Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 12:47:17 am
:eek2:
Leader of Hamas, most senior palistinian killed yet by Israel.
I don't know why they have waited this long to kill him, this is big news.
Post by: Sandwich on March 22, 2004, 12:49:55 am
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/21/yassin/index.html
The reason I said "Saruman" is because in the first LOTR: Fellowship of the Rings movie, when I saw it with friends in a theater, my friend exclaimed "It's Sheikh Yassin!" upon seeing Saruman. Whatevs.
Threads merged. Bob beat me to it. ;)
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 12:52:02 am
Post by: mikhael on March 22, 2004, 12:56:58 am
At least mourn the necessity. Jesus.
Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 12:58:09 am
Post by: Liberator on March 22, 2004, 01:08:13 am
Post by: Sandwich on March 22, 2004, 01:11:25 am
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
Yeah, cuz assassinating people is a GOOD thing.
At least mourn the necessity. Jesus.
Good place for a quote:
[q]Golda Meir, at a 1969 press conference in London:
When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.[/q]
I cannot agree more.
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 01:14:04 am
Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 01:15:16 am
for example, that they will not stop untill they have pushed Israel into the sea
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 01:15:39 am
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.
Did they force you to steal their land as well? Question for you sandwich, were you born in Israel? Were your mother and father?
Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 01:16:45 am
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 01:17:59 am
Post by: Sandwich on March 22, 2004, 01:18:55 am
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
67 war was started by Israel bobboau
Wrong. Learn your history.
Edit: Massing armed forces around an enemy nation's borders (http://www.idf.il/english/history/sixday.stm) isn't declaration of war in your book?
Post by: Liberator on March 22, 2004, 01:23:31 am
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 01:24:05 am
Post by: Lt.Cannonfodder on March 22, 2004, 01:27:50 am
Post by: Sandwich on March 22, 2004, 01:28:43 am
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Six day war was started by Israel Sandwich, may have been a pre-emptive strike but they still started it. And no massing troops on an enemys border is not declaring war, India and Pakistan do it regularly for example.
Shame that I have to go to work now... I'd rather like to debate this.
Post by: mikhael on March 22, 2004, 01:28:46 am
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 01:36:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
Shame that I have to go to work now... I'd rather like to debate this.
Got to work myself, been busy of late but hopefully we can continue it later. But just in case I cant, at the end of the day the Ashkenzi's started it all.
Btw says a lot for the Israeli armed forces when they have to use helicopter gunships to kill a paraplegic.
Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 01:37:30 am
Post by: Liberator on March 22, 2004, 02:13:12 am
The commandment says specifically: "Thou shalt not kill"
Now the literal meaning is obvious, but the taking of life in war held in a much different light than murder. One would think that you would know this from your time in the military.
Remember, after giving this commandment, God aided the Hebrews in a campaign to retake the lands given by God to Abraham, father of the Jewish race, after their centuries long bondage in Egypt.
Before I get pounded on it:
Yes, I know Abraham is also the Father of the Arab race. However, he fathered Ishmael with a servant girl, due to a lack of faith in God, who said that his 90 year old wife, Sarah, would bear him a son. Ishmael and his mother were subsequently turned out of the camp when Sarah became pregnant at the ripe old age of 98, IIRC.
Post by: Setekh on March 22, 2004, 02:17:36 am
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
The commandment says specifically: "Thou shalt not kill"
Lib, this has been spoken about many times, but it would be helpful for you to quote it correctly - the commandment is thou shalt not murder. Ask Sandwich for more details.
And on that note, Mike, that's an excellent quote. One of the tragedies of the world is that many of us have brought death upon ourselves.
Post by: Sandwich on March 22, 2004, 02:17:55 am
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
The commandment says specifically: "Thou shalt not kill"
No it doesn't. It says "Thou shalt not murder."
Edit: Steak beat me to it. :p
Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 02:18:46 am
Post by: Setekh on March 22, 2004, 02:19:55 am
And on the subject of the assassination, I hope more life than death comes from it. I'm holding my breath watching for any retaliation. :nervous:
Post by: Nico on March 22, 2004, 02:21:08 am
Quote
Originally posted by Setekh
Lib, this has been spoken about many times, but it would be helpful for you to quote it correctly - the commandment is thou shalt not murder. Ask Sandwich for more details.
The french version would translate as "kill", not "murder". So, who's right?
Btw, starting this thread, that's REALLY calling for it, no?
Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 02:21:46 am
Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 02:22:53 am
in hebrew it was murder.
Post by: Sandwich on March 22, 2004, 02:23:06 am
Quote
Originally posted by Nico
The french version would translate as "kill", not "murder". So, who's right?
Btw, starting this thread, that's REALLY calling for it, no?
The original Hebrew is "tirzach" - the imperative form of the word "murder".
Post by: Liberator on March 22, 2004, 02:25:56 am
Post by: Sandwich on March 22, 2004, 02:37:24 am
Edit: Wow, it does. The New King James Version corrects the error, though.
Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 02:44:07 am
all they found of Yassin was his head aparently.
Post by: aldo_14 on March 22, 2004, 05:19:40 am
Is it really such a great and useful act to kill an old man in a wheelchair? I mean, will this advance peace in any way whatsoever? Or whill it just accelerate the circle of violence?
Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 05:25:55 am
Post by: aldo_14 on March 22, 2004, 05:31:15 am
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau
well that old man was one of the purest incarnations of hate the world has ever known, and was directly involved in the organisation of plaistinian atacks, so, yeah, I think so
But, much as the bloke deserved to die, will it really solve anything?
I mean, there was 15,000 palestinians out in the streets to protests, it's certainly not calmed the situation down over there.... surely the concern has to be for the future?
More importantly, is he not more dangerous as a martyr?
Post by: Goober5000 on March 22, 2004, 05:36:06 am
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
KJV has "...not kill." ???
Edit: Wow, it does. The New King James Version corrects the error, though.
Heh - there was even a translation* published in 1795 that said, "Thou shall commit adultery." :nervous:
*C.F. here (http://www.catholic-truth.org/Essays/bible-study.htm) and elsewhere.
Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 05:36:45 am
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 05:38:12 am
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau
bold new peace inititive.
:wtf: What bold new peace inititives have been made in the middle east recently?
Post by: aldo_14 on March 22, 2004, 05:39:20 am
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
:wtf: What bold new peace inititives have been made in the middle east recently?
all the ones that failed :nervous:
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 05:42:37 am
Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 05:49:41 am
headline:
"Mideast peace 'road map' unveiled
Hamas vows to sabotage blueprint for Palestinian state"
Post by: SadisticSid on March 22, 2004, 06:01:55 am
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 06:02:33 am
Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 06:06:41 am
I spent five seconds looking for a hamas sabotage of a peace plan, wich is wht you asked for, and low and behold I found one, not only that but Yassin himself was the one to call this one personaly.
I was speaking genericaly, any peace plan is doomed from the start becase of people like him
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 06:09:40 am
Quote
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Such is terrorism - appease the terrorists in any way and they will never be satisfied.
Aye thats what happened in 1948, when the British withdrew from Palestine after attacks from Israeli terrorists.
Post by: Sandwich on March 22, 2004, 06:10:18 am
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
The US road map a "bold new peace inititive"? Blow it out your other hole, its a cut down version of the olso accords. And Hamas did actually declare a ceasefire after it was published, Israel kept on killing.
Ahh yes, the infamous "Hudna". You might want to look up the historical meaning of "Hudna" before translating it as a "cease-fire".
Perhaps "Fall back, regroup, and then wipe them out from a position of power" would be a more accurate translation. :-/
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 06:13:56 am
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau
I was speaking genericaly, any peace plan is doomed from the start becase of people like him
Theres two sides to everything Bobboau, Sharon isnt exactly the nicest person in the world either, an Israel court found him directly responsible for the murder of 2000 women and children at the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps during the invasion of Lebanon. Do you think he deserves to die?
Post by: Styxx on March 22, 2004, 06:15:46 am
Until then, too bad if Israel decides to kill some of them. I myself would have flattened the whole "palestinian" territories with those cool new huge remote-controlled bulldozers Israel has.
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 06:24:36 am
Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 06:30:40 am
Post by: Styxx on March 22, 2004, 06:39:32 am
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
:wtf: You sure know a lot about the situation :rolleyes:
Yep. I also don't care, and I also have a severe dislike for people who blow themselves up in bars and buses and for those who support them, regardless of cause.
;)
Post by: Sandwich on March 22, 2004, 06:44:04 am
I ask because I've been overseas, and I know the kind of media reports people over there get - I'm wondering if your take on the situation is because of such media reports or if it's something else.
Post by: aldo_14 on March 22, 2004, 07:41:39 am
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
Gank, you're obviously not exactly what they would call "pro-Israel".... ;) Would you mind explaining how you see the whole situation over here?
I ask because I've been overseas, and I know the kind of media reports people over there get - I'm wondering if your take on the situation is because of such media reports or if it's something else.
Well, from my perspective the situation is that both sides are as bad as the other - the Palestinians commit terrorist atrocities, whilst Israel responds by moving in military hardware (tanks, helicopter / missile strikes, etc) that inevitably results in heavy collateral damage.
Personally, I have a great deal of sympathy for Israel - it's very easy to understand why there would be a strong desire for revenge. But at the same time, it's pretty clear that reciprocal attacks are simply worsening the situation.
I think that, ever since Sharon took power, people have become increasingly worried about the cycle of violence, and how it affects the rest of the world.
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 08:05:28 am
Quote
Originally posted by Styxx
Yep. I also don't care, and I also have a severe dislike for people who blow themselves up in bars and buses and for those who support them, regardless of cause.;)
I have a severe dislike for people who bomb apartment blocks and refugee camps, and those who support them. Those people who neither know nor care the circumstances or even basic history behind this sort of stuff before they take sides I particularly dislike.
Sandwich, My mother spent a month in Israel last year making a documentary, I've got about 40 hours of footage of the west bank in the house with me now. She talked to a lot of people over there, both Israeli and Palestinian and conducted interviews with quite a few. Second hand information but its a bit more than most people here have, interesting stuff too, like how the settlers arent all that popular with the army, and theres a sixteen year old pally kid saying pretty much the same thing as Golda Meir. I have a couple of friends who served with the army in the Leb, they have a few storys about the Israeli armys treatment of the locals and themselves. Shin Bet in particular arent popular in Irish army bases.
I'm not particularly pro-Israel but then I'm not pro-terrorist either, I do see a distinction between Hamas and the palestinian people though, unlike some people on here. I also have the cop on to know that killing a cripple in a wheelchair is going to do jack **** to stop terrorism.
Bobboau, yeah I know something of Israels misdeeds, I also know something of its past. Heres a relevent quote from it.
Quote
Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can negate the use of terror as a means of battle.
...We are quite far from moral hesitations on the national battlefield. We see before us the command of the Torah, the most moral teaching in the world: "Obliterate - until destruction." We are particularly far from this sort of hesitation in regard to an enemy whose moral perversion is admitted by all.
But primarily terror is part of our political battle under present conditions and its role is large and great:
* It demonstrates, in clear language, to those who listen throughout the world and to our despondent brothers outside the gates of this country of our battle against the true terrorist who hides behind his piles of papers and the laws he has legislated.
* It is not directed against people, it is directed against representatives. Therefore it is effective.
* If it also shakes the Jews in Israel from their complacency, good and well.
Only so will the battle for liberation begin.
Published in The Front magazine in August 1943, a mouthpiece for Lehi, otherwise known as the Stern gang. These guys also approached the Nazis in 1941 to help them fight the British. They also, along with Irgun and Haganch, founded the nation of Israel.
Post by: Styxx on March 22, 2004, 08:23:05 am
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
I have a severe dislike for people who bomb apartment blocks and refugee camps, and those who support them. Those people who neither know nor care the circumstances or even basic history behind this sort of stuff before they take sides I particularly dislike.
Ok. I can respect that. But now, tell me one thing: do you really think the Palestinians are fighting for their land? If so, why aren't they also fighting for those lands that are now part of Jordan? At least the Israelis are honest about it, and their motives are clear. They don't want to eliminate the Palestinians, or it would be over with already.
To tell the truth, I think the Israeli government has displayed an incredible amount of restraint up to now - if this was happening in the US, for example, it would have been over a long time ago, the matter finished through massive bombing and military occupation. Hell, just look at Iraq, where there wasn't a clear and immediate threat to US territories.
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 09:01:37 am
And the West Bank and Gaza strip have been occupied by the Israeli militay since 1967, they were orginally part of Egypt (iirc) and Jordan. The mother spent a week in Jenin theres one road in and out and Israeli tanks on all the hills surrounding it, its an open air prison. And all around it are Israeli settlements, built on land which belonged to Palestinians.
Post by: Sandwich on March 22, 2004, 09:19:44 am
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
I have a severe dislike for people who bomb apartment blocks and refugee camps, and those who support them. Those people who neither know nor care the circumstances or even basic history behind this sort of stuff before they take sides I particularly dislike.
Sandwich, My mother spent a month in Israel last year making a documentary, I've got about 40 hours of footage of the west bank in the house with me now. She talked to a lot of people over there, both Israeli and Palestinian and conducted interviews with quite a few. Second hand information but its a bit more than most people here have, interesting stuff too, like how the settlers arent all that popular with the army, and theres a sixteen year old pally kid saying pretty much the same thing as Golda Meir. I have a couple of friends who served with the army in the Leb, they have a few storys about the Israeli armys treatment of the locals and themselves. Shin Bet in particular arent popular in Irish army bases.
I'm not particularly pro-Israel but then I'm not pro-terrorist either, I do see a distinction between Hamas and the palestinian people though, unlike some people on here. I also have the cop on to know that killing a cripple in a wheelchair is going to do jack **** to stop terrorism.
Ok, you already have a lot more respect from me because of your source of information. Although it does sound like a very selective range of people your mother interviewed - Israeli society covers the whole political gamut, and then some.
A few points of rebuttal though:
- I was part of the operation in Jenin; many soldiers risked their lives - and lost them - over the IDF's decision to wage most of the battles there on foot as opposed to wholesale long-range bombing.
- Yes, the attitude displayed by many soldiers - on a one-on-one basis - towards Palestinians sucks. But that is not the majority by any means - most soldiers are, if not friendly towards Palestinians, at least curteous (sp?). Also, the IDF does not support/encourage/whatever any sort of "sucky" behavior at all in their soldiers.
I gotta run home now - I'll continue this convo later.
Post by: Styxx on March 22, 2004, 09:34:09 am
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Styxx, go learn something about the place, seriously. Jordan is Palestine, renamed. When the mandate was partitioned it was split into 2 parts, Israel and Transjordan. Nobody stole anybodys land in Jordan, it just got renamed. What the Palestinians are fighting for is land which is now settled by mainly Ashkenzi Eastern European jews, desendants of the Khazars who converted to Judaism around 800 iirc and have as much ancestral right to a homeland in the middle east as the Mexicans do in Morroco. They make up 80% of Israels population i think, the rest being Sephardic jews.
And the West Bank and Gaza strip have been occupied by the Israeli militay since 1967, they were orginally part of Egypt (iirc) and Jordan. The mother spent a week in Jenin theres one road in and out and Israeli tanks on all the hills surrounding it, its an open air prison. And all around it are Israeli settlements, built on land which belonged to Palestinians.
If Jordan is indeed "Palestine", why the hell isn't it claiming the Israeli territories? Perhaps because they know they'd get their asses kicked in a straight fight? The fight for land is a weak excuse for their hatred of jews, extended automatically to the Israeli population in general. The "palestines" have as much "ancestral rights" on the Israeli lands as native americans have on Washington D.C., and the fact is that nobody in power cares about it, as they bloody well shouldn't. As for the occupied territories - too bad for the Egyptians and Jordanians, learn not to poke your nose into a hornet's nest next time. Wars tend to change political borders, you know.
Oh, the palestinians have the "right" to fight for whatever they want. If they want to bomb the heck out of Israeli civilians, they "can" - not legally, of course - and that's what they're doing. But complaining that Israel retaliates afterwards is hypocrisy, and nothing else. From their part and from anyone who defends them.
Post by: Rictor on March 22, 2004, 10:11:05 am
ASAF SHTULL-TRAURING
article from Counter-punch (http://www.counterpunch.com/asaf03152004.html)
A car approached the checkpoint. Probably out of boredom, one of the soldiers on duty ordered the person in the car to start driving around in circles. The Palestinian driver played along with the armed soldier's game and laughed anxiously, unsuccessfully trying to hide his humiliation. What amazed me most about this event wasn't what the soldier did but what I didn't do: I didn't stop him from humiliating the helpless driver." My philosophy teacher, an extraordinary, poetic and gentle man, told me this story a few years ago. This event motivated him to declare his refusal to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces.
Two weeks before my eighteenth birthday, and two weeks and two days before my draft date, I was on a plane leaving Israel to New York, running from what was supposed to be the next step in the natural pattern of my life, predetermined by law before I was born. Israel has a mandatory army service of three years for most eighteen-year-old Israeli citizens; I was defying it by leaving the country. When I was fifteen years old I had decided to refuse to take part in the army's violence, war crimes, self-destruction, hatred and stupidity. And so I did, and three years later I was on my way out.
Israel is a hard place to live these days. I vividly remember studying for an exam with a friend last year on the rooftop of his building, one of the highest in the city. Suddenly, we heard a great explosion. "Was that thunder?" I asked my friend, but the sky was almost cloudless. Looking down at the city below us, we saw a plume of smoke rising from the central mall. For a short moment we heard nothing, and immediately following we heard screams. Five minutes later the news reports were of another suicide attack. Two people were murdered, among them a sixteen-year-old boy.
This was not the first or last terrorist attack in my town. Weeks later, a militant started shooting in the street, killing a girl my age. A few months earlier a suicide bomber blew himself up in a bus in our city, and a bomb was uncovered just a few hundred meters from my house. Recently a girl from my grade was murdered in a suicide attack somewhere in the north of Israel.
The Israeli army usually responds to suicide attacks by putting sieges around cities, bombing civilian targets where suspected terrorists are located and sending troops into villages. The terrorist groups clearly know and enthusiastically anticipate these developments, because the more the Palestinian people suffer, the more powerful these extremist groups become. Many Palestinians see the Palestinian Authority (kept in power by the Israeli government so as to ensure there will be someone to blame) as powerless to deal with Israeli aggression; they then give their support to groups which bring upon them more suffering and little hope for a better future.
One might wonder why Israel automatically reacts to Palestinian terrorism with its own terrorism. Do they not know that this makes Israel an even less secure place to live by empowering groups such as Hamas? Many people are perhaps unaware of the fact that Israel, towards the end of the 1980s, actively helped in the establishment of the Hamas terrorist organization, hoping to create an Islamic opposition to the more moderate and secular PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization). Afraid of the PLO's demand for a state, Israel hoped that by creating a fundamentalist opposition to it, they could break its political monopoly in the occupied territories. More than a decade later, it seems that Israel has been very successful: The Hamas and extremist Islamic movements are gaining power and popularity in the Palestinian street. Israel's counter-terrorism is perhaps a continuation of this strategy of killing off the moderate voices by strengthening the Palestinian terrorist groups. This is a cycle of blood and death, where one side gains from the other side, all at the expense of Israeli and Palestinian lives.
The cycle of blood goes way back into the 1980s. Twenty years after their land was occupied by the Israeli army in the 1967 war, the Palestinians unleashed, for the first time, their anger against the military regime; this uprising came to be known as the first Intifada. During this period my father served in the army in the occupied territories. He recalls what his commanding officer had to say to the soldiers in his very first tour of duty in the Ramallah area: "All the Arabs understand is force. If we show weakness, then we will have trouble the whole 30 days we are here. We have to kill a few Palestinians as soon as we take up our position, and then we'll have quiet." The commanding officer eventually killed a teenage Palestinian stone thrower.
This is in no way an isolated event but a militaristic attitude accepted by the army and most Israelis, who see organized counter-terrorism as the only way to deal with violent Palestinian resistance. The mentioned officer, who was at the time a family friend (not anymore!), is today a member of Parliament in the Likud party. He is in good company: Ehud Yatom, another Likud member of Parliament murdered an unarmed and cuffed militant with his bare hands. Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister and head of the Likud party, is known for his involvement in the Sabra and Shatilah massacres and for the Kybia massacre, which was led by his notorious 101 unit.
My decision to refuse was very much influenced by my father's personal experiences during the first Intifada. Like other soldiers, he understood that he wasn't protecting Israeli lives but Jewish extremist settlements built on stolen land. A year after my decision, I sent a letter to the army stating my reasons for refusing to serve in the army. I summarized the letter with the following paragraph: "Without fighting manpower, or more correctly 'cannon fodder,' no general can achieve his goals, no matter what they are. As I grew up, I became interested in politics. I began to understand that I must oppose the corruption and militarism that has saturated Israeli society with blood-thirstiness and with a twisted moral conception which serve as the foundations for the war crimes being perpetrated in the occupied territories."
My refusal was never only a personal act, but an explicitly political one. During the second Intifada, which broke out in October 2000, I joined 61 high-school student refusers. Together we sent a letter to the army declaring that we "refuse to serve the occupation." As a result we got worldwide attention and brought the concept of conscientious objection into the Israeli consciousness. In a couple of years the Israel youth refusers became a fullgrown movement with hundreds of members and a small hardcore group of activists of which I was part. Our "Reveille for Refusers" was illegal and unprecedented in Israeli history.
