Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on May 18, 2004, 07:11:22 pm
-
Isreal is amassing troops around the Rafah refugee camp, in preparation for a massive incursion, I remember a quote from an article saying it would be the largest armoured action in Rafah since the 1967 war. Army bulldozers broke up roads (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720121.stm), to prevent the thousands of people from fleeing the iminent destruction. This came after the IDF already leveled more than 100 homes, leaving 1,100 people homeless, and after 20 Palestinians were killed in two air strikes in Rafah. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3725161.stm)
(http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/images/rafah_planned_demolitions.jpg)
Originally posted Ariel Sharon in 2002
The IDF (Israeli Defence Force) has to knock down all the houses along a strip of 300 to 400 metres. It doesn't matter what the future settlement will be, this will be the border with Egypt," he said. "Arafat has to be punished, and after every terrorist attack another two or three rows or houses on the Palestinian side of the border have to be knocked down ... This is a long-term policy. We simply have to take a very extreme step. It is do-able and I am happy it is being done, but it's being carried out in doses that are too small, I regret to say. It has to be done in one big operation".
and some statistics on the IDF's demolition of homes in recent years. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-gaza-demolitions-glance,0,4667304.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines)
-
The Palestinians should just mass together around a few thousands homes and stand their ground. No fighting, no running, just standing.
They'd probably be butchered, mind.
At the very least it'd make Israel an even bigger target for terrorists than America and it might even go so far as to force America to withdraw its support of Israel, which would cause all hell to break loose.
-
You know, I really wish the news that this was going to happen appalled me, but it appears to just be par for the course these days :(
An0n does have a point, but the question I wouldn't like to answer is 'Would Israel mow down hundreds of Palestinians in cold blood in something that would make bloody Sunday look like the Mardi Gras?' :(
-
That's what happened in Sum of All Fears. The book that is.
The Palestinians finally learned nonviolent protest and it worked for them. When a policeman shot a protestor on international TV, the **** hit the fan. A peace treaty was forced through...and it worked out.
Not to say, of course, that Tom Clancy is a reliable source for political strategy. It's a thought, though. :D
-
:lol:
That was Michael Moore's suggestion. The Palestinians outnumber the Israelies by something like 3 to 2 or 3 to 1. They should just get all non-violent and just have a seat in the streets and block traffic and just generally make life difficult (in non-violent ways). :D
-
In Gaza, they outnumber the Israelis about 99-1. And I was under the impresion that nonviolent resistance is exactly what the vast majority of the population are practicing, excluding a few militants. The fact that there is yet to be a armed uprising (and I mean one of truly epic proportions) in the occupied territories, after decades of occupation, is nothing if not a testament to the Palestinian's pacifity, dare I say dedication to non-violence and peace.
-
By that standard, Rictor, the US is a peace loving, generous, outgoing nation, whose only interest is doing good in the world.
Unfortunately, as long as there's a bunch of ****wits in either place, making decisions that show the world a very different face, the world will never percieve either in any other way than they do now.
-
This is exactly why i dont live in a city, and live in semi-rural USA.
-
If that's true, then the Israeli government and/or the IDF has truly gone nuts.
And I support Israel on a lot of things.
-
I really don't want to get into this....again, but when have the American people ever been oppressed, by either an internal or external force? The US mainland has never been occupied, and the closest thing to a dictatorship in US history would maybe be the McCarthy era, which wasn't really all that bad by world standards. I respect people who practice non violence in the face of oppression and agression, not in the face of..well, prosperity and peace.
I'de like to hear what Sandwich has to say about this, if he is not himself deployed to Rafah.
edit: I think this is relevant, though I have no idea who the guy is
"There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.
— A. J. Muste "
-
well sgments of our population were fairly signifigantly oppressed (a few still are to an extent), granted the whole lot of us wern't sence our founding.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I'de like to hear what Sandwich has to say about this, if he is not himself deployed to Rafah.
Unfortunately, I haven't been listening to news for months and months now. If you want, I could dig up reports from my Israeli POV. If you want to debate, that's fine. But if you want to argue, forget it. :)
The only thing I've heard that is relevant is that, of the 20 Palestinians killed yesterday in Gaza, two were children. They were killed by a roadside bomb set to go off on IDF forces. Now, I don't have any (moral) problem with them doing any kind of attack against military forces, but when two of their own kids get blown apart, and then they try to lay the blame on Israel... that's going way too far.
-
Oh, and just to toss a few things into the smelting pot here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/161yaihr.asp?pg=1
-
Weekly standard? You know thats a neocon mouthpiece, and they arent exactly known for objectivity.
All news reports on the matter I've seen say the kids were killed by IDF gunfire, and there was some interesting footage on skynews last night of a dozen or so Israeli soldiers sitting in a home with a palestinian family including 4 kids in the middle of them. Isnt using civilians as human shields against the geneva convention? Or does Israel have special dispensation from god allowing it to ignore that?
LOL at the Tom Clancy suggestion, somebody needs to talk to some actual Israelis, take sandwich here for example, he thinks Palestinians worship satan because theyre muslim despite the fact that 1 in 6 is a christian. Settlers are worse by a long shot.
-
I seriously doubt that the 1 in 6 are not the ones doing the suicide bombs. Muslims have quite a track record of doing those things, Christians dont.
Israel may be winning the ground war and probably always will, but with a birth rate of 1.1 children per household and palestines close to 8 children per household birth rate, Palestine will be moving in the next 40-50 years.
-
Israels ****ed, with a capital F. Has been from the start
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex24290.htm
As for the christians not suicide bombing, that may be, not sure on figures but dying for your cause isnt a strictly muslim thing, Regardless of that though all palestinians are being punished for it, regardless of faith.
-
Uh-oh (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3728681.stm)
-
Wonderful.
-
Rictor, the Great and Mighty Clairvoyant, predicts that despite the gross illegality and immorality of this little trip into Rafah, we're going to hear the same old BS about how, though disturbing the situation may be, Israel has a right to defend itself, which apparently includes mowing down children and leaving thousands homeless.
Her guests were (INSERT INDISTINGUISHABLE ARAB NAME), from Hamas, and their attorney, Stanley Cohen. No, that's not a joke. Would that it were. Stanley Cohen, the attorney for Hamas.
some racism, but I'm not particularly bothered.
Because if we're only willing to absorb their own words--nevermind their demonic deeds--he and his brethren have a perfectly uncomplicated point of view and agenda, and their clarity should give us our own clarity, and wouldn't that be refreshing
inability to talk for 10 seconds without making a fool of himself and everything he stands for, not to mention no sense of irony.
let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs From The Same General Area Who Are In Deep Denial About Never Being Able To Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal
Struggle And Death."
'nuff said.
I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters."
mhm, right.....
For one thing, trying to destroy Israel--or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it--for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God's Earth,
there goes the racism again, and a very poor knowledge of reality to boot.
Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshalling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab state into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.
and this is where I stopped reading.
-
Stopped reading what?
-
The article Sandwich linked to.
-
Weekly Standards editor is William Kristol, chairman of the fascist project for the new american century, I wouldnt wipe my arse with the rag.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/aboutus/default.asp
-
well, that explains alot. Securing the Realm indeed.
Now, Sandwich, how can you (speaking I assume on behalf of the Israeli people), justify such acts as Rafah. Firing into crowds, leveling entire city blocks. If the projected figures are anywhere close to what actually happens, tens of thousands of innocents will be left homeless. In the quote I posted above, Sharon plainly states that the tearing down of homes is a form of collective punishment, and has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. Just like the aparthied wall, this will just create untold misery in the occupied territories, with no noticeable drop in terrorist activity. I'm just wondering how an entire nation can justify this to itself.
-
God
-
I prefer to blame karma-lag.
But when it catches up.....
-
Read the gas article, doesnt take a genius to figure out what happens when it starts to run out.
-
...can't wait for that. Do they honestly believe that by 'punishing' the palestinians, a great majority of which are innocent, that they'll stop the attacks? They're in for an explosive couple of weeks...
*wonders how 'good christian Bush, savior of the oppressed, and bringer of peace to the world' will justify this. :doubt:*
-
Hehe, I read an interview somewhere and it was quite brilliant, the interviewer hit him with the "What would Jesus do", and **** sort of weaseled out saying "Jesus was a man of peace, and he wouldn't be doing what I'm doing but my obligation is to the American people bla bla". It was fun actually, to see him squirm.
-
Originally posted by The New American Century Website
that American leadership is good both for America and for the world
:lol:
-
and some more
10 Palestinians killed, over 60 wounded as IDF fires missles into protesting crowd (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/429428.html)
also, this
The IDF on Wednesday morning ordered all males 16 or older in the Rafah neighborhood of Tel Sultan to gather in a local school.
Armed men in the area were instructed to turn themselves in while holding a white flag.
-
that refugee camp should have been long gone.
But why all know why it's still there and who's to blame.
And it's not israel.
maybe if the palestinians themselves acted against terrorists instead of aiding them the IDF wouldn't have to do what it does.
Remember: Israel has to lose only once for a new holocaust to be unleashed.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Weekly standard? You know thats a neocon mouthpiece, and they arent exactly known for objectivity.
I didn't link to the article for any kind of objectivity, which would be obsious to you if you actually read it. It's a "comic relief" article, and although I personally think it brings up a number of good points, I'm not going to be basing any arguments here off of it, obviously.
Originally posted by Gank
All news reports on the matter I've seen say the kids were killed by IDF gunfire, and there was some interesting footage on skynews last night of a dozen or so Israeli soldiers sitting in a home with a palestinian family including 4 kids in the middle of them. Isnt using civilians as human shields against the geneva convention? Or does Israel have special dispensation from god allowing it to ignore that?
Please explain what you're trying to say concerning the soldiers in a palestinian house with 4 kids in the middle. Perhaps there's something here I'm taking for granted that people know, but I don't see how this relates to the human shields issue. :confused:
Originally posted by Gank
LOL at the Tom Clancy suggestion, somebody needs to talk to some actual Israelis, take sandwich here for example, he thinks Palestinians worship satan because theyre muslim despite the fact that 1 in 6 is a christian. Settlers are worse by a long shot.
Ok, now you're just pissing me off. I don't mind that you have wildly differing opinions from me one bit. But don't you dare start to misquote me or put words in my mouth, mister.
My opinion on Muslims, from my Christian POV, is what it is. It has no relation to Palestinians per se - I have a number of Palestinian and Israeli Arab friends that are Christian. I never make blanket statements or generalizations without stating that it is a generalization, and that there are no lack of exceptions.
Don't confuse Muslims with Arabs, don't confuse Americans with Christians, and don't confuse (although hard, I do admit) those of the Jewish people with those of the Jewish religion.
Originally posted by Gank
...dying for your cause isnt a strictly muslim thing, Regardless of that though all palestinians are being punished for it, regardless of faith.
Are you talking about suicide bombers? You might want to, in the name of accuracy, rephrase that to "murdering for your cause".
And yes, the Christian Palestinians are suffering under the restrictions just as much as the Muslim Palestinians are. The only exception that I know of is that generally (see?), you have Muslim villages and Christian villages mostly seperate. This doesn't hold for the larger cities, though.
Originally posted by an0n
Uh-oh (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3728681.stm)
:wtf: Ok, definitely time for me to catch up on the news here. I'll post the Israeli POV in a bit.
-
In response ot Crazy_Ivan's post:
Bull****. The Palestinian people, in large, are not terrorists. They aren't all aiding terror. That's like saying 'every American loves ****.' It may be a refugee camp, but it is home to thousands of people who have been forced from their homes by Israeli 'settlers' (as if it was some kind of unexplored wilderness). :doubt: It's just a load of crap. I wish America would stop supporting Israel (no offense to Sandwich, but this is my personal belief) it'd make us a damn sight safer, and make us look like less a hipocrate.
-
Israel has been unleasing a holocaust of its own on the Palestininas since 1948. How such a reversal of roles can happen so easily, that will be one of the great questions asked by historians of subsequent generations.
Ivan: yeah, the IDF has to kill Palestinians because of terrorist attack, and Hamas has to commit them becuase the IDF attacks Palestinians, which it does becuase of terrorist attacks, which happens due to the IDF attacking Palestinians, which happens due to terrorist attacks......
and besides, it is illegal to impose collective punishment on a whole population, which is what is happening in Israel. They can attack militants, not the general population.
-
Here's the Jerusalem Post article (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1084677182465) I've been reading. I'd call it a fair balance to BBC's article.
Summary of the main points are:
The tank shells were fired at an abandoned building near the advancing rioters.
The helicopter missiles were fired at empty ground, and, in one case, a couple of terrorists setting up a bomb near IDF forces.
The Knesset is in an uproar due to the operation (what kind of a wussy name is Operation Rainbow, anyway?). Some interesting reading in that part.
The goals of the operation are to eliminate the weapons' smuggling in the Rafiah area. Kinda unclear.
And I know you'll all scoff at me, but I do feel saddend at the Palestinian deaths.
-
Crazy_Ivan80: Erm, explain please?
Israel is the cause of nearly all the world's terrorist problems. Muslims hate the "West" because it supports Israel. They hate Irsael because it's creation basically involved kicking the Palestinians out of their own country. They've got every right to be pissed off. I'm not condoning their actions, and yes, there is a lot more that the Palestinian leadership could do to prevent these attacks, but they are the victims here. They're not against the Jews in principle, just the manner of Israel's creation and the negative effect it had on their lives. Yes, there will always be a hard core of Islamic nutters who want Sharia law for the whole world, but there is also a hard core of Christian fundies who want Biblical law for the whole world, so there's not much of an argument there.
Israel needs to back right off, remove its illegal settlements, and let the Palestinians get on with building their new state. That's the only way the terrorists will stop. Razing whole city districts is just going to bring down even more trouble....
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Erm, explain please?
Israel is the cause of nearly all the world's terrorist problems. Muslims hate the "West" because it supports Israel. They hate Irsael because it's creation basically involved kicking the Palestinians out of their own country. They've got every right to be pissed off. I'm not condoning their actions, and yes, there is a lot more that the Palestinian leadership could do to prevent these attacks, but they are the victims here. They're not against the Jews in principle, just the manner of Israel's creation and the negative effect it had on their lives. Yes, there will always be a hard core of Islamic nutters who want Sharia law for the whole world, but there is also a hard core of Christian fundies who want Biblical law for the whole world, so there's not much of an argument there.
Israel needs to back right off, remove its illegal settlements, and let the Palestinians get on with building their new state. That's the only way the terrorists will stop. Razing whole city districts is just going to bring down even more trouble....
Learn your history. :rolleyes:
-
'Scuse me? Where am I going wrong?
-
They didn't 'kick the palestinians out'.
Britain and America kicked the **** out of everyone in the area during WW2 and gave it to the Jews in exchange for cash and ****.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
well, that explains alot. Securing the Realm indeed.
Now, Sandwich, how can you (speaking I assume on behalf of the Israeli people), justify such acts as Rafah. Firing into crowds, leveling entire city blocks. If the projected figures are anywhere close to what actually happens, tens of thousands of innocents will be left homeless. In the quote I posted above, Sharon plainly states that the tearing down of homes is a form of collective punishment, and has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. Just like the aparthied wall, this will just create untold misery in the occupied territories, with no noticeable drop in terrorist activity. I'm just wondering how an entire nation can justify this to itself.
wait wait. firing into crowds? or having crowds of protestors running throught an intersection where a firefight is taking place between the IDF and militants... wow you really chose what part of this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3728681.stm) article YOU would read. lets hope not everyone makes the same mistake.
The army said it did not deliberately target protesters, but a helicopter and tanks had fired warning shots to stop crowds entering a battle zone.
The incident happened as about 3,000 demonstrators marched down the main street of Rafah towards the Tel Sultan area where Israeli raids have been concentrated in the last two days.
now lets review so we understand reading the same english... they were marching into a battlezone. hmm now you may say well when the army saw them coming into the battlezone anyhow despite apperent gunship and tank fire to scare them away they should have stopped firing at the militants in that area... only 2 things wrong with that
1. they may have and the militant were simply putting bullets in their own people and blame it on Israel why not? that dosnt happen all the time :rolleyes:
2. maybe its because in a battle area when you have civilians and militants dressed alike some running across the street with guns others without its sorta hard to make such judgments with bullets whizzing by your head. but maybe you havnt seen urban combat like this... maybe you cant understand how it works...
