under Barak's offer, the five percent (or three or ten percent) remaining in Israel's control -- made up of settlements, Israeli-only roads separating Palestinian from each other, checkpoints impeding movement, all of what Halper calls a "matrix of control" -- would have given Israel continued dominance over Palestine. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Christison, "Camp David Redux," August 15, 2005 I especially like the point about the percentage of space within a prison! Don't you like that, Pesco? Stop retailing Israeli propaganda as fact. Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon) Friday, January 9, 2009 - 06:40 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Let's start with point number one: the occupation. Does Israel occupy Palestinian territory or not? Is this occupation legal or not? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why should Israel give up territory gained in a war initiated by the Soviet armed Arab states? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Also, have the Palestinians - Hamas included - offered to negotiate with Israel on the basis of a return to 1967 borders or not? What has been Israel's response to those offers? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How does one negotiate with a group who's charter lays out the destruction of your country in plain clear cut terms? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Do the Palestinians deserve a state of their own or not? By what rationale is that right subject to certain conditions imposed by third parties? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do the Kurds deserve their own state? Does any of the numerous Ethnic groups around the world agitating for autonomy deserve a state? Why does this issue take precedence over more pressing humanitarian issues. Sudan. Hundreds of thousands of people have died but because they are black and not a cause celibre they are not as important as terrorists reaping the fruits of their own destructive nature? Or because the people committing the genocide are Arab? The Grand Poobah Friday, January 9, 2009 - 10:55 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Do the Palestinians deserve a state of their own or not? By what rationale is that right subject to certain conditions imposed by third parties?" I'm not for this war...but isn't what you described basically "Jordan"? I believe I heard that somewhere. Váli (Fearless Blue) Friday, January 9, 2009 - 11:49 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Israel does not occupy palestian land. It has occupied egyptian, jordanian, syrian and lebanese land. Palestinian land has never existed. This is a very importnat point you fail to realise al. Creating a palestinain land requires taking land from others. Exactly the same way Israel was created. If the arab world so supports the idea of palestine why are they not lining up to offer them land? Why do they only offer land they have already lost to israel? Almohad117 (White Giant) Friday, January 9, 2009 - 03:06 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vali: But Israel does occupy Palestinian land. I don't understand what is so difficult about this point. The Palestinians were living on the territories now occupied by Israel. These are the people who were driven out of their homes in precisely this territory - or the descendants of those people. You choose to base your argument around whether the land was ever called "Palestine" (which it was, during the British Mandate) but that isn't the main point: they were living there and no one disputes this. For Pete's sake, David Ben-Gurion doesn't dispute this!!! "We took their land," he said. What do the words "their" and "land" refer to? As for other Arab states offering the Palestinians somewhere to live: A) why should they give up part of their own territories to clean up a mess created by Israel and the West? Why should they happily embrace the expense and social upheaval of reestablishing millions of refugees on their own territories? How is this now to be made their problem? B) what makes you so sure the Palestinians are even interested in this? What would your reaction be if you were kicked out of your homeland, and had to flee to a neighbouring state, and someone came along and said "here you go, forget your old home, it's gone - here's a brand spanking new farm where you can live from now on."? Isn't there just a small chance you'd reject the offer because you feel you've been the victim of an injustice and you damn well want your ancestral home back? It seems completely self-contradictory to me to say the Palestinians never had a territory so they're out of luck and have no rights to return to where they used to live, and turn around and say that the Israelis, who also had no territory, now have an overriding claim to the same territory because they simply took it over. The rights you admit in one case you dismiss in the other. Doesn't make sense to me. Unless by the law of "might makes right" - which never has, and never will, lead to a lasting peace. Váli Friday, January 9, 2009 - 04:18 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where they live is not the point I am trying to make al. The point I am making is there has never been an independent country called palestine. The palestianians have always lived in somebody elses territory. The region is/has been known as palestine but this is a regional name not a country. As JB pointed out earlier there are many ethnic groups who live in other countries. What makes the palestinians special in deserving a new country to be created in the same illegal way israel was? You damn israel but want to create a new country just like it. Váli Friday, January 9, 2009 - 04:25 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The palestian cause is just a play thing for iran and arab countries to use to generate artificial support for their corrupt regimes. Without the evil of isreal to blind their people, the people of these countries would not be diverted from the state of their own countries.They would direct their anger at their own governments rather than israel. So the likes of Iran will keep suppling Hamas and Hezbollah to keep their