Israeli students are taught to believe that the Israeli Army is the most moral army in the world. But one cannot ignore the reality in which Palestinian children are dying daily; 70% of Palestinian requests for ambulances cannot be granted due to restrictions on movement; sick people and pregnant women cannot pass through checkpoints; and Israeli bulldozers tear down one house after another. Israel is currently building a wall which encircles whole towns and villages, separating people from their land and water.
My decision to refuse was based on the freedom-responsibility principle: the more I reject societal law and taboo, the more responsibility I acquire as an individual. I see this as the fundamental process of becoming more human, for the difference between animals and human beings is in the amount of freedom and responsibility they have. The more a person relies on social norms, laws, and instincts to determine his life, the more he is giving up his individual self. I always ask my friends: if there was no draft law, would you still go to the army? Are you doing this because you are consciously deciding to do so or are you passively accepting the script of your life, written and signed before you were even born?
Looking at class reunion photographs, I see good friends my age wearing army uniforms. One of them will soon be flying a fighter jet, another will be driving a tank, and still others will be holding rifles. I wonder: why do these people, all my age, seem to possess a God-like power and right to decide who shall die and who shall live, who by fire, and who by water? Israeli military law defines soldiers as "military property" and as such perhaps they can be bargained, bought, sold and even vandalized. By that definition, soldiers can be used as a means but never as an end. Soldiers do not posses the God-like power to kill, but are olive-green-clad, obedient extensions of a greater machine of organized violence.
So where do soldiers fit into the freedom-responsibility principle? By a superficial glance, it may seem that soldiers have no freedom and thus no responsibility for their actions. The irony is that their power derives from the fact that human individuality was taken from them once they became soldiers, at least symbolically speaking. As opposed to Samson, the shaving of one's hair on the draft date is the symbol of "freedom" from individualism and "freedom" to become part of a powerful, violent collective. Once joining the fatalistic cycle of war, there is not much time or place to think. Even my teacher couldn't stop the poor driver going around in circles. His only way out was by refusing.
Soldiers should not be excused from moral judgment, for they chose to be killing machines much as a sober man chooses to be drunk. They chose to enter the cycle of violence from their own free will. Humans are born free and thus must ultimately be judged as such. During the second World War, a student came up to the French philosopher Sartre and asked him whether he should join the French Army or support his mother at home. The philosopher famously answered: You are free to choose.
Sartre claims that when willfully joining a war, a soldier must take full responsibility for its consequences. Anyone who does not want to take upon himself such responsibility (including that towards family members left behind), must desert, commit suicide or sit in jail. Sartre suggests that every action we take in our lives has implications and that as free human beings we must take responsibility for the consequences of our actions. Soldiers, although forced into becoming the mindless property of the military, are still free and responsible human beings by the fact that they chose to be soldiers.
Once deciding to refuse to serve in the army, I developed what I now call an anarchist consciousness, which is very much based on the freedom-responsibility principle. I assume that such a consciousness started to develop earlier than my decision to refuse, perhaps resulting from the fact that as I matured I found out that many vital parts of my formal education (both religious and secular) were based on lies and misconceptions, mostly in the context of orthodox doctrine and ideological Zionist propaganda. I had been taught that Israel was built on lands without people. It took me many years to find out that 471 villages were wiped from the face of the earth by Israeli militias, and that more than 600,000 Palestinians fled from ethnic cleansing during the 1948 war. This disappointment probably led me to doubt pedagogical authority in particular and authority in general. My disappointment did not develop into a youthful rebellion, because my parents accepted my attitude as legitimate and even came to adopt many of my views.
Instead of becoming a rebellious 'punk', I became a political activist and conscientious objector. I cannot say that I did not have my share in draft burning and graffiti spraying, but these were thought-out actions for which I took full responsibility. I would not have felt ashamed if I had been caught writing graffiti saying "Refuse to serve the occupation."
The penalty for going AWOL (Absent Without Leave) is officially fifteen years in jail. Ironically, Omer, a guy from my class, is now in the army unit in charge of capturing AWOL soldiers and drug dealers. The army redefined the relationship between Omer and me; I am now a criminal, in the same category as drug dealers; this person who used to study with me might be the one who picks me up at the airport the day I return to Israel, sending me straight to military prison. Back in Israel, a criminal record has been opened against me, and perhaps also an unofficial social one. Refusing to serve in the army is an action that is considered treason in many political circles, even in the left.
By leaving Israel, I knew I will not be able to return for many years, until the day I feel I am willing and ready to sit in jail for unknown periods of time. Leaving my friends was a hard thing in and of itself, but in the context of my refusal, it was even more tense because all of my friends were going to the army while I was leaving to attend university. A few months after leaving for New York, a good friend sent an email to a few people with a picture of teenagers training for army service. In the email referring to the picture, he wrote: "It is amazing how our political discussions are turning into reality, from theory into practice. Excuse me but I just have to compare what you are doing there and what we are doing here... The contrast between our lives is amazing."
Many people back in Israel (people who were never politically active themselves) blame me for leaving the important struggle in favor of my personal interest. Beyond the fact that I am continuing the struggle here as well, I have to admit that in some way I do feel "guilty." Three of my fellow activists in the youth refusal movement who spent the last year in jail, were just sentenced for another whole year. Perhaps I need to join them. On the other hand, I know that by staying in Israel, my parents wouldn't have left me, and therefore my decision would have impacted them as well.
The sense of guilt, or more accurately duty I am experiencing is not towards Israel's law but towards humanity in general; my morality and conscience have no geographical boundaries nor nationalist inclinations. If something wrong is happening on the other side of the world, you have a moral duty to fight it if you can. Considering the fact that American tax money is subsidizing the Israeli military regime, I think my duty also has practical grounds.
The value of life has nothing to with national borders and states. Back in Israel this simple notion of the universality of human life has been forgotten. Most Israelis support dropping bombs on houses of suspected militants, even if this results in the death of innocent people, including children and women. But the reality is that one cannot achieve security through the destruction of others. In the famous case of the attack on the terrorist Sallah Shadeh, the bombing not only left thirteen innocent people dead, but also lead to a wave of suicide attacks in Israel after a relative period of quiet. Alas, the American military is trying to learn from the Israeli Army's experience in its war against terrorism. Unfortunately reality shows that Israel's "war on terrorism" is both immoral and unsuccessful.
Leaving Israel was not a negative experience. It was also a powerful existential event, which empowered me as a human being. It helped unleash the anarchist within me, in the sense that I realized that law and social taboos sometimes must be ignored in favor of human life and democratic freedoms. I understood that I must turn my privilege against itself and against other people's undeserved privileges. I knew that once I am in the army, it would be hard to change things; I would become part of the shaping forces themselves, in the role of an obedient soldier.
My teacher, the commanding soldier and the Palestinian driver all became slaves of the occupation and victims of their lost identities and freedoms. I freed myself from the cycle of blood, but this freedom gave me more responsibility as an individual. As I told my friends who are in the army now, I am ready to take this responsibility upon myself, and I invite them to join me.
Asaf Shtull-Trauring is an 18-year-old philosophy student at NYU. He went AWOL as a process of avoiding the draft in Israel and was part of the Israeli Youth Refusal movement. He can be reached at: [email protected]
Post by: Sandwich on March 22, 2004, 11:00:11 am
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Unfortunately reality shows that Israel's "war on terrorism" is both immoral and unsuccessful.
Immoral? The author doesn't know what he's talking about, and never will until he serves in the IDF - which, apparently, won't happen.
Like I said before, there are no lack of immoral instances. But that is not the norm.
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 22, 2004, 11:18:05 am
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
refugee camps,
well you know, if arab solidarity had any meaning at all the palestinians would have been taken in by the neighbouring arab states. Instead these states let their arab "brothers" live in squalor so that these nations have a stick (i.e. evil Jooos suppres arabs) to drum up support with so they can justify repressing their own people.
Post by: Rictor on March 22, 2004, 11:46:40 am
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
Interesting article... I'm quite familiar with the refusenik social group.
Immoral? The author doesn't know what he's talking about, and never will until he serves in the IDF - which, apparently, won't happen.
Like I said before, there are no lack of immoral instances. But that is not the norm.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/404272.html
You claim that the majority of IDF soldiers are compassionate towards the suffering of Palestinian civlians. While I do not fully believe this, I find that its is at the very least possible that this is the truth. Lets assume that you're right.
The fact that the individual is moral does not negate the fact that the actions of the whole are immoral. As the article mentions, and I assume this to be true until some other sources proves otherwise, "Palestinian children are dying daily; 70% of Palestinian requests for ambulances cannot be granted due to restrictions on movement; sick people and pregnant women cannot pass through checkpoints; and Israeli bulldozers tear down one house after another. Israel is currently building a wall which encircles whole towns and villages, separating people from their land and water."
The wall, in and of itself is immoral. But its a rather new invention. The chekpoints, bulldozers, airstrikes and so forth are not.
Alright Sandwich, let me just ask you one thing. Do you doubt that Israel kills as many or more civilians (innocents, not militants) in retailiatory strikes and asassination attempts than Hamas and other militant groups kill in suicide bombings?
And then there is the issue not of killing the few, but of oppressing the many. Life for the average Palestinian living in the Occupied Territories is not, I imagine, very pleasant. A fact that the Wall does little to change. I find it inconcieveable (sp?) that the Israeli people do not see striking similarities between Israel's treatment of Palestinians and their own treatment under the Nazi regime.
The hundreds killed by airstrikes or bullets are nothing compared to the millions living in poverty, squallor and fear. That to me is the greater of the crimes.
Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 11:52:37 am
the "oppressing the many" might be a good angle to go after.
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 01:00:55 pm
Bobbaou, the retaliatory strikes may not have been aimed at civilians, but they are taken with the knowledge that civilians will die. And seeing as all Israelis must serve in the army reserves until the age of forty, a suicide bomb on a bus or nightclub could technically be considered a military target, with the risk of collateral damage.
Styxx, whatever.
Sandwich, she talked to a lot of people over there, her time was split evenly between sightseeing in Israel proper and the West Bank. She did say she found the Israelis difficult to talk to though, distainful would be a polite way of putting it. The people she actually interviewed were mostly palestinian kids, thats what the documentary was about, haveta say listening to a ten year old kid tring to explain why he hasnt seen his cousins in three years despite the fact that the live only a couple of miles away doesnt generate a lot of sympathy in me for Israel.
As for Jenin, I've seen a good bit of it, the place looks like its made of swiss cheese. Got some photos I'll try and dig up, pity I cant get some of the footage they shot on here, actually got shot at on a rooftop there. And do you honestly think the IDF deserves kudos for not bombing a place full of women and children? Please.
Btw the guys who served in the Leb mainly talked about the IDFs treatment of the local Shia Lebanese. Dont think I need to say much on that, the fact that Hezbollah was born out of it speaks for itself. The Israelis and SLA (that right?) did shell and shoot up the lads fairly regularly, safe in the knowledge they were under orders not to return fire. Pretty cowardly if you ask me.
Post by: Styxx on March 22, 2004, 01:07:19 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Styxx, whatever.
Way to refute my points. ;)
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 01:08:32 pm
Post by: Styxx on March 22, 2004, 01:10:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Sounded more like a rant to me
Suit yourself.
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 01:11:01 pm
Post by: Styxx on March 22, 2004, 01:23:10 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
No no, if there were points I'll try to find them and refure them for you.
I don't really want to perpetuate the argument here, but if you can't see my points it's simply because not seeing them suits you best. I was typing a long post explaining my points from the previous post, but re-reading it critically I realized they're quite clear by themselves. Feel free to ignore the post, though.
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 01:27:29 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Styxx
If Jordan is indeed "Palestine", why the hell isn't it claiming the Israeli territories?
Like I already pointed out, the palestinians who are fighting the Israelis are those who lived within the borders of Israel before its creation. Palestinians who now live in Jordan didnt lhave any land stolen from them. They arent fighting for the reinstatement of Palestine, which only existed as a british mandate from 1918-48, they want the land where they and their ancesters lived back,
Quote
The fight for land is a weak excuse for their hatred of jews, extended automatically to the Israeli population in general.
riiight, you'll be calling them anti-semites next. Do yourself a favour and look it up in a dictionary first.
Quote
The "palestines" have as much "ancestral rights" on the Israeli lands as native americans have on Washington D.C., and the fact is that nobody in power cares about it, as they bloody well shouldn't.
Theres a bit of a difference here, first of all your country mostly exterminated the Indians or stuck them on reservations, and after 200 years theres not many native indians around to lay claim to DC. Theres 3 millions Palestinians, many of whom actually lived in Palestine, and have Russians or Poles now living in their old homes. The analogy is pretty ****e to be honest, cant you think of anything better?
Quote
As for the occupied territories - too bad for the Egyptians and Jordanians, learn not to poke your nose into a hornet's nest next time. Wars tend to change political borders, you know.Aye but not people.
Quote
Oh, the palestinians have the "right" to fight for whatever they want. If they want to bomb the heck out of Israeli civilians, they "can" - not legally, of course - and that's what they're doing. But complaining that Israel retaliates afterwards is hypocrisy, and nothing else. From their part and from anyone who defends them.So bombing someone whos occuping your country is illegal while occuping that country is?
edit sorry bout the cursing, get fustrated debating something with someone who doesnt understand or care about the reasons behind it.
Post by: Rictor on March 22, 2004, 01:36:17 pm
/shakes hand
'cept mine :D:D
Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 01:39:17 pm
Post by: Gank on March 22, 2004, 01:41:03 pm
Post by: Rictor on March 22, 2004, 01:44:08 pm
Post by: Styxx on March 22, 2004, 01:46:14 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Like I already pointed out, the palestinians who are fighting the Israelis are those who lived within the borders of Israel before its creation. Palestinians who now live in Jordan didnt lhave any land stolen from them. They arent fighting for the reinstatement of Palestine, which only existed as a british mandate from 1918-48, they want the land where they and their ancesters lived back,
They had plenty of opportunity to get practicaly all of "their" lands back. And they are allowed to live in Israel, as a matter of fact, but they still want to create their own, "Palestinian", state (something that, interestingly, is not happening on Jordan). If all they wanted was to live in peace, they could merely stop bombing Israeli civilians.
Quote
riiight, you'll be calling them anti-semites next. Do yourself a favour and look it up in a dictionary first.
It was stated by Arafat himself that their goal is to "drive the jews to the sea". See, it wasn't "have our lands back to live peacefully", nor even "drive the Israelis to the sea".
Quote
Theres a bit of a difference here, first of all your country mostly exterminated the Indians or stuck them on reservations, and after 200 years theres not many native indians around to lay claim to DC. Theres 3 millions Palestinians, many of whom actually lived in Palestine, and have Russians or Poles now living in their old homes. The analogy is pretty ****e to be honest, cant you think of anything better?
It's not my country. I am Brazilian. And the only difference is the scale of time and population. How long does it take for something wrong to automatically become right? How few people must be left?
Quote
Aye but not people.
I don't quite understand what you mean here. Is it that wars don't change people? Or that people don't change political borders?
Quote
So bombing someone whos occuping your country is illegal while occuping that country is? Bull****. Styxx, **** off and learn some facts.
No, you missed my point here. Both the Israeli occupation and the bombings can be considered illegal (as the American Revolution was considered illegal by Great Britain, for example). The fact remains that you must take responsibility for the consequences of your actions, and Israeli military retaliation is a direct consequence of Palestinian terrorist attacks against civilians. They can bomb pizza places as much as Israel can bomb the homes of known terrorists in return, but defending the Palestinians, claiming they're "poor, innocent people who just want to live in peace" and ignoring the killing of innocents they perpetrate every day is simple hypocrisy. Israeli military units are visible for everyone everyday there: why don't they concentrate on military targets? Until they start to do so, they're nothing more and nothing less than terrorists. And in my opinion (and apparently in that of the Israeli government), terrorists should be killed.
Post by: Rictor on March 22, 2004, 01:53:18 pm
Post by: Bobboau on March 22, 2004, 01:55:14 pm
Post by: Shrike on March 22, 2004, 01:55:55 pm
Post by: vyper on March 22, 2004, 02:14:36 pm
There's days I'm glad I live in an island nation. :D
Post by: GT-Keravnos on March 22, 2004, 02:32:00 pm
In 1940 in my hometown Ioannina there were 5000 Greek Jews and one of the older Jewish communities (rumour had it that it was founded by the Jews fleeing a sinking ship that transported slaves to Rome after the second temple was destroyed). Its synagogue was the founding synagogue of Chicago.
Now, only a star of David is standing commemorating them. Germans took them all. (some escaped but they were a tiny percentage)
However bad I feel about the plight of the Palestinians, it is prudent sometimes to stop and think how and why Jews got where they are in the first place
Post by: Flipside on March 22, 2004, 02:34:21 pm
Secondly, while I cannot support or defend a man who advocates suicide bombings, I also cannot defend or support a state which advocates more or less the same thing. I hope things are better without him, but I cannot see this being the case, it was the wrong thing to do at precisely the wrong time.
Though I ask you to pause and think which action is closer to what you would consider as 'murder'.
Post by: 01010 on March 22, 2004, 02:49:36 pm
Wasn't the subtlest of moves for sure.
Post by: Liberator on March 22, 2004, 03:34:14 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Flipside
Ok, a helicopter with Air to Ground missiles is not what I would define a 'strategic strike', let's get that out of the way first ;)
Yes, it is. Although I would consider it a tactical strike, strategic is more grand, like using a B-52 to drop a skyburst nuke.
Post by: Flipside on March 22, 2004, 03:38:42 pm
If anything in the whole world is going to infuriate that part of the world, it is Israel flicking them the bird at this moment in time :(
Post by: Woolie Wool on March 22, 2004, 03:58:39 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
More's the pity they didn't get that bastard Arafat. Terrorism in Israel would have decreased 50%.
More like it would increase 5 billion percent. Do you know how ****ing pissed off the Palestinians would get?
Post by: Drew on March 22, 2004, 04:00:35 pm
Post by: aldo_14 on March 22, 2004, 04:31:45 pm
"If the whole world went by the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, everyone would be left blind and toothless"
It's not that i don't like seeing terrorists get offed - nothing makes me happier - it's just that the inevitable casualties are the innocent people who get caught int it - be it suicide bombers or collateral damage from the aforementioned missile strikes.
Post by: karajorma on March 22, 2004, 04:46:55 pm
Post by: Zeronet on March 22, 2004, 04:52:22 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
consistently the most educated and intelligent viewpoints expressed Gank.
/shakes hand
'cept mine :D:D
Yep,
Quote
Styxx, whateveris indeed, a very educated and intelligent response. I am overwhelmed by the sheer command of language and knowledge shown in that post.
Post by: Zeronet on March 22, 2004, 04:54:19 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Flipside
Ok, a helicopter with Air to Ground missiles is not what I would define a 'strategic strike', let's get that out of the way first ;)
Secondly, while I cannot support or defend a man who advocates suicide bombings, I also cannot defend or support a state which advocates more or less the same thing. I hope things are better without him, but I cannot see this being the case, it was the wrong thing to do at precisely the wrong time.
Though I ask you to pause and think which action is closer to what you would consider as 'murder'.
Murder is deliberate, suicide bombings deliberately target civilians, while assasination attempts on hamas members are not aimmed at the civilian population.
Post by: Sandwich on March 22, 2004, 05:17:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/404272.html
From that article:
[q]To ensure the victory, Shamni introduced an operational routine of an invasion every few weeks using armored forces, straight into the heart of the refugee camps and the slum neighborhoods, on every occasion leaving behind dead Palestinians, many of them innocent passersby. No one is able to explain the point and purpose of this brutal presence, this constant delivering of more and more blows to an already downtrodden population. No one has been called to account for the terrorism that sprouted and will continue to sprout from these futile operations. [/q]
Seems he read the book on Operation Defensive Shield, when Israel invaded Jenin.
I remember that that was our main action after the first week or so... we were camped a few miles outside the city, and would go into the city in tanks and APCs on what we called "violent patrols".
We'd drive around the city, shooting at suspicious objects (trash cans left on the road, cardboard boxes likewise near the road, etc). Half the time the object under fire would explode - booby-trapped.
Anyway, the whole point of this operation was to draw attention to our armored vehicles, to cause the terrorists to be drawn to our area and open fire on us. If and when that occurred, we'd pinpoint the window/doorway the fire was coming in from and toss a 105mm in there.
So anyway, the goal was the same - draw the terrorists out of hiding, make them expose their location, and kill them.
And, I might note, Palestinian terrorist activity went down by 70% (IIRC) after Operation Defensive Shield.
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Alright Sandwich, let me just ask you one thing. Do you doubt that Israel kills as many or more civilians (innocents, not militants) in retailiatory strikes and asassination attempts than Hamas and other militant groups kill in suicide bombings?
Have you ever taken a full gander at the casualty statistics (http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=440) of both sides?
And yes, I know that's an Israeli site, but since Israel is the only democracy in the area...