3. you ever had a docter hit you in the knee with a little hammer? it wasnt just because he hated you. it was to test reflexes the same ones that tell you to duck when bullets come whizzing by you and the same on that tells you to fire back.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Please explain what you're trying to say concerning the soldiers in a palestinian house with 4 kids in the middle. Perhaps there's something here I'm taking for granted that people know, but I don't see how this relates to the human shields issue. :confused:
Don't confuse Muslims with Arabs, don't confuse Americans with Christians, and don't confuse (although hard, I do admit) those of the Jewish people with those of the Jewish religion.
what are you talking about?! that makes perfect sense they are human shields... they are in the middle of a room surounded by israeli army personell... the IDF are the human shields for the innocent palestinians in that home. is that so hard to understand you silly brother? :lol:
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
'Scuse me? Where am I going wrong?
your supposition that if IDF withdraws and all the settlements are removed the terrorist attacks will stop.... one thing before getting into a war is learn your enemys objectives I do belive with anyone with half the brain cells required to think could find with very little effort every single one of the stated objectives of every single terrorist organization operating in Israel...
They want Jews/Israelis=Dead... as simple as that as disgusting as that... :rolleyes:
-
I wonder how would America in general react if a group of nations invaded a portion of the U.S. and gave it to the "native american people". :rolleyes:
-
Splinter, don't be insulting.
-
No, its not a fair balance to the BBC, it would be a fair balance to an Al-Jazeera article, BBC have no bias in the mattr while JP clearly does. Its bull**** too,
Associated Press Television News footage showed a large explosion going off in a crowd of demonstrators, followed by Palestinians carrying the wounded — including children and teenagers — from the smoky scene.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040519/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast_7
Originally posted by Sandwich
I didn't link to the article for any kind of objectivity, which would be obsious to you if you actually read it. It's a "comic relief" article, and although I personally think it brings up a number of good points, I'm not going to be basing any arguments here off of it, obviously.
I just looked over it and dont find it remotely funny, more like bigoted and racist.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Please explain what you're trying to say concerning the soldiers in a palestinian house with 4 kids in the middle. Perhaps there's something here I'm taking for granted that people know, but I don't see how this relates to the human shields issue. :confused:
All the soldiers were lying on the ground or crouching and had the family covered by their weapons. This implys they felt they were under threat and were holding the family against their will, therefore using them as human shields. You've been in the military sandwich, even raided Jenin iirc, it should be easier for you to understand. Although you may see nothing wrong with it.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ok, now you're just pissing me off. I don't mind that you have wildly differing opinions from me one bit. But don't you dare start to misquote me or put words in my mouth, mister.
Your statements in the past suggest you think Muslims worship Satan because they oppose the state of Israel, logically this would extend to palestinians who oppose the same regardless of believe.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Are you talking about suicide bombers? You might want to, in the name of accuracy, rephrase that to "murdering for your cause".
Dying for their cause is quite accurate in the context being discussed, I'm not going to dress up my language just to suit you.
-
Originally posted by an0n
They didn't 'kick the palestinians out'.
Britain and America kicked the **** out of everyone in the area during WW2 and gave it to the Jews in exchange for cash and ****.
I didn't say the Israelis kicked them out. I said the manner of Israel's creation is the problem - which yes, is primarily the US and Britain's fault. But they were kicked out of their own territory, so it's understandable why they're not too happy, no?
-
Hmmm.
You guys remember that whole "US fundies engineering the apocalypse" thing?
http://www.likud.nl/extr74.html
Read that. Specifically, this bit:
This, despite the fact that there is sound historical proof that Zionist leaders collaborated with the Nazis in order to escalate the Jewish Problem.
Now, I know for a ****ing fact that the entire "The Nazi's were trying to wipe out Jews" thing is bull****. Anyone with a highschool history book and an ounce of sense can see that the Nazi's hated everyone equally and strove only for world domination. All that 'superior race' crap was just Goebbels touting Himmlers stupidity to placate the masses. And it was just a coincidence that the first country on their 'to invade' list happened to be full of Jews. If it had been full of blacks, there wouldn't be a problem.
But it was full of Jews and Judaism has leveraged that fact to the extreme.
Taking all this into account, as far as conspiracy theories go, this whole "engineering the apocalypse" thing is looking pretty damn convincing.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
I didn't say the Israelis kicked them out. I said the manner of Israel's creation is the problem - which yes, is primarily the US and Britain's fault. But they were kicked out of their own territory, so it's understandable why they're not too happy, no?
Actually it was more a matter of the the US and Britain going "Fu[color=23][/color]ck it, we're sick of all this ****. Let the UN decide what happens", then the UN going "Well, we could split it into two states. One Arab, one Jewish."
The Arabs told the UN to go blow itself, but the Jews went "That'll do" and declared Israel a state. America then gave its endorsement.
-
Originally posted by Gank
All the soldiers were lying on the ground or crouching and had the family covered by their weapons. This implys they felt they were under threat and were holding the family against their will, therefore using them as human shields. You've been in the military sandwich, even raided Jenin iirc, it should be easier for you to understand. Although you may see nothing wrong with it.
show us a link or picture... were they covering the familky because maybe they had weapons or would strangle them or stab them gosh. to point you gun at somone hwo might kill you is horrible :rolleyes:
hmm crouched down were they hiding in the house? waiting for some militants to pass by were they maybe searching the house for weapons caches or smuggling tunnels unless you can verify these questions they could have been doing any number of thigns in that house including what you listed and you need to find out before stating it as fact.
anyone seen movie Black Hawk Down... that guy was separated from his unit so cause he had a bunch of guys on his tail he ran into a house with a mother and her children and waitied for the guys to pass by... was he wrong to hide in there or should he have just ran down the street and let them shoot him... everything is relative...
-
Originally posted by an0n Now, I know for a ****ing fact that the entire "The Nazi's were trying to wipe out Jews" thing is bull****. Anyone with a highschool history book and an ounce of sense can see that the Nazi's hated everyone equally and strove only for world domination. All that 'superior race' crap was just Goebbels touting Himmlers stupidity to placate the masses. And it was just a coincidence that the first country on their 'to invade' list happened to be full of Jews. If it had been full of blacks, there wouldn't be a problem.
But it was full of Jews and Judaism has leveraged that fact to the extreme.[/B]
woa treading on some major toes there I predict that whatever comes of that post wont be pleasent
-
Please. Anyone saying the Nazi's only goal was to take over the world and wipe out the Jews is a ****ing idiot.
The entire Nazi government was built on a foundation of feeding the masses an intangible, ideological enemy then rallying the people against it and behind Hitler.
-
An0n has a history of posting BS in a manner that makes people beleive it's realy his position, not sure if this is an example of that or not, though.
-
There's another stupid thing: You say anything against Judaism or suggest the Nazi's had goals other than genocide and everyone jumps on you.
Try and tell me I'm wrong.
-
Originally posted by Gank
All the soldiers were lying on the ground or crouching and had the family covered by their weapons. This implys they felt they were under threat and were holding the family against their will, therefore using them as human shields. You've been in the military sandwich, even raided Jenin iirc, it should be easier for you to understand. Although you may see nothing wrong with it.
Thanks for the details.
Soldiers have weapons for a reason, and - especially in the house of people who most likely hate your guts - must be ready to use them if threatened. That is why they were covering the family with their weapons - it does not nessecarily mean that they were actively threatening to shoot the family or anything of the sort. I can't tell for sure without seeing the photo or video or whatever.
Originally posted by Gank
Your statements in the past suggest you think Muslims worship Satan because they oppose the state of Israel, logically this would extend to palestinians who oppose the same regardless of believe.
Yes, I do think that Muslims (unwittingly, most likely) worship Satan. That's my opinion, which I hold because of Islam, not because of their opposing Israel.
Originally posted by Gank
Dying for their cause is quite accurate in the context being discussed, I'm not going to dress up my language just to suit you.
Don't even try to start claiming that suicide bombers are not murderers, dude. You'll just sound ridiculous.
-
Suicide bombers are as much murderers as soldiers are.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Try and tell me I'm wrong.
you'r wr...
your wro..oh
ah, I just can't do it :wtf:
-
Originally posted by an0n
There's another stupid thing: You say anything against Judaism or suggest the Nazi's had goals other than genocide and everyone jumps on you.
Try and tell me I'm wrong.
I haven't researched the era, but from what I understand, the Nazi's were into White Supremacy, Aryan nation, and all that stuff. They considered themselves superior to all other races. Their attempted extermination of the Jews was specifically targetted at the Jews, but had they completed that, they would have moved on to some other non-Aryan race. They just happened to go for the Jews first.
-
the prioritised, jews were top on there list
-
Originally posted by an0n
Suicide bombers are as much murderers as soldiers are.
It depends on the circumstance. You of all people should realize that. I'm not a murder, primarily because I've never shot anyone. But if I was in a war, and shot and killed an attacking enemy soldier, would I be a murderer in your eyes?
-
Originally posted by an0n
Actually it was more a matter of the the US and Britain going "Fu[color=23][/color]ck it, we're sick of all this ****. Let the UN decide what happens", then the UN going "Well, we could split it into two states. One Arab, one Jewish."
The Arabs told the UN to go blow itself, but the Jews went "That'll do" and declared Israel a state. America then gave its endorsement.
I stand corrected. Maybe more of the Jews' fault than I thought, then, based on that. I'll have to go and read some more....
Hmmm.
You guys remember that whole "US fundies engineering the apocalypse" thing?
http://www.likud.nl/extr74.html
Read that. Specifically, this bit:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This, despite the fact that there is sound historical proof that Zionist leaders collaborated with the Nazis in order to escalate the Jewish Problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I know for a ****ing fact that the entire "The Nazi's were trying to wipe out Jews" thing is bull****. Anyone with a highschool history book and an ounce of sense can see that the Nazi's hated everyone equally and strove only for world domination. All that 'superior race' crap was just Goebbels touting Himmlers stupidity to placate the masses. And it was just a coincidence that the first country on their 'to invade' list happened to be full of Jews. If it had been full of blacks, there wouldn't be a problem.
But it was full of Jews and Judaism has leveraged that fact to the extreme.
Taking all this into account, as far as conspiracy theories go, this whole "engineering the apocalypse" thing is looking pretty damn convincing.
Erm, not entirely with you on that. Yes, the Nazis hated everyone, and the anti-semitic rhetoric that Goebbels and the like spouted was at least partly to get the German public onside with the government. But Hitler was definitely anti-semitic (did you see the biography thing on TV recently with Robert Carlyle as Hitler? That gives a hint as to why he hated Jews so much).
There was also, I think, a fair amount of generalised racism inherent, but then that was fairly standard at the time (the US was still segregated, and large portions of several empires were rather heavily biased in favour of white people - South Africa, the subcontinent, Australia, etc.).
yes, it's a very good point, but it doesn't have some of the implications you seem to be getting at...
-
Theres something funny about 'Aryan' anyway, I'll see if I can find the article, but I think 'Aryan' was nothing to do with European, but was a mutation of the word 'Iranian'. But I'll try and hunt down the article first :)
-
Congratulations, Sandwich, you're an idiot.
The Jews were merely the largest and most numerous of the groups the Nazi's wanted wiped out. They killed pretty much every non-white, tramp, homo, furry and mental retard too. But you never hear about that because there are no international media consortiums run by homosexual tramps.
It's like if I decided to wipe out the world starting with France, and you saying my sole aim was to kill all French people.
-
Funnily when I expressed that opinion that the Nazi goverment was using the Jews for rallying it's people... er... well... see my 3rd post in this thread's page.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,23023.0.html
-
"They killed pretty much every non-white, tramp, homo, furry and mental retard too."
I hear about it all the time, still think they had a hardon for killing jews
-
Originally posted by an0n
Congratulations, Sandwich, you're an idiot.
The Jews were merely the largest and most numerous of the groups the Nazi's wanted wiped out. They killed pretty much every non-white, tramp, homo, furry and mental retard too. But you never hear about that because there are no international media consortiums run by homosexual tramps.
It's like if I decided to wipe out the world starting with France, and you saying my sole aim was to kill all French people.
Congratulations, an0n, you're an idiot.
[q]They considered themselves superior to all other races. Their attempted extermination of the Jews was specifically targetted at the Jews, but had they completed that, they would have moved on to some other non-Aryan race. They just happened to go for the Jews first.[/q]
What part of that contradicts what you said?
-
Fine, I'll play along:
According to the 'official figure', how many Jews were gassed at Auschwitz?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
What part of that contradicts what you said?
None of it. I was generalizing.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
It depends on the circumstance. You of all people should realize that. I'm not a murder, primarily because I've never shot anyone. But if I was in a war, and shot and killed an attacking enemy soldier, would I be a murderer in your eyes?
Yes - you'd have taken the life of another person. Killer, murderer, executioner, whatever. That person would still be dead. You'd be justified, certainly (he'd presumably be trying to kill you), but you'd still have killed him.
Originally posted by An0nCongratulations, Sandwich, you're an idiot.
The Jews were merely the largest and most numerous of the groups the Nazi's wanted wiped out. They killed pretty much every non-white, tramp, homo, furry and mental retard too. But you never hear about that because there are no international media consortiums run by homosexual tramps.
It's like if I decided to wipe out the world starting with France, and you saying my sole aim was to kill all French people.
I pretty much agree with you there, at least insofar as the Jews were the easiest group to focus national hatred on. Once they had been wiped out, it would have been shifted to Arabs (or whatever ethnic minority dominated the region they invaded next). But there was a definite racist element, though as I said, that was a pretty standard attitude at the time.
Originally posted by Sandwich Yes, I do think that Muslims (unwittingly, most likely) worship Satan. That's my opinion, which I hold because of Islam, not because of their opposing Israel.
Uh, what?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
It depends on the circumstance. You of all people should realize that. I'm not a murder, primarily because I've never shot anyone. But if I was in a war, and shot and killed an attacking enemy soldier, would I be a murderer in your eyes?
To make a counterpoint if a suicide bomber died killing Ariel Sharon would that make him a murderer in your eyes?
-
an0n, you are dead wrong. You don't even live here, nor did you when it happened, so shut the **** up coz you don't know what you are talking about. They singled out jews, even labeled and stamped them for easy pickings. the rest was merely practice material to them. Besides, wiping out every non-arier was the farthest from his mind, do you realy think he wanted his race of 'ubermensch' to do the dirty work? now did you? And the rest of you think Hitler was bad? Stalin still has the 'record' if I am not mistaken (roughly 26 million was it?).
And in the name of what happened then, look how these 'religious' folk are behaving nowadays...anyone within his right mind and living in Israel should be ashamed of what it's country stands for in current days, especially today. (and if it weren't such a terrible thing to wish for, I'd almost wished he'd succeeded) Luckily I am not such a person, but I do find it extremely difficult to remain objective....
-
Three things:
Originally posted by an0n
Fine, I'll play along:
According to the 'official figure', how many Jews were gassed at Auschwitz?
And:
The Soviet Holocaust of Christian Russian Kulak farmers. (1924 - 1930) - 15 million exterminated!
The Holocaust of the Ukranian farmers, (1930- 1933) - 7 million starved to death.
The Holocaust of Russian political prisoners, (1919 - 1949) - 12 million perished.
The Pol Pot Communist Holocaust in Cambodia (1975) - 2.5 million slaughtered.
Armenian Holocaust by the Turks, (1915) - 1.5 million people killed.
3. They also 'singled out' blacks, homos and retards. But to appeal to the people they have to see the 'threat'. Jews were everywhere, so people could walk through the streets and see a Jewish banks and a Jewish butchers and a Jewish sweet shop and know that the evil, nasty, horrible Jews were taking all their precious money.
And it's easier to say "Kill all the Jews" than to say "Kill all the Jews, africans, arabs, homosexuals, lesbians, tramps, mentally unstable, crippled, poor, stupid, chinese, japanese, syrian....."
-
Originally posted by karajorma
To make a counterpoint if a suicide bomber died killing Ariel Sharon would that make him a murderer in your eyes?
he wouldn't to me, but they have yet to atempt such a thing.
killing someone != murder
if someone is going to kill you but you kill them first, it isn't murder, it's self defence.
-
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm... I think the problem is defining 'going to kill you' really :( After all, if someone were in my house holding a gun to my family I'd be pretty much wanting to kill them, so, say I grab a knife, a pretty paltry weapon against a gun, and for that, the person shoots me dead. Now, he has invaded my privacy and threatened my loved ones. So where now lies the self-defence? Me for defending my own, or the solider for shooting someone who was trying to kill him?
Basically, someone has to break the circle, and that's a very very very difficult thing to do :(
Anyway, just my thoughts :)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
he wouldn't to me, but they have yet to atempt such a thing.
You really do have to wonder why don't you. It's not like years of bombing cafes and buses have got them any closer to their goal.
I suppose considering that the last peace process was stopped by the assassination of an Israeli leader maybe they're scared that the next one might bring it back :rolleyes:
-
If you kill someone, you are a murderer.