arses out of the frying pan. The palestians suffer so the powerfull can stay in power. Peace will come in palestine when Iraq becomes a prosperous nation. If the rebuilding of Iraq is succesful, and the average joe becomes as weathly and free as us in the west. The people of the arab/iranian nations will demand the same. Peace shall be with us all.......... General G (Little Upsilon) Friday, January 9, 2009 - 04:43 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your a blind fool Vali open your fuckin eyes and stay away from the television. Almohad117 (White Giant) Friday, January 9, 2009 - 04:52 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The difference is that the Palestinians have been forcibly evicted from where they used to live and are now living as refugees in other places. The Kurds, whether or not they deserve their own state, are at least still resident on the territory that would make up such a state if it were ever formed. No one is proposing to take that territory away from them and install another nation there. The Palestinians cannot go back as things stand, because their land has been taken, their homes demolished, and illegal settlements built over much of it. They have the right to return. They cannot return under any circumstances but to a state of their own or, better, a state in which Jews and Palestinians live together. In short, what difference does it make if something called Palestine ever existed? The Palestinians have a right to return to where they used to live. And that will have to be a state. You also forget the role the US has played and continues to play in maintaining many of the undeniably corrupt and evil Arab regimes. Back in the day, Iran had a democratic, secular government. It was overthrown by the US, which initiated the rule of the Shah. The US also has a huge role in propping up the Saudi Arabian government and suppressing fundamentalism in that country. (Ironically the rulers of Saudi Arabia have many affinities with the Taliban.) Also, a lot of Arab anger is directed at "their own" governments, as you can see now with Palestinian denunciations of Arab inaction over Gaza. If the Arab governments are trying to pose as the saviours of the Palestinians, they're doing a piss-poor job and no one seems to have been suckered, least of all the Palestinians themselves. Váli (Kebir Blue) Friday, January 9, 2009 - 05:38 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You point out the problems of countries interfering with other countries affairs. Yes the arabs are angry because their governments inaction. Why? Because their governments have done a good job in painting isreal as the great evil. Now their people want something done about it. And of course the west has done there fair share of interfering and gotten their hands bitten by the dogs they fed. I dont think many governements on both sides actually care too much about the fate of the palestians. They are pawns in a larger game. Sacificing pawns sometimes however backfires. Váli (Kebir Blue) Friday, January 9, 2009 - 05:46 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many peoples have been evicted from there homes over the years. They dont always get to move back. Just ask the native americans. There are too many countries to list here that are 'occupied' territory.Thats life. If you are strong enough you can do something about it..if not you move! The palestinians only strength is their ability to spread terror around the world. Without this they would just be another poor suffering people like the africans in sudan. Palestine is in the middle of an ideological battlefield. A tough spot to be in. For them their shall be no peace in our life time. Even if they got a state to their liking. They would still be used as pawns by others, and suffer the consequences. Almohad117 (White Giant) Friday, January 9, 2009 - 06:14 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Palestinians will not give up their resistance to the injustice inflicted upon them. Ask the Native Americans - do you think we've heard the last chapter on that one? What happened to them continues to create problems today. We're supposed to try to live in a better world than one where "might makes right." Your arguments simply bolster Israel's attempts to maintain its illegally acquired territory. On a larger scale, they help to ensure that holocausts and genocides and conquests will continue to occur. Your attitude is hard to fathom in someone dedicated to healing the sick. It's like saying "you've got a broken leg - live with it. If I helped to fix it you'd just go break it again." Karff (Little Upsilon) Friday, January 9, 2009 - 08:59 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The plan was for there to be a Palestinian state in 1947. That WAS the two state solution. Israel accepted it, the Arabs didn't. This led to a war in 1948. The West Bank was annexed by Jordan in 1950, which took steps to ensure it didn't become independent, then Israel took it in the Six Day War. Similarly, the Gaza Strip was controlled by Egypt until the Six Day War, when Israel took it. So we're to believe that from 1950-1966, the Palestinians, according to the Arab nations, had no right to a separate state. However, in 1967 this changed, and it had nothing to do with who controlled the territory. Pesco (White Giant) Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 01:31 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Right... If Arabs control Palestinian lands, it's ok for them not to have a country. If Israel controls the lands, it's an "illegal occupation". I kind of like the idea of giving the West Bank back to Jordan and the Gaza Strip back to Egypt... let them deal with it. At least Israel has peace treaties and diplomatic relations with both of those countries. Pesco (White Giant) Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 02:11 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I hereby agree to continuing this thread on Nix's continuation thread! I'll put my next post there. nix001 (Golden Rainbow) Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 02:43 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1946, Jewish terrorists agitating for their