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
And then there is the issue not of killing the few, but of oppressing the many. Life for the average Palestinian living in the Occupied Territories is not, I imagine, very pleasant. A fact that the Wall does little to change. I find it inconcieveable (sp?) that the Israeli people do not see striking similarities between Israel's treatment of Palestinians and their own treatment under the Nazi regime.
The hundreds killed by airstrikes or bullets are nothing compared to the millions living in poverty, squallor and fear. That to me is the greater of the crimes.
I was appalled at the horrid living conditions of the Palestinians I saw in a village outside of Jenin (I wan't able to stick my head out of the APC inside Jenin itself). To call it a slum would be a compliment. It sucks, and while it didn't quite "break" my heart (not much does - just the way I am), it certainly did wrench it.
On the other hand, the Arab villages entwined amongst the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem are in pretty good shape. My neighborhood of Gilo is the southernmost neighborhood in Jerusalem, bordering Bethlehem. We're up on top of a hill about 100m higher than the rest of Jerusalem. Along the 2 main roads leading up here are Arab neighborhoods - Beit Safaffa and Beit Hanina, IIRC. They're quite peaceful and haven't caused any ruckus at all, and life there is good. They have a market that's open on Saturday (unlike Jewish-owned/run businesses), and they get tons of business from the residents of Gilo and the other neighborhoods in the area.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Arabs and Jews most certainly can live together without strife. It just seems that they bring things on themselves with the cycle of violence. Israel is willing to stop the assasinations and bulldozing if the terrorist attaks cease. But the Palestinians are willing to stop the attacks only if Israel learns to sink or swim.
And the key to it all is education - teach children to hate, and they'll hate. Teach them to love - they'll love.
Post by: Rictor on March 22, 2004, 05:19:22 pm
And what does it matter if asassination attempts are aimed at civilians. Innocents inevitably die. Its like opening fire in a crowded mall, trying to hit only one person. It doesn't happen. No one carrying out these attacks (retaliations) can possibly be naive enough to believe that innocents will not die.They always have before.
Lets please be clear on something. People like Liberator, Drew and Sandwich are saying that both sides kil innocents, but only the Palestinians are at fault for doing it. I am saying that both parties are equally at fault. I am not saying that Hamas and others are not to blame, I am only assigning blame to both parties instead of just one.
By the by, I hope that you are all aware that Hamas was created by Israel several years ago to counter-act the more moderate PLO. The thinking was that by having Hamas in place, Palestinians would turn from moderation and to extremism, at which point it would be OK for Israel to kick the **** out of them. Israel has worked very hard to marginalize Arafat, because he and PLO represent a workable solution. If Israel had not created Hamas, Palestinians would support (well, support more than they do now) the PLO, and Israel would have to give them a home state.
It is very convenient for Sharon (and Netanyahu before him) that Palestinians are bombing Israeli cafes and buses. If you have the people frightened of the big bad boogyman, their support for the current regime will be significantly more than it would otherwise. It also provides a very convenient excuse to use any and all means to "keep the people safe". Its works wonderfully, just look at 9/11. Or the fire in the Reichstag for that matter.
Post by: Rictor on March 22, 2004, 05:34:52 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
Have you ever taken a full gander at the casualty statistics (http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=440) of both sides?
I'll take a look see.
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
[BI guess what I'm trying to say is that Arabs and Jews most certainly can live together without strife. It just seems that they bring things on themselves with the cycle of violence. Israel is willing to stop the assasinations and bulldozing if the terrorist attaks cease. But the Palestinians are willing to stop the attacks only if Israel learns to sink or swim.
And the key to it all is education - teach children to hate, and they'll hate. Teach them to love - they'll love. [/B]
Agreed. The trouble is that is a catch 22. Palestinians will stop bombing if Israel stops attacking. Israel will stop attacking if the Palestinians stop bombing. Its a vicious cycle.
The answer would probably be to take out the leaders of both sides, and bring in moderates. Sharon will obviously not let up, he's an old soldier who knows nothing but war. It might be more tricky with Hamas et al. though, since their leadership is de-centralized. For my money, Arafat represents a moderate force in Palestinian politics. The PLO supported Abbas and his attempts to negotiate a peace. But they are powerless to stop Hamas from carrying out suicide attacks, partly because of Israel's action years ago.
Bush's roadmap was a failure from the word go. I find it hard to believe that Bush would have made it any other way, given his traditional support for Israel. To believe that he would introduce a proposal that would in the end give Palestinians a homeland, is very hard to imagine. Even so, Sharon has refused to follow the steps provided, thus bringing the compromise to a halt. I cannot see how peace can ever come with Sharon in power.
Post by: adwight on March 22, 2004, 05:37:45 pm
(btw. 500th post :))
Post by: vyper on March 22, 2004, 06:13:18 pm
Post by: Sandwich on March 23, 2004, 12:48:26 am
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Agreed. The trouble is that is a catch 22. Palestinians will stop bombing if Israel stops attacking. Israel will stop attacking if the Palestinians stop bombing. Its a vicious cycle.
Not what I said, though I can't blame you for misunderstanding me - it was rather vague. The Palestinian terrorist organizations will not stop until Israel is no more - destroyed. They may whine about other things to the english media, but try reading transcripts from the Palestinian leaders' speeched to their own people in Arabic. Completely different picture.
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Bush's roadmap was a failure from the word go. I find it hard to believe that Bush would have made it any other way, given his traditional support for Israel. To believe that he would introduce a proposal that would in the end give Palestinians a homeland, is very hard to imagine. Even so, Sharon has refused to follow the steps provided, thus bringing the compromise to a halt. I cannot see how peace can ever come with Sharon in power.
I'm sorry for what I'm about to do, but I cannot seperate the two. Nobody will be able to bring a lasting peace to the area except for Jesus. We see this daily on a personal level among Arab and Jewish believers in Jesus - heck, I just watched The Passion with a few believing friends from the US along with a few Christian Arabs last night. (Unfortunately it was a bootleg copy - as the movie apparently has been banned from showing here - and was missing the ressurection. We read that part out of the book, though. ;) ) It was wonderful. The fellowship among Arab and Jewish believers is both amazing and wonderful to see and be a part of. :yes:
So yeah, sorry from bringing religion stuff into this thread. :p
Quote
Originally posted by adwight
If you ask me, they should have tryed all they could have to capture his ass. Then they could interrogate him and what not.
We had his ass back in the '90's - he was released from prision in '96 I think.
Post by: Bobboau on March 23, 2004, 03:57:48 am
I'm atheist and that still sound about right :D
Post by: Ace on March 23, 2004, 04:41:22 am
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau
"Nobody will be able to bring a lasting peace to the area except for Jesus."
I'm atheist and that still sound about right :D
Yup, when baby Jesus sends an asteroid or comet to vaporize the Middle East they'll be lasting peace.
Second coming Ho! ;7
Post by: Janos on March 23, 2004, 09:31:52 am
Quote
Originally posted by GT-Keravnos
For everyone thinking wrong about Israel consider this...
In 1940 in my hometown Ioannina there were 5000 Greek Jews and one of the older Jewish communities (rumour had it that it was founded by the Jews fleeing a sinking ship that transported slaves to Rome after the second temple was destroyed). Its synagogue was the founding synagogue of Chicago.
Now, only a star of David is standing commemorating them. Germans took them all. (some escaped but they were a tiny percentage)
However bad I feel about the plight of the Palestinians, it is prudent sometimes to stop and think how and why Jews got where they are in the first place
GEE ATROCITIES OF THE PAST OKAY THE ATROCITIES WE'RE NOW DOING!!!!1 :gigantic huge ****ing rolleyes: and :rolleyes: x 10 (So I have every right to kill Russians, because they bombed Helsinki back in WW2, and everything Serbs and Albanians and everyone else in the Balkans is doing is fine, because it only dates back a few hundred years, right??)
Njah, we must surround the entire Israel-Palestine cluster**** with a huge wall and bombard everyone with bubonic plague and napalm.
Post by: Nico on March 23, 2004, 10:05:41 am
Quote
Originally posted by Ace
Yup, when baby Jesus sends an asteroid or comet to vaporize the Middle East they'll be lasting peace.
Second coming Ho! ;7
:D
Post by: Gloriano on March 23, 2004, 10:14:25 am
Quote
If you ask me, they should have tryed all they could have to capture his ass. Then they could interrogate him and what not.
Quote
We had his ass back in the '90's - he was released from prision in '96 I think.
1989-1997 IIRC.
anyway I think killing was bad move from Sharon but I don't know I only hope that therewillbe peace in middle-East and israel that all I care
Post by: Sandwich on March 23, 2004, 10:36:46 am
And in response to something someone posted earlier in the thread, about Arabs only understanding use of force, etc... The Arab mindset is quite different from the Western one. There are many books written on the subject, one of which that comes to mind is, surprisingly enough, titled "The Arab Mind". Basically they respect force, despise weakness, etc.
Post by: Rictor on March 23, 2004, 12:07:01 pm
That is what the British thought of the Indians, the Americans (and others) of Africans and what to an extent, what Hitler thought of the Jews and Gypsies. Its is convenient excuse to unleash whatever hell you think necesarry, because all they understand it if force.
Please don't assosciate "Western" thinking with everything that is good and just (freedom, moderation, tolerance etc) and thereby imply that anyone who does not fully embrace Western ideals is morally inferior. Its simply not so. There seems to be this great myth that Western ideals are, self evidently, the best, and should be forced down the world's throat. Even people who do not want to use that wording, who would prefer to export Western ideals peacefully, still believe their thinking to be the best, and worthy of establishing around the world. That is, in a word, very intolerant.
Post by: Gank on March 23, 2004, 12:19:00 pm
Sandwich, I honestly cant see much difference with what the palestinians are doing today and what Irgun and Lehi did in the past. Both commit terrorist acts in order to to get their own country. The only real difference I can see is that the Palestinians are actually from the place they're fighting for a country.
Post by: Liberator on March 23, 2004, 12:23:09 pm
Let's be honest, do you respect somebody who'll give you anything to keep you from hurting him, or do respect somebody who'd beat the doodad out of you for trying?
Post by: Gank on March 23, 2004, 12:31:27 pm
As for the books, if an arab wrote something like that I'd take it seriously. People write books to suit their own points of views you know.
Post by: Janos on March 23, 2004, 12:38:23 pm
Post by: Rictor on March 23, 2004, 12:55:39 pm
Liberator, if its respect you're after, then the Palestinian deserve as much respect for fighting the Israelis as the Israelis have for fighting the Palestinians. For that matter, bin Laden deserves your utmost respect, becuase he stood up to a power very much bigger than him, and smacked them hard.
But really, this isn't the Mafia. Respect isn't everything. Time to get over the macho chest-beating the realize that you earn someone's respect through kind and just actions, not through violence. Those who advocate peace deserve more respect than those who advocate war. To make war, you need only to inflate your ego and declare your supremacy, but to make peace you must bow your pride and meet your enemy on equal ground.
Post by: Gank on March 23, 2004, 01:14:30 pm
Anyways the whole idea of an Arab mind is idiotic, its like saying the French, Italians, Brits and Germans all think the same way.
Post by: Drew on March 23, 2004, 01:16:43 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Anyways the whole idea of an Arab mind is idiotic, its like saying the French, Italians, Brits and Germans all think the same way.
with a religion as fanatical as theirs and the fact that most arabs belive in said religion its not hard to see why they all "think the same"
Post by: Gank on March 23, 2004, 01:32:02 pm
Post by: Liberator on March 23, 2004, 01:59:48 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Thats why I respect the palestinians Libby, they're fighting for whats been taken from them.
You forget, the land belonged to the Hebrews(Jews/Israelis) for thousands of years before they were scattered to the winds by the Romans and the Islamic Advance.
Let's not forget that Islam has tenets that proscribe conversion on the end of a sword, the last I knew Christianity had no such tenet. There have been Men who have perverted Christianity for their own ends, but there is no tenet to force people to convert.
Post by: Gank on March 23, 2004, 02:32:25 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
You forget, the land belonged to the Hebrews(Jews/Israelis) for thousands of years before they were scattered to the winds by the Romans and the Islamic Advance.
I dont forget Libby, that didnt happen. Jews spread with the Roman empire and islamic conquests, not away from them. The term Sephardic which is given to those jews in general from the middle east comes from Spain, where the Jews travelled with Islam, of their own free accord. They were later thrown out by the Spanish Inquisition with the Muslims. And only 20% of the worlds Jews are acually decended from the original middle eastern jews, the rest are descendants of the Khazars, a central Asian tribe that converted wholesale to Judaism. Sephardic jews account for 16% of Israels population. Even if they were all descended from the middle east, what makes them entitled to a homeland there now. The Franks originally came from Eastern Europe, does this mean the French are entitled to a homeland in Romania?
Quote
Let's not forget that Islam has tenets that proscribe conversion on the end of a sword, the last I knew Christianity had no such tenet. There have been Men who have perverted Christianity for their own ends, but there is no tenet to force people to convert.
Wrong again, Jews had complete religious freedom under Islamic rule. I dont recall any examples of Islamic nations forcing people to convert to Islam, could you please supply some to back yourself up. I can think of several examples of forced conversion by Christians, Jews in Spain were forcibly baptised before the Islamic invasion for example, and those who remained after the reconquest were forced to convert by the Inquisition. There were laws introduced in this country during the 18th and 19th century which were designed to force people to convert to Protestant.
Post by: Drew on March 23, 2004, 02:58:53 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Stop spouting out stereotype bull****. Islam is no more fanatical than Christianity, certain sects of it like Wahhibite (sp) could be considered so but overall its a fairly peaceful religion. And they dont all belive the same thing, theres many divisions within Islam much the same as there is in Christianity. If its not hard to see it for you iyts because you know next to nothing about the religion.
Tell me where in the Bible where it says tell Christians "that the end of the world will not come until every Jew is killed by Muslims"
SHow me any documented case of Christians going to Pakistan and blowing themselves up. Show me any documented case of any Christian flying a plane into a building and killikg 3000 people in the proscees. Show me any documented case where a true, bible beliving christian with a good head on them went out with truck bomb with the intent to blow it up at the nearest nightclub.
There aint any.
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/Freund-2002-08-28.asp
http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D152785%2526M%253D150019,00.html
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29838
True Islam is millitant. Anything else is a a compramise(err) to them. It would be the same as true Christian beliving spreading the Gosple is wrong.
Post by: karajorma on March 23, 2004, 03:02:27 pm
Lets also not forget that the Jews took Israel from the tribes that originally lived there. It's not like they don't base their entire religion on a book that says as much.
Drew you're talking rubbish about true islam being militant. I know lots of muslims who are perfectly tolerant of other religions. I've spent time in pakistan and never had any problem with militants. My entire family on my dads side are muslims and I wasn't even asked to become one.
As for christianity have a good look at northern ireland for an example of Christian intolerance. Christians can be so intolerant of other religions that they kill other christians of a different sect! Plenty of car bombs in Northern Ireland's history.
Post by: Ace on March 23, 2004, 03:06:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Drew
Tell me where in the Bible where it says tell Christians "that the end of the world will not come until every Jew is killed by Muslims"
SHow me any documented case of Christians going to Pakistan and blowing themselves up. Show me any documented case of any Christian flying a plane into a building and killikg 3000 people in the proscees. Show me any documented case where a true, bible beliving christian with a good head on them went out with truck bomb with the intent to blow it up at the nearest nightclub.
There aint any.
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/Freund-2002-08-28.asp
http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D152785%2526M%253D150019,00.html
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29838
True Islam is millitant. Anything else is a a compramise(err) to them. It would be the same as true Christian beliving spreading the Gosple is wrong.
Level-headed muslims don't do that either. You're just reinforced Gank's point by spouting out more stereotypical bull****.
Post by: Gank on March 23, 2004, 03:24:16 pm
Anyways what your saying is because a few muslims do extreme things all of them are fanatics? Crap. One billion muslims in the world, stop judging the beliefs of them all on the actions of a handful.
As for militant christians:
here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/17/wboyk17.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/17/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=15391)
here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm)
and here, right down the bottom (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)
Post by: karajorma on March 23, 2004, 04:57:24 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
As for militant christians:
here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/17/wboyk17.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/17/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=15391)
here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm)
and here, right down the bottom (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)
You're wasting your time with pieces about Bush. If it weren't gay Drew would probably want to marry him.
Northern Ireland is a better example (even if a little closer to home) since no one can deny that is a case of militant christians killing each other.
Post by: Rictor on March 23, 2004, 05:04:40 pm
But I do agree that it is utterly stupid to call Islam a militant religion. Over a billion people, a you are going to sit there and pretend like they all think the way.
Post by: Flipside on March 23, 2004, 05:11:24 pm
Post by: Gank on March 23, 2004, 06:01:29 pm
Post by: karajorma on March 23, 2004, 06:19:45 pm
Even the fundemntalists aren't pissed off about religion. That's just an excuse used to pull in more sheep to strap explosives to themselves.
What they are pissed off at is losing their land to the jews or having America fiddle with their country when it suits America and then leaving them to rot afterwards.
Does anyone here think that Bin Laden turned against America simply because he became more religious while working with the Americans in Afghanistan?
It's all politics. Same with the christian militants too. As you say the muslims used to be quite tolerant of other faiths until things like the crusades changed their minds.
Post by: Liberator on March 23, 2004, 07:56:00 pm
The Crusades were a response to the Islamic invasion of Europe, not the beginning of an Islamic jihad against the West.
Post by: Drew on March 23, 2004, 11:04:14 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Jesus Drew, back yourself up with some serious examples dont you, An Israeli site, a biblical site and one which actually refutes what your saying. Next time read your sources before you post them. :rolleyes: You want me to take you seriously tell me where in the Koran it says to be militant.
"Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors. Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed.... Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme." (Qur’an 2:190-192)
"As for those who are slain in the cause of God, He will not allow their works to perish. ... He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them." (47:4-6)
"Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him. ... The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan ..." (4:74,76)
"The believers who stay at home––apart from those that suffer a grave impediment––are not the equals of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home ..." (4:95,96)
"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. ... lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way ..." (9:5)
"Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them ..." (5:34,35)
"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme" (8:39)
"Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding." (8:65)
"Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given ... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (9:29)
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." The Cow 2:216
"History tells us that, at first, Muhammad did not use force to induce the Jews, Christians and pagans to accept Islam. Later, however, when people and circumstances turned against him and when he began to gather an army to himself, he began telling his followers that the latest "revelations from Allah" were saying things like, "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (9:73) Thus began Muhammad’s career of warring in the name of Allah. Those defeated by Muhammad were offered protection if they would submit to the dictates of Islam. Those that refused to become Muslims had the "choice" either to pay tribute or to be put to death. This is the apparent "peace and tolerance" Muhammad offered to non-Muslims in his treaty with the people of Khaibar and to others. Non-Muslims were the Dhimmis (the people of obligation) and, as such, were to be "utterly subdued" (9:29)."
Karjorma: blow me
Post by: Bobboau on March 24, 2004, 12:08:03 am
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Num 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Deut 2:33-34
And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.
Duet 3:6-7
And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. 3:7 But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves.
Duet 32:24-25
They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. 32:25 The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs.
:)
oh, and Eric Rudolph
Post by: Sandwich on March 24, 2004, 01:19:21 am
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
You can't, nor can anyone, possibly claim to know the mind of every Arab, or even a majority of them. To claim so would be small-minded and ignorant. This obviously differs from country to country, from sect to sect, but more signifcantly, from person to person. The fact that you seem to think that more than a billion people all share the same mindset is stereotypical to put it very lightly.
That is what the British thought of the Indians, the Americans (and others) of Africans and what to an extent, what Hitler thought of the Jews and Gypsies. Its is convenient excuse to unleash whatever hell you think necesarry, because all they understand it if force.
Please don't assosciate "Western" thinking with everything that is good and just (freedom, moderation, tolerance etc) and thereby imply that anyone who does not fully embrace Western ideals is morally inferior. Its simply not so. There seems to be this great myth that Western ideals are, self evidently, the best, and should be forced down the world's throat. Even people who do not want to use that wording, who would prefer to export Western ideals peacefully, still believe their thinking to be the best, and worthy of establishing around the world. That is, in a word, very intolerant.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1578261171/104-3903408-8551102?v=glance#product-details
And don't misunderstand me - I most emphatically do not equate "Western" society with "good and just". I just use "Western" society as a term for the societies of nations such as the US, Canada, most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc.
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
But really, this isn't the Mafia. Respect isn't everything. Time to get over the macho chest-beating the realize that you earn someone's respect through kind and just actions, not through violence. Those who advocate peace deserve more respect than those who advocate war. To make war, you need only to inflate your ego and declare your supremacy, but to make peace you must bow your pride and meet your enemy on equal ground.
Amen.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Wrong again, Jews had complete religious freedom under Islamic rule. I dont recall any examples of Islamic nations forcing people to convert to Islam, could you please supply ome to back yourself up.
Nonsense. Even today, Christian Arabs are being persecuted and killed for their abandonment of Islam in Islamic nations.
Wish I had more time to properly respond to this thread, but you guys are all active when I'm asleep. :doubt:
Post by: Sandwich on March 24, 2004, 01:23:55 am
Post by: RandomTiger on March 24, 2004, 01:57:26 am
Post by: Liberator on March 24, 2004, 02:03:44 am
Post by: RandomTiger on March 24, 2004, 02:04:24 am
What does blowing him up solve?