The second you start making concessions for circumstance you cheapen the definition and make it utterly pointless.
-
Oh, on a related note: If attacking military targets and personel while at war is neither murder nor an act of terrorism, then an Iraqi or Afghan killing George W ****, the commander of all of the US's armed forces, would be a valid option.
-
OK, everyone just calm down. I forsee lockage if this continues to escalate. Anon, try to be civil, k?
Alright, now on to some stuff being discussed:
Someone reffered to the Hitler documentary, and said that its easy to see why he hates the Jews. I'm assuming you are reffering partly to the incident with Hitler's mother and the Jewish doctor. Just to clear things up, its a factual error that this stoked Hitler's hatred of Jews. In fact, he was very thankful to the doctor, and even went to so far as to go and buy him a big bunch of flowers, at a time when he was destitute.
Secondly, anon is not wrong in claiming there were links between Zionist groups and the Nazis. this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1569802351/counterpunchmaga/002-6451276-4094439) might be a good read. Forth invesigating at the very least.
Thirdly: Splinter, your position can only be considered valid if you assume that all Palestinians are terrorists and that all Palestinians want to drive the Jews in to the sea, which is utter bull****. The various militant groups were created IN RESPONSE to the Israeli occupation and subsequent oppression. They weren't around in 1948, and didn't just one day materialize out of thin air. And some, like Hamas, were created BY Israel. I mean literally created, started, funded, the whole deal. Without these two assumptions, all your arguements are baseless and false.
As for singleing out the Jews, its probably true to an extent. Hitler had a, as Bobbaou put it so eluquently, hard-on for the Jews. But its was all part of a very diverse hatred, including gays, Communists (hey, where have I seen that I wonder), Gypsies, blacks, cripples as well as Jews. But, its can't even be disputed, the Jews got the brunt of it. Statistically, the greatest persecution and the greatest death was visitied on Jewish people.
I'll post some more later, and on topic this time.
-
Oh please. Killing != murder. Quit being idiotic.
Originally posted by Rictor
They weren't around in 1948, and didn't just one day materialize out of thin air.
Neither were "The Palestinians" as the world knows them today.
-
Killing someone makes you a murderer. Strictly speaking, this is true. But you can be a murderer and still be guiltless. If someone is directly trying to kill you, and he has no right to do so, then its murder in self defence. But technically, its is still murder.
I should also mention that rarely, rarely can someone claim to be totally guiltless in a murder. Because very rarely are all the conditions met to consider something and act of pure self defense.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Oh please. Killing != murder. Quit being idiotic.
Neither were "The Palestinians" as the world knows them today.
not in name, but the people were still living on that land. Call them Martians, I don't care. That land was theirs, they had lived on its for centuries.
-
Two more things:
Gypsies and Communists. I knew I'd forgotten someone important.
And: The Jewish death-toll figures were greatly exaggerated.
- The 'official' Auschwitz death figure is widely reported as around 1.1million JEWS.
- The ACTUAL death figure, including all deaths from natural causes such as typhoid and pneumonia, across all denominations, is 74,000. Captured Nazi records confirm this.
Oh and most 'Death Camps' were in Poland, which further supports my claims that Jews were the most persecuted simply because of numerical superiority over the other 'anti-socials'.
-
Originally posted by Splinter
show us a link or picture... were they covering the familky because maybe they had weapons or would strangle them or stab them gosh. to point you gun at somone hwo might kill you is horrible :rolleyes:
Footage was shown on skynews, thats a tv station, if you want the footage contact them. And a man and a woman with their kids arent going to attack a dozen heavily armed soldiers.
Originally posted by Splinter
hmm crouched down were they hiding in the house? waiting for some militants to pass by were they maybe searching the house for weapons caches or smuggling tunnels unless you can verify these questions they could have been doing any number of thigns in that house including what you listed and you need to find out before stating it as fact.
The fact that they had a family held at gunpoint in a hostile area indicates they were using them as human shields.
Originally posted by Splinter
anyone seen movie Black Hawk Down... that guy was separated from his unit so cause he had a bunch of guys on his tail he ran into a house with a mother and her children and waitied for the guys to pass by... was he wrong to hide in there or should he have just ran down the street and let them shoot him... everything is relative...
Actually it was a group of soldiers who kept them there all night in the book, you shouldnt rely on hollywood for your knowlege of these events :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Sandwich
Don't even try to start claiming that suicide bombers are not murderers, dude. You'll just sound ridiculous.
I never did, I said I wasnt going to dress up my language to suit you. And you tell me to stop putting words in your mouth?
Originally posted by karajorma
You really do have to wonder why don't you. It's not like years of bombing cafes and buses have got them any closer to their goal.
I suppose considering that the last peace process was stopped by the assassination of an Israeli leader maybe they're scared that the next one might bring it back :rolleyes:
Assassinated by an Israeli settler it should be pointed out. And considering the restrictions in place on the movement of palestinians it shouldnt be that much of a surprise Sharons still around. one of the main reasons they hit things like buses and nightcluubs is securitys too tight anywhere of value.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Neither were "The Palestinians" as the world knows them today.
Palestine existed in 1948. It was formed after ww1 when the british carved up the Ottoman empire. But as Rictor pointed out, regardless of what you call them they are the people who lived in that area for centuries. In 1948 jews owned 7% of the land they conquered in 1949.
-
I thought Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire, like Wales is a part of the United Kingdom, then Britain chopped it off into a seperate country again?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Killing someone makes you a murderer. Strictly speaking, this is true. But you can be a murderer and still be guiltless. If someone is directly trying to kill you, and he has no right to do so, then its murder in self defence. But technically, its is still murder.
I should also mention that rarely, rarely can someone claim to be totally guiltless in a murder. Because very rarely are all the conditions met to consider something and act of pure self defense.
:wtf: Do I really have to look up the two on Dictionary.com and post it here? :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Gank
The fact that they had a family held at gunpoint in a hostile area indicates they were using them as human shields.
Uhm, no. Iit doesn't. I've held people at gunpoint before. They were most definitely not any sort of human shield. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Gank
I never did, I said I wasnt going to dress up my language to suit you. And you tell me to stop putting words in your mouth?
I apologize on the "putting words in your mouth" issue - touche. However, you are aware that "dying for their cause" implies that the people losing their lives are being killed by others due to firmly-held beliefs (or whichever reason), and not dying by commiting a combination suicide/homicide, correct?
-
Let's just say that killing someone makes you a killer. Right?
-
True, you could call them homocide-bombers if you like, as FOX does, but it just doesn't imply the same level of fanaticism as "suicide-bomber", which is the reason why most people fear the crazed Muslim hordes etc etc.
anon: some sources for those numbers please? What you're asking is for us to reconsider our understanding of a pretty important historical event, so that is of course going to require a fair bit of proof.
-
Google for "auschwitz figures soviet archives".
Should knock up a plethora of good sources.
-
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-GermanRosters&HolocaustNumbers-Janet.htm
For the lazy.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Uhm, no. Iit doesn't. I've held people at gunpoint before. They were most definitely not any sort of human shield. :rolleyes:
Lets put this in perspective for you, if when you invaded Jenin you had occupied a house of a family with four young kids and held them there at gunpoint would you not be using them as huuman shields? theres no logical reason for keeping them there, they clearly dont pose a threat and obviouusly wanted to get the **** away as fast as they could.
Originally posted by Sandwich
I apologize on the "putting words in your mouth" issue - touche. However, you are aware that "dying for their cause" implies that the people losing their lives are being killed by others due to firmly-held beliefs (or whichever reason), and not dying by commiting a combination suicide/homicide, correct?
no dying for their cause means they died trying to further their aims. If theres any percieved nobleness about it its in your mind, not mine. Martyred would be the proper word for the first meaning you've listed.
-
We must separate the Jews into two categories, the Zionists and the partisans of assimilation. The Zionists profess a strictly racial concept and, through emigration to Palestine, they help to build their own Jewish State...our good wishes and our official goodwill go with them.
Reinhardt Heydrich
Zionists actively collaborated with the Nazis while ordinary jews were murdered
http://www.aalulbayt.org/html/eng2/books/miscelleneous/the-founding-myths-of-israeli-politics/part3.htm
-
To avoid any more threads starting lets cover todays develoments here: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=T3PFJK2NVVG1QCRBAEZSFEY?type=worldNews&storyID=514184§ion=news
Isn't that lovely? Israeli forces fire on unarmed protesters and (according to bbc tv neews) blow off a child's leg and blow of another's arm. You'd think the Jews would know better than to persecute an entire race of people...
-
Originally posted by vyper
To avoid any more threads starting lets cover todays develoments here: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=T3PFJK2NVVG1QCRBAEZSFEY?type=worldNews&storyID=514184§ion=news
Isn't that lovely? Israeli forces fire on unarmed protesters and (according to bbc tv neews) blow off a child's leg and blow of another's arm. You'd think the Jews would know better than to persecute an entire race of people...
umm somone! this man is lost.... he ddint read the frist 3 pages of this discussion... anyone? want to help him out here? :rolleyes:
-
,,,,,,,,Change your posts-per-page!!!
-
Originally posted by Rictor
True, you could call them homocide-bombers if you like, as FOX does, but it just doesn't imply the same level of fanaticism as "suicide-bomber", which is the reason why most people fear the crazed Muslim hordes etc etc.
Huh. I hadn't looked at it that way. To me, "suicide bomber" has the usual fanatical connotations, what with suicide being so drastic and all, whereas "homicide bomber", while lacking a certain "ring" to it, is more accurate in a way. Sort of: Suicide Bomber: "Woohoo, I strapped a bomb to myself and blew my head off in the middle of nowhere!" Homicide Bomber: "Woohoo, I strapped a bomb to myself and blew my head - and a few other heads as well - off in the middle of a pizza parlor!"
Originally posted by Gank
Lets put this in perspective for you, if when you invaded Jenin you had occupied a house of a family with four young kids and held them there at gunpoint would you not be using them as huuman shields? theres no logical reason for keeping them there, they clearly dont pose a threat and obviouusly wanted to get the **** away as fast as they could.
Do you believe I'm lying to you when I say that Israeli soldiers do not use human shields? Because we don't, and I'm not.
Israeli soldiers have - on a personal, human being to human being level, not as some IDF-sponsored "look good" campaign - many times left behind money in attempts to compensate Palestinian households for any damages, for the ordeals they have been put through just by having armed soldiers in their houses, etc.
Or you can look at it this way. While it may be up for debate whether the Palestinians have actively used their own women and children as human shields against Israeli soldiers, you cannot deny that they seem to have little to no cumpunctions about allowing the women and children to be present in cross-fire. Therefore, how stupid would I have to be to "trust" that they would not simply risk harming one of their own to get at me?
Originally posted by Gank
no dying for their cause means they died trying to further their aims. If theres any percieved nobleness about it its in your mind, not mine. Martyred would be the proper word for the first meaning you've listed.
Ok, I can see how you understand it to mean that. Kinda stretching IMO, but that's your perogative. So, by your definition, suicide bombers are most definitely not martyrs, correct?
-
The IDF suffers from the same stupidity as the US armed forces, only where the US has rednecks and boredom, the IDF has nationalistic morons and boredom.
-
My argument still stands regardless of the point I posted it at. The IDF are being arses if they think this is good strategy. World opinion doesn't take kindly to innocent protesters being blown to ****.
-
Originally posted by vyper
My argument still stands regardless of the point I posted it at. The IDF are being arses if they think this is good strategy. World opinion doesn't take kindly to innocent protesters being blown to ****.
I would tend to agree in a way... I'll wait until investigations into the things reach conclusions though.
-
**** 'world opinion'. The world can't even agree wether slavery is a valid industry or not.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Thirdly: Splinter, your position can only be considered valid if you assume that all Palestinians are terrorists and that all Palestinians want to drive the Jews in to the sea, which is utter bull****. The various militant groups were created IN RESPONSE to the Israeli occupation and subsequent oppression. They weren't around in 1948, and didn't just one day materialize out of thin air. And some, like Hamas, were created BY Israel. I mean literally created, started, funded, the whole deal. Without these two assumptions, all your arguements are baseless and false. [/B]
wow utter BS? really then I suggest you go view their online resources and such because they have no shame in publicly stating thier goals... but you seem to find shame in listening to them. I have argued this point with thousands of people before NOT ONE has ever been gone on and told these terrorist groups what they are fighting for... uh yes listen guys I this guy on the forums you were fighting for a state not to kill the Jews and drown them in the sea, could you please just change your criteria for a bit? Thanks. You crack me up man :lol:
The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter, given in full below. Following are highlights. "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. " "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." "After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
Today, Palestinian Islamic Jihad is committed to the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel through a jihad (holy war).
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Terrorism/PIJ.html
Fatah online constitution: Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.
Article (22) Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine, as well as any project intended to liquidate the Palestinian case or impose any international mandate on its people.
http://www.fateh.net/e_public/constitution.htm#The%20Essential%20Principles%20of%20the
and exactly how would that affect what I have said? Because as writing these posts I am pretty sure I know that not all Palestinians are terrorists and I DO know for a fact that all Palestinian terrorists want to push Israel into the sea... that in mind show me where my posts were baseless and false.
Originally posted by Gank
Footage was shown on skynews, thats a tv station, if you want the footage contact them. And a man and a woman with their kids arent going to attack a dozen heavily armed soldiers.
you would be so surprised.
Originally posted by Gank The fact that they had a family held at gunpoint in a hostile area indicates they were using them as human shields.
really? I would like to hear anyone else here with that kind of warped logic.... anyone? so you truly believe that because they were covering themselves by pointing weapons at the occupants of the house that constitutes using them as human shields? so anytime the army has done house to house searches for weapons and has covered the occupants with guns... thats using them as human shields... look dude unless the soldiers were holding the people in front of them and shooting form behind them out at militants they were not being used as human shields... ask anyone here you are being ridiculous.
Originally posted by Gank Actually it was a group of soldiers who kept them there all night in the book, you shouldn’t rely on hollywood for your knowlege of these events :rolleyes:
I wasnt pointing out the movie for its facts I was pointing out the situation for the visual aid... thought it might help you understand.
:rolleyes:
-
The more astute among you may note that I've not been proven wrong in this thread.
And as any scientist knows, it's right till someone proves it wrong.
Score one for free thought.
-
Originally posted by an0n
And as any scientist knows, it's right till someone proves it wrong.
Incorrect. Otherwise I'm right when I say that the Big Bang was started by a giant salsa dancing mongoose.
-
Damn, you spoilt all the scientists fun now :(
-
No one can disprove you, therefore you are as right as someone who say God created the universe.
-
Originally posted by vyper
No one can disprove you, therefore you are as right as someone who say God created the universe.
*Rushes off to form a salsa dancing rodent cult* :D
-
ROFL I'd like 120 Mongoose Heads, 3 Tito Puente albums and a LOT of beer please ;)
-
karajorma you are terribly mistaken... the big bang was the result of the cross-breeding between a shivan and a potato. :nervous:
-
That possibly explains a very great deal about our universe ;)
-
Bye-bye thread.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Do you believe I'm lying to you when I say that Israeli soldiers do not use human shields? Because we don't, and I'm not.
Ah well, thats that then, because being an Israeli you'd tell me if they did :rolleyes: I tend to believe my eyes more than my ears and what I saw on tv looked like civvies being held against their will in an area of conflict.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Israeli soldiers have - on a personal, human being to human being level, not as some IDF-sponsored "look good" campaign - many times left behind money in attempts to compensate Palestinian households for any damages, for the ordeals they have been put through just by having armed soldiers in their houses, etc.
****s sake man you dont honestly expect me to believe that? Maybe a handful but as a whole the IDF is an undisciplined rabble. US Marine col in the lebs words iirc.
http://www.btselem.org/
Originally posted by Sandwich
Or you can look at it this way. While it may be up for debate whether the Palestinians have actively used their own women and children as human shields against Israeli soldiers, you cannot deny that they seem to have little to no cumpunctions about allowing the women and children to be present in cross-fire. Therefore, how stupid would I have to be to "trust" that they would not simply risk harming one of their own to get at me?
Maybe this is because you're attacking the places where their women and children live? When you fight in populated areas the attacker is the one putting civvies at risk, not the defender. Or do you expect them to line up on the road for you and wait to be bombed:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ok, I can see how you understand it to mean that. Kinda stretching IMO, but that's your perogative. So, by your definition, suicide bombers are most definitely not martyrs, correct?
Give it a rest, I'm not going to debate semantics.
-
Originally posted by an0n
The more astute among you may note that I've not been proven wrong in this thread.
Applauds.
-
*gets ready*
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Yes, I do think that Muslims (unwittingly, most likely) worship Satan. That's my opinion, which I hold because of Islam, not because of their opposing Israel.