own state in British-occupied Palestine blew up Jerusalem's King David Hotel, killing 91. Two years later, an independent Israel was established. During the fight for Jewish statehood, extremist military groups sometimes resorted to the use of terrorist tactics. One such instance occurred in 1948 when members of the Jewish underground organization LEHI (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) killed UN Peace Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte to protest his diplomatic efforts to modify the Palestine partition plan. In order to create and consolidate a Jewish State in 1948, Zionists expelled 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland and never allowed them or their descendants to return. In addition, Israeli forces destroyed over 400 Palestinian villages and perpetrated about three dozen massacres. Maybe thats why the Arabs did'nt agree to the two state solution? Pesco.. The Arabs also did'nt force them into refugee camps and treat them like caged animals. I knew creating a back up thread would create a problem. I guess it's like selecting a president when you already have one Which one do you use? Váli (Fearless Blue) Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 02:59 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moved to mk2 Pesco (White Giant) Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 03:50 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh, was that a backup thread? I thought it was a continuation thread. Which was your intent? nix001 (Golden Rainbow) Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 04:14 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was for back up. JR started a new 5 word story game when the one we were using got to 368 posts to make sure another one did'nt get deleted. And those posts are only 5 words long. What do you recon JR? We need to find out if the 5 word story game was deleted because of the number of posts or whether it was because of the amount of information. But saying that theres a hell of a lot more info in this thread already. It must be the number of posts. Init. That leaves us with 60 posts left. I suppose it's gonna depend on what happens next to whether we will use them up. We have already got through alot though and I'm sure theres gonna be more to come. If it is down to the number of posts then I recon we should use the other one, even though this one's as it's alot easier to read. Karff (Little Upsilon) Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 01:30 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Pesco.. The Arabs also did'nt force them into refugee camps and treat them like caged animals. " No, they just forced the Jews out of their countries and conquered territory. The only difference is Israel was willing to take them in, and the Arab countries were content to force the Palestinians into refugee camps. Jordan is the only country that's willing to give citizenship to Palestinian refugees. Israel has tried resettling refugees in camps in Gaza and the West Bank, but has been unable to do so, and in one case the UN even told Israel they couldn't move people out of the camp nix001 Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 05:31 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How can you put more people into a place that's already one of the most populated and oppressed places on the earth? Maybe that's why the UN said no? Karff (Little Upsilon) Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 06:50 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm referring to Jenin of course, which was destroyed in house to house fighting and rebuilt by the UN. The UN knew that rebuilding it exactly as it was would result in the exact same squalid conditions as before but decided that was the best plan. It should be noted Jenin is already located in the West Bank EDIT: I noticed a while ago someone talking about how unbiased the BBC is.... well, they'll have you believe that at least http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-451138/Report-BBCs-anti-Israel-bias-stay-secret.html nix001 (Kebir Blue) Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 09:21 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Watch what you write everyone(read the last bit of 'meeting log' thread) it would be a shame if any of us got banned. OK peps, I've gotta go and win a poker game Peace. Pesco Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 12:59 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (This was originally posted in the "backup" thread) Almohad, thank you for your good questions. Here are my responses: "Let's start with point number one: the occupation. Does Israel occupy Palestinian territory or not? Is this occupation legal or not?" In the Gaza Strip, Israel occupies lands that were occupied by Egypt when the 1967 war began. So there's a precedent for the occupation of that territory. In the West Bank, Israel occupies lands Jordan annexed, giving West Bank residents Jordanian passports. So this wasn't even "Palestine" anymore, according to the Arabs. "Also, have the Palestinians - Hamas included - offered to negotiate with Israel on the basis of a return to 1967 borders or not?" The answer about Hamas is on Wikipedia: "Hamas later announced publicly an offer for a 10 year hudna or truce with Israel, should they decide to return to their 1967 borders and allow the return of all Palestinian refugees." Ok, so Israel is supposed to give up permanent claim on the West Bank and Gaza and allow Palestinians to get their old property back within Israel proper in exchange for a *temporary* truce?! From a group who still clings to the goal of Israel's destruction? Who in the world would agree to such terms? "What has been Israel's response to those offers?" ROTFL, I imagine. And rightfully so. "Do the Palestinians deserve a state of their own or not?" Yes, assuming the Palestinian state respects the sovereignty of Israel. "By what rationale is that right subject to certain conditions imposed by third parties?" Because Hamas has, by its own statements, said it has no inclination to recognize the right of Israel to exist. Again, from Wikipedia: "After the establishment of Hamas government [in 2006], Dr Al-Zahar stated his 'dreams of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it...I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (including Israel). This dream will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land'." 