Post by: Gank on March 24, 2004, 04:08:03 am
Quote
A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances
All after this, several of which you've quoted, deal with those non-muslims who arent Islams allies and those who wage war on Islam.
Libby, learn some history and geography, the crusades were launched to take the holy lands away from the muslims. Its not part of europe, nor was it ever ruled by those who launched the crusades. The only part of europe invaded by Islamic forces at that time was Spain, and the Crusaders werent even interested in that. As fr enleashing a jihad, thats exactly what it did. A jihad is literally a defense of the faith, it can only be unleashed to recapture land taken from muslims, not capture land populated by christians.
Sandwich, what you're saying is nonsence, with the same logic one could say all jews are murderers because a few settlers murder arabs, or all christians are violent because a few blow up abortion clinics.
Post by: aldo_14 on March 24, 2004, 07:30:30 am
Quote
Originally posted by RandomTiger
Why not?
What does blowing him up solve?
Um.....insfoar as I can judge, it means there's one less target... and a thousand more recruits.
The explanation i've read (i.e. analysis somewhere) is that it's a show of force by Israel before the IDF withdraws and some of the settlements are destroyed.
Post by: Rictor on March 24, 2004, 08:25:24 am
Oh and, no, blowing people up does not solve anything. However, had he been taken prisoner, the would either have to be executed or freed eventually, so its more or less the same scenario, only they wouldn't kill him with a missle, but rather with a gun (or whatever the prefered means of execution is in Israel.)
Post by: Bobboau on March 24, 2004, 08:42:41 am
Post by: Gank on March 24, 2004, 09:13:32 am
Post by: Drew on March 24, 2004, 09:22:02 am
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Drew ffs will you read what you're actually quoting. The very first line you quote says do not attack them first. Btw a lot of those quotes are actually wrong and most are taken out of context, where exactly did you get them, by the text you didnt bother to remove from the last one I'd say some Islam bashing biblical site.
You read _again_ what im actually quoting
follow my tracks and read through all of that.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html
http://www.amalid.com/Islam/Quote
All after this, several of which you've quoted, deal with those non-muslims who arent Islams allies and those who wage war on Islam.
:wtf:
read what you just said. Then read about a couple current events that have been happening. We arnt the alliles of Islam. Sure were allies with liberal islam, thats cuz they dont bomb ppl voluntarily. But not Islam.
THis is what they want to do to us.
“To kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able, in any country,” ~bin Laden
And this is what they think of us.
“Oh, Allah, destroy America as it is controlled by Zionist Jews … Allah will avenge, in the name of his Prophet, the colonialist settlers who are the descendents of monkeys and pigs …”~ Ikrima Sabri
Arafat-appointed Mufti of the Palestinian Authority
the murderers of humanity [the USA], the creators of the barbaric culture and the bloodsuckers of nations, are doomed to death. ~ Hafez Al-Barghuthi
Post by: aldo_14 on March 24, 2004, 09:25:54 am
Quote
Originally posted by Drew
:wtf:
read what you just said. Then read about a couple current events that have been happening. We arnt the alliles of Islam. Sure were allies with liberal islam, thats cuz they dont bomb ppl voluntarily. But not Islam.
THis is what they want to do to us.
“To kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able, in any country,” ~bin Laden
And this is what they think of us.
“Oh, Allah, destroy America as it is controlled by Zionist Jews … Allah will avenge, in the name of his Prophet, the colonialist settlers who are the descendents of monkeys and pigs …”~ Ikrima Sabri
Arafat-appointed Mufti of the Palestinian Authority
the murderers of humanity [the USA], the creators of the barbaric culture and the bloodsuckers of nations, are doomed to death. ~ Hafez Al-Barghuthi
but you're quoting the most extremist people you can find.... especially as IIRC, Bin Ladin isn't even a cleric (i.e. he's not allowed under Islam to issue Fatwahs, much as he likes to).
I could probably go in the street and find ten people who would say we should kill all asylum seekers - it doesn't make that a valid representation of the population of Scotlands' opinions....
Post by: ionia23 on March 24, 2004, 09:33:00 am
Post by: Gank on March 24, 2004, 09:47:00 am
Quote
Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers.
Just go actually read the Quran, and come back when you're entitled to an opinion on it.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
Post by: Rictor on March 24, 2004, 09:47:44 am
Post by: Rictor on March 24, 2004, 12:00:47 pm
Post by: Sandwich on March 24, 2004, 12:27:12 pm
Quote
Originally posted by RandomTiger
Why didnt they just arrest Achmed Yassin and try him in a court of law?
Because we've been there and done that.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Sandwich, what you're saying is nonsence, with the same logic one could say all jews are murderers because a few settlers murder arabs, or all christians are violent because a few blow up abortion clinics.
Oh, for pete's sake, don't be so dense. I'm knowingly generalizing, completely aware that there are plenty of exceptions to the generalization. But they are exceptions; the tendency among the Arab culture being what was discussed.
I don't like speaking in politically correct, padded words, with enough disclaimers to stretch to the moon and back. FYI. :)
Quote
Originally posted by ionia23
Islamic Fanatic is to Islam as KKK is to Christianity.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Stereotyping a billion people with the words of three of the most extreme is a pretty bigoted thing to do drew.
Ok, you know what? There is something to what you both are saying, and perhaps those extremist Muslims have gone off the deep end in their blind devotion toward Allah.
But the fact of the matter is that it is just such people that Israel is dealing with - not the Palestinian people, but their leaders. Not the embittered-because-his-brother-was-killed-by-the-IDF potential suicide bomber, but those who recruit him, train him, encourage him. Not the anonymous individuals who try to live peaceful lives amidst the strife, but those who take up weaponry specifically against civillians, who publically say the kinds of things Drew quoted above, and who turn 10-year-old, "mentally slow" boys into freaking suicide bombers!!!!!! (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/408359.html)
Post by: Bobboau on March 24, 2004, 12:48:21 pm
Post by: Gank on March 24, 2004, 01:07:58 pm
And yeah, those people who told those kids to do those things are dispicable. So are the Israeli soldiers who shoot kids for throwing stones. Dont try to tell me that doesnt happen, an IDF colonel admitted (actually it was more like bragging) it to my mother in Jerusalem. So's Sharon, he was found directly responsible for the mass murder of 2000 people in the Leb by an ISRAELI court. You have a war criminal as an elected leader and complain about people of the same ilk?
Post by: Bobboau on March 24, 2004, 01:24:51 pm
Post by: Flipside on March 24, 2004, 01:24:54 pm
The fact of the matter is this...
[Citizen Smith]
If you took all the Large Corporate Moguls, the Industrialists, the Oil Sheikhs, the Power Hungry Dictators AND Politicians, and asked them if they were willing to accept a slightly lower standard of living in return to making the world a bit more peaceful for everyone, possibly even to avert a holocaust, how many do you think would say 'Yes, I will do this for Mankind'?
That is where the danger lies. The divisions between the nations, many of them created by those exact people, are what allow them to manipulate, control and leech off of us, and we play right into their hands time and again, with every single assumption we make about 'them'.[/Citizen Smith]
Post by: ionia23 on March 24, 2004, 01:38:28 pm
If yonder suicide bomber decides to level a packed restaurant or nightclub, you may not approve of the action but will sympathize with the motivation.
However, if Israel retaliates by leveling the home of above-referenced bomber, they are "thugs".
What an interesting concept.
Post by: Rictor on March 24, 2004, 01:39:32 pm
Essentially, what the age/gender statitics show is that Israeli noncombatant casualties are random people, as would be expected from suicide bombings. Even so, over 30% of Israeli casualties are uniformed people, with 20% of that being full combatants and 10% being uniformed non-combatants, which in my opinion present are more valid target than civilians.
On the Palestinian side, you have the vast majority of casualties being male, 10-30 years of age. This is consistant with targeting males of military age. Though you have to take into consideration that the proportion of females killed by Israel and Palestine are skewed, due to the fact that Israel has women inthe military while the various Palestinian militant groups are mostly male. This means that a portion of the Israeli women killed would be military personel and not innocents.
Overall, around 70% of all Israeli casualties are noncombatants, while that number is around 20%-50%, the wide range due to the large number of "Unknowns" and "Probable Combatants".
However, the final bodycount of noncombatants:
Israel killed 733 Palestinian noncombatants.
Palestinians have killed 546 Israeli noncombatants.
So, based on the information on an Israeli website, Israel is responsibe for killing some 200 more noncombatants than the various Palestinian militants. Interesting, to say the least. Sorry Sandwich, but if you were seeking to prove how much better the IDF is than say, Hamas, this information failed to convince me. On a personal level, maybe, but on a institutional level, obviously not.
Post by: Gank on March 24, 2004, 01:45:38 pm
Quote
Originally posted by ionia23
However, if Israel retaliates by leveling the home of above-referenced bomber, they are "thugs".
Who said that?
Btw rictor you forgot to mention that the majority of Israeli non-combatants killed were army reservists who could be considered by some as a military target.
Post by: Bobboau on March 24, 2004, 02:01:30 pm
all those palistinian childeren could grow up to be scuicide bombers, so couldn't they just as corectly be considered a valid military target? bull****
Post by: Flipside on March 24, 2004, 02:04:40 pm
Quote
Originally posted by ionia23
So, lessee if I've got this straight.
If yonder suicide bomber decides to level a packed restaurant or nightclub, you may not approve of the action but will sympathize with the motivation.
However, if Israel retaliates by leveling the home of above-referenced bomber, they are "thugs".
What an interesting concept.
Errrrrrrrrr... I haven't read all this thread, but who said this?
Post by: ionia23 on March 24, 2004, 02:05:51 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Stereotyping a billion people with the words of three of the most extreme is a pretty bigoted thing to do drew. The first quote you originally posted is Islams attitude towards other religions. If they attack you kill them, but dont attack them first. It only applies to those who wage war on Islam based on religion. For those who attack Muslims for non religious reasons the Quran says:
Just go actually read the Quran, and come back when you're entitled to an opinion on it.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
"I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
'nuff said. Religions aren't whacked, what we do with them is. Christian and Muslim alike.
Post by: Gank on March 24, 2004, 02:08:35 pm
Anyways the point I was trying to make was that they could be considered combatents, not that a bus or nightclub be considered a military target.
Ionia23, context, very important thing. The bible can be misquoted the same way as Bobboau showed a few pages back.
Post by: Bobboau on March 24, 2004, 02:11:16 pm
Post by: Gank on March 24, 2004, 02:19:57 pm
Post by: Bobboau on March 24, 2004, 02:22:21 pm
Post by: Rictor on March 24, 2004, 02:24:50 pm
And even were it not so, I can't consider a 25 year old reservist to be equal to a 10 year old child who may or may not (statistically speaking, the chances are staggeringly against) become a militant or suicide bomber.
Post by: Gank on March 24, 2004, 02:33:57 pm
Post by: Liberator on March 24, 2004, 02:37:36 pm
Quote
Originally posted by ionia23
So, lessee if I've got this straight.
If yonder suicide bomber decides to level a packed restaurant or nightclub, you may not approve of the action but will sympathize with the motivation.
However, if Israel retaliates by leveling the home of above-referenced bomber, they are "thugs".
What an interesting concept.
For those that are wondering, nobody in particular has said this, but this is the general position Gank and Rictor are espousing..
For my part, I have changed my position. Evacuate the Israelis and nuke the entire region with neutron bombs.
Post by: Gank on March 24, 2004, 02:41:08 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
For those that are wondering, nobody in particular has said this, but this is the general position Gank and Rictor are espousing..
Once again wrong libby, I mentioned soldiers who shot kids and mass murder, no mention of a bulldozer at all. Learn to ****ing read. Why would anyone give a **** if a bombers house was bulldozed? Hes dead ffs. If there were other people living in the house then it is wrong. Its called collective punishment and no other country in the civilised world practises it. You cannot be held responsible for the actions of other.
Post by: Rictor on March 24, 2004, 02:46:23 pm
However, I blame Sharon for the deaths of the Israelis that are soon to follow. Every time, every single time, that Israel has asassinated a high ranking (or even medium ranking) Palestinian official, there has been reprisals, often within 24 hours. The retaliation that is to come is perfectly predicatable, a 5 year old could see it comming. However, these attacks give legitimcy to the Likud platform, and keep Sharon in power, so he has every reason to provoke the Palestinian militants into attacking.
I'll post some more later on about this issue.
Post by: Gank on March 24, 2004, 02:49:34 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Yay, now for Sharon.
Post by: Liberator on March 24, 2004, 03:15:56 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
My position:
He's defending his charge in the only way the UN will allow. I'm sick to death of you multilateralists trying to take away a given nation's sovereign right to defend itself against agressors.
Post by: Gank on March 24, 2004, 03:30:25 pm
Post by: Sandwich on March 24, 2004, 03:40:40 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Sandwich, dont be so dense yourself. Muslims in general do not slaughter people of other religions. We were actually talking about Islam as a faith, not arabs in general.
Glad you pointed this out (I almost did in my previous post, just for clarity's sake) - don't confuse Muslims with Arabs. Many of one are the other, but it's not all-encompassing nor exclusive in either direction.
Anyway, I was talking about those who wage a war of terrorism against civillians. Call them Palestinians, fine. Call them extremist Muslims, fine. Call them "those-dudes-who-wage-wars-of-terror-against-civvies", fine. But there's a word for that - Terrorist. That's what they are, and that's who Israel's fight is against.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
So are the Israeli soldiers who shoot kids for throwing stones. Dont try to tell me that doesnt happen, an IDF colonel admitted (actually it was more like bragging) it to my mother in Jerusalem.
I don't doubt that there have been instances where that occurred, esp. in the first Intifada. And yes, I would despise such soldiers if I knew any. But from my personal and first-hand experience with military service during the current intifada, the rules of fire set down are very clear and very moral:
If your life or the lives of innocents in your area are clearly and immidiately threatened, shoot to kill. Specifically concerning stone-throwers, it is the same rule - if life is being threatened, shoot to kill. Considering they are using rocks, an actual threat to one's life is not a David vs. Goliath situation, but a "boulder pushed over rooftop onto mass of people" situation.
Heck, when patrol jeeps drive through an Arab village and get stones thrown at them, they don't even bother to stop and address the issue. It's not endangering anyone, so leave well enough alone.
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau
yeah, Sandwich, would you respond to the Sharon == war criminal thing, all I ever hear is there side of it.
To be honest, I really don't know anything about it. I never read up on it. I'm sure you can find plenty of Israeli POV articles by a Google search for "sharon war crimes site:il"
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Btw rictor you forgot to mention that the majority of Israeli non-combatants killed were army reservists who could be considered by some as a military target.
I'm an army reservist ~25 days out of the year. I am, during that period, a "valid" target. The rest of my year is spent being a civillian, during which time I am NOT the army's property, so to speak, and am NOT a "valid" target.
IDF reserves is a yearly cycle - you become a reservist once or twice a year; the IDF has to draft you anew each year. You are not (legally) a reservist the rest of the time.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Its not the same Bobbaou, reservists ARE in the army, kids MIGHT become suicide bombers. Basic grammar.
Reservists ARE in the army, yes. But until they go in, once or twice each year, they are NOT in the Army. Period.
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
The website never mentions how many of the Israeli casualties were part of the reserves, though I would guess that they are maybe included in the "uniformed noncombatants" section, which makes up around 10% of all Israeli casualties. The fact that a large portion of the Israeli male population is permanently in the reserves does not mean that they are uniformed at any time when they are not actively serving.
Reservist casualties are included with the uniformed combatants.
...unless you wanna try telling me to my face when I'm in uniform w/ gun that I'm not a combatant. :doubt:
:p
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Well, the majority statement was based on the facts that military service is complusary from 18-21 and the reserves are compulsary till the age of 40. Reservists can be called up with as little as 12 hours notice I think so the guy sitting on a bus in civvies one day could be raiding a refugee camp the next. Course its a moot point that they're valid military targets as they're not actually being targeted, buses and the like are being blown up regardless of whos on them. I was making the statement in regards to the non-combatent figures rictor gave, my apologys for the bad wording.
The cut-off age fluctuates every so often... currently I think it's at 40 for combatants, 45 for jobniks (paper-pushers).
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
For my part, I have changed my position. Evacuate the Israelis and nuke the entire region with neutron bombs.
:doubt: :no:
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Once again wrong libby, I mentioned soldiers who shot kids and mass murder, no mention of a bulldozer at all. Learn to ****ing read. Why would anyone give a **** if a bombers house was bulldozed? Hes dead ffs. If there were other people living in the house then it is wrong. Its called collective punishment and no other country in the civilised world practises it. You cannot be held responsible for the actions of other.
Although the end result may seem the same, it's not. Israel does not hold the family of suicide bombers responsible for the bombers' actions. However, one of the primary incentives given to the potential suicide bomber is the promise of large sums of money for his/her family, money which is most often poured into their house.
Israel neutralizes this incentive by destroying the houses, hoping to discourage future potential suicide bombers from seeing the monetary incentive as valid.
And yes, Israel does make sure the house is evacc'ed before toppling it. Any situation you might have heard about a house being toppled on top of people was a situation where there were armed terrorists inside the house, not a "suicide bomber's home" situation.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Who the **** you calling a multilaterist? And I'm sick to death of idiots like you who talk without having a ****ing clue what they're talking about. Even Israel doesnt claim sovereignty over the occupied territorys.
He said nothing about soverignty over the territories. Read his post again.
And darn you all, stop growing the thread so fast! Look at this huge post I just had to make! :hopping: :p
Post by: vyper on March 24, 2004, 07:43:33 pm
Lib, man c'mon there's no need.
They'll do it themselves eventually. (http://dynamic4.gamespy.com/~freespace/forums/images/smilies/no.gif)
Post by: Gank on March 24, 2004, 08:30:03 pm
Quote
Originally posted by SandwichAye but you see here your labelling palestinians terrorists. Very few palestinians are actually terrorists. Besides we werent talking about that, we were talking about Islam as a whole.
Anyway, I was talking about those who wage a war of terrorism against civillians. Call them Palestinians, fine. Call them extremist Muslims, fine. Call them "those-dudes-who-wage-wars-of-terror-against-civvies", fine. But there's a word for that - Terrorist. That's what they are, and that's who Israel's fight is against.
Quote
I don't doubt that there have been instances where that occurred, esp. in the first Intifada. And yes, I would despise such soldiers if I knew any. But from my personal and first-hand experience with military service during the current intifada, the rules of fire set down are very clear and very moral:Not saying its policy, but it is done. Likewise not all Palestinians blow themselves up.
Quote
I'm an army reservist ~25 days out of the year. I am, during that period, a "valid" target. The rest of my year is spent being a civillian, during which time I am NOT the army's property, so to speak, and am NOT a "valid" target.
the point would be that you are in the army for 25 days of the year, therefore you will be a soldier in the near future. You are a military asset. Like I said before though I wasnt reffering to reservists as a valid target, it was just bad wording on my part.
Quote
Although the end result may seem the same, it's not. Israel does not hold the family of suicide bombers responsible for the bombers' actions. However, one of the primary incentives given to the potential suicide bomber is the promise of large sums of money for his/her family, money which is most often poured into their house.Fair enough, if the family accept money then they are complicit in the act.
Quote
He said nothing about soverignty over the territories. Read his post again.
I know he didnt, but thats what the intifada is about. The occupation and the settlements. You can quote all the rhetoric for the hardliners you want, both you, I and they know theres as much chance of Hamas and co driving Israel into the sea as there is of Sharon becoming pope. If Israel was serious about getting rid of terrorism they'd dismantle settlements and pull out of the occupied territories, because its these two issues that give the hardliners the support they have. I think we both know though Israel has no interest in doing either of these things.
Post by: Drew on March 24, 2004, 10:43:18 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Ace
Level-headed muslims don't do that either. You're just reinforced Gank's point by spouting out more stereotypical bull****.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Aye but you see here your labelling palestinians terrorists. Very few palestinians are actually terrorists. Besides we werent talking about that, we were talking about Islam as a whole.
I have been arguing against idea the palistinians just want their land back. All my posts may not have directly addressed that topic, they were merely introducing information.
Palistinian leadership dont fight Isreal simply because they want their land back. They fight against Isreal because they *hate* Jews. They have _always_ hated Jews.
Most of the high ranking palestinian leadership are devout belivers of the verses i quoted earlier. The majority of muslims may not belive that, but the these guys do.
"We the Palestinian nation, our fate from Allah is to be the vanguard in the war against the Jews until the resurrection of the dead, as the prophet Muhammad said: "'The resurrection of the dead will not arrive until you will fight the Jews and kill them…'"
- - Dr. Muhammed Ibrahim Madi, Palestinian Television, 30 March 2001
"Blessed is he who fights Jihad in the name of Allah, blessed is he who [goes on] raids in the name of Allah, blessed is he who dons a vest of
explosives on himself or on his children and goes in to the depth of the Jews and says: Allahu Akbar, Blessed be Allah. Like the collapse of the building upon the heads of the Jews in their sinful dance-hall, I ask of Allah that we see the Knesset collapsing on the heads of the Jews."
- - Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Madi, Friday Sermon, Palestinian TV, June 8, 2001
"The oath is firm to continue this difficult Jihad (holy war), this long Jihad, in the path of martyrs, the path of sacrifices" ~Yasser Arafat
"Yes, brothers, with our souls and blood we redeem you, O Palestine. This is the decision of the people of exceeding strength. This is a sacred bond. We are up to this duty. You know I am saying this because I know our people. I know what it means that in the midst of this economic crisis, yet none of them complained. However, they said: Allah is great! Glory to Allah and his prophet! Jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad!" ~ Yasser Arafat
"No one believed him (Arafat) when he used to say it... [but] The choice is not at all between options of negotiation and fighting: you can have negotiations and fight at the same time...the Palestinian people fight with weapons, with jihad, with Intifada and suicide actions... and it is destined to always fight and negotiate at the same time." ~Nabil Sha'ath - Palestinian Cabinet Minister
"We are not the Israelis' policemen to arrest our own people" - referring to the Israeli demand that the Palestinians arrest terrorists. ~ Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala?), Palestinian parliament speaker
and they use kids to work for them (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040324/D81GUJ3O0.html)
Post by: Sandwich on March 25, 2004, 01:23:59 am
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Aye but you see here your labelling palestinians terrorists. Very few palestinians are actually terrorists. Besides we werent talking about that, we were talking about Islam as a whole.
No, I'm not; if it came across that way, I apologize. I said "I was talking about those who wage a war of terrorism against civillians." Those are the people I was referring to. In Israel's fight against terrorisim, those people, with the possible exception of Hizbullah, are Palestinians. This does not mean that I think all Palestinians are terrorists - don't put words in my mouth please. :)
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Not saying its policy, but it is done. Likewise not all Palestinians blow themselves up.
If and when it is done, the soldiers are prosecuted and jailed for years. The army is not very forgiving with such cases today.
And see above on the Palestinians part.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
the point would be that you are in the army for 25 days of the year, therefore you will be a soldier in the near future. You are a military asset. Like I said before though I wasnt reffering to reservists as a valid target, it was just bad wording on my part.
High-school children are also going to be soldiers in the "near future", does that make them military assets? I was recruited one month after graduating 12th grade. You can't blur the lines like that.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Fair enough, if the family accept money then they are complicit in the act.
I'd encourage you to research this aspect, esp. considering it seems that you've never heard of it before. I'll go out on a limb and generalize by saying that all the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (I can't speak for other nations) receive large sums of money as a "thanks for the contribution to the cause" gift.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
I know he didnt, but thats what the intifada is about. The occupation and the settlements. You can quote all the rhetoric for the hardliners you want, both you, I and they know theres as much chance of Hamas and co driving Israel into the sea as there is of Sharon becoming pope. If Israel was serious about getting rid of terrorism they'd dismantle settlements and pull out of the occupied territories, because its these two issues that give the hardliners the support they have. I think we both know though Israel has no interest in doing either of these things.
Let me bring up a point that involves the religions again. The Muslim nations surrounding Israel, the Jewish state, made war on her in '48 when she was formed, and failed. Their failure was repeated in '67 and in '73, both full-out wars in which the victory of the Jewish state was against all odds.
The Muslim world sees the god of Islam being repeatedly beaten by the God of the Jews. This is an affront to Islam as a whole; an insult to the divinity of Allah. The existance of Israel is blasphemy to Islam, which is why they Muslim world is trying to wipe Israel out so hard. The territories issue is just something they can use as a catalyst.
Even if you do not believe me and what I've just stated here, remember what I said. You may be surprised somewhere down the line (like if you start reading transcripts of the Arabic-language, no foreign-press allowed speeches made by leaders such as Arafat).
Post by: karajorma on March 25, 2004, 05:10:46 am
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
Let me bring up a point that involves the religions again. The Muslim nations surrounding Israel, the Jewish state, made war on her in '48 when she was formed, and failed. Their failure was repeated in '67 and in '73, both full-out wars in which the victory of the Jewish state was against all odds.
The Muslim world sees the god of Islam being repeatedly beaten by the God of the Jews. This is an affront to Islam as a whole; an insult to the divinity of Allah. The existance of Israel is blasphemy to Islam, which is why they Muslim world is trying to wipe Israel out so hard. The territories issue is just something they can use as a catalyst.
Even if this is correct though Sandwich wouldn't removing the catalyst and thereby slowing the problem down be a good idea? Building settlements in the occupied territories ranks as one of the most stupid political decisions ever made. It's not just the palestinians who see it as a land grab.
Post by: Sandwich on March 25, 2004, 04:07:10 pm
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
Even if this is correct though Sandwich wouldn't removing the catalyst and thereby slowing the problem down be a good idea? Building settlements in the occupied territories ranks as one of the most stupid political decisions ever made. It's not just the palestinians who see it as a land grab.
On one hand, yes, it would probably appease things a bit. But on the other hand, since when is land won in a defensive war up for dispute anyway?
Post by: Liberator on March 25, 2004, 04:09:08 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
Let me bring up a point that involves the religions again. The Muslim nations surrounding Israel, the Jewish state, made war on her in '48 when she was formed, and failed. Their failure was repeated in '67 and in '73, both full-out wars in which the victory of the Jewish state was against all odds.
The Muslim world sees the god of Islam being repeatedly beaten by the God of the Jews. This is an affront to Islam as a whole; an insult to the divinity of Allah. The existance of Israel is blasphemy to Islam, which is why they Muslim world is trying to wipe Israel out so hard. The territories issue is just something they can use as a catalyst.
Even if you do not believe me and what I've just stated here, remember what I said. You may be surprised somewhere down the line (like if you start reading transcripts of the Arabic-language, no foreign-press allowed speeches made by leaders such as Arafat).
Of course it never enters into their minds that if their god is all-powerful, any failure is either their fault or the Jewish god is more powerful than theirs.
Post by: Rictor on March 25, 2004, 04:22:17 pm
If you are religious, thats basicaly the logic behind the Battle of the Gods crap. Or you can believe that your God and their God is the same God, and that all the religions do is worhip the same God in a different way. So, then too there is only one God, he just has different names, so again, there can be no my God vs your God. Or you can just not believe in God.
___
Anyways, the Jews and Muslims were the best of buddies before the British pitted them against each other.
Now, Sandwich, you'll forgive me if I don't believe you about the Muslim world believing that Israel is an affront to Islam. A fanatical few, yes, but not the majority. There are tons of fairly secular Muslims, especially in places like Turkey, Iran and Iraq. These people certainly have nothing religiously against Israel, its just that they percieve Israel to e the cause of alot of their suffering. Israel has the biggest bully on their side, so naturally many Muslims are going to resent the fact that Israel can do whatever it wants with impunity, and no justice will come. But even among the moderatly religious Muslims, which I think are the majority, I do not think that they would like to drive Israel to the sea on religious grounds, and in all likelyhood not at all.
Post by: Goober5000 on March 25, 2004, 04:43:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by SandwichThis just struck me as interesting - there's an odd conclusion that this has to lead to.
The Muslim world sees the god of Islam being repeatedly beaten by the God of the Jews. This is an affront to Islam as a whole; an insult to the divinity of Allah.
Muslims honor a long line of prophets, starting with Abraham, through Jesus, and ending with Mohammed. So then, Islam theology should say that the Muslim God is the same as the Christian God is the same as the Jewish God. (Otherwise you have the ludicrous notion of honoring a prophet who was involved with the wrong god.) And Muslims trace their lineage to Abraham, as do Jews.
But then here we have this "god-vs.-god" contest in which militant Muslims try to wipe out the Jews as a sort of microcosm of the battle of Islam's God against Judaism's God.
This sets up a contradiction. Is the Muslim God the same as the Jewish God, or isn't he? It seems that for the above to be true, not only do we have a schizophrenic God, but he's not even on his own side. :lol:
Post by: Grey Wolf on March 25, 2004, 04:51:58 pm
The Palestinian extremists, for using the intolerable concept of suicide bombing.
The Israeli settlers, for basically flipping off the aforementioned extremists.
The Israeli hawks, for intentionally helping propogate the cycle of violence.
The Saudi Arabian ruling family, for helping breed the extremists.
Bin Laden, for funding extremists and providing them training facilities.
The United States, for funding both sides.
The press on all sides, for being extrememly biased.
The imperialists who helped write the Treaty of Versailles, for the concept of mandates.
The Zionist terrorists, for basically doing the same thing as the Palestinian extremists.
I end this post with a quote from Shakespeare:
Lord, what fools these mortals be!
Post by: Sandwich on March 25, 2004, 05:07:05 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
My God can kick your God's ass! Man, thats the attitude of children, and anyone who think that ain't quite right. You can not believe both in your God and also believe in the existence of another God. The big three religions are all monotheistic, so there is no other God for you to match yours up against, since you believe that only your God is real. Right?
If you are religious, thats basicaly the logic behind the Battle of the Gods crap. Or you can believe that your God and their God is the same God, and that all the religions do is worhip the same God in a different way. So, then too there is only one God, he just has different names, so again, there can be no my God vs your God. Or you can just not believe in God.
Right, completely right. However, I phrased my post that way to be slightly curteous - I could just as easily have said up front what I really believe: Allah is a demon, if not the devil himself.
But then people'd get all uppity over something like that, wouldn't they? Yet there it is - posted.
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Anyways, the Jews and Muslims were the best of buddies before the British pitted them against each other.
Now, Sandwich, you'll forgive me if I don't believe you about the Muslim world believing that Israel is an affront to Islam. A fanatical few, yes, but not the majority. There are tons of fairly secular Muslims, especially in places like Turkey, Iran and Iraq. These people certainly have nothing religiously against Israel, its just that they percieve Israel to e the cause of alot of their suffering. Israel has the biggest bully on their side, so naturally many Muslims are going to resent the fact that Israel can do whatever it wants with impunity, and no justice will come. But even among the moderatly religious Muslims, which I think are the majority, I do not think that they would like to drive Israel to the sea on religious grounds, and in all likelyhood not at all.
I guess time will tell. But perhaps a more complete answer will come as a result of responding to Goober's post, so.....
Quote
Originally posted by Goober5000
Muslims honor a long line of prophets, starting with Abraham, through Jesus, and ending with Mohammed. So then, Islam theology should say that the Muslim God is the same as the Christian God is the same as the Jewish God. (Otherwise you have the ludicrous notion of honoring a prophet who was involved with the wrong god.) And Muslims trace their lineage to Abraham, as do Jews.
Muslims do not trace their lineage to Abraham - Muslims are of the religion of Islam, which is not nationality/racially oriented. Arabs, however, are decendants of Abraham's son through Hagar, Ishmael.
I honestly do not know what Islam thinks about the "everyone worshipping the same god" nonsens-errr, theory. But the numerous statements along the lines of "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet" come to mind.
Quote
Originally posted by Goober5000
But then here we have this "god-vs.-god" contest in which militant Muslims try to wipe out the Jews as a sort of microcosm of the battle of Islam's God against Judaism's God.
This sets up a contradiction. Is the Muslim God the same as the Jewish God, or isn't he? It seems that for the above to be true, not only do we have a schizophrenic God, but he's not even on his own side. :lol:
IMO it's all a matter of Satan doing his utmost to prove God a liar, which is of far greater import than proving OJ or Clinton to be liars. God has placed His reputation, His namesake, on the promises He makes in the Bible. Many, many of those promises say, in paraphrase, that the Jews shall never cease to be a nation before God. This is stated with the same breath as statements about the sun and moon passing away, and God makes these promises by swearing on His holy namesake.
Ergo, if Satan had succeeded in wiping out the Jews at any point in history, he would have basically won.
Post by: Drew on March 25, 2004, 05:07:13 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Goober5000
This just struck me as interesting - there's an odd conclusion that this has to lead to.
Muslims honor a long line of prophets, starting with Abraham, through Jesus, and ending with Mohammed. So then, Islam theology should say that the Muslim God is the same as the Christian God is the same as the Jewish God. (Otherwise you have the ludicrous notion of honoring a prophet who was involved with the wrong god.) And Muslims trace their lineage to Abraham, as do Jews.
But then here we have this "god-vs.-god" contest in which militant Muslims try to wipe out the Jews as a sort of microcosm of the battle of Islam's God against Judaism's God.
This sets up a contradiction. Is the Muslim God the same as the Jewish God, or isn't he? It seems that for the above to be true, not only do we have a schizophrenic God, but he's not even on his own side. :lol:
hehe, maybe you should read the Bible and Quran, it would make things a little clearer.
Post by: Goober5000 on March 25, 2004, 05:20:52 pm
Quote
Originally posted by SandwichWhoops, sorry, I should have said Arabs trace their lineage to Abraham. Thanks for the correction. :)
Muslims do not trace their lineage to Abraham - Muslims are of the religion of Islam, which is not nationality/racially oriented. Arabs, however, are decendants of Abraham's son through Hagar, Ishmael.
Quote
Originally posted by DrewI have read the Bible - every word of the NIV and a significant part of the KJV. :) I'd like to read the Koran too, just for comparison, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
hehe, maybe you should read the Bible and Quran, it would make things a little clearer.
Post by: Grey Wolf on March 25, 2004, 05:21:50 pm
Quote
Originally posted by SandwichOf course, your statement rests on two things.
Many, many of those promises say, in paraphrase, that the Jews shall never cease to be a nation before God. This is stated with the same breath as statements about the sun and moon passing away, and God makes these promises by swearing on His holy namesake.
Ergo, if Satan had succeeded in wiping out the Jews at any point in history, he would have basically won.
1. That the modern Israel bears any true relation to the ancient Israel, which it does not. You're not ruled by priests and kings, are you? The final destruction of ancient Israel would have to be traced to either the invasion by Rome, or possibly the Roman destruction of the Zealots. Hence, by your statement, Satan won.
2. You're also basing your statement on the existence of Satan. In Judaism, AFAIK, the Satan mentioned in the Book of Job is not considered to be the devil, but rather an angel sent by God to test mankind.
Post by: Sandwich on March 25, 2004, 05:30:52 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Of course, your statement rests on two things.
1. That the modern Israel bears any true relation to the ancient Israel, which it does not. You're not ruled by priests and kings, are you? The final destruction of ancient Israel would have to be traced to either the invasion by Rome, or possibly the Roman destruction of the Zealots. Hence, by your statement, Satan won.
2. You're also basing your statement on the existence of Satan. In Judaism, AFAIK, the Satan mentioned in the Book of Job is not considered to be the devil, but rather an angel sent by God to test mankind.
1. Where does it say that Israel must be ruled by a priest or king? The promise was made to Abraham's decendants through Isaac, forever. The Jews were scattered, but never destroyed. And now ("now" being the last 50-odd years) we're back. And boy, is Satan pissed.
2. Yeah, ok. Judaism can think that way if it wants. But to me, a believer in both the Old and New Covenants, the existance of Satan is not really a questionable thing.
Post by: Grey Wolf on March 25, 2004, 05:33:13 pm
Post by: Sandwich on March 25, 2004, 05:39:33 pm
gadol = great / large / big
goy = gentile (modern hebrew) / nation (Biblical Hebrew; not country-nation, but racial-nation)
Post by: Gank on March 25, 2004, 05:58:03 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
On one hand, yes, it would probably appease things a bit. But on the other hand, since when is land won in a defensive war up for dispute anyway?
Again, Israel started the 67 war. You may claim it was a pre-emptive strike but the fact remains you started it, besides a defensive war does not capture land, only an offensive one does. IIRC Germanys war gainst Poland was defensive. :rolleyes: And conquering land does not give you the right to displace its people and colonise it, that sort of thing ended hundreds of years ago in the civilised world.
As for the Islam being against Israel, it is. theres specific passages concerning what to do when somebody attacks you and takes your land.
Quote
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors
Quote
Allah forbiddeth you only those who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, that ye make friends of them. Whosoever maketh friends of them - (All) such are wrong-doers.
Israel was born out of terrorist acts against arabs
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Irgun
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Stern-Gang
Most of those living in Israel, 80% including yourself are not from the middle east or not descended from there. You have no right to be there. Doesnt matter what your god says, you're living on stolen land.
Btw there wasnt a jewish nation for about 2500 years before 1950. Sorry to burst your bubble but satans already won. :eek:
Goober5000, militant muslims are trying to wipe out Israel, not Judaism. Theres a very big difference.
Post by: Goober5000 on March 25, 2004, 06:25:34 pm
Quote
Originally posted by GankHasn't ended in the civilized world or elsewhere; besides, "to the victor belong the spoils" is a generally accepted rule of warfare.
And conquering land does not give you the right to displace its people and colonise it, that sort of thing ended hundreds of years ago in the civilised world.
Quote
Israel was born out of terrorist acts against ArabsIn the articles you cited, the terrorist attacks were incidental: they didn't have any influence on government policy one war or the other.
Quote
Most of those living in Israel, 80% including [Sandwich] are not from the middle east or not descended from there.:wtf: Is this a factual statistic or your own opinion?
Quote
You have no right to be there. Doesnt matter what your god says, you're living on stolen land.Tell that to God. :lol: God not only said that, he enforced it - by bringing Israel back to the Promised Land.
Quote
Goober5000, militant muslims are trying to wipe out Israel, not Judaism. Theres a very big difference.No, they're trying to wipe out the Jews. During the disapora, when the Jews were scattered throughout the Middle East, everyone wanted the Jews out of their country and back to Palestine, which at the time was a desert wasteland. Now that the Jews are back in Palestine, they don't want them there either.
Post by: Goober5000 on March 25, 2004, 06:31:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009I don't know about Jewish tradition or theology, but the Job narrative is pretty clear that Satan is an adversary. Satan shows up to God's meeting uninvited. And while God allows Satan to do certain things, within limits, he certainly doesn't send him.
In Judaism, AFAIK, the Satan mentioned in the Book of Job is not considered to be the devil, but rather an angel sent by God to test mankind.
Post by: Gank on March 25, 2004, 06:37:38 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Goober5000
Hasn't ended in the civilized world or elsewhere; besides, "to the victor belong the spoils" is a generally accepted rule of warfare.
No the geneva conventions govern warfare now.
Quote
In the articles you cited, the terrorist attacks were incidental: they didn't have any influence on government policy one war or the other
Wrong, it was those terrorist acts which caused the British to withdraw.
Quote
Is this a factual statistic or your own opinion?
Statistical, original Sephardic Jews account for 16% of the population
Quote
Tell that to God. :lol: God not only said that, he enforced it - by bringing Israel back to the Promised Land.
I did, he says it's nothing to do with him, sort it out yerselves.
Quote
No, they're trying to wipe out the Jews. During the disapora, when the Jews were scattered throughout the Middle East, everyone wanted the Jews out of their country and back to Palestine, which at the time was a desert wasteland. Now that the Jews are back in Palestine, they don't want them there either.
Umm, thats utter bollocks, its been covered before go back and read the thread.
Post by: Goober5000 on March 25, 2004, 07:05:19 pm
Quote
Originally posted by GankAnd who enforces the Geneva convention? It's happening all over Eastern Europe with the ethnic cleansing.
No the geneva conventions govern warfare now.
Quote
Wrong, it was those terrorist acts which caused the British to withdraw.I doubt it, but I'll let Sandwich argue this one.
Quote
Statistical, original Sephardic Jews account for 16% of the population.And what about other Jews?
Quote
Umm, thats utter bollocks, its been covered before go back and read the thread.:wtf: It's a historical fact.
Post by: Gank on March 25, 2004, 07:21:21 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Goober5000
And who enforces the Geneva convention? It's happening all over Eastern Europe with the ethnic cleansing.
So in your eyes whats going on there is ok too? :no:
Quote
I doubt it, but I'll let Sandwich argue this one.
Well he'll probably argue that the British signed off on a Jewish homeland in 1917, in the Balfour declaration. But leave out the fact that Britian didnt or never had governed palestine at the time.
Quote
And what about other Jews?
Like I've said numerous times here, descended from Khazars, Central Asians. Probably not all but most are.
Quote
:wtf: It's a historical fact.
No its not. Go learn some history. Jews had to pay taxs under Islam, but so did all other denominations. In fact Judaism had its golden age 8-11th centuries under Islamic rule. You're getting confused with european anti-semitism, which was rife. But your also viewing Judaism as a nationality, its not its a religion.
Post by: Goober5000 on March 25, 2004, 07:34:12 pm
Quote
Originally posted by GankNo. I said that it happened; I didn't say that I approved of it.
So in your eyes whats going on there is ok too?
Post by: Gank on March 25, 2004, 07:36:34 pm
Post by: Goober5000 on March 25, 2004, 07:40:15 pm
Post by: Gank on March 25, 2004, 07:43:08 pm
Post by: Corsair on March 25, 2004, 09:30:41 pm
Sandwich, buddy, I hate to say it, but I'm seeing a lot more violence in the near future. Whether Yassin deserved to die or not, I can't say...but I don't think it was a smart thing for the IDF to kill him.
:(
Post by: Grey Wolf on March 25, 2004, 09:38:56 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Goober5000From what I've found in Jewish theology, the Satan in the Book of Job was basically created to test the faith of men. I remember hearing once that his role resembled that of the secret services of the kings of that era. Basically, actively seek out dissent, even where there appears to be none. If there appears to be none, push them until they show signs of dissent. Then, punish them for their disloyalty. Not a good sort of character, mind you.