You need some serious correction here Sandy. The Muslims, The Christians, and the Jews all worship the same single diety a.k.a. God/Allah/Whatever it is that Jewish persons call God. In fact, Muslims and Jews have quite a bit in common
-no pork
-no "Jesus is the son of god"
-bent noses
-the volumous semitic hairstyle a.k.a. JewFro
-similar languages shalom/salaam
-both greet each other by sayng "peace" in some form
-and theres more.
See, I live in the Lower Merion township in the Main Line outside of Philadelphia, which i think is actually the second largest concentration of Jews in the world, the first being "Israel". more than 50% of my school is Jewish, and me and my Jewish friends have come to the conslusion that it would make a lot more sense if the Muslims and Jews banded together and were angry at the Christians ("You supply the cash, we'll supply the Jihad!").
Anyway. If the Muslims worship Satan, Sandwich, than so do you.
-
Gank, from what you have described of the imagaes you saw of the Israelis holding the Palistinians, sounds more like they were probly takeing controle of the house to search it or something than holding them as human shields.
-
I don't think I've ever seen my respect for someone plummet from so high, down so far, so fast ever in all my life.
Somehow, I guess its better that I've got a job now. I'm just saddened.
-
Turambar: What you're seeing from Sandwich is an opinion from someone who's been on the front line of battle a number of times. He's thinking that way because it's what he's observed personally. You and I just hear stories from the media. Maybe you have some personal friends in Israel who tell you things. I do, but they're mostly on the Left.
However, I do agree with you on a number of points, including that the cultures of Judaism and Islam are fairly similar. You can look at it as brother fighting brother. There's still a deep rift between the two that won't heal quickly though. What it really needs is time, time for trust to be built between the two peoples.
-
Turambar, I applaud you sir. JewFro :D:D
My coop supervisor while I was still doing coop who's got an encyclopedic knowledge of history, brought up this same point. Jews and Arabs were the best of friends (mostly), until the Christians came along and messed it up. The racial/cultural similarities are quite deep.
Even according religious texts, the Arabs and Jews are both descended from Abraham, the two ethnic groups each being descendents of one of Abraham's sons.
oh, and you forget the ol' snip snip "down there", thats another similarity. Thank God (Yahaweh is the Jewish God, though you're not really supposed to speak his name) my parents were pretty secular and not into the whole Orthodox crap.
-
yes. the "snip snip" is interesting. Hard to make a good impression in the sack when you've had half of it cut off.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Ah well, thats that then, because being an Israeli you'd tell me if they did :rolleyes: I tend to believe my eyes more than my ears and what I saw on tv looked like civvies being held against their will in an area of conflict.
Given that the stated purpose of this whole Operation Rainbow mess is to weed out militants and uncover the smuggling tunnel networks, does it seem reasonable that those soldiers were, as Bob said, in the process of searching the house? Most tunnel exits aren't in the open, after all.
Originally posted by Gank
****s sake man you dont honestly expect me to believe that? Maybe a handful but as a whole the IDF is an undisciplined rabble. US Marine col in the lebs words iirc.
http://www.btselem.org/
I never said the IDF as a whole did that, did I? As a matter of fact, I specifically said it wasn't an IDF-sponsored thing, didn't I? :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Gank
Maybe this is because you're attacking the places where their women and children live? When you fight in populated areas the attacker is the one putting civvies at risk, not the defender. Or do you expect them to line up on the road for you and wait to be bombed:rolleyes:
I don't expect them to march en masse into the immediate area of a gun battle between "militants" and army forces, either. Call it mob stupidity, but it happened, and that's part of the reason why those people were needlessly killed and injured.
I mean, geez! How ignorant can the world be? If there's an intense gun battle going on somewhere, and a crowd of civvies comes marching through the area, is it then the combatants' fault that those civvies were killed? Yeah, of course it's still "unfortunate" and "regrettable" - it's a damn freaking shame if you ask me - but if you play with fire you're gonna get burnt.
Originally posted by Gank
Give it a rest, I'm not going to debate semantics.
Yays! I win! :p
Originally posted by Turambar
You need some serious correction here Sandy. The Muslims, The Christians, and the Jews all worship the same single diety a.k.a. God/Allah/Whatever it is that Jewish persons call God. In fact, Muslims and Jews have quite a bit in common
-no pork
-no "Jesus is the son of god"
-bent noses
-the volumous semitic hairstyle a.k.a. JewFro
-similar languages shalom/salaam
-both greet each other by sayng "peace" in some form
-and theres more.
...
Anyway. If the Muslims worship Satan, Sandwich, than so do you.
:wtf: Your "logic" is pretty messed up there, dude. Just because two people groups have lots of things in common doesn't mean that they worship the same god. We've already been over this issue here on HLP - apparently you missed it - but there's no escaping the fact that the 3 religions are NOT worshipping the same god. Compare what's written in the Koran and on the Dome of the Rock with Christianity's Jesus being the Son of God. "Allah has no son", etc etc.
"Bent noses" - You're sounding like a Nazi depicting how you can tell apart Jews from the rest of the world (note that I'm not calling you a Nazi, please). Firstly, that assumption is wrong - "Jewish" noses cover the whole spectrum, just like the noses of the rest of the population of the world.
"JewFro" - cute. ;) But watch TV next time there's a suicide bombing or they show Israeli public - there's no basis for that statement.
And those lingual comparisons, while true, mean absolutely nothing. That's like saying that the Brazillians and Spanish must worship the same god. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by mikhael
I don't think I've ever seen my respect for someone plummet from so high, down so far, so fast ever in all my life.
Referring to me, Mik? :( I'm sorry if that's so.
-
The problem with your Brazil and Spanish comparison is that Brazil was a Portugese colony, which is right next to Spain. So Spanish and Portugese are big langauges there. And remarkably, they sound similar to the untrained ear. Kinda like Chinese and Japanese.
On the other hand, the Muslims and Jewish people lived together for quite a long while as a community. And one thing you can say about Muslims is even though we've had our history of pillaging and razing hell (like everyone else), we've never burned down either Christian or Jewish churches (or any building of worship for that matter). Because we've had respect for other religions throughout our history.
You can't say the same about the Catholics and the priests. "You heathen! Jesus is the son of God! And little 8 year old Jimmy is my *****!"
By the way, nice comments on the suicide bombings. Also, nice neglect on the curfews and the house arrests that involve Palestineans getting shot if they're coming home late for work or the house arrests that involve Palestineans getting shot when they try to leave the house in search of water.
And when you fight in populated areas, civvies get shot and killed. That's why people fight in populated areas. It's called raping and pillaging.
You need to stop watching FOX news. It's caused your mind to go into an advanced state of decay.
Also, check your history. Many of the original Muslims under Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) actually sought and were granted sanctuary by Christians, mainly on the similarites of religion (Jesus is not the son of God, but a Prophet, only One God, the 10 Commandments, etc etc). Otherwise, the Hindus would've gotten the chance to slaughter the mass of em. Yay! Go Christians! w00t. with the 00s, cuz I'm hip. Anyways.
-
I still find irony that the jews are persecuting a group of people off their homeland...
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Given that the stated purpose of this whole Operation Rainbow mess is to weed out militants and uncover the smuggling tunnel networks, does it seem reasonable that those soldiers were, as Bob said, in the process of searching the house? Most tunnel exits aren't in the open, after all.
Doesn't mean you don't worship the same god Sandwich. Just that one of you has got your facts wrong :p
*There now follows 20 pages of arguements about WHO has got their facts wrong*
-
Originally posted by vyper
I still find irony that the jews are persecuting a group of people off their homeland...
they are not.
get your facts straight.
-
Originally posted by Reez
The problem with your Brazil and Spanish comparison is that Brazil was a Portugese colony, which is right next to Spain. So Spanish and Portugese are big langauges there. And remarkably, they sound similar to the untrained ear. Kinda like Chinese and Japanese.
Ok, fine, but that still doesn't negate my analogy. :)
Originally posted by Reez
On the other hand, the Muslims and Jewish people lived together for quite a long while as a community. And one thing you can say about Muslims is even though we've had our history of pillaging and razing hell (like everyone else), we've never burned down either Christian or Jewish churches (or any building of worship for that matter). Because we've had respect for other religions throughout our history.
Ex-Muslims who convert to Christianity in places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been dragged from their homes and are never seen or heard from again. Is that "respect", or do you refute that such events take place in our day and age?
Originally posted by Reez
You can't say the same about the Catholics and the priests. "You heathen! Jesus is the son of God! And little 8 year old Jimmy is my *****!"
Don't get me wrong - I might just dislike the Catholics as much as you do (if you do, that is... whatever - I don't like them). They have put a bad face on Christianity for centuries, and continue to do so today. They are (generalizing here) hypocrits.
Originally posted by Reez
By the way, nice comments on the suicide bombings. Also, nice neglect on the curfews and the house arrests that involve Palestineans getting shot if they're coming home late for work or the house arrests that involve Palestineans getting shot when they try to leave the house in search of water.
Trust me when I say that when I was on checkpoint duty a few years ago in the West Bank, seeing the Palestinians trying to get to work inside Israel, trying to get to school, trying to support their families - my heart went out to them.
We were told to thoroughly check every single person and vehicle at a certain checkpoint one time in order to make a huge traffic jam, because there was specific intel that a suicide bomber was trying to travel through our area to Jerusalem. So we did. The people would plead with us to let them just pass through to go to teach at a adjacent school, "...look, it's right there!"
I couldn't figure out why we were told to make a traffic jam - obviously the terrorist would see that we were checking everyone and turn around to try at some other checkpoint or at a later point in time. But when I got back to base, I found out that that was the point - we didn't want to catch him per se, as much as simply prevent him from making it through to Israel.
But because of that, we had to cause much grief to the Palestinian public. I was saddened to see it, but I would have felt even worse had the terrorist gotten through our checkpoint because we were lax and blown up a few mothers and children out shopping.
Originally posted by Reez
And when you fight in populated areas, civvies get shot and killed. That's why people fight in populated areas. It's called raping and pillaging.
Err, no. Raping is, err... well, I'm not gonna go into detail because this is a public forum. But I trust you do know what it means.
Pillaging is when you, usually as an armed force, raid and steal belongings from civillians.
How's fighting in populated areas equate to either one of those?
Originally posted by Reez
You need to stop watching FOX news. It's caused your mind to go into an advanced state of decay.
I (proudly) do not watch TV with any sort of regularity. We have no TV at home. The only time I see TV is if a cafe has one playing, or when I travel back to the US to visit relatives.
So there. :p
-
I stand by my assertion that all religion is bull****.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam. It's all a stack of crap.
The exception being Taoism, because that's not really a religion.
Why the **** do people need an all-powerful deity looming over them telling them what to do? Is it really so ****ing hard to just do the right thing and be nice to people?
-
No, actually Sandwich, all three of the monotheistic religions worship the same god. In Islam, Jews and Christians are calles "People of the Book" which means that they also recieved the "word" from God or his Representatives. The Qur'an mentions Moses and Ismail and Jesus all as prophets, along with Muhammed. The very first peple to be nice to the Muslims were the fine Jews living in the city of Medina.
According to the books, Muslims, Christians, and Jews all worship the same god, whether you like it or not.
-
It's just that if you're a christian, muslim or jew you believe that the other two religions are worshiping him incorrectly :D
-
I vote we convert everyone to Zoroastroism by force. It has a much cooler name.
-
Well, thats pretty irrelevant. People are allowed to believe in whatever they like, and I respect that. But the second that someone's faith allows (or prompts) them to kill someone, thats clearly innapproriate (a bit of an understatement).
Sandwich: I'm inclined to believe you when you say that your heart goes out to the Palestinians and all that other stuff you said. But it is important to distinguish between the person and the institution. Just like in slavery, the slaveowner can be a really nice guy. Loves his family, contributes to charity, is nice to his slaves etc etc. So, as a person, he can be great. But the institution of slavery is terrible. No doubt about it.
I do not doubt that there are certain soldiers within the IDF who are nice people, and feel terrible every time they have to inflict harm on the Palestinians people. Even though I suspect that they are not the majority, but you would know this better than me. But, as an institution, there can be no doubt that the IDF is bringing great suffering to the Palestinians.
If the Israeli people put half as much effort in to resolving the situtation in a peaceful manner as they do in trying to prevent terrorist attacks, do you doubt that peace could be achieved? As ionia pointed out, and I must say that I agree with him fully on the matter, the Palestinians only want to eat, work, sleep, shop, pray and live like everone else. What they are asking for is not unreasonable. And yet, it should be quite obvious that Sharon has ZERO interest in peace. The constant state of emergency, which as you said Israel has not left since its conception, allows him great powers which he does not want to give up. If the people are always scared of the next suicide attack, they turn to him for protection since they see no other way out. The illegal settlements, the apartheid wall, and constant killing of Palestinian civilians, the checkpoints and all that other stuff, those all act AGAINST the interests of peace. A permanent solution was within grasp many times, and each time Sharon has seen to it that it never happens. I'm not saying that the suicide bombings are not contributing to this, they are, but Sharon has much more power to decide peace/war than any Palestinian leader.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for one day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the erst of his life. It is in the best interests of the Likud party that Israel is always hungry, and has to turn to them for food. They fight against any efforts to teach the Israelis how to fish, to establish permanent peace. Would you rather give the Palestinians a few acres of land, which is theirs to begin with, or live in fear for your family the rest of your life? To me, it seems like a no brainer...
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ok, fine, but that still doesn't negate my analogy. :)
It does, because the Brazilians had a new culture forced on them, really negating any similarities. There's alot of tribes in the Amazon in Brazil that have had little human contact cuz they're still hiding from the "white skins". I'm sure they sound, act, and do things much differently than the Spanish do, while the people living in Rio really don't.
Ex-Muslims who convert to Christianity in places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been dragged from their homes and are never seen or heard from again. Is that "respect", or do you refute that such events take place in our day and age?
I'm also talking past tense. Nobility and respect don't exist in this age anymore, with anyone. Especially with very rich people, because in general, very rich people get very rich by screwing very poor people out of their money, sanity, and health.
Don't get me wrong - I might just dislike the Catholics as much as you do (if you do, that is... whatever - I don't like them). They have put a bad face on Christianity for centuries, and continue to do so today. They are (generalizing here) hypocrits.
I don't dislike catholics. I'm a fan of hyocrites, it makes my day all the more amusing.
But when I got back to base, I found out that that was the point - we didn't want to catch him per se, as much as simply prevent him from making it through to Israel.
But because of that, we had to cause much grief to the Palestinian public. I was saddened to see it, but I would have felt even worse had the terrorist gotten through our checkpoint because we were lax and blown up a few mothers and children out shopping.
I wasn't talking about the checkpoint lines. I was talking about the occupational army squads who pose the 3 and 4 o'clock curfews, shutting down entire villages for half the waking day. They didn't care if it was a kid who was coming in late, a mother, a father, or a "terrorist" (which is basically a militant without any money to buy weapons), they shoot em dead. Neither side is in the right, i think we all understand that.
Err, no. Raping is, err... well, I'm not gonna go into detail because this is a public forum. But I trust you do know what it means.
Pillaging is when you, usually as an armed force, raid and steal belongings from civillians.
How's fighting in populated areas equate to either one of those?
God I was tired last night.... running on two hours of sleep. Not a good idea. Anyways, my bad use of a term. But it's kind of stupid to think that if you fight in populated areas, civilians won't die. It's like saying you expected them to survive because they have super powers and the bullets should have bounced off their chests. I wish i could come up with a better analogy, but I'm still tired... anyone else here just finish IB exams?
-
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and he no longer has a use for you.
-
'xactly.
-
Or there's the Ferengi equivelants:
Give a man a fish and you're getting no net gains while expending the price of 1 fish.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you can sell him rods and nets.
-
Some analysis from Rafah Kid (http://www.rafahkid.net/2004_05_16_archive.html#108498123369158450):
"Military sources said that troops had spotted the approaching demonstrators, among them armed men, and asked a helicopter to fire a warning missile at an open field. But when the crowd continued to march, a tank fired three shells at the nearby abandoned building to ward the protesters off.
An open field? Near Sea Street? Are you joking you morons? The closest there is to a field near Sea street is the wasteland next to the border, and that is streets away. The excuse is not even transparent, it is a blatant lie. I wonder if they have video evidence of the 'armed men' - No I don't expect so either.
________________
Last night the Al-Najar hospital was finally able to announce the names of the victims from the demonstration.