'Nuff said. Almohad117 (White Giant) Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 03:01 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The question of who owned what land or what it was called is immaterial. The primary question is: are the Palestinians to be allowed to return to their homes? Call it Palestine, call it Jordan/Egypt, call it a permanent floating UN beach party where members of the security council take it in turn to supply the clams... what is not in dispute is that the Palestinians have every right to return to live in what was their home, from which they were forcibly and illegally evicted. More to come... Almohad117 (White Giant) Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 03:17 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oops - are we supposed to be on nix's new thread now?? Pesco Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 03:53 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, I think we're supposed to be here. Pesco Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 03:53 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I feel this should be the treatment of those that lost lands in the formation of Israel: 1. For Palestinians that lived inside "Green Line" Israel and still have immediate relatives there: Allow them to return and compensate them for the lands lost. I would not give them the ability to take their old homes/lands back. 2. For all other Palestinians that lived in Israel-proper: Compensate them (or their estates) for lands and property lost, but do not allow right of return. 3. Compensate Jews (or their estates) that fled or were kicked out of Arab countries after 1948 for their land and property lost. Almohad117 (White Giant) Monday, January 12, 2009 - 06:17 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All Palestinians who were kicked out should have the right of return, regardless of whether or not they lived inside the Green Line. Jews who were kicked out of neighbouring countries: an interesting question. If they want to return to where they lived they should absolutely be entitled to. Even if they don't, they're entitled to some kind of compensation for what they lost. This is an interesting question, and one that doesn't get much attention. How many are there? Pesco Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 02:31 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Palestinians weren't living inside the Green Line, where were they living that Israel will have control over if a Palestinian state is formed? Where else were they kicked out of by Israel? I really do think it's impractical to allow a huge migration of Palestinians into Israel. That would be basically destroying the idea of a Jewish state. Which I know a lot of Arab states would like to do. Israel will never agree, so we potentially end up where we are... bloody stalemate. A very limited form of return may be allowed along with compensation, but I really think the right of return issue could contribute to preventing a peace accord just like it did in 2000. Wikipedia says: "According to official Arab statistics, 856,000 Jews left their homes in Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s. Some 600,000 resettled in Israel." Of course, from this alone, it's not clear how many lost land and property. I wouldn't support a right of return for them, either. Things have become so partisan and deadly. It's not like mixed Jewish-Arab communities really exist anymore where either side would really feel welcome as a minority. What good could come of it at this point? Almohad117 (White Giant) Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 05:47 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think the whole idea of a "Jewish state" (or any "...ish" state) is the problem. States shouldn't be based on race or religion in the first place. Ultimately I think a single, secular state embracing Jews, Palestinians and whoever else, is the only viable solution. I agree it seems pretty far-fetched right now - to say the least - but I do think it will have to happen. Jewish-Arab communities have existed in the past so at least we know it's possible. There are Jewish-Palestinian groups in Israel working for peace today. There are some hopeful signs - signs that it can be done. As for the Jews who left Arab countries or were forced out, I bet most wouldn't want to return anyway. I think those who left under circumstances where they unwillingly lost property of any kind should have the right of compensation at least. I'd like to know more about how the Jews of Iran are faring, and how they feel about their situation. Granted it's not a huge community, but they do seem to be allowed to practice their religion. deadman101 (Kebir Blue) Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 02:40 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The capitol of the world.....I say Las Vegas. It's got violence, gambling, hotels etc.... Everything of which mankind has made and loves. The Grand Poobah (Golden Rainbow) Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 01:28 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The war is a farce. A way to drive up oil and weapons prices. The innocent die. The cycle continues. Greed= Shame both parties are guilty. it's not who should lay down their guns. Everyone HAS to or war will never end. it's like to brothers punching each other. After several rounds, they both ache and wish to stop. But both are to proud to lower his fists first wich results in insults, threats and then another salvo of punches. The end result is the same. our arms hurt. Lets pressure both sides to lay down their arms. Show the Arabs your feet and the Jews your (Expletive Deleted) (Ryhmes with Sore Pins). They both suck and need to stop. Oh, wait. We suck too. Damn. What's wrong with the world? Oh yeah Lust for money Boy do I feel sheepish. ;-P
| |
| Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - 11:15 pm RIP GAZA
|