I don't know about Jewish tradition or theology, but the Job narrative is pretty clear that Satan is an adversary. Satan shows up to God's meeting uninvited. And while God allows Satan to do certain things, within limits, he certainly doesn't send him.
Of course, even assuming the Christian interpretation of the Satan being evil, most people's views are wrong. It specifically states in the Bible that Satan has the power to walk through both the world and heaven, and the only passage that connects Satan and Hell, IIRC, is in the Book of Revelations, the passage that mentions the lake of sulphur.
Post by: Goober5000 on March 25, 2004, 11:58:16 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009True. Satan isn't going to be ruling over hell; he'll be hollering just like everybody else.
Of course, even assuming the Christian interpretation of the Satan being evil, most people's views are wrong. It specifically states in the Bible that Satan has the power to walk through both the world and heaven, and the only passage that connects Satan and Hell, IIRC, is in the Book of Revelations, the passage that mentions the lake of sulphur.
Post by: Liberator on March 26, 2004, 12:14:30 am
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
So in your eyes whats going on there is ok too?
No it's not okay anywhere. But the existence of Israel is a fact, the so called "Palestinians" are mostly Jordanian.
And as far as Ethnic Cleansing goes, it will only end when one side or the other is eliminated. Do I like? Not really, but when the UN interferes with internal situations like this and stop what is effectively a civil war, the old hatreds fester and boil and instead of warfare, where casualties are primarily limited to combatants, you get Ethnic Cleansing where the only casualties are the people left in the middle.
Violence is part of Human nature. We fight because it's the one thing we do well. We practice it, we invent new, more ingenious ways to do it. We even pay homage to those who do it well. I don't care what kind of drug induced stupor or wigged-out commie fantasy world you live in where people with as different a mindsets as the modern Israeli and the modern Arab can get along in peace, humans are fighters. Always have been, always will be. So, unless willing to mindrape every single human on Earth and remake them into passive zombies I suggest you shut the hell up. :hopping:
Post by: Rictor on March 26, 2004, 12:31:25 am
No offence intended, but people like you should never be allowed to have any power. If you accept murder, you only invite it. Think about that please.
If you do not strive for something better than we have right now, you will never progress. If people had been satisified with using oil for lamps, thinking that it was the way it was meant to be and the way it will always be, then they would have never been compeled to invent lightbulbs. This goes for more or less every invention in the history of makind.
Strive for perfection. You will never get there, but in the process you will improve yourself and society.
I don't know why you think that human bings are incapable of settling their differences peacefully, but I assure you they are. There is nothing in humans that makes them love war. People hate war, most people do. The reason why humanity's history is so bloddy, is because the few who are powerful have fought for power and wealth and such, and they have always used the people as their armies.
No one wants war, except the very few who hold the power. The people of the world do not want war. No one in their right minds would prefer war to peace when possible. Its people like Bush that drum up the people to go to war, just like evry leader does it. If left to their own devices, the people of America would never have attacked Iraq, or imposed sanctionts on Libya or overthrew the goverment in Chile. The same way that, were it not for the war-mongers in the government, Palestinians and Jews would be licing peacfully.
Liberator, you are a white, American Christian. You are the absolute top of the food chain in the world today. You've never known the ravages of war, never known fear or hunger or anything of that sort. So ofcourse you like war. War to you is something that happens of TV or in the movies and its always glorious. The heros win, there are some cool CG effects and the evil is vanquised. But you have never seen anything of the ills that plague the world, so you justify your own supremacy to yourself by saying that its human nature to kill each other and subjugate each other and so forth. But its not, its really not. And until the world realizes that, there will not be peace. These are the ideals that the UN is sipposed to uphold, but they're doing a very poor job of it. The reason that the UN exists is so that nations do not have to resort to war, so that all nations can be held accountable for their actions and you do not have a situation where the strong can exploit and kill the weak.
Honestly, just think about this. I mean really think about it. Its a very important concept. If you accept brutality and war, you only invite them.
Post by: Liberator on March 26, 2004, 01:13:53 am
The UN is supposed to provide a public forum for two nations with disagreements to air their differences peacefully. At this it has failed miserably. It's tragically funny that you put so much stock in an organization that let's the Sudan and China sit on the Committee on Human Rights.
Do I like war? No.
Do I recognize war to be a defining event of human society, pat and present? Yes.
For wars to stop you have to provide two things:
infinite land for exansion
infinite resources to exploit
What you and the rest of the peaceniks would have us, the USA, disarm as an example to the rest of the world. This only invites attack. As a highly educated, but naieve, young person do not recognize this. People are not the same or equal, there will always be economic or social factors that separate or differeniate them from some other group. These factors are what eventually develop into armed conflicts.
You can't see the truth of the matter for your dreamworld you want everybody to live in.
We live in a time when the USA has been attacked on her on soveriegn soil and half the country wants us to let it slide. "We provoked them!" they say. "Let's give them what they want!" they say. What would you say to the 3000 people who were slaughtered for no greater offense than getting up and going to work?
Your very existence is an insult to the sacrifice that all our fathers and grandfathers bled and died to protect. You sicken me.
Post by: Rictor on March 26, 2004, 01:21:13 am
As I said, and I hope you aren't offended, is that I very much hope that people like you do not take power. Or rather, I hope that they do not continue to hold power. But I don't hold it against you, each person is the sum of their experiences, so it is only natural for people to hold wildly different opinions.
edit: Form your statement, I only re-enforce my views thart The Christian Right in America and fanatical fundementalists among Muslims and Jews are actively working towards bringing about the end, thinking that with it will come their salvation and the destruction of their enemies. Working towards self destruction is a very dangerious quality to have in leaders, for obvious reasons.
Post by: Liberator on March 26, 2004, 02:38:27 am
That is why you will never be able to establish your "utopia", somebody, not necessarily bigger, just meaner, comes and takes it away because you give it to him to keep from getting hurt. It's no way to live, and certainly no way to run a country. I'm not saying go looking for trouble, but never let your guard down.
BTW, America, at least the one I know and love, and the people that live here are an amiable bunch. We welcome everybody who comes here legally to live and work and join us. We won't bug you about how you spend your off hours and personal time, unless it interferes with someone elses in an unwanted fashion. We are generally slow to rouse to anger, but once hurt we will finish any fight that get's started with us.
I personally am a live/let live kind of guy, the problems arise when pointy-headed intellectuals who think they know better than I how my life should be open their fat mouths and try to create a communistic utopian dream. I hate to break it to you, Communism doesn't work. On paper it's great; "One for all and all for one" and all that. The problem arises when human nature enters the equation. The ones at the top of the massive beauracracy that such a system generates take advantage of the ones lower down and they prey on the ones lower than them, ect, ect, on and on, office after pathetic concrete office, until the system is so corrupt and degenerate that it falls in on itself.
Proof of point: the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
They were united.
They were Socialist.
They were not republics.
They were an empire only slightly less evil than Hitler's Germany.
More proof: Cuba
the USA is the only major power that maintains a trade embargo against her and yet she continues to fall futher and further in to decay. Only Castro's force of personality has kept him in power.
Post by: Rictor on March 26, 2004, 03:01:25 am
I do not believe that fighting a tyranny is wrong. I do not believe that letting the weak be set upon by the strong is just. I do support war, when it is necesarry.
However, I think that war is only a temporary solution. War can bring about a short peace, 50 or a hundred years, but it can not keep the peace. Only peace can keep the peace, if that makes any sense. Basically, you have to give up the notion of war for greed or for power, and embrace peace, while at the same time being prepared to fight a war if it is necesarry to keep the peace.
However, you are under the illusion that American wars of late have been for the puropses of justice and freedom. These are just words that those leaders who want war for personal gain use to mask the truth. You work under the assumption that if Bush (or Clinton or whoever is in charge ath the moment) says something, it is true. So, they say "We are fighting to liberate Iraq", you assume it is true, even though common sense is saying that he is lying and decieving,
For example, let me ask you. For what ideal was America fighting for when they secrertly overthrew Salvador Allende in Chile in the 70s?
Was it for democracy? He was democratically elected.
Was it for freedom? Pinochet was a tyrant and everyone knew it.
Was it for peace? A military coup, followed by years of bloody tyranny.
It was to protect Pepsi Cola's business interests. Allende was a socialist, so for no other ideal than that of unrestricted capitalism, the United States visited years of suffering upon an innocent people. Where is the justice in that?
_____
Answer the above questions, and maybe this can become more than a "I'm right!, No, I'm right" sort of deal.
Post by: Sandwich on March 26, 2004, 05:50:25 am
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Again, Israel started the 67 war. You may claim it was a pre-emptive strike but the fact remains you started it...
Ok, granted: in a literal meaining of the word, Israel started the '67 war. However, do you agree with me that, all other things being equal, Israel would not have initiated that war without the provocation caused by the build-up of the military forces of the surrounding nations on her borders?
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
...besides a defensive war does not capture land, only an offensive one does. IIRC Germanys war gainst Poland was defensive. :rolleyes: And conquering land does not give you the right to displace its people and colonise it, that sort of thing ended hundreds of years ago in the civilised world.
Defensive wars don't conquer land? Please don't take offense, but what the hell are you talking about? Defensive/offensive refers to the initiator of hostilities. Generally, that army has the upper hand in the battles due to preparedness and somtimes even the element of surprise. Most defensive wars are losing wars, since the aggressor has the upper hand and is able to push the battle onto their enemy's land.
Defensive/offensive wars are not defined by which side of the border they take place on. However, the reverse is generally true - the side of the border the battles take place is generally dependant on who struck first.
However, in Israel's case, the defensive wars she has fought have resulted in the IDF pushing the attacking enemy out beyond her borders and into the originating nations, thus capturing that territory.
Which, in war, is perfectly acceptable.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Btw there wasnt a jewish nation for about 2500 years before 1950. Sorry to burst your bubble but satans already won. :eek:
Liek I said before, the promise God made was to the Jews as a people, not a coherent nation. Otherwise it would be a blatant contradiction between that and the promises about gathering them from where they were scattered among the nations, bringing them back to their own land, etc.
Oh, and Satan lost at the cross. He just doesn't admit it yet.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Goober5000, militant muslims are trying to wipe out Israel, not Judaism. Theres a very big difference.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
You're getting confused with european anti-semitism, which was rife. But your also viewing Judaism as a nationality, its not its a religion.
Clarification time. I am Jewish (nationality/ethnic group). I am not Jewish (religion).
It's very easy to get confused between the two. But the distinction must be made, otherwise you'd have secular Jews being labeled as religious.
Post by: Liberator on March 26, 2004, 12:06:34 pm
Human's cannot maintain a utopia with some kind of external influence, it's not in out nature. You would never get everybody to agree with you, somebody, like me for instance, would believe you are wrong and work against you. Thus is born the conflict that you're utopic ideal tries so hard to eliminate. To establish a utopia you would have to legislate it and use military force or you would have to drug every single person in the USA and eventually the world to maintain it. Thus is born a totalitarian state we saw in the Soviet Union. I'll skip, thanks.
Here comes the laughter, but let's say you overturn the current world order without some kind of massive genocidal war. On some far off day, we will figure out how to travel between the stars. What if we come across an extraterrestrial species that followed the opposite path and is warlike? What choice would your utopic world of peace have, but to go to war with the aliens for the very future of the species.
That was a far out scenario I'll admit, but possible.
You continue to ignore Human Nature, that even you have. Human nature is that part of us that have sex with every girl(or guy depending on your gender) we see. It's that part of us that is greedy and self-centered, and would just as soon take something they want instead of earning it. The trick is to not ignore it, it's too strong and will eventually wear you down, neither should you embrace it, because you will just as easyily become a monster of some kind. The trick is to mitigate it and use it as a guide, temper it with wisdom and intelligence.
You seem to think that Conservatives, I'll not say Republicans because there are many Republicans who are not Conservative in any way, are selfish, stick-it-to-whoever-I-can thus and so's who's only goal is to rape the land and it's inhabitants. I can tell you, from experience, that is not so.
Can you tell me Rictor, I mean I know already, but can you tell me what kind of behavior on the part of the American leadership would make you happy?
Post by: Rictor on March 26, 2004, 01:22:05 pm
Most Conservatives, and I do make the distinction between Conservatives and Republicans, are Hobbesian in their ideals. They believe that humans are corrupt and greedy and self serving. This then justifies the "might makes right" principle, becuase most people who take the stance that people are essentially evil exclude themselves from this equation and believe that they are above their nature. Thats where you get phrases like Good vs Evil being thrown around, where everyone who subscribes to your set of ideals is good, while the rest are "merely human".
However, I think that thats a very defeatist attitude. If you believe that Humans are at their core evil, and you do not believe in God, then there is no hope for us and I don't see why you shouldn't just kill yourself right now. If the only possible outcomes are subjugating the weak or death, whats the point in living? Then, there can be no true justice or peace, only that justice which the strong allow the weak to have, and only that peace which comes from conquering.
Thats the basic jist of it. Thats the difference between you and me. Locke or Hobbes.
_____
I think that your example of the alien race is not relevant. Everyone withing humanity shares more or less the same basic principles, so agreement can be reached. If we were to encounter an alien race, it would be very improbable that thier ideals would match our own in such a way as to allow peace. Thats like comparing apples and oranges. All the oranges can get allong, because they're all the same. And all the apples can get along, because they too are the same. But you can't have apples in agreement with oranges, because they're so different.
What you are trying to do is to use the apple/orange analogy on humanity. You say that Islam is apples and Christianity is oranges and maybe Judaism is pears, so they can't get along. But you have to reconginze that first of all, all of humanity came from a single source. This is true regardless of whether you believe in Creationism or evolution. Secondly, you have to realize that all the major religions are very, very similar. In their rituals and practices, maybe not, but in their fundemental principles, they are almost identical.
Imagine a child who has grown up in a Christian family, and knows a fair bit about the ideals of Christianity. But he has never actually read the Bibe. Just imagine that for a second. Now, you give him the Koran and tell him "This is the Bible". Upon reading it, do you think he would have any suspicions that the religion which he has been taught, and the religion described in the book were not one and the same? I think he wouldn't. If he were exceptionally well versed in Christian beliefs, he would notice a few minor contradictions, but these would be technicalities and could easily be explained away,
___________
Now, as for American leadership, I would like them to start working towards establishing peace in the world. This sounds very vague, but it actually has a very speciific set of policies that it entials, they are just too numerous for me to list. In fact, I think that it is America that is in a large degree keeping the world from achieving peace. If America simply turned isolationist (economically as well as politically) I think that we would in the next 50 or 100 years see a slow but steady move towards enlightenment and peace, worldwide.
You think this is a pipedream, but have you ever entertained the possibility that it could happen. You are taking a conclusion which you have already established, and using the evnts in the wold to justify it. Logic works the other way around. You take the circumstances in the world today, and if you do this and this and this, and that looks like it is going to bring peace, then it should be assumed that, baring any unforseen events, peace will come. There is no reason not to think that, if you believe, like me, that humans are basically good. However, I think humanity will get there despite America's efforts, its just going to take longer and be a bit more difficult.
Post by: Gank on March 26, 2004, 01:33:15 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ok, granted: in a literal meaining of the word, Israel started the '67 war. However, do you agree with me that, all other things being equal, Israel would not have initiated that war without the provocation caused by the build-up of the military forces of the surrounding nations on her borders?
'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.'
Menahem Begin
Quote
Defensive wars ..... thus capturing that territory.Yopu've already admitted it wasnt a defensive war, you're talking about something which didnt happen. 6 day war was started by Israel and fought on arab soil. It was an offensive war. If I think my neighbours going to attack me and go around and lay into him, I'm attacking, hes defending. It doesnt matter how sure I am he was going to attack me, by attacking him I've reversed the roles. Israel attacked, arabs defended. Dress it up however you like, those are the facts.
Quote
Which, in war, is perfectly acceptable.
So because you've captured it your free to settle it? Thats called ethnic cleansing sandwich, and no civilised people would consider it "acceptable"
Quote
Liek I said before, the promise God made was to the Jews as a people, not a coherent nation. Otherwise it would be a blatant contradiction between that and the promises about gathering them from where they were scattered among the nations, bringing them back to their own land, etc.
You were equating the destruction of Israel with the destruction of the jewish nation. If this isnt the case you needent worry about satan winning if Israel ceases to exist, theres more jews in america than Israel.
Quote
Clarification time. I am Jewish (nationality/ethnic group). I am not Jewish (religion).
Revelations 2:9
Post by: Rictor on March 26, 2004, 01:49:27 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
For example, let me ask you. For what ideal was America fighting for when they secrertly overthrew Salvador Allende in Chile in the 70s?
Was it for democracy? He was democratically elected.
Was it for freedom? Pinochet was a tyrant and everyone knew it.
Was it for peace? A military coup, followed by years of bloody tyranny.
It was to protect Pepsi Cola's business interests. Allende was a socialist, so for no other ideal than that of unrestricted capitalism, the United States visited years of suffering upon an innocent
Post by: Gank on March 26, 2004, 02:05:13 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
BY the way, Locke helped write the American Constitution, might want to keep that in mind.
A good few of the writers of the constitution were slavetraders, might want to keep that in mind.
Post by: Rictor on March 26, 2004, 02:30:23 pm
But I think that it is significant that Liberator is displaying views on humanity that run directly contrary to the beliefs of one of the most significant writers of the Constitution, which Americans (Libby included I assume) hold to be the "rulebook" for their basic values.
Post by: Liberator on March 26, 2004, 02:38:55 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Liberator, I answered your question, now you answer mine:
I can't, I have no knowledge of these events. I was probably about 10 when it happened.
I will agree that I beleive the USA needs to become more isolationist, but for our own good, not the good of the world.
Post by: Goober5000 on March 26, 2004, 03:30:03 pm
Quote
Originally posted by RictorNo, no, no, not at all. You've got it precisely backwards.
Secondly, you have to realize that all the major religions are very, very similar. In their rituals and practices, maybe not, but in their fundemental principles, they are almost identical.
Superficially, lots of religions are similar. People pray/meditate, do good to others, and better themselves. But at their core, religions are very different. Christians believe that we can't save ourselves, that salvation is beyond reach unless God offers it to us. Muslims believe that salvation is based on adhering to law, and they put great emphasis on rituals (c.f. the Five Pillars). Hindus believe in a polytheistic/pantheistic god that manifests himself in many forms. Buddhists don't even believe that there is a God.
Quote
Originally posted by GankIf you capture land, it's yours to do whatever you want with it. That isn't ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is systematically deporting or exterminating those of a particular ethnicity.
So because you've captured it your free to settle it? Thats called ethnic cleansing sandwich, and no civilised people would consider it "acceptable"
Settling captured land is fair and acceptable. Ethnic cleansing is not.
Post by: karajorma on March 26, 2004, 05:09:53 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Goober5000
Buddhists don't even believe that there is a God.
Buddhists do believe in gods. They just don't believe that they care that much about humanity. :)
Post by: Rictor on March 26, 2004, 05:34:59 pm
_______
Goober, what I was thinking is more along the lines of the basic values extoled by the Big 3 religions. Essentially, they each have a single God, a single pre-imminent prophet, and believe in the struggle between good and evil. Values such as honour, justice, kindness, charity and piety are held to be indicstors of a godly person, in addition to of course being a devout man/woman.
That is more or less the basics of it. It goes so far as to recognize each oother's religious texts and even holy figures. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, though not as major as Muhamed (sp?). Christians akcowledge the whole Moses business, and even have the Old Testament as part of the Bible. Jews can't really acknowledge other religions, since Judaism predates both Christianity and Islam by a few thousand years.
In short - same car, different paintjob.
Post by: Liberator on March 26, 2004, 08:24:14 pm
Post by: Rictor on March 26, 2004, 09:30:09 pm
If Bob and John and Tom all believe in the same values more or less, but each give them different names, then despite the details, they all share common ground and are in fact more likely to reach an agreement with each other than each would with say, an athiest. See what I'm getting at here? Despite the "ltter of the law", in all three cases the "intent of the law" is the same. Unless of course you want to claim that the letter is more important than the intent.
Post by: Goober5000 on March 26, 2004, 10:18:36 pm
Some examples:
* You'll have a heck of a time convincing an Orthodox Jew of the divinity of Jesus, because from his perspective that's blasphemy of the highest order.
* One reason that ethnic Jews and Arab Muslims are hostile towards each other is that Jews believe God bestowed his blessing on Abraham's descendants through Isaac while Muslims believe that God bestowed his blessing on Abraham's descendants through Ishmael.
* The Christian doctrine that "it is appointed for man once to die, and then face judgement" is in direct conflict with the Buddhist and Hindu principles of bettering oneself through reincarnation.
Etc.
Post by: Grey Wolf on March 26, 2004, 10:23:27 pm
Post by: Rictor on March 26, 2004, 10:27:22 pm
What you think is the core values I think is superficial. Do you believe that God bestowed his blessing through Abraham or through Ishmael HIS BROTHER. Cmon how much more alike can you get.
What you call your prophet and whether he was Caucasian or Arabic or whatever, thats just tiny niggles. If you take out all the uninmportant stuff (names, places, the exact type of food you are not allowed to eat, how and how often you have to pray) etc, you are left with identical core values.