They were mostly children: Mobarak Alhashash, 9, Waleed Abu Kamar, 12, Mohammed Mansour,13, Fouad Alsaka ,13, Ahmad Abu Alsaeed , 14, Rajub Barhoom, 18,Al'a Shekh Elid ,19, Mohammed Abu Sha'ar,20, Shady Alimghary,20 ,Osama Abu Nasir ,24, Saeed Joma, 24, .
they've also got some photos of the victims if you want to see that. I'll post some more stuff if I find relevant info.
edit:
Up to the moment, the latest figures of Palestinians killed by the IDF since the beginning of "Operation Rainbow" in Rafah on 13th May 2004, have reached 58. Several hundred Palestinians have now been injured.
Thats 58 people in 7 days.
-
He has a point.
We know all American choppers, jets and long-range missiles mount cameras. So where's the footage?
-
God should turn Israel into the next set for the Dawn of the Dead. People should jump out of their graves, and beat the **** out of Sharon. Then they could put it on CNN, and interview Arnold Schwarzenneger for a solution.
-
there goes the racism again, and a very poor knowledge of reality to boot.
The fact remains that the governments of Middle Eastern Islamic nations have turned their countries into absolute hellholes through their own incompetence and corruption and are using Israel to divert people's attention away from how much their respective nations suck.
Many of the preeminent Islamic leaders want Israel and the western world to be destroyed, and the western world wants said Islamic leaders to be brought to justice (pardon the cliché) or eliminated. The violence can only continue to escalate into full-scale global war.
-
bleh, wrong button again
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Given that the stated purpose of this whole Operation Rainbow mess is to weed out militants and uncover the smuggling tunnel networks, does it seem reasonable that those soldiers were, as Bob said, in the process of searching the house? Most tunnel exits aren't in the open, after all.
They werent searching anything, mostly just lying on the floor.
Originally posted by Sandwich
I never said the IDF as a whole did that, did I? As a matter of fact, I specifically said it wasn't an IDF-sponsored thing, didn't I? :rolleyes:
Aye and I specifically said it may happen in a handfeul of cases, you seem to be implying its an unofficial policy. Tell me, what did your unit do for the people whose houses you destroyed in Jenin?
Originally posted by Sandwich
I don't expect them to march en masse into the immediate area of a gun battle between "militants" and army forces, either. Call it mob stupidity, but it happened, and that's part of the reason why those people were needlessly killed and injured.
There was a gun battle now? Dont recall seeing this in any of the reports or hearing any firing in the footage I saw :doubt:
Originally posted by Sandwich
Yays! I win! :p
Win what? You asked me to rephrase what I said, I refused. What exactly did you win?
Originally posted by Sandwich
:wtf: Your "logic" is pretty messed up there, dude. Just because two people groups have lots of things in common doesn't mean that they worship the same god. We've already been over this issue here on HLP - apparently you missed it - but there's no escaping the fact that the 3 religions are NOT worshipping the same god. Compare what's written in the Koran and on the Dome of the Rock with Christianity's Jesus being the Son of God. "Allah has no son", etc etc.
Do you consider jews to worship the same god as christians?
Originally posted by Sandwich
"Bent noses" - You're sounding like a Nazi depicting how you can tell apart Jews from the rest of the world (note that I'm not calling you a Nazi, please). Firstly, that assumption is wrong - "Jewish" noses cover the whole spectrum, just like the noses of the rest of the population of the world.
"JewFro" - cute. ;) But watch TV next time there's a suicide bombing or they show Israeli public - there's no basis for that statement.
Hes probably assuming most jews are semites, only 16% of Israels jews actually are.
Originally posted by Sandwich
And those lingual comparisons, while true, mean absolutely nothing. That's like saying that the Brazillians and Spanish must worship the same god. :rolleyes:
Actually they do. though Brazilians speak portugese iirc.
-
You are right Woolie, they have often used this as an excuse, but right here, right now, people are dying, I don't give a flying rats turd if they are Moslim, Jewish, Christian or Brian the Squidgable Squiddians, and from the looks of things, people are being shot at simply for being in the IDF's way.
I really don't know what to say..... :(
-
It will get worse on both sides, trust me.
-
I wish in situations like this I could hear plain, objective, factual information on the current situation. Call it paranoia or whatever but I don't trust any news reporting at the moment. Maybe I'm just jaded.
-
I know exactly what you mean, theres too many sides to every story :(
-
Thats why I linked to that Rafah Kid website. It would appear they have people on the ground who are reporting firsthand, which is usually the best source of information. But aside from that, the BBC is an unbiased source, and there are surely others.
-
Originally posted by 01010
I wish in situations like this I could hear plain, objective, factual information on the current situation. Call it paranoia or whatever but I don't trust any news reporting at the moment. Maybe I'm just jaded.
I'm talking about both sides of the conflict, not the media.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
I'm talking about both sides of the conflict, not the media.
It was more a statement about the whole thread in general. I feel like the only one, but I know I'm not, that would just like to see the plain facts and evidence with no spin whatsoever. Like Flip said, it seems like there are too many sides.
-
you can't get media without a spin. All the major news conglomerates in the world are owned by 6 families. That's like 20 people telling over 6 billion what's important with no say from those 6 billion at all.
-
Originally posted by Reez
you can't get big, for-profit, media without a spin. All the major news conglomerates in the world are owned by 6 families. That's like 20 people telling over 6 billion what's important with no say from those 6 billion at all.
Fixed your typo.
-
yes becase a government funded media has absolutelty no posability of being used to manipulate people.
-
I never said governmental media, though they have been known to be more truthful than the corporate media.
I was talking about media outlets who's job is not to sensationalize, discarding all that which is important but which can not be broken down in to a series of sound-bytes, dramatic headlines and other such BS. I can't believe that the conflict of interest present in the US's current media is not obvious to everyone. How can Big Media be trusted to deliver an impartial report when they have such close ties with the government. Their job is to sound-of, not to rock the boat with, of all things, the truth.
Though, to be fair, they are only the result of a people (and not only in America, its prtty widespread) who want to do their daily dose of politics in 5 minutes and leave it at that. Who aren't interested in understanding a situation, and who blindly follow what they are told. Find me a country that is more apathetic toward world affairs than America? No, the people have more important things to do, like watching The Bachelor or checking their stock portfolio. So, what gets across is not the truth, not even close. Its a mixture of oversimplifications, propaganda, sensationalizations and a loyal toting of the part line.
-
hear hear.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I never said governmental media, though they have been known to be more truthful than the corporate media.
I was talking about media outlets who's job is not to sensationalize, discarding all that which is important but which can not be broken down in to a series of sound-bytes, dramatic headlines and other such BS. I can't believe that the conflict of interest present in the US's current media is not obvious to everyone. How can Big Media be trusted to deliver an impartial report when they have such close ties with the government. Their job is to sound-of, not to rock the boat with, of all things, the truth.
Though, to be fair, they are only the result of a people (and not only in America, its prtty widespread) who want to do their daily dose of politics in 5 minutes and leave it at that. Who aren't interested in understanding a situation, and who blindly follow what they are told. Find me a country that is more apathetic toward world affairs than America? No, the people have more important things to do, like watching The Bachelor or checking their stock portfolio. So, what gets across is not the truth, not even close. Its a mixture of oversimplifications, propaganda, sensationalizations and a loyal toting of the part line.
I'm telling you, there is only ONE reputable news outlet.
It's not CNN
It's not Al-Jazzera
It's not CBS
It sure to **** ain't FOX.
It's The Naked News
-
I once found that in my Shop teacher's internet history, and he's like this 60 year old bald guy. I got a little freaked out when I saw it, I must admit.
edit: Men in Hats strike again!
(http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20040402.gif)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I once found that in my Shop teacher's internet history, and he's like this 60 year old bald guy. I got a little freaked out when I saw it, I must admit.
edit: Men in Hats strike again!
(http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20040402.gif)
:lol: :yes: So true...
-
Originally posted by Rictor
But, as an institution, there can be no doubt that the IDF is bringing great suffering to the Palestinians.
True as far as that statement goes, although we could play the blame-pinning game for years. Let's not.
Originally posted by Rictor
If the Israeli people put half as much effort in to resolving the situtation in a peaceful manner as they do in trying to prevent terrorist attacks, do you doubt that peace could be achieved?
Yes, I doubt it. You may not have noticed, but the public here is pretty much divided 50-50 left-right. Israel has put her hand far out on the chopping block for the god of peace (Barak's offer to Arafat a few years back), and been rejected.
The problem is that both sides have different demands for peace. The Palestinians demand land, the Israelis demand a halt of terror attacks.
Originally posted by Rictor
...the apartheid wall...
I never bothered to look up the originas or definition of that term, "apartheid". Something tells me it's a racially-oriented definition, but I'm not sure.
And it's a fence in most areas, by the way.
Originally posted by Rictor
...the checkpoints and all that other stuff, those all act AGAINST the interests of peace.
The checkpoints are against the interest of peace? How do you see that one?
Originally posted by Rictor
A permanent solution was within grasp many times, and each time Sharon has seen to it that it never happens.
Arafat did not lack in contributing either.
Originally posted by Rictor
Would you rather give the Palestinians a few acres of land, which is theirs to begin with, or live in fear for your family the rest of your life?
How far back are you going with this claim that the land was "[the Palestinians] to begin with"?
Originally posted by Turambar
No, actually Sandwich, all three of the monotheistic religions worship the same god. In Islam, Jews and Christians are calles "People of the Book" which means that they also recieved the "word" from God or his Representatives. The Qur'an mentions Moses and Ismail and Jesus all as prophets, along with Muhammed. The very first peple to be nice to the Muslims were the fine Jews living in the city of Medina.
According to the books, Muslims, Christians, and Jews all worship the same god, whether you like it or not.
What religion are you that you claim to know who a religion worships, hmm? Your reasons for "3 religions, same one God" indicate nothing beyond a surface knowledge. Go read up on the religions before making such - pardon me if this offends you, it is aimed at your knowledge, not you personally - ignorant claims.
Originally posted by Reez
It does, because the Brazilians had a new culture forced on them, really negating any similarities. There's alot of tribes in the Amazon in Brazil that have had little human contact cuz they're still hiding from the "white skins". I'm sure they sound, act, and do things much differently than the Spanish do, while the people living in Rio really don't.
Ok, fine - you seem to be nitpicking, but whatever. Bad analogy on my part. You should be able to get the gist of what I meant though.
Originally posted by Rictor
I'm also talking past tense.
Ahh, ok.
Originally posted by Rictor
I don't dislike catholics. I'm a fan of hyocrites, it makes my day all the more amusing.
Heh.
Originally posted by Rictor
I wasn't talking about the checkpoint lines. I was talking about the occupational army squads who pose the 3 and 4 o'clock curfews, shutting down entire villages for half the waking day. They didn't care if it was a kid who was coming in late, a mother, a father, or a "terrorist" (which is basically a militant without any money to buy weapons), they shoot em dead. Neither side is in the right, i think we all understand that.
I was in one of those curfews in Jenin 2 years back. The curfew was from 5 in that case IIRC, and we (my battalion) never shot anyone dead - certainly not just like that. Any after-curfew wanderers are warned to get inside first by shouted orders, then by shots into the air at 60 degrees, then by shots at the ground, then by shots at the person from the knees-down. Each stage, of course, would only occur if the previous stage did not achieve any results (like the person running inside). People would only be shot-to-kill if they were carrying weapons.
Originally posted by Rictor
God I was tired last night.... running on two hours of sleep. Not a good idea. Anyways, my bad use of a term. But it's kind of stupid to think that if you fight in populated areas, civilians won't die. It's like saying you expected them to survive because they have super powers and the bullets should have bounced off their chests. I wish i could come up with a better analogy, but I'm still tired... anyone else here just finish IB exams?
No problem - I suspected it was something like that.
Originally posted by Gank
They werent searching anything, mostly just lying on the floor.
Lying on the floor? Inside a Palestinian home, with the family there? You should have said so before. There is no way in hell that any soldier in his right mind is going to be in any sort of offensive mode inside a building. That's like trying to sleep while balancing on a flagpole.
From what I've understood of your explanations, I'd be willing to bet that those soldiers came under fire and were taking refuge inside the nearest building. There's no way they were in that house because of something they wanted to do there - find human shields, hold a family hostage, search the house, whatever.
Originally posted by Gank
Aye and I specifically said it may happen in a handfeul of cases, you seem to be implying its an unofficial policy. Tell me, what did your unit do for the people whose houses you destroyed in Jenin?
No, it's not even an unofficial policy. The IDF would not set something like that, officially or not - it's too much like bribery.
A few of my unit mates left money in houses we searched, but we were never involved in destroying houses. We were reservists, after all, not front-line soldiers, and the one time I was involved in any sort of personal way with demolition in Jenin was basically as a chaffuer for other IDF forces. I commanded an APC, a friend of mine drove it, and we just transported a unit of soldiers to demolish an explosives lab they had discovered earlier.
Originally posted by Gank
There was a gun battle now? Dont recall seeing this in any of the reports or hearing any firing in the footage I saw :doubt:
I read that there was a gun battle between IDF forces and armed Palestinians, and that the demonstrators were marching into the danger zone. That's why the IDF fired tank shells and helicopter missles as deterrents - there was already gunfire going on, and the marchers weren't paying it much attention.
That may be completely wrong, though - I don't know.
Originally posted by Gank
Win what? You asked me to rephrase what I said, I refused. What exactly did you win?
I won the argument! Go me! :p {/sarcasm}
Originally posted by Gank
Do you consider jews to worship the same god as christians?
The God of the Tanach (Old Covenant) is the same as the God of the New Covenant, although most Jews do not yet realize that. But there are irreconcilable differences between Allah and the Judeo-Christian God.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
they are not.
get your facts straight.
Please don't tell me we're going to get into religious history here?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
True as far as that statement goes, although we could play the blame-pinning game for years. Let's not.
50 years, right back to when US, European and a smattering of other nationalities decided the land the palestinians lived on belonged to them because their God had said so in a 2000+ year old book
Originally posted by Sandwich
Yes, I doubt it. You may not have noticed, but the public here is pretty much divided 50-50 left-right. Israel has put her hand far out on the chopping block for the god of peace (Barak's offer to Arafat a few years back), and been rejected.
Barak lost the elections to a far right romanian xenophope found responsible for mass murder by his own government for doing exactly that. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Sandwich
Arafat did not lack in contributing either.
True.
Originally posted by Sandwich
How far back are you going with this claim that the land was "[the Palestinians] to begin with"?
The jews came from judae, which is in the west bank, not israel. Israel isnt about recovering land lost by the jews centuries ago, because they were never driven from that land. Its about taking land off people because God said it was yours not theirs.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Lying on the floor? Inside a Palestinian home, with the family there? You should have said so before. There is no way in hell that any soldier in his right mind is going to be in any sort of offensive mode inside a building. That's like trying to sleep while balancing on a flagpole.
From what I've understood of your explanations, I'd be willing to bet that those soldiers came under fire and were taking refuge inside the nearest building. There's no way they were in that house because of something they wanted to do there - find human shields, hold a family hostage, search the house, whatever.
By preventing the family from leaving at gunpoint they are effectively using them as human shields. Thats what holding enemy civilians against their will when under fire is. I'm not reffering to it in the literal sence like the other idiot suggested. Say for example you were chasing palestinian gunmen and they took refuge in a house which contained an israeli family, you'd be less inclined to fire on the building wouldn't you?
Originally posted by Sandwich
No, it's not even an unofficial policy. The IDF would not set something like that, officially or not - it's too much like bribery.
A few of my unit mates left money in houses we searched, but we were never involved in destroying houses. We were reservists, after all, not front-line soldiers, and the one time I was involved in any sort of personal way with demolition in Jenin was basically as a chaffuer for other IDF forces. I commanded an APC, a friend of mine drove it, and we just transported a unit of soldiers to demolish an explosives lab they had discovered earlier.
I'll ask and get back to you on that.
Originally posted by Sandwich
The God of the Tanach (Old Covenant) is the same as the God of the New Covenant, although most Jews do not yet realize that. But there are irreconcilable differences between Allah and the Judeo-Christian God.
Such as?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
True as far as that statement goes, although we could play the blame-pinning game for years. Let's not.
Fine. I'm not saying that Hamas & Co. haven't brought harm to Israel, they obviously have, I was mostly reffering to the post-1967 situation, in the occupied territories and aslo in Lebanon.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Yes, I doubt it. You may not have noticed, but the public here is pretty much divided 50-50 left-right. Israel has put her hand far out on the chopping block for the god of peace (Barak's offer to Arafat a few years back), and been rejected.
Yeah, it would seem the public is pretty polarized. But I would assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the hawks far outnumber the doves.
Originally posted by Sandwich
The problem is that both sides have different demands for peace. The Palestinians demand land, the Israelis demand a halt of terror attacks.
Right. But I'm not sure how capable the Palestinians as a people are of restraining the militants. Israel has a centralized government and a centralized Army, whereas the Palestinian "army" is a mish-mash of various groups, individuals and so forth. The closest thing that Israel has that would be a parallel is some of the militant settlers, who act of their own accord.
But Israel does not have clean hands when it comes to honouring the cease-fire agreements. Numerous times, they have been broken by an Israeli military attack, though other times it has been the Palestinians.
The problem is that Sharon has been fighting his whole life not to give an inch of land back to the Palestinians, and propagate further via the settlements, so he's not likely to do a 180 reversal now.
Originally posted by Sandwich
I never bothered to look up the originas or definition of that term, "apartheid". Something tells me it's a racially-oriented definition, but I'm not sure.
I don't know the dictionary definition, but it essentially means "a society divided along ethnic lines, with only one group in possesion of all the power and the wealth".
South Africa is the classic example.
Originally posted by Sandwich
And it's a fence in most areas, by the way.
C'mon now. A 5+ meter concrete fence, with gun towers and barbed wire? Its bigger (and more dangerous) that the Berlin Wall. The attempt to call it a fence instead of a wall is just a very poor attempt to make it sound better than it is.
Its like saying "No, we're not firing you, the company is undergoing a structural readujstment, during which our staffing policies may change slightly."
Originally posted by Sandwich
The checkpoints are against the interest of peace? How do you see that one?
Well, they make life very difficult for alot of innocent people, and thats on a daily basis. When you can't get to school, to work, to your home, or even to a hospital if you're about to give birth, that creates much anger and resentment among the Palestinian people.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Arafat did not lack in contributing either.
Thats true. But I'de like to see a database of all peace proposals and who did what to whom etc etc.
The latest attempt at peace, Dubya's roadmap (oh the irony), fell through because Sharon failed to comply with a number of its steps. Its insane to except your enemies to do their part when you are unwilling to do yours.
How far back are you going with this claim that the land was "[the Palestinians] to begin with"?[/B][/quote]
I think the pre 1967 borders are a nice compromise. Obviously, Israel can not reasonably be expected to pick up 3 million people and leave. Despite the questionable legitimacy of the events of 1948, and the methods used to "convince" the Palestinians to move, for better or worse thats in the past. Israel would never agree to anything that brings into question the lands given to it in 1948, especially with so much blood shed over the years to protect that land, so the '67 borders seem like a compromise.
Equally obvious is that the Palestinian can not continue living under occupation as they are now. The situation is intolerable, so an agreement has to be reached. I find it amazing that you (and others) can not see the obvious similarities between places like Rafah and Jenin, and the ghettos during WW2, such as Warsaw. Its almost identical, literally point for point.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I was in one of those curfews in Jenin 2 years back. The curfew was from 5 in that case IIRC, and we (my battalion) never shot anyone dead - certainly not just like that. Any after-curfew wanderers are warned to get inside first by shouted orders, then by shots into the air at 60 degrees, then by shots at the ground, then by shots at the person from the knees-down. Each stage, of course, would only occur if the previous stage did not achieve any results (like the person running inside). People would only be shot-to-kill if they were carrying weapons.
In numerous instances, Palestinian civilians have been killed for “violating” the curfew — venturing out of doors during periods when their community was under lockdown. On June 21, four Palestinians, three of them children, were killed and 24 injured when Israeli soldiers opened fire on a market in Jenin at a time when Palestinian residents believed the curfew on the city had been lifted. -->
Quoted from:
Green Left weekly, Online Edition: http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/502/502p18.htm
What is certain, though, is that hundreds of homes were destroyed by sustained artillery fire that lasted eight days, with numerous civilians, including entire families, killed and buried under the rubble of their own homes. Abdualla Shuaibi, 68, and his wife, Shams, 65, lost eight members of their family when an Israeli bulldozer clawed the second floor of their home, bringing the building down on its 10 occupants.
Quoted from: Palestine Campaign.org
http://www.palestinecampaign.org/archives.asp?xid=781
Now i realize that alot of the stuff in here will be propaganda. However, if you notice, I'm looking straight at figures. And from what I understand, the most threatening thing about two late-60 year olds are how visibile their hernias are in public.
Of course, Palestineans are no better, they would kill just as many if they had the ability. But if someone was rolling tanks into my town and locking me up in my house, in my land, while they're an occupying army who've shamed me and made my people look like fools, I'd probably try to kick their asses out too.
And as a side note, if you look at alot of Sharon's comments about basically... everything.... doesn't he remind you of a certain German from the mid 1900s? At least most Israelis are smart enough to realize he's a 5 foot some dick with no balls attached.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
The God of the Tanach (Old Covenant) is the same as the God of the New Covenant, although most Jews do not yet realize that. But there are irreconcilable differences between Allah and the Judeo-Christian God.
Name one that you can't explain away as easily as you did for the jews. And don't give me that whole Jesus is the son of God/There is no son of God bull**** again. I've already explained that one twice.
-
Originally posted by Gank
50 years, right back to when US, European and a smattering of other nationalities decided the land the palestinians lived on belonged to them because their God had said so in a 2000+ year old book
Huh? I'm not following you here...
Originally posted by Gank
The jews came from judae, which is in the west bank, not israel. Israel isnt about recovering land lost by the jews centuries ago, because they were never driven from that land. Its about taking land off people because God said it was yours not theirs.
The Jews came from the Land of Israel, period. That land was divided amongst the 12 tribes. One of those tribes was the tribe of Judea, which is the southern half of the modern-day West Bank, which is also known as Judea and Samaria.
Originally posted by Gank
By preventing the family from leaving at gunpoint they are effectively using them as human shields. Thats what holding enemy civilians against their will when under fire is. I'm not reffering to it in the literal sence like the other idiot suggested. Say for example you were chasing palestinian gunmen and they took refuge in a house which contained an israeli family, you'd be less inclined to fire on the building wouldn't you?
Yes, I would. But the point is that those soldiers, by the very fact of them lying on the floor, were not in that house in order to to anything inside - they were not holding the family hostage, they were hiding from external enemy fire. But with the family inside with them, they had no choice but to be prepared for a possible assault from that direction as well.
All I'm saying is that it's a matter of cause and effect. The soldiers were most likely being shot at (cause), so they took cover inside a building (effect). There were possible hostiles in that building (cause), so the soldiers covered them with their rifles (effect).
That scenario is, in my professional opinion based upon a small amount of experience and large amounts of training for such situations, most likely. It is highly unlikely that the soldiers were being shot at (cause), so they searched for a building with a Palestinian family inside to use as human shields (effect).
Originally posted by Gank
Such as?
Such as the multiple times the Koran states that Allah has no son - a point which directly contradicts the fundamental tennet of Christianity that Jesus is the Son of God.
Originally posted by Rictor
Yeah, it would seem the public is pretty polarized. But I would assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the hawks far outnumber the doves.
Israeli society is composed of humans, not birds. Please, I don't mean to be offensive with this, but keep your biased, not-so-subtle analogies to yourself. Thanks. :)
Depending on the recent events at any given time, you could say that one voting side outnumbers the other. Look at the history of right-wing / left-wing Prime Ministers Israel's had over the past 15 years - virtually an equal balance.
Originally posted by Rictor
Right. But I'm not sure how capable the Palestinians as a people are of restraining the militants. Israel has a centralized government and a centralized Army, whereas the Palestinian "army" is a mish-mash of various groups, individuals and so forth. The closest thing that Israel has that would be a parallel is some of the militant settlers, who act of their own accord.
Yes, and I admit that this is the one point that makes me shake my head in wonder whenever Israel demands that the Palestinians / PLO / whoever stop the terrorists. We've seriously screwed up the Palestinian Police (although they had it coming when they started fighting alongside the terrorist groups against the IDF), so the Palestinians are left with no way to effectively fight terrorisim. Definitely a screwed up situation.
Originally posted by Rictor
I don't know the dictionary definition, but it essentially means "a society divided along ethnic lines, with only one group in possesion of all the power and the wealth".
South Africa is the classic example.
Ahh. Well, that's unfortunately accurate, since the Palestinians are living in poverty far worse than you or I. Just as long as you realize that the fence/wall (I'll get to that below) is not set up along those lines because one side is better off than the other. It's there to prevent terrorists from crossing over, nothing more.
Originally posted by Rictor
C'mon now. A 5+ meter concrete fence, with gun towers and barbed wire? Its bigger (and more dangerous) that the Berlin Wall. The attempt to call it a fence instead of a wall is just a very poor attempt to make it sound better than it is.
Its like saying "No, we're not firing you, the company is undergoing a structural readujstment, during which our staffing policies may change slightly."
Allow me to straighten out the twisted perspective of the security fence the media has presented to you.
The security fence is, along the majority of its length, just that - a fence. Motion sensors, barbed wire on top or whatever, but it's a chain-link type fence, not a concrete wall.
However, in areas where the fence passes near a settlement that has come under fire in the past, or between a stretch of Israeli road that's been firen upon and a Palestinian village, the fence indeed becomes a 5+ meter concrete barricade. You can shoot through a fence, but not through a concrete wall.
I can show you pictures if you want - IIRC a section of the fence runs near my neighborhood.
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, they make life very difficult for alot of innocent people, and thats on a daily basis. When you can't get to school, to work, to your home, or even to a hospital if you're about to give birth, that creates much anger and resentment among the Palestinian people.
Agreed. But realize that all the "permanent" checkpoints (as opposed to the temporary, 30-60 minute surprise checkpoints) are situated along the Green Line - the "border" between Israel proper and either the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. If the Palestinians got what they wanted, an independant state of their own, then that line would become an international border, and they'd have a much harder chance of crossing it.
Originally posted by Rictor
Thats true. But I'de like to see a database of all peace proposals and who did what to whom etc etc.
The latest attempt at peace, Dubya's roadmap (oh the irony), fell through because Sharon failed to comply with a number of its steps. Its insane to except your enemies to do their part when you are unwilling to do yours.
You seem to excell at finding fault with Sharon, while turning a blind eye towards the equally-guilty PLO leadership.
Originally posted by Rictor
I think the pre 1967 borders are a nice compromise. Obviously, Israel can not reasonably be expected to pick up 3 million people and leave. Despite the questionable legitimacy of the events of 1948, and the methods used to "convince" the Palestinians to move, for better or worse thats in the past. Israel would never agree to anything that brings into question the lands given to it in 1948, especially with so much blood shed over the years to protect that land, so the '67 borders seem like a compromise.
1967. 37 years ago. You want to base land "ownership" on a mere 37 years. Your grandpa - heck, most likely even your dad (don't know how old he is) could have been born on this land, but nope, it's the "Palestinians" land now. And they've only been around for what - 35 years? 50 years?
I'm not saying shove them into the sea and be done with it, don't get me wrong. But there is a nice country next door called The HaShemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Originally posted by Rictor
Equally obvious is that the Palestinian can not continue living under occupation as they are now. The situation is intolerable, so an agreement has to be reached. I find it amazing that you (and others) can not see the obvious similarities between places like Rafah and Jenin, and the ghettos during WW2, such as Warsaw. Its almost identical, literally point for point.
Jenin and Warsaw? Pfft - hardly! Let's see, did Warsaw spawn armed terrorists, hell-bent on blowing the heads off every German mother and child they could see? :doubt:
Originally posted by Reez
In numerous instances, Palestinian civilians have been killed for “violating” the curfew — venturing out of doors during periods when their community was under lockdown. On June 21, four Palestinians, three of them children, were killed and 24 injured when Israeli soldiers opened fire on a market in Jenin at a time when Palestinian residents believed the curfew on the city had been lifted. -->
Quoted from:
Green Left weekly, Online Edition: http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/502/502p18.htm
What is certain, though, is that hundreds of homes were destroyed by sustained artillery fire that lasted eight days, with numerous civilians, including entire families, killed and buried under the rubble of their own homes. Abdualla Shuaibi, 68, and his wife, Shams, 65, lost eight members of their family when an Israeli bulldozer clawed the second floor of their home, bringing the building down on its 10 occupants.
Quoted from: Palestine Campaign.org
http://www.palestinecampaign.org/archives.asp?xid=781
Now i realize that alot of the stuff in here will be propaganda. However, if you notice, I'm looking straight at figures. And from what I understand, the most threatening thing about two late-60 year olds are how visibile their hernias are in public.
It would indeed be interesting to find out exactly what did and didn't happen in Jenin and similar cases. Gross overestimations have been proven to have occurred, so I take everything - especially coming from sites such as the two above - with a hefty grain of salt.
That said, I'm not denying that the above could have happend. But I trust you'll understand why I'm not going to debate the points until I can read the other side of each incident.
Originally posted by karajorma
Name one that you can't explain away as easily as you did for the jews. And don't give me that whole Jesus is the son of God/There is no son of God bull**** again. I've already explained that one twice.
How? By saying that they have similar languages? Or by saying that Islam considers Jesus a great prophet?? Sorry, not sufficient. :no:
-
many jews don't consider Jesus the son of God, hell thee were some early CHRISTIAN sects that said he wasn't the son of god. that _one_ item isn't even signifigant, let alone conclucive.
how's this, Islam worships the god of Abraham, jewdaeism worships the God of Abraham, and Chrstianity worships the God of Abraham. all the same god.Islamic fundies sound just as insaine, actualy somewhat less insaine, than many Christian fundies.
"Jenin and Warsaw? Pfft - hardly! Let's see, did Warsaw spawn armed terrorists, hell-bent on blowing the heads off every German mother and child they could see?"
it probly would have if the Germans didn't use such a heavy fist against them.
-
many jews don't consider Jesus the son of God
.....uhh, isn't that what kind of, well, ya know, makes one a Jew?
Unless there's some new sect I've never heard of...
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
It would indeed be interesting to find out exactly what did and didn't happen in Jenin and similar cases. Gross overestimations have been proven to have occurred, so I take everything - especially coming from sites such as the two above - with a hefty grain of salt.
That said, I'm not denying that the above could have happend. But I trust you'll understand why I'm not going to debate the points until I can read the other side of each incident.
Of course. But it's impossible to deny that these incidents are occurring. These are only two example I found within 30 seconds of searching, the record were quite voluminous. These were the top two on google. Of course, the third one was about an Israeli 7 year old who was killed by Palestine militants, but I've already stated that both sides are in the wrong here, so that's a moot point. But regarding these incidents: now it could be like Abu-Ghraib, where about 20 or 30 get their sh*t split and everyone starts b*tching. Or it could be something that is happening en masse. I'm cynical, i take everything with a grain of salt. But not all of this can be made up, some of these statements have to be true. And even if they're not, being locked in your house for long periods of time by people you already hate is only gonna piss you off majorly.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Such as the multiple times the Koran states that Allah has no son - a point which directly contradicts the fundamental tennet of Christianity that Jesus is the Son of God.
A tenent of fundamentalist Christianity, not a fundamental tenet of Christianity.
Whether Christ is a prophet, divine, or even fictional doesn't change the nature of the teachings in the new testament of tolerance, equality, and love. Teachings that have been thrown out the window because they aren't in line with Calvinism.
Of course then again to fundamentalists I'm just a dirty, secular, subversive liberal who has no ****ing clue about theology.
-
I thought Jesus was considered part of the Trinity and therefore him being god himself. If he was really the "Son of God" in such crude terms Christianity wouldn't be a form of monotheism. :nervous: :confused:
-
Catholics worship the Holy Trinity because they really worship Jesus, but since Jesus isn't God and worshipping him would constitute blasphemy, they decided to make him and God the same people.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Catholics worship the Holy Trinity because they really worship Jesus, but since Jesus isn't God and worshipping him would constitute blasphemy, they decided to make him and God the same people.
Moron. If you're going to talk ignorantly about a religion, at least talk ignorantly AND accurately. Catholics are accused of worshipping Mary instead of Jesus.
-
wait, I'm lost. What exactly does religion have to do with tearing up Rafah or with the Israel/Palestine issue? I was under the imperssion that any excuse involving religion ought to be thrown out as bull**** immedietdly.
you can have your religion and do as you please, but you had better damn well keep it seperate from political and/or military actions.
maybe I'm just overly idealistic.
-
Religion in the Israel-Palestine conflict is at the same time everything and nothing.
It is nothing because this is, after all, a territorial conflict. Both peoples claim that the land is theirs and are fighting over it. Secular, right?
It is religious, however, because the two sides are divided by religion. They are fighting over holy land and religious cities. Propaganda is used to target the other religion, not the other people. Religion is the cultural identity. Did I mention that the claims to the land are based on religious texts?
-
Israel-Palestine has everything to do with religion as the Ireland-UK had... actually, they are both very similar cases. Maybe a nuke wouldn't be so bad... (just joking Sand :D)
-
Some more from Rafah Kid:
Amira Hass wrote in Haaretz the other day an article titled "Two Magic Phrases" about 'armed men' and 'smuggling tunnels' the two magical phrases used to justify every operation in Rafah. Talking of the tunnels Hass wrote:
"Merchants invented the system. The tunnels are not only for weapons and drugs, but for medicine, basic food commodities and cigarettes, at prices much more suitable for poverty-stricken Rafah. They are a way to break an economic siege. The weapons in the hands of the armed men of Rafah prove that the tunnels are not being used to smuggle sophisticated weapons.
Nonetheless, the tunnels have turned into a scarecrow that justifies every strike at civilian lives and civilian property. Or is the IDF angered by the fact that Palestinian brains and needs have led to inventions that enable them to build the tunnels despite all the risks and the sophisticated Israeli equipment for uncovering them?"
Some Jewish friends of mine compare areas of Palestine to the ghettoes of Warsaw, something of which I know little, so I followed some links I was emailed recently:
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising -- Secular Symbol of Jewish Success
[...]"ZZW (Zidowski Zwiazek Woskowy) led by Pawel Frenkel, was founded by the end of 1939. Its commanders all had military training and many had experience as officers in the Polish Army. It maintained contact with the Polish underground through the army connections, and received regular arms and assistance. ZZW also had dug two tunnels that provided a channel for communication and arms smuggling into the Ghetto.
Orgainsed Resistance of the Z.O.B
"January 18-21, 1943. The Germans renew deportations from the Warsaw ghetto. This time however, they encounter resistance from the ZOB (Jewish Fighting Organization; Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa). The early morning roundups take the ZOB organization by surprise, and individuals take to the streets to resist the Germans. Other Jews in the ghetto retreat into prepared hiding places. The Germans, expecting the expulsions to run smoothly, are surprised by the resistance. In act of retaliation they massacre 1,000 Jews in the main square on January 21, but suspend further deportations. The Germans were able to deport or kill 5,000-6,500 Jews. Encouraged by the results of resistance actions, the Jews in the ghetto plan and prepare a full-scale revolt. The fighting organization is unified, strategies are planned, underground bunkers and tunnels are built, and roof-top passages are constructed. The Jews of the Warsaw ghetto prepare to fight to the end."
The Smuggling of Food into the Warsaw Ghetto
"The German authorities did everything to seal off the ghetto hermetically and not allow in a single gram of food. A wall was put up around the ghetto on all sides that did not leave a single millimeter of open space [...]
They fixed barbed wire and broken glass to the top of the wall. When that failed to help, the Judenrat was ordered to make the wall higher, at the expense of the Jews, of course [...]
Several kinds of guards were appointed for the walls and the passages through them; the categories [of guards] were constantly being changed and their numbers increased [...] The victims of the smuggling were mainly Jews [...] Several times smugglers were shot at the central lock-up on Gesiowka* Street. Once there was a veritable slaughter (100 persons were shot near Warsaw). Among the Jewish victims of the smuggling there were tens of Jewish children between 5 and 6 years old, whom the German killers shot in great numbers near the passages and at the walls.
And despite that, without paying attention to the victims, the smuggling never stopped for a moment. When the street was still slippery with the blood that had been spilled, other [smugglers] already set out, as soon as the "candles" had signaled that the way was clear, to carry on with the work [...] The smuggling took place – a) through the walls, b) through the gates, c) through underground tunnels, d) through sewers, and e) through houses on the borders"
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Moron. If you're going to talk ignorantly about a religion, at least talk ignorantly AND accurately. Catholics are accused of worshipping Mary instead of Jesus.
I wasn't 'accusing' them of anything. They do worship Jesus. And if Jesus were to be considered a seperate entity from God, they'd be in violation of the "Thou shalt not worship...." commandment.
So they magiced up all this bull**** about God and Jesus and Karma being the same thing so they could pray to their little Jewish magician without being smote.
-
I think you'll find that the whole trinity thing is kind of independent of the Catholic Church. Sure, Catholics are the oldest surviving sect that practice the doctrine of the Trinity, but it predates the formation of the Church.
-
Regardless, religion is an outdated system of law enforcement. I think it was originally meant to make sure that people wouldn't just do whatever the hell they want at the cost of other people.
"Billy, if you hit little Joey, in the head again with that club of yours, you're going to end up in a place of fire and smoke and screaming and torture and pain. Do you want that?"
We don't need religion anymore. Now we have people with shiny badges and guns.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
how's this, Islam worships the god of Abraham, jewdaeism worships the God of Abraham, and Chrstianity worships the God of Abraham. all the same god.Islamic fundies sound just as insaine, actualy somewhat less insaine, than many Christian fundies.
Jews and Christians worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Muslims do not, esp. since the Arab lineage is traced back to Abraham and his son, Ishmael, who was a rival of Isaac.
Originally posted by Ace
A tenent of fundamentalist Christianity, not a fundamental tenet of Christianity.
Whether Christ is a prophet, divine, or even fictional doesn't change the nature of the teachings in the new testament of tolerance, equality, and love. Teachings that have been thrown out the window because they aren't in line with Calvinism.
Of course then again to fundamentalists I'm just a dirty, secular, subversive liberal who has no ****ing clue about theology.
Wrong, Ace. The Bible is (or at least, should be... :doubt: ) the bottom-line for Christians, and the New Testament states that Jesus is the Son of God many times. Such as when Jesus was getting baptized by John, the dove landed on him, and the voice from heaven declared "This is my Son, in whome I am well pleased."
Jesus being the Son of God is not a questionable point for Christians.
-
yes it is, becase the Bible is not the bottom line for Christans, it's the bottom line for Catholics, as I said, there have been Christian sects, from before the councel of Nicea, before the Bible was cannonised, that did not think that Jesus was the son of God. these sects were, for the most part, hunted down and killed as heratics shortly after the Church gained signifigant power.
also you'r saying "nu-uh" does not refute my claim, in fact you reinforced it, Arabs are desended from Abraham, they worship the same god as him, unless you can point out in the Koran some were were Ishmael (or his desendents) refutes the god of his father in favor of a diferent one it's the same god.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Wrong, Ace. The Bible is (or at least, should be... :doubt: ) the bottom-line for Christians, and the New Testament states that Jesus is the Son of God many times. Such as when Jesus was getting baptized by John, the dove landed on him, and the voice from heaven declared "This is my Son, in whome I am well pleased."
Jesus being the Son of God is not a questionable point for Christians.
You have to remember that the Bible, the Q'uran, and the Semetic holy book (slipping my mind right now and I don't feel like checking it up), are all metaphors. Noah did not get every tick and fly that ever existed and get them to bang on a boat. Moses did not split a sea while a Pharoah tried to shove a spear in his arse (cuz ass is probably sensored). Christ probably couldn't walk on water. And I doubt that Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him (im not even very religous, I do that out of habit now), travelled to heaven on the back of a winged horse before he died, then came back to Earth. All of it is metaphors. It's a bunch of messages nicely screwed up. Look past the text, and read in between the lines. Are the people of the world not referred to as God's children? So we're all the sons and daughters of God then. Christ was not special because of his heritage but because of what he did. If we're all supposed to be born equal, and God made Jesus special, then ALL three books are hypocritical and we need to look at them closely.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Such as the multiple times the Koran states that Allah has no son - a point which directly contradicts the fundamental tennet of Christianity that Jesus is the Son of God.
How? By saying that they have similar languages? Or by saying that Islam considers Jesus a great prophet?? Sorry, not sufficient. :no:
Okay. Let me put it this way. The Old Testement says that you must remember the passover. It's quite strict on the fact. IIRC the New Testement never revoked that. Yet christians don't keep the passover.
It's the same with eating pork and a whole load of other things that jews do and christians don't. Yet you claim that Jews and Christians do worship the same god.
Secondly just because the muslims don't believe that Jesus is the son of god doesn't mean that they don't worship the same god.
As I've explained before they differ on one major point. One of them has simply gotten it wrong (actually both religions are wrong from an atheists standpoint). Just because they differ on one major point doesn't mean that everything else they believe in common is wrong.
As an example lets take cosmology. Some scientists believe the universe will simply keep expanding forever. Some believe it will end in a big crunch. Your arguement would have it that they don't believe in the same big bang because the variables have to be different for the two outcomes.
Your entire arguement is a logical fallacy and no other major religious leader I've heard of has ever said such a thing. In fact I remember hearing both the pope and the archbishop of Canterbury say that they do worship the same god as the muslims.
-
How's this for an answer to it all: Become an atheist like me and the worst of your ethical troubles will be how to treat your ex-girlfriend when she starts talking to you again. It's a lot easier than blowing the living **** out of each oher.
-
I hope that wasn't addressed at me cause you're preaching to the choir there :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Huh? I'm not following you here...
Lets see, why are you, US born with no descendants of middle eastern origin living in Israel fighting the natives of the area? You talked about playing the blame game, well thats where it ends, right at the feet of the zionist immigrants who declared Israel a country and drove the natives off their land.
Originally posted by Sandwich
The Jews came from the Land of Israel, period. That land was divided amongst the 12 tribes. One of those tribes was the tribe of Judea, which is the southern half of the modern-day West Bank, which is also known as Judea and Samaria.
Uh-huh and which of these tribes are you descended from? We've been down this road before so I shouldnt have to remind you most jews in Israel come from european stock and are descended from the Kazars, a central asian tribe which converted to Judaism arond 13 century. Their claims to a homeland in the middle east are based solely on religion.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Yes, I would. But the point is that those soldiers, by the very fact of them lying on the floor, were not in that house in order to to anything inside - they were not holding the family hostage, they were hiding from external enemy fire. But with the family inside with them, they had no choice but to be prepared for a possible assault from that direction as well.
All I'm saying is that it's a matter of cause and effect. The soldiers were most likely being shot at (cause), so they took cover inside a building (effect). There were possible hostiles in that building (cause), so the soldiers covered them with their rifles (effect).
That scenario is, in my professional opinion based upon a small amount of experience and large amounts of training for such situations, most likely. It is highly unlikely that the soldiers were being shot at (cause), so they searched for a building with a Palestinian family inside to use as human shields (effect).
It doesnt matter if they deliberatly looked for people to use as human shields or not, if they were under fire and they kept enemy non-combatants right beside them at rifle point they were effectivly using them as human shields. End of story.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Such as the multiple times the Koran states that Allah has no son - a point which directly contradicts the fundamental tennet of Christianity that Jesus is the Son of God.
Jews say the same thing but they worship the same god? I think youre letting racial biases cloud your judgement here
Originally posted by Sandwich
1967. 37 years ago. You want to base land "ownership" on a mere 37 years. Your grandpa - heck, most likely even your dad (don't know how old he is) could have been born on this land, but nope, it's the "Palestinians" land now. And they've only been around for what - 35 years? 50 years?
Bull**** the lands been called palestine since the romans. Jesus would have been a palestinian.
Originally posted by Sandwich
I'm not saying shove them into the sea and be done with it, don't get me wrong. But there is a nice country next door called The HaShemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Why cant they live where they always lived? Oh yeah, God said you could have it :rolleyes: Jordan is not the palestinian homeland, its part of it, the rest is occupied by Israel.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Jenin and Warsaw? Pfft - hardly! Let's see, did Warsaw spawn armed terrorists, hell-bent on blowing the heads off every German mother and child they could see? :doubt:
Warsaw uprising, learn some history.
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Israel-Palestine has everything to do with religion as the Ireland-UK had... actually, they are both very similar cases. Maybe a nuke wouldn't be so bad... (just joking Sand :D)
Slightly similar not very. Religion was just another tool in the british arsenal to use against the Irish after Henry VIII invented his own sect in the 16th century. It wasnt a major factor prior to this nor was it the underlying reason. The Israeli conflict is based solely on religion, with people like sandwich here believing they have a right to live in that country because a 2000 year old book they worship says so. At least the brits, bastards that they were, had valid reasons for their nastiness like economics and power and didnt base it all on a book which has a tenuuos grasp on reality at the best of times.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I hope that wasn't addressed at me cause you're preaching to the choir there :)
Nah mate, just the more... zealous posters! ;)
-
http://reuters.feedroom.com
Should see some of the rafah stuff, if there's one things palastinien kids like doing, its throwing masses of large, rocks at things. Oddly, the area appears to better than i expected, with proper roads and buildings.
-
[q]if there's one things palastinien kids like doing, its throwing masses of large, rocks at things.[/q]
Hey, you think you can get Supersoakers in Palestine? Give 'em a break ;)
-
Originally posted by vyper
Hey, you think you can get Supersoakers in Palestine? Give 'em a break ;)
Now there's an idea...
A weapons delivery to Palestine. Deliver supersoakers.
Brilliant plan for peace in the Middle East.
-
won't work, Israel and the settlers are siphoning all the water, the Palestinians barely have enough to live on.
-
How about we replace both sides' weapons with supersoakers? Suicide bombers and water balloons... hmm...
No really we (UN) should move in, take all the modern weapons off both sides, hand them some spears, shields etc and say "Okay, you want to fight for lands biblically assigned to you? Well you're gonna fight with period weaponry."
That'd slow 'em down a bit.
-
We could give them napalm instead.
-
True, that'd probably solve much of the problem as well... little more terminally than what I had in mind but still, a problem solved is a problem solved.
-
what would the supersoakers get you? a wet burka contest?
-
:lol:
Yes...and more of a spring break type environment. Then everyone cools off a little and nobody needs to blow off steam by blowing **** up.
-
better not look at a hot girl and say her ass is dynamite though. They may take you literally
-
"no no, me better - me c4 baby!"
"Oh sh..." BOOM.
okay this is getting sick now, lets stop.
-
Updateage: I just got this SMS (translated from Hebrew):
[q]Gaza Division Commander: Up to this point, there have been killed in Rafah 41 terrorists and 12 civillians. 56 houses were demolished.[/q]
12 civillians too many, but 41 terrorists closer to a chance at peace.
-
Originally posted by Gank
*blah blah*
The UN allowed the jewish people to establish a state in the British Mandate of Palestine (which at the time included Jordan).
At the same time the independent state of Palestine was supposed to be declared. That state would have included today's Jordan. IIRC, the territority of the mandate would have been split ca 80/20. That's 20% for the Israelis, it might have been less even.
However, the arab goverments believing that sharing is for wimps declare war on newly formed Israel. They also promise the 'Palestinians' (which didn't even exist as a people at that time, at least not as we know them now) that they will have everything.
Luckily for us the Israelites were a bit stronger than the arabs percieved them and their plans to have their own little holocaust falls flat on its face. Israel wins the war and takes the spoils.
Lots of palestinians lose their home. A percentage of them because they were chased of their land, most because they believed their arab 'brothers' (the same 'brothers' who actually don't give a **** about the palestinians in reality). They begin to whine about 'the right to return'
At the same time about an equal number of jews lose their properties and have little choice but to go to Israel. I'm not hearing anyone talk about a right of return or of reimbursement for these people.
Info about the expelling of Jews from Arab lands (http://www.hsje.org/displacement_of_jews_from_arab_c.htm)
It's a long read but do read it.
-
I just read all the religon-related replies at the top of this page... very, very sad to read. Many of you look at the Pope as the head of Christianity - he's not. He's the head of the Catholics. Mainstream Christianity realizes that their head is Jesus.
I'm way too tired to start quoting and looking up references and stuff, so you'll have to forgive me.
Muslim beliefs are not in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I don't care if the pope and the canterbury guy are deceived (which they are if they say that Allah is the same as the Judeo-Christian God) into thinking that. The best deceptions and lies have to have a certain amount of truth to them in order to be believable.
It just saddens me to see how widespread the lies are accepted. :(
Concerning Israel/Palestine, if you want to pick and choose the bits of history to back up your arguments, then I'm not going to waste any more time with you on this matter. At least walls don't pretend to listen.
And yes, I'm not in the best of moods. I spent the best portion of the day on the phone with our ISP, trying to get our ADSL -> Cable conversion straightened out, playing "on hold" tag with various sales reps, tech support people, and customer assistance guys. So please forgive me if I offended anyone personally.
-
It's sad to me when people are taught with lies from their childhood and refuse to hear the truth.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Gaza Division Commander: Up to this point, there have been killed in Rafah 41 terrorists and 12 civillians. 56 houses were demolished.
Assuming you accept the IDF's definition of a terrorist, which would seem to be "any Palestinian within 30ft of a gun".
And I should probably point out that even the Nazi's opposed this kind of military action:
[q]Goebbels Says:
They intentionally and cynically carry the war to civilian areas, turn them into a battlegrounds, and force women, the aged and children to live and fight like soldiers.[/q]
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
The UN allowed the jewish people to establish a state in the British Mandate of Palestine (which at the time included Jordan).