Post by: Goober5000 on March 26, 2004, 10:52:51 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009Reread the last few posts. The specific point I was addressing was the compatibility or lack thereof between religions in general.
Where'd the reference to Buddhism and Hinduism come from? The conversation was on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Quote
Originally posted by RictorWell, Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, so they're more compatible with each other than with other religions. Similar situation to Christianity and Judaism.
Alright, since the Buddhists and Hindus (except for India, also China but China doesn't count) seem to be getting along just fine, lets leave them out of it.
Quote
What you think is the core values I think is superficial.Then you should study up on what each religion's fundamental doctrines are. They're very much in conflict.
Quote
Do you believe that God bestowed his blessing through Abraham or through Ishmael HIS BROTHER. Cmon how much more alike can you get.That's a serious issue in middle eastern culture, especially since the family tree is so extensive that there are literally two nations in conflict. A cynic would say that Jews and Muslims are fighting over which nation is God's favorite.
Quote
If you take out all the uninmportant stuff (names, places, the exact type of food you are not allowed to eat, how and how often you have to pray) etc, you are left with identical core values.Again, no. Do some more research on this. Check out www.comparativereligion.com or take a comparative religion course.
edited for formatting
Post by: Sandwich on March 27, 2004, 06:32:06 am
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Imagine a child who has grown up in a Christian family, and knows a fair bit about the ideals of Christianity. But he has never actually read the Bibe. Just imagine that for a second. Now, you give him the Koran and tell him "This is the Bible". Upon reading it, do you think he would have any suspicions that the religion which he has been taught, and the religion described in the book were not one and the same? I think he wouldn't. If he were exceptionally well versed in Christian beliefs, he would notice a few minor contradictions, but these would be technicalities and could easily be explained away,
This depends on your definition of "growing up in a Christian family", obviously. But without being more specific, I'd have to disagree.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.'
Menahem Begin
Good quote, but we already got past this point, and you didn't answer the question:
Do you agree with me that, all other things being equal, Israel would not have initiated that war without the provocation caused by the build-up of the military forces of the surrounding nations on her borders?
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Yopu've already admitted it wasnt a defensive war, you're talking about something which didnt happen. 6 day war was started by Israel and fought on arab soil. It was an offensive war. If I think my neighbours going to attack me and go around and lay into him, I'm attacking, hes defending. It doesnt matter how sure I am he was going to attack me, by attacking him I've reversed the roles. Israel attacked, arabs defended. Dress it up however you like, those are the facts.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I wasn't referring to the 6-Day War. I was referring to the War of '48 and the Yom Kippur War in '73.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
So because you've captured it your free to settle it? Thats called ethnic cleansing sandwich, and no civilised people would consider it "acceptable"
Uhm, no, that's not "ethnic cleansing". "Ethnic Cleansing" is when the goal is eradicating a specific ethnic group. Ignoring the fact that you'd better not call Egyptians "Arab" to their face (they aren't Arab), Israel would have behaved much differently if her wars of self-defense had a goal of ethnic cleansing.
Israel has the ability to pretty much wipe out any of our neighboring nations whenever she wants, barring intervention from the UN, US, etc. We do have nukes, remember.
It's like that court case where a man was charged with attempted murder because he severely pistol-whipped someone. His defense was that his gun was loaded; if he'd wanted the person dead, he could have shot them. The judge accepted the defense and the man got convicted of aggravated assault.
Let me put it to you very plainly:
Israel does not want war. Israel does not want to wipe her enemies off the face of the planet. Israel does not want the Palestianians to go through such hardships, live in such crappy conditions, or feel the need to blow themselves up just to strike back.
But Israel's survival as a nation must be the top priority of her leaders. When attacked, we will defend. When threatened, we will respond.
And when we are offered a secure peace, we WILL jump at the chance.
Not before.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
You were equating the destruction of Israel with the destruction of the jewish nation. If this isnt the case you needent worry about satan winning if Israel ceases to exist, theres more jews in america than Israel.
Here's the passage - understand what you will:
[q]Jeremiah 31:31-40
31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
35 Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The LORD of hosts is His name):
36 "If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the LORD,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever."
37 Thus says the LORD:
"If heaven above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
For all that they have done, says the LORD.
38 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that the city shall be built for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 The surveyor's line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. 40 And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever."[/q]
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Revelations 2:9
[q] 8 "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write,
"These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life: 9 "I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10 Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.[/q]
What's your point? Are you going to pull that verse out at every person you encounter who's Jewish?
No, wait, lemme guess - only the Sephardic Jews are really Jewish - the Ashkenazi Jews are from the Khazar tribe in Europe that converted wholesale to Judaisim.
That's like sayiing that the only Americans are the pureblood decendants of the Native American Indians. Besides, conversion to Judaism is quite valid, you know. Heck, even in the Bible, God makes many references in His commandments to the Jewish People that it includes the stranger that sojourns among them - the Egyptians who joined them in the exodus, for example. And they didn't even convert.
Post by: Gank on March 27, 2004, 07:52:14 am
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
Good quote, but we already got past this point, and you didn't answer the question:
Do you agree with me that, all other things being equal, Israel would not have initiated that war without the provocation caused by the build-up of the military forces of the surrounding nations on her borders?
Its irrelevant. 6 day war was an offensive war started by Israel, regardless of the reasons.
Quote
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I wasn't referring to the 6-Day War. I was referring to the War of '48 and the Yom Kippur War in '73.Yes you sholud have been more specific, especially as it was the 6 day war we were discussing. The west bank was captured then.
Quote
Uhm, no, that's not "ethnic cleansing". "Ethnic Cleansing" is when the goal is eradicating a specific ethnic group. Ignoring the fact that you'd better not call Egyptians "Arab" to their face (they aren't Arab), Israel would have behaved much differently if her wars of self-defense had a goal of ethnic cleansing.
Ethnic cleansing would be the removal of a specific ethnic group, not eradication. Hence the settlements and the wall. Did Benjamin Netanyaho (sp) not say the palestinian is a beast with two legs
Quote
Israel does not want war. Israel does not want to wipe her enemies off the face of the planet. Israel does not want the Palestianians to go through such hardships, live in such crappy conditions, or feel the need to blow themselves up just to strike back.
But Israel's survival as a nation must be the top priority of her leaders. When attacked, we will defend. When threatened, we will respond.
And when we are offered a secure peace, we WILL jump at the chance.
Not before.
Wrong sandwich, heres some quotes from Israeli leaders
Quote
"Before the founding of the state, on the eve of its creation, our main interests was self-defense. To a large extent, the creation of the state was an act of self-defense. . . . Many think that we're still at the same stage. But now the issue at hand is conquest, not self-defense. As for setting the borders--- it's an open-ended matter. In the Bible as well as in our history, there all kinds of definitions of the country's borders, so there's no real limit. No border is absolute. If it's a desert--- it could just as well be the other side. If it's sea, it could also be across the sea. The world has always been this way. Only the terms have changed. If they should find a way of reaching other stars, well then, perhaps the whole earth will no longer suffice."
David Ben Gurion, 1949
Quote
"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to live up to his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today--but the boundaries of the Zionist aspirations are concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them."
David Ben Gurion
Quote
"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized . . . Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever,"
Menachim Begin
Israel has never wanted to leave peacefully with its neighbours, its wanted to conquer its land.
Quote
What's your point? Are you going to pull that verse out at every person you encounter who's Jewish?
No, wait, lemme guess - only the Sephardic Jews are really Jewish - the Ashkenazi Jews are from the Khazar tribe in Europe that converted wholesale to Judaisim.
That's like sayiing that the only Americans are the pureblood decendants of the Native American Indians. Besides, conversion to Judaism is quite valid, you know. Heck, even in the Bible, God makes many references in His commandments to the Jewish People that it includes the stranger that sojourns among them - the Egyptians who joined them in the exodus, for example. And they didn't even convert.
The point behind that quote sandwich, was that it was exactly what you were saying. You are a jew but you are not a jew. I dont believe in the bible so its actually meaningless to me. And no I dont quote it to every jew I meet, I have no reason too. And given that the bible is meaningless to me its pointless using it to back up your arguements, it lends as much weight to your words as the rig veda does to a hindus. Conversion to judaism might be quite valid religiously, but it does not make you descended from the middle east, it does not give you the right to a homeland there.
Post by: Rictor on March 27, 2004, 09:39:53 am
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
Let me put it to you very plainly:
Israel does not want war. Israel does not want to wipe her enemies off the face of the planet. Israel does not want the Palestianians to go through such hardships, live in such crappy conditions, or feel the need to blow themselves up just to strike back.
But Israel's survival as a nation must be the top priority of her leaders. When attacked, we will defend. When threatened, we will respond.
And when we are offered a secure peace, we WILL jump at the chance.
Not before.
You do, but your leaders do not. Several times in the past, when Hamas was either actively engaged in a ceasefire or on the verge of agreeing to a ceasefire, Sharon has order asassination of Palestinian leaders. Every time he has done this, there have been reprisals against Israelis, and the ceasefire goes down the drain.,
This has happened several times, and each time Sharon ordered the asassinations without any previous provocation. So, in my eyes, this is seen as Sharon intentionally breaking the peace and provoking the Palestinians. Let me say that again; whenever Israel and Hamas and/or other militants have called a trcue, Sharon has taken steps to break the peace.
Peace is rather simple to achieve.
1.Take any area where Palestinians form the clear majority and declare that to be the nation of Palestine
2. Station the Israeli army on the borders of Israel/Palestine and have them guard against intrusions.
3. Make sure that all Palestinians who want to go be in Palestine are accomodated. Also make sure that you have not annexed any private property, such as schools, farmlands etc.
4. For a period of several months, disallow any passage between Israel/Palestine. Anyone attempting this will be shot on sight.
5. After several months have passed, and tensions have cooled, allow travel back and forth, but with thorough inspection.
6. Henceforth, allow any Palestinian the ability to gain Israeli citizenship by normal means (with immigration standards of the same level as the international norm) so that any who wish to make Israel their home can do so.
7. For no reason whatsoever, short of a full scale invasion, should the IDF venture into Palestine. It is now a sovreign nation, and any activity will be considered an act of war.
Do this, and within maybe a year, suicide bombings will practically stop. If not totally, they will sharply decrease and popular support for them will fall to zero. Thats peace, but in order to achieve it, yu have to acknowledge that Palestinians must have their own homeland. They will never be happy living under Israeli occupation, and they will respond to the repression with attacks against Israeli targets,
Post by: Janos on March 27, 2004, 10:08:37 am
With huge unemployment and those Pals working on the Israeli side now disallowed to go to work? With no working infrastructure - medicare or even food? With both Israelis/Pals living on the same areas at 60%/40% or 50/50, those parts would certainly not cause any troubles? How about Jews trapped inside the Palestinian areas? Families broken apart?
Closing the Pals in a ghetto would propably cause only more malcontent, because that. The essence of your idea - trying to separate the warring parts - is, with the efforts to stop suicide bombings-retaliatory/preventive raids -circle of death, the very basis of every single peace proposal.
Post by: Rictor on March 27, 2004, 10:48:45 am
I may have forgoten to mention, but this proposal would entail foreign aid to to the nation of Palestine to kick off the ecnomony as well as to rebuild the infrastructure that has either been destroyed by Israel or fallen into disrepair over the years.
Post by: Janos on March 27, 2004, 12:24:24 pm
Now add gun-ho militants on both sides and watch the equation fall into chaos and turmoil. :(
Post by: Liberator on March 27, 2004, 04:31:09 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Janos
Closing the Pals in a ghetto would propably cause only more malcontent...
But, a ghetto is only a ghetto because the people who live there are unable/unwilling to improve it. They could just as easily head in the other direction to lumber and building material to improve their circumstance, jobs to I would think. The only reason they don't is because their corrupt leadership has talked them into believing that Israel is the only place where they can get jobs and support themselves and their family.
Post by: aldo_14 on March 27, 2004, 05:07:48 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
But, a ghetto is only a ghetto because the people who live there are unable/unwilling to improve it. They could just as easily head in the other direction to lumber and building material to improve their circumstance, jobs to I would think. The only reason they don't is because their corrupt leadership has talked them into believing that Israel is the only place where they can get jobs and support themselves and their family.
How can you get a job if no-one will hire you?
How can you buy timber if you have no money, because you can't get a job?
How can you get educated and find a job if there is no financing for the schools?
And this applies to any ghetto in the world....ghettos don;t start out as ghettos, they become them. And it can;t *just* be attributed to the people - it's the investment that goes into the area and infrastructure that causes it. There are ghettos all over the world - including suppossed 1st world countries. They just relabelled as areas of social deprivation, or ignored.
EDIt: anyway, I though you were Christian? Whatever happened to the act of charity? Y'know, the Good Samaritan and all that? (or 'judge not, lest ye be judged'?
Post by: TrashMan on March 27, 2004, 05:35:45 pm
2. Wait..there is...What Israel is doing. They are responding to terrorist attack with national terror. Hamas and other such groups are just that - groups. They aren't the Palestinian army..
To attack Palestina and level cities and houses..to arrest and kill civilians (and later in news to call them terrorist to cover up the crimes and to leve the people in the belief that they are actualy winning the "war"). An assault on a foreign country with your own military.... that is an invasion. Palestina never proclaimed war or attacked Israel first. Sure, Israel sez that Arafat is supporting the terrorists, but offer little or no proof. And even if Arafat is supporting them, that still doesn't give Israel the right for such an action. After all, it is them who stole Palestinian land.
3. I hate the U.S. for looking the other way and leting Israel go unpunished for what it's doing... Hell, ewven when that american student was run down by a Israel buldozer they didn't intervene...
4. Defensive wars and preemptive strikes...nice littel words used to hide the fact that YOUR'E the one who's attacking. Regardless of what your neghbour is doing on his side of the fence, you don't have the right to attack first...you just don't...
Post by: Grey Wolf on March 27, 2004, 06:07:00 pm
Post by: aldo_14 on March 27, 2004, 06:12:58 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
The most dangerous thing about a policy of preemptive strikes? You set a precedent. Precedents can be abused. Or used against you.
Plus it follows the 'are you looking at me? right then, come on - square go ya basturt!' line of thinking, which never worked in pubs either.
Post by: Rictor on March 27, 2004, 06:17:19 pm
Bush never set a precedent. All he did was have the balls to call the war what it was - pre-emptive. If Clinton or someone else were in power, they would have thought for a second before opening their mouths and figured out that they shouldn't use such an ugly word as pre-emptive. It would have been the same war, with a bigger coat of happy paint over it.
Post by: Grey Wolf on March 27, 2004, 06:20:15 pm
Since you assumed that I meant the fool who is in office, then that implies that you have doubts about him yourself.
Post by: Rictor on March 27, 2004, 06:23:23 pm
Post by: Ace on March 27, 2004, 07:32:22 pm
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14
EDIt: anyway, I though you were Christian? Whatever happened to the act of charity? Y'know, the Good Samaritan and all that? (or 'judge not, lest ye be judged'?
Calvinism Aldo. If anyone wants to take this conversation on the tangent of Calvin, his beliefs, the Puritains, etc. feel free to do so since I really don't want to go there here. The religion in the modern world thread is a better place for it, since it is more theologically rooted.
Post by: Ghostavo on March 27, 2004, 07:34:46 pm
Post by: Liberator on March 28, 2004, 01:02:09 am
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14
anyway, I though you were Christian? Whatever happened to the act of charity? Y'know, the Good Samaritan and all that? (or 'judge not, lest ye be judged'?
Charity has it's limits. My sympathy ends when the people I'm suppose to sympathize with begin bombing targets with innocent women and children in them, and the rest don't actively take measures to see that it stops.
Besides, how can there be charity when they've killed all the charity workers.
*edit*
That's the trick of it, you see. If the "Achmeds on the street" in Palestine would band together and take out the warmongers and corrupt leaders and stopping the bombings thus showing that they can take care of themselves, I suspect Israel would more than happy to stop the Gunship attacks. "God helps those who help themselves" as they say.
Post by: TrashMan on March 28, 2004, 08:37:38 am
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Bush never set a precedent. All he did was have the balls to call the war what it was - pre-emptive. If Clinton or someone else were in power, they would have thought for a second before opening their mouths and figured out that they shouldn't use such an ugly word as pre-emptive. It would have been the same war, with a bigger coat of happy paint over it.
Preemptive wars are still wars.. U.S. is the agressor in this case, and NOTHING...I repeat - NOTHING can justify a country for starting a war...
You can shout as much as you want that it was necessary (lol), it was defensive(yeah, right), and that it was them who attacked first(they didn't). Unless another country formaly declares war on you or assault you with their military forces under command of their leadership - then ..and ONLY then can you strike...
Post by: Rictor on March 28, 2004, 09:03:38 am
Post by: Liberator on March 28, 2004, 01:52:22 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
Preemptive wars are still wars.. U.S. is the agressor in this case, and NOTHING...I repeat - NOTHING can justify a country for starting a war...
You can shout as much as you want that it was necessary (lol), it was defensive(yeah, right), and that it was them who attacked first(they didn't). Unless another country formaly declares war on you or assault you with their military forces under command of their leadership - then ..and ONLY then can you strike...
We didn't start it, they did by ramming 3 airliners into the WTC and killing 3000 innocent people. DO NOT FORGET THAT!
Post by: karajorma on March 28, 2004, 02:15:48 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
We didn't start it, they did by ramming 3 airliners into the WTC and killing 3000 innocent people. DO NOT FORGET THAT!
Except Iraq didn't do that. In fact they had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Hell Afghanistan didn't have anything to do with it either except that they were stupid enough to not arrest Osama instantly.
Post by: Rictor on March 28, 2004, 02:23:50 pm
The way I see it, you did start it. You started it by arming and training bin Laden. You started it by installing the Taliban in Afghanistan. You started it by giving the Saudi Royal Family lucractive business agreements, whereby Osama was able to gain the funds to run a terrorist group. You started in by stationing US troops in Saudi Arabia, which is to this day one of the main reason Osama is pissed at America. You started it by unconditionally supporting Israel, which I think you can agree would piss off alot of Islamic fundamentalists.
If you choose to, out of convenience, see 9/11 as the starting date for the whole terrorism issue, then yes; they did start it. But if you choose to look at the history of the conflict, as most reasonable people would, then you can indeed see that 9/11 was a direct result of American operations in the Middle East.
The CIA has a term for the unexpected consequences of US. military (and also "intel") activities, they call it "blowback". 9/11 was the textbook defintion of blowback.
Post by: Lonestar on March 28, 2004, 02:32:57 pm
Isreal kills Spiritual Leader, its a good deed?
USA protects isreal from being condemned in attack that murdered many innocents and a few guilty, and its a step in the right direction?
Does anyone see that the US is the root of the problem, and if they minded their own goddamned business we wouldnt be listening to this middle eastern propaganda.
One thing the US shld do is shut the hell up and go the hell home. tired of them being the bullies on the block. Im sure everyone is.....
Post by: Bobboau on March 28, 2004, 04:22:02 pm
"Al-Qaeda kills soldiers, its Terrorism."
that's war, when Al Qaeda kills people minding there own business completly uninvolved in any violence that is terrorism. but of corse they were valid military targets becase they paid taxes :rolleyes:
"Isreal kills Spiritual Leader, its a good deed?"
no, but when they kill the leader of one of the biggest terrorist organisations in the world it is.
"USA protects isreal from being condemned in attack that murdered many innocents and a few guilty, and its a step in the right direction?"
it is when the condemnation was one sided and unfair, not that this act actualy did anything worth the flack were getting over it.
"One thing the US shld do is shut the hell up and go the hell home."
yay isolationism!
you know I'm tired of people useing retoric as a replacement for thinking, you lot with your 'America is evil in everything it does' anti-thiought are just as bad as Liberator and his ilk who use the Bible as a replacement for thinking. stop just useing the talking points of your favorite political movement, and start looking at the situation, stop assumeing that anyone who disagrees with you is a mindless emperialist whore brain washed by propaganda, becase you too may be influenced by propaganda.
for example, some people were recently complaining about how the EU was takeing over Europe and many people don't like it, the principal defence of the EU was that there needs to be a power to oppose the US. people liveing in Eupoe are being told not to complain about how they feel there rights or national soverenty are being tromped upon becase it'll weaken the US. sounds to me like propagandic bull****. personaly I like the idea of a united Europe, not becase of how it will impact the US's military, but becase currently many parts of Europe are a mess (balkans) and I think a united Eurpoe wuld help the situation, not to mention that a United Europe would be stronger, and a stronger Europe would be a stronger humanity, europe is mostly pro democracy and freedom, so if Europe gains power then so do these things.
Post by: Ghostavo on March 28, 2004, 04:41:10 pm
Quote
for example, some people were recently complaining about how the EU was takeing over Europe and many people don't like it, the principal defence of the EU was that there needs to be a power to oppose the US. people liveing in Eupoe are being told not to complain about how they feel there rights or national soverenty are being tromped upon becase it'll weaken the US. sounds to me like propagandic bull****. personaly I like the idea of a united Europe, not becase of how it will impact the US's military, but becase currently many parts of Europe are a mess (balkans) and I think a united Eurpoe wuld help the situation, not to mention that a United Europe would be stronger, and a stronger Europe would be a stronger humanity, europe is mostly pro democracy and freedom, so if Europe gains power then so do these things.