At the same time the independent state of Palestine was supposed to be declared. That state would have included today's Jordan. IIRC, the territority of the mandate would have been split ca 80/20. That's 20% for the Israelis, it might have been less even.
That's, of course, saying that the UN had the right to suddenly carve up the Middle East and give a chunk of it to the Hebrews. And if you haven't noticed, 20% is quite a sizeable chunk. You may argue that the Arabs still had 80%, but before the mandate, it was 100% Arab. Now the people who live on that 20% are being told to get up and leave to make room for Holocaust survivors. The Holocaust was Germany's fault, so give them Germany! Or someone else that was to blame. Nope. Let's move all the little Arabs out, cuz they won't be able to figure out they're getting screwed over.
-
I didn't want to post a new thread, but here is a choice picture, taken at Abu Ghraib. Man, that guard/soldier has some balls, I'll give him that.This is real, in case you're wondering....
(http://www.counterpunch.com/abughraib.jpg)
:lol: :lol:
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
The UN allowed the jewish people to establish a state in the British Mandate of Palestine (which at the time included Jordan).
At the same time the independent state of Palestine was supposed to be declared. That state would have included today's Jordan. IIRC, the territority of the mandate would have been split ca 80/20. That's 20% for the Israelis, it might have been less even.
Wrong, the UN didnt allow the Israelis to establish a state, in fact jewish terrorists assassinated the UN man in charge of settling the dispute because he insisted on the arabs being allowed to keep land they legally owned, which would have meant the jewish would have been a minority in their own state. Israel declared independance by itself, and had no backing from the UN. Go learn some facts.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
However, the arab goverments believing that sharing is for wimps declare war on newly formed Israel. They also promise the 'Palestinians' (which didn't even exist as a people at that time, at least not as we know them now) that they will have everything.
It wasnt sharing, it was taking. Sharing implies the israelis were offering something in return for the land they wanted, they werent. As for the palestinians not existing as a people, of course they ****ing did you twat, the place has been called palestine since roman times, it was ISRAELIS who did not exist back then as they do now. Anyways Ben Gurion puts it better than I could:
"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country... Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs... We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them?... There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault?... They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country... Why should they accept that ?"
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Lots of palestinians lose their home. A percentage of them because they were chased of their land, most because they believed their arab 'brothers' (the same 'brothers' who actually don't give a **** about the palestinians in reality). They begin to whine about 'the right to return'
I think you'll find it was events like Deir Yassin which caused the palestinian exodus as opposed to any empty promises by the other arab states.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
At the same time about an equal number of jews lose their properties and have little choice but to go to Israel. I'm not hearing anyone talk about a right of return or of reimbursement for these people.
Info about the expelling of Jews from Arab lands (http://www.hsje.org/displacement_of_jews_from_arab_c.htm)
It's a long read but do read it.
It wasnt at the same time it was done after, in response to Israels ethnic cleansing. I'm sure they'll grant the right to return after Israel does.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Muslim beliefs are not in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I don't care if the pope and the canterbury guy are deceived (which they are if they say that Allah is the same as the Judeo-Christian God) into thinking that. The best deceptions and lies have to have a certain amount of truth to them in order to be believable.
It just saddens me to see how widespread the lies are accepted. :(
You could try to refute the lies in a convincing manner, so far you've only reinforced the fact that they are the same god.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Concerning Israel/Palestine, if you want to pick and choose the bits of history to back up your arguments, then I'm not going to waste any more time with you on this matter. At least walls don't pretend to listen.
What bits of history are we missing? How the arabs and jews have been fighting over it for centurys? How the nasty arabs persecuted the jews and scattered them to the four corners of the earth? We both know the only reason for justifing Israels existence is biblical, and if you dont believe whats written in there is true then Israel becomes a nasty little nation of land thieves with a nazi like superiority complex.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Wrong, the UN didnt allow the Israelis to establish a state, in fact jewish terrorists assassinated the UN man in charge of settling the dispute because he insisted on the arabs being allowed to keep land they legally owned, which would have meant the jewish would have been a minority in their own state. Israel declared independance by itself, and had no backing from the UN. Go learn some facts.
Um... actually... the creation of Israel WAS backed by the UN.
-
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html
-
Originally posted by Reez
Um... actually... the creation of Israel WAS backed by the UN.
The UN backed the creation of an Israel, not the one we have today.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I just read all the religon-related replies at the top of this page... very, very sad to read. Many of you look at the Pope as the head of Christianity - he's not. He's the head of the Catholics. Mainstream Christianity realizes that their head is Jesus.
When he comes down from heaven and tells me I'm wrong I'll believe you. Till then I have to put up with the words of people who spend their whole lives studying the bible.
In addition to the pope I mentioned the Archbishiop of Canterbury. I didn't pick his name out of a hat you know. Between him and the pope that's protestants and cathalics covered. Basically almost all the christians in the world.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Muslim beliefs are not in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I don't care if the pope and the canterbury guy are deceived (which they are if they say that Allah is the same as the Judeo-Christian God) into thinking that. The best deceptions and lies have to have a certain amount of truth to them in order to be believable.
You're the only christian I've ever met who seems to believe it.
It saddens me that you can't see past your close-mindedness and see that you do worship the same god in different ways. I've given you several examples but you persist in this belief. Not really much I can do about it then.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Many of you look at the Pope as the head of Christianity - he's not. He's the head of the Catholics. Mainstream Christianity realizes that their head is Jesus.
Catholics ARE the mainstream (with ca. a billion followers it's the single biggest denomination, dwarfing all the others) :p
-
Originally posted by Gank
The UN backed the creation of an Israel, not the one we have today.
And that's because the Arabs declared war, a war they were confident to win.
They lost.
-
he's not the head of the Catholics. He REPRESENTS the head of the Catholics. from what i understand. Very different.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
When he comes down from heaven and tells me I'm wrong I'll believe you. Till then I have to put up with the words of people who spend their whole lives studying the bible.
In addition to the pope I mentioned the Archbishiop of Canterbury. I didn't pick his name out of a hat you know. Between him and the pope that's protestants and cathalics covered. Basically almost all the christians in the world.
Then let me inform you of a little info that is apparently what would be considered "inside" information - using the Christian lingo here, born-again, Bible believing Christians do not hold any man as their representative, head, leader, etc. There's people that garner tons of respect, yeah, but a Pope-like figure? Nope.
Originally posted by karajorma
You're the only christian I've ever met who seems to believe it.
My father was speaking at a church in the US a few years back, and asked for a show of hands from the crowd. He asked how many people had read their whole Bible, from Genesis to Revelation - not a hundred times, not ten times - once.
Maybe 20% raised their hands.
That's an indication of the.... how shall I put it? The devotion of the professing Christians today in the western world. 20%.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
And that's because the Arabs declared war, a war they were confident to win.
They lost.
I'll quote Ben Gurion again
"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country... Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs... We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them?... There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault?... They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country... Why should they accept that ?"
-
So what's your point, Gank? The Arabs don't want peace?
I say that's crap. After almost 60 years of fighting, I'd say a lot of people will give peace a chance. People get tired of seeing their family and friends die, y'know?
-
Originally posted by Corsair
So what's your point, Gank? The Arabs don't want peace?
I say that's crap. After almost 60 years of fighting, I'd say a lot of people will give peace a chance. People get tired of seeing their family and friends die, y'know?
Wrong
-
it depends who you talk to. It is in the best interests of certain people that the war continues, but after this long, it is almost assured that "the people" want peace. Living in a ghetto for 60 years tends to change one's stance on the situation.
-
Originally posted by Gank
"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country... Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs... We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them?... There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault?... They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country... Why should they accept that ?"
This is of course, an Israeli saying this, not an Arab. This is what an Israeli would do in the same situation, as it is being said by an Israeli. An Arab's opinion would most likely be very different. If you're going to look for sources on Arab opinions, the worst thing you could probably do is ask an Israeli what it is.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Wrong
And you're going to back that statement up how?
-
reez: but its totally true. A child could see that
-
Originally posted by Corsair
And you're going to back that statement up how?
I dont need to back it up dildo, you're saying thats what I meant, I'm saying its not.
Originally posted by Reez
This is of course, an Israeli saying this, not an Arab. This is what an Israeli would do in the same situation, as it is being said by an Israeli. An Arab's opinion would most likely be very different. If you're going to look for sources on Arab opinions, the worst thing you could probably do is ask an Israeli what it is.
It matters more that it was an israeli saying it and this one in particular.
-
Originally posted by Gank
I dont need to back it up dildo, you're saying thats what I meant, I'm saying its not.
Gank, chill. I didn't understand you then.
Rictor: I disagree. Eventually, reason will break out. People will realize that they will NEVER get back to the way things were pre-1948. I'd say that right now, people will settle for 1967. Even that's going to change as the situation goes on. People have an innate need for comfort, and if the fighting impedes the path to comfort more than it facilitates it, then the fighting will eventually cease.
-
I agree. No way is Israel going to go back to pre 1948, and thats notreasonable to expect. But I think it is reasonable to expect some admission of crimes, the whole truth and reconciliation thing. Now, pre 1967 IS reasonable and should be the goal. However, you're right, even thats going to diminish, which is a damn shame.
-
Reason wont break out corsair, because on the palestinian side you will always have people who will remember exactly how Israel came into existance, and on the Israeli side you will always have people who think the palestinians are still living on land that god has given to them. You will always have people who want to fight, no matter what the odds or inconvenience.
-
People aren't going to want to fight for their whole lives, and leave the violence to their children and their children's children. Parents want BETTER lives for their kids, not the same ****. People WILL want peace in the end. Even the radicals.
-
well, not the radicals. But normal people, yes. The problem is, normal people are not in charge. Put Johhny Citizen in charge of Israel, and watch the peace roll in. Anyone with a shred of sense can see that Sharon is not intersted in peace. Now, before someone brings up the other side, Palestinian militants, I really don't know about them. They're not in a position of power, it could very well be that they're not intersted in peace either. But until someone proves otherwise, I will continue to believe that if Israel offered up pre 1967 borders in exchange for peace and a seperate Palestinian state, the Palestinians would accept.
-
:nod:
If there's peace, that's good enough for me. I know a lot of people over there on both sides and believe me, I pray for them.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
People WILL want peace in the end. Even the radicals.
What a naive way of looking at things. Do you honestly believe that at some point all the extremists on both sides are going to put down their weapons and run around holding each others hands? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Gank
What a naive way of looking at things. Do you honestly believe that at some point all the extremists on both sides are going to put down their weapons and run around holding each others hands? :rolleyes:
:yes:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
reez: but its totally true. A child could see that
I was talking about average joe. Or average ali bin yabbah, whatever the circumstances. Obviously, the people in charge are not gonna care, cuz they don't face any threat. They want the land back, and they'll send people for them to fight to the death for it. But normal ali bin yabbah, just wants his shack, his 4 wives, and his 18 children, and he's happy.
Surprising how that works. I wouldn't want 4 wives. One woman yelling at you "YOU DON'T TREAT ME GOOD ENOUGH" is more than my fill, thanks.
-
Originally posted by Gank
What a naive way of looking at things. Do you honestly believe that at some point all the extremists on both sides are going to put down their weapons and run around holding each others hands? :rolleyes:
I don't mean all. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. But hey, here in the U.S. we have crazies too. You'll always have a few oddballs with guns.
And they don't have to go around holding hands. They don't have to be friends, just respect each other a little.
-
Oh, and I just heard that the IDF has pulled out of Rafah.
-
That was a week ago man :D:D
But they made sure to point out that it was not due to international pressure, they were just regrouping and were planning to go back in in full force.
I guess their manliness is of greater concern than the safety of thousands of innocent.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
That was a week ago man :D:D
But they made sure to point out that it was not due to international pressure, they were just regrouping and were planning to go back in in full force.
I guess their manliness is of greater concern than the safety of thousands of innocent.
You're right. We should release Hussein and never set foot in the middle east again. Would that make everyone happy?
With appropriate respects, you do an awful lot of bellyaching but never offer any solutions. real or insane.
I don't care if your idea is logical, practical, realistic or not. What's the solution according to you?
-
Ideas for what? Israel/Palestine or for Iraq?
The former is what I think you were reffering to, so here it is:
-Palestinians HAVE TO, have to have to get their own nation.
-Israel withdraws to pre-1967 borders, fully. No settlers. Regardless of who started it, invading and occupying foreign soil is a no-no.
-The apartheid wall is demolished, at Israel's expense. They built it, they should tear it down.
-the Palestinians recognize that Israel wants to be an ethnically pure nation, despite the disturbing historical allusions.
-Jerusalem becomes the joint capital, with East Jerusalem belonging to the Palestinians and West Jerusalmen belonging to the Israelis.
-Israel pays a reasonable, though hefty sum of money as reparations for 40 years of occupation. This, along with international aid, goes to rebuild the Palestinian infrastructure and get the economy running again. Reasonable yearly payments continue for a certain amount of time into the future.
-For a set period of time, maybe 6 months, all travel between the two nations is forbidden, unless you are required to work there, in which case you are issued a special permit. Several checkpoints are set up, and both sides are free to inspect incoming travelers for security purposes. However, there should be enough checkpoints to prevent unreasonalbe delays. Any attacks within the period of time will NOT be avenged.
-after this time, to preserve the vaunted racial (or religious) purity, Palestinians will not be allowed to settle in Israeli territory, though they will be allowed to visit at will. and vice versa.
-a certain amount of Palestinians will be allowed to return to Israel, though not enough to outnumber the Jews. Maybe 200-500 thousand. Given that Israel has a population of around 3 million, this shouldn't be more than 10 percent of the population. As Israel's own population grows, the number of Palestinians allowed to settle will increase.
-following the 6 month "cooldown period" any offensive actions taken by one side against the other (bombings, raids etc) will carry with them a significant fine. These fines will be strictly enforced.Though I doubt suicide bombing would continue, and obviously IDF raids and assasinations would not.
-an admission by the Israeli government and IDF of crimes commited in the occupied territories during the occupation and also an admission of crimes regarding the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. What most people want is just to hear the guilty party finally admit it. In exchange for this, the Palestinians take on the admission of guilt for crimes perpetrated by suicide bombers.
____________
thats about it. realistic? probably not. just? yup.
-
Since when did justice have anything to do with anything? ;)
And Rictor: That's the nice thing about walls. They go up, they can come down just as easily. If not more easily. It really shouldn't bug people so much.
Did I mention that in most places it's just a fence, not a wall?
-
you could blow the wall up with cheap explosives. Alot cheaper than using manpower. Shrapnel would be difficult problem though.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Ideas for what? Israel/Palestine or for Iraq?.
Okay, at last I get your position with total clarity.
Nice ideas. What's in it for Israel?
And you better be open-minded about that. I work with a man who served in the Israeli army who would have some very choice words about your extremely biased position.
But seriously, what does Israel get out of this?
-
Peace?
-
Originally posted by Gank
I'll quote Ben Gurion again
quote all you want, personally I think you hate the people of israel.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
quote all you want, personally I think you hate the people of israel.
And that's the defense Israelis use whenever they're caught out. It's absolute nonsense almost every time of course.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
And that's the defense Israelis use whenever they're caught out. It's absolute nonsense almost every time of course.
It's not always nonsense. Just half the time.
-
It's been rubbish every time I've seen it on HLP.
-
And HLP is representative of the entire world?
-
I saw dildoes in this here thread somewhere... that's representative enough.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
And HLP is representative of the entire world?
Nope. Just a sign that maybe people should stop saying it on HLP.
-
ionia: why is it a bias? as in all things, this depends on where the two sides are. this is the middle ground. an unjust bias in favour of palestinians would include giving them all of Israel back, kicking out the Israelis, and letting them exact whatever vengance they feel necessary. I accept that Israel exists, and thats not going to go away, despite the shall we say, less that exemplary way in which the nation was created. and besides, did you ever consider that maybe you Israeli friend is biased, seeing as he, you know, lives there.
so, whats in it for Israel? well, and end to suicide bombings for one. The people get to feel safe, for the first time in decades. and for another thing, they stop being viewed as the number 1 threat to world peace.
the reason there is not more in it for them is because they already have it pretty good as it stands. if the US wasn't backing them, they would have it a hell of a lot worse, and would therefore stand to gain much more. but really, why does there have to be anything in it for them? is it wrong to call on an oppressor to stop oppressing, without giving them some sort of concilation prize in return? all this does is use the same standard for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestinians don't get any sort of special benefits that the Israelis don't. they each get sovereignty, and all that that entails.
-
Funny thing, these forums do present