Where did you hear exactly all those things? :wtf:
And about Achemed Yassin, why didn't they simply arrested him instead of killing him? Yeah sure...
Quote
we armed a great number of fighters, not just usama, and we didn't install the talaban, we simply abandoned Afganastan after the soviets pulled out, so you see, we didn't start it the soviets did
Sometimes I wonder if the world would be better if the soviets had "won"...
Post by: Janos on March 28, 2004, 04:46:38 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Sometimes I wonder if the world would be better if the soviets had "won"...
If you think that way, THE TERRISTS HAVE WON[/i]!!!! omg
Post by: Ghostavo on March 28, 2004, 04:49:30 pm
Post by: aldo_14 on March 28, 2004, 05:05:26 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau
"USA protects isreal from being condemned in attack that murdered many innocents and a few guilty, and its a step in the right direction?"
it is when the condemnation was one sided and unfair, not that this act actualy did anything worth the flack were getting over it.
The thing is, do the condemnations of Hamas, etc terrorist attacks mention their justification?
Post by: Janos on March 28, 2004, 05:19:28 pm
I was kidding, kinda.
However blaming USA [I'm European leftist, BTW] for the entire "omg terrism problem" is kinda blatant. Islamist terrorist groups did exist before Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but certainly USA backing up mujahideen (sp?), especially with Stinger SAMs, did enforce the Afghan resistance. Whether USA interference was a key factor for Afghan resistance's success, on the other hand, is under debate.
Afghan guerillas once said, that they're not afraid of the Russians, but they're afraid of their helicopters, which were and are an important part of Russian doctrine. Su-25s and Mi-24 Hinds were lost at staggering rate after the introduction of Stingers and Redeyes, but later factory improvements greatly decreased the losses caused by SAM. (They added additional armour to both Hinds and around Frogfoots' engine exhausts.)
Afghan ambushes were, however, quite effective until the end of the war, because T-XX tanks they used (T-64 and T-72 with some early T-80s) did not have enough elevation to suppress troops firing far uphills. Only weapons in Russian tanks and APCs capable of firing really up were 2A42 30mm cannon on BMP-2 and 12,7 DShK AAMG:s (these would, however, have to be fired externally).
Oh, I'm sliding into a siderail. Pacifying Afghanistan was a long a tough process (talking about pre-Sovjetski assault), and after the Soviets struck, the land quickly shattered into small regions. Note: this happened during the 1980s. After a long and tough war there was a power vaccuum, filled of course by those with most power - finally the Talibans. Since other groups no longer had any access to central governing and policies and the ruling group were age-old enemies, kept alive only because goverment police forces were not particulary keen of slaughters, the "Northern Alliance" decided to abandon their own contradictions for a while and hack and slash all the way to Kabul. Stuck on a long war, they only had their chances when the USA once again decided to interfere, maybe righteously, and bombed the **** out of the Talibans.
I have no idea what I was trying to say.
Post by: Ghostavo on March 28, 2004, 05:46:58 pm
Post by: Grey Wolf on March 28, 2004, 09:09:32 pm
Post by: Bobboau on March 28, 2004, 09:14:51 pm
Post by: Grey Wolf on March 28, 2004, 09:25:28 pm
Post by: Liberator on March 28, 2004, 11:55:51 pm
You're all wrong, it's all Skull & Bones plan to subsume the world in their Death Cult.
Post by: Sandwich on March 29, 2004, 06:30:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Its irrelevant. 6 day war was an offensive war started by Israel, regardless of the reasons.
Do you know how lame and closed-minded that is?
It's not irrelevant - if Israel was a war-mongering nation, we would not wait until our targets had amassed their armies on our borders and brought themselves to a state of readiness for war they had not been at previously, would we? To attack then when you could have attacked before is folly if conquering is your only goal.
Try to be a little bit logical, okay? I'm not saying that Israel didn't start the 6-Day War. I'll even admit that I never knew that we started it. But along with that admission on my part, I would be quite justified in demanding that you recognize that Israel would not have initiated hostilities if the armies of her hostile neighbors had not been amassed on her borders.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Yes you sholud have been more specific, especially as it was the 6 day war we were discussing. The west bank was captured then.
Once again, my apologies. And by the way:
[q]In 1923 the British "chopped off" 75% of the proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian Nation of "Trans-Jordan," meaning "across the Jordan River." The Palestinian Arabs now had THEIR homeland... the remaining 25% of the original Palestinian territory (west of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland.
...
The U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan (1947) was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentration. The Jews accepted --- the Arabs rejected. They still wanted ALL. On May 14, 1948 the Palestinian Jews finally declared their own State of Israel. On the next day, Israel was at war with seven Arab armies... Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of "Israel" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews. When the war ended, Israel survived even with a loss of 1% of it's entire population. Those Arabs who did not run away became today's Israeli Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the so-called "Palestinian Arab refugees."[/q]
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Ethnic cleansing would be the removal of a specific ethnic group, not eradication. Hence the settlements and the wall. Did Benjamin Netanyaho (sp) not say the palestinian is a beast with two legs
In that case, I misunderstood what you meant by "ethnic cleansing". I don't see what the settlements or the wall have to do with it though.
And a reference for Bibi's quote would be nice.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
And given that the bible is meaningless to me its pointless using it to back up your arguements, it lends as much weight to your words as the rig veda does to a hindus. Conversion to judaism might be quite valid religiously, but it does not make you descended from the middle east, it does not give you the right to a homeland there.
No, it doesn't make me a physical decendant of middle-eastern peoples. But it does make me a part of the house of Israel, to use a more archaic term.
And get used to people using the Bible as a source of argument in debates over Judaism - you can't seperate the two.
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
You do, but your leaders do not. Several times in the past, when Hamas was either actively engaged in a ceasefire or on the verge of agreeing to a ceasefire, Sharon has order asassination of Palestinian leaders. Every time he has done this, there have been reprisals against Israelis, and the ceasefire goes down the drain.,
This has happened several times, and each time Sharon ordered the asassinations without any previous provocation. So, in my eyes, this is seen as Sharon intentionally breaking the peace and provoking the Palestinians. Let me say that again; whenever Israel and Hamas and/or other militants have called a trcue, Sharon has taken steps to break the peace.
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Hudna_With_Hamas.asp
There's your "truce", your "cease-fire".
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Peace is rather simple to achieve.
1.Take any area where Palestinians form the clear majority and declare that to be the nation of Palestine
2. Station the Israeli army on the borders of Israel/Palestine and have them guard against intrusions.
3. Make sure that all Palestinians who want to go be in Palestine are accomodated. Also make sure that you have not annexed any private property, such as schools, farmlands etc.
4. For a period of several months, disallow any passage between Israel/Palestine. Anyone attempting this will be shot on sight.
5. After several months have passed, and tensions have cooled, allow travel back and forth, but with thorough inspection.
6. Henceforth, allow any Palestinian the ability to gain Israeli citizenship by normal means (with immigration standards of the same level as the international norm) so that any who wish to make Israel their home can do so.
7. For no reason whatsoever, short of a full scale invasion, should the IDF venture into Palestine. It is now a sovreign nation, and any activity will be considered an act of war.
Do this, and within maybe a year, suicide bombings will practically stop. If not totally, they will sharply decrease and popular support for them will fall to zero. Thats peace, but in order to achieve it, yu have to acknowledge that Palestinians must have their own homeland. They will never be happy living under Israeli occupation, and they will respond to the repression with attacks against Israeli targets,
Tell me, if, in the situation outlined above, the IDF ventures into Palestine, it is an act of war, what happens when an armed Palestinian ventures into Israel? Would that not also be an act of war?
And once and for all, Jordan (ex-Trans-Jordan, aka ex-Palestine) is the Palestinian state. Jeez.
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14
How can you get a job if no-one will hire you?
How can you buy timber if you have no money, because you can't get a job?
How can you get educated and find a job if there is no financing for the schools?
FYI, and this probably isn't reported in any news sources, over 90% of the buildings here are constructed by Palestinians or Arab Israelis. There's no lack of Israeli building constructors who hire Palestinians. And that's just one section of the market, although the main one in which they work here.
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14
EDIt: anyway, I though you were Christian? Whatever happened to the act of charity? Y'know, the Good Samaritan and all that? (or 'judge not, lest ye be judged'?
Don't even start pulling out Bible verses... the Bible's very specific about the physical land of Israel belonging to the decendants of Jacob forever. You wanna go there, I'll go there, but you won't like it.
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
2. Wait..there is...What Israel is doing. They are responding to terrorist attack with national terror...
...
I'm not even going to bother beyond reminding you of the documents seized from Arafat's offices in Ramallah that prove he signed off on terrorist acts and on the rewarding of money to the familes of suicide bombers.
Post by: aldo_14 on March 29, 2004, 06:36:34 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
FYI, and this probably isn't reported in any news sources, over 90% of the buildings here are constructed by Palestinians or Arab Israelis. There's no lack of Israeli building constructors who hire Palestinians. And that's just one section of the market, although the main one in which they work here.
Don't even start pulling out Bible verses... the Bible's very specific about the physical land of Israel belonging to the decendants of Jacob forever. You wanna go there, I'll go there, but you won't like it.
Actually, the former was a reference to the causes of all ghettos / slums, and the latter a criticism of Liberators' (IIRC) pre-judging people based upon their living circumstances.
Post by: Gank on March 29, 2004, 07:10:24 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
It's not irrelevant....
It is in the context of what we were talking about, whether or not the war was an offensive or defensive one.
Quote
Once again, my apologies. And by the way:
Bear in mind here you're talking to someone whos country was partitioned by the British just before Palestine was. At least here the people it was partitioned in favour of actually lived here for more than a few years.
Quote
In that case, I misunderstood what you meant by "ethnic cleansing". I don't see what the settlements or the wall have to do with it though.
Settlements, built on land taken from palestinians and populated solely by Israelis, wall constructed to keep them out. I cant see how you dont see what they have to do with it, they are it.
Quote
And a reference for Bibi's quote would be nice.
Spoken in a speech to the knesset 25 June 1982. And it was Begin, my apols.
Quote
No, it doesn't make me a physical decendant of middle-eastern peoples. But it does make me a part of the house of Israel, to use a more archaic term.
And get used to people using the Bible as a source of argument in debates over Judaism - you can't seperate the two.
Quote
Don't even start pulling out Bible verses... the Bible's very specific about the physical land of Israel belonging to the decendants of Jacob forever. You wanna go there, I'll go there, but you won't like it.
So basically you have a right to live there because the bible says so?
Post by: Bobboau on March 29, 2004, 10:15:55 pm
had an Iraqi solder fired the first shot in the recent Iraqi war, would you have said they started it?
Post by: Rictor on March 29, 2004, 11:36:36 pm
Essentially, its not who fires the first shot, but rather who invades. IN Iraq's case, it was quite clear who was invading. At no point was there the possibility that Iraq would invade America. However, if you have countries like Pakistan and India, and they've both got their armies on the border, then you can have the battle sway back and forth across the border.
For my money, Israel was not the agressor in '67, however they did not have a right to keep the land, or atleast not to expel the people living there and try to force token amounts (and they are token) of settlers into the area.
Post by: Bobboau on March 29, 2004, 11:50:55 pm
(that is meaning that they wern't expelled becase that's who Isael is bikering with today)
I don't see how the outcome of a war can realy tell you who was the one responsable for starting it, lets imagin for a moment, that the Iraqi people all realy realy loved Sadam, especaly the people in the military, and that virtualy all of them were willing to die for him, now if after we initaly invaded Iraq we were pushed out and back into Kuwait by this loyal and profesional army and Iraq kept some of the land after, would that have made them the agressors?
I don't think so. we ammassed on Iraqs borders, it was clear to everyone on the planet we were going in, so even if Iraq prempted our (premptive:)) invasion, and took land (Kuwait was part of our coalition, so they share in the agression, therefore they become a valid military target for Iraq, there also the only land Iraq could have concevably taken, so I sort of need this for my analagy to work:) ) I wouldn't say that they were the agressors.
Post by: Sandwich on March 30, 2004, 01:24:46 am
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
It is in the context of what we were talking about, whether or not the war was an offensive or defensive one.
Dude, have you ever heard of a situation where a debate actually progresses beyond a certain point - especially when one of the debating parties agrees with the other? I agree with you - Israel struck the first blow in '67 (nevermind the fact that I've been told many a time by others arguing your side of the fence that to bicker about "he hit me first!" was childish and petty...).
So in moving the debate on, I'd like you to respond to a question of mine, which you have evaded for the past 2-3 rounds of posts and replies:
Do you agree with me that, all other things being equal, Israel would not have initiated (the '67) war without the provocation caused by the build-up of the military forces of the surrounding nations on her borders?
Oh, and by the way, I looked things up a bit further.... in 1967, Israel pre-empted the Arab armies' attack by wiping out Egypt's airforce situationed in the Sinai Peninsula while their planes were still on the ground. Meanwhile, unaware that the Egyptian air force had been wiped out, Jordan's King Hussein launched his attack from the West Bank (it is, after all, the western bank of the Jordan River) while the Syrian forces invaded Israel's northern part from the Golan Heights.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Bear in mind here you're talking to someone whos country was partitioned by the British just before Palestine was. At least here the people it was partitioned in favour of actually lived here for more than a few years.
I assume you're meaning that the land here was partitioned in favor of the Palestinian Arabs, since 75% of Palestine of the early 1900's went to the current-day HaShemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Settlements, built on land taken from palestinians and populated solely by Israelis, wall constructed to keep them out. I cant see how you dont see what they have to do with it, they are it.
Dude, I don't know what the media is reporting about the security fence, but you seem to have it wrong. It primarily follows the pre-67 borders, is an actual chain-link fence for most of its length, and has one purpose: to keep terrorists out of pre-67 Israel. If they still wanna blow themselves up, or shoot at passing vehicles, they can do so on armed IDF patrols and checkpoints, where at least they won't be accused of attacking defenseless women and children.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
So basically you have a right to live there because the bible says so?
Yes.
I don't expect this to convince you or sway you for a microsecond, however - and you're not to be blamed for that, either. But that's the core of Judaism, and if you wanna start arguing Judaism, then you gotta take that core into account.
Post by: Liberator on March 30, 2004, 01:41:16 am
I just want to interject, I sense a pattern emerging in the recent debates. mikhael and a couple of others aside, what I see being used to debate fact-backed positions is mostly propaganda and, in some cases, out and out bilge.
It's disturbing, given the enormous source of fact finding power available to everyone here, but not entirely unexpected.
Both sides are replete with mind-numbed zombies, Lord knows I've been guilty a time or too myself, but try and use facts to argue, not second-hand "well so-and-so-told-me" or "I-heard-it-on-the-TV" information.
Post by: Ace on March 30, 2004, 02:07:05 am
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
So in moving the debate on, I'd like you to respond to a question of mine, which you have evaded for the past 2-3 rounds of posts and replies:
Do you agree with me that, all other things being equal, Israel would not have initiated (the '67) war without the provocation caused by the build-up of the military forces of the surrounding nations on her borders?[/b]
[/B]
Well as for my own answer to your question:
No, I would not have attacked first. I would have my troops ready to repel any invasion in the border regions and if the invasion occured I would quickly and decisively put an end to it.
Post by: karajorma on March 30, 2004, 06:47:36 am
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
Dude, I don't know what the media is reporting about the security fence, but you seem to have it wrong. It primarily follows the pre-67 borders, is an actual chain-link fence for most of its length, and has one purpose: to keep terrorists out of pre-67 Israel. If they still wanna blow themselves up, or shoot at passing vehicles, they can do so on armed IDF patrols and checkpoints, where at least they won't be accused of attacking defenseless women and children.
No it doesn't. The area covered by the chain link fence amounts to about 46% of the West Bank by some estimates. Even the Israeli's recognise that and have stated that they can move it later.
BBC Report on the Wall (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3111159.stm)
Post by: Bobboau on March 30, 2004, 06:55:50 am
Post by: karajorma on March 30, 2004, 07:05:33 am
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/middle_east_israel0s_security_barrier/img/2.jpg)
Ignore the green line since it might be propoganda but the red and white ones are accurate.
It's obviously not following the border.
Post by: Bobboau on March 30, 2004, 07:19:07 am
the kedumim and Ariel settlements should probly be abandoned
that is hardly 46% of the west bank
Post by: karajorma on March 30, 2004, 09:14:12 am
I think the 46% figure is if they build the second fence along the green line. Either way it's more than a couple of miles from the original border in many places where it's completed (i.e the white line)
Post by: Bobboau on March 30, 2004, 09:19:01 am
Post by: karajorma on March 30, 2004, 09:26:00 am
Besides a secured water supply for them means one less for everyone on the Palestinian side doesn't it?
Post by: Bobboau on March 30, 2004, 09:36:36 am
Post by: karajorma on March 30, 2004, 09:53:59 am
They wouldn't need to annex any of the West Bank if they hadn't started the bloody stupid policy of putting settlers in the West Bank in the first place.
Post by: Bobboau on March 30, 2004, 09:57:31 am
if the palastinians arn't willing for any compromise then they arn't going to get any, there lucky Isreal doesn't truely make a land grab, as in kicking the people off the border, into jordan, syria, and egypt.
Post by: karajorma on March 30, 2004, 11:41:46 am
Now Israel is steadily making things worse trying to rectify a situation that was moronic to get themselves into in the first place.
You talk about compromise bob but lets look into that. You can't make a compromise by making a bad situation worse and then saying that you're compromising by going back to the original bad situation.
The compromise that is needed here is for Palestine to recognise Israel's right to exist and visa versa.
Post by: Gank on March 30, 2004, 12:28:34 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
Dude, have you ever heard of a situation where a debate actually progresses beyond a certain point - especially when one of the debating parties agrees with the other? I agree with you - Israel struck the first blow in '67 (nevermind the fact that I've been told many a time by others arguing your side of the fence that to bicker about "he hit me first!" was childish and petty...).
So in moving the debate on, I'd like you to respond to a question of mine, which you have evaded for the past 2-3 rounds of posts and replies:
Do you agree with me that, all other things being equal, Israel would not have initiated (the '67) war without the provocation caused by the build-up of the military forces of the surrounding nations on her borders?
No Sandwich I dont agree with you, mostly because Israeli leaders are on record as saying otherwise. Heres what Yitzhak Rabi, Israels chief of staff in 1967 had to say on the matter:
Quote
I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.
Thats the guy who was in charge of Israels armed forces at the time of the war. I'll trust his judgement on the matter. You're also negelecting to mention why Egypt and Syria mobilised their troops, Israeli leaders repeated threats to invade Syria.
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
Meanwhile, unaware that the Egyptian air force had been wiped out, Jordan's King Hussein launched his attack from the West Bank (it is, after all, the western bank of the Jordan River) while the Syrian forces invaded Israel's northern part from the Golan Heights.
Dunno where you got this from but its complete bs, both Syria and Jordan were attacked by Israels airforce before they launched ground attacks. I dont see how you could expect anyone to believe that Jordan and Syria launched an attack without knowing their other ally was under air attack anyways, its ridiculous.
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
I assume you're meaning that the land here was partitioned in favor of the Palestinian Arabs, since 75% of Palestine of the early 1900's went to the current-day HaShemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Firstly Palestinian arabs didnt want the land partitioned so it could hardly have been done in their favour. Secondly Israel was granted 55% of Palestine outside Jordan, while legally its citizens only owned 7% of the land. It took more than 55% after declaring its independance.
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
Dude, I don't know what the media is reporting about the security fence, but you seem to have it wrong. It primarily follows the pre-67 borders, is an actual chain-link fence for most of its length, and has one purpose: to keep terrorists out of pre-67 Israel. If they still wanna blow themselves up, or shoot at passing vehicles, they can do so on armed IDF patrols and checkpoints, where at least they won't be accused of attacking defenseless women and children.
Looks like its you who isnt getting the full story, it cuts off palestinians from their water supplys and farmlands, annexs their land and is completely illegal under international law.
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
I don't expect this to convince you or sway you for a microsecond, however - and you're not to be blamed for that, either. But that's the core of Judaism, and if you wanna start arguing Judaism, then you gotta take that core into account.
First of all dont talk down to me, Secondly you're not jewish, said so yourself.
Quote
No, it doesn't make me a physical decendant of middle-eastern peoples.
Quote
I am not Jewish (religion)
So you're basically a non-semite christian who thinks Gods given him a place to live, and has more right to be there than those who have lived there for generations, a modern day crusader so to speak.
Karajorma, Palestian leaders recognised Israels right to exist at Oslo, in exchange for a Palestinian state. Ten years later the occupied territories are still occupied and Israels still annexing land, yet its all the palestinians fault.
Post by: karajorma on March 30, 2004, 05:02:15 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Karajorma, Palestian leaders recognised Israels right to exist at Oslo, in exchange for a Palestinian state. Ten years later the occupied territories are still occupied and Israels still annexing land, yet its all the palestinians fault.
I know but there are lots of people in Palestine who don't agree with that, just like there are lots in Israel who don't believe the settlers should pull out of land that they believe is part of Israel.
That needs to change before there will be any kind of peace or we'd just see Israeli extremists planting bombs in Palestine even if the land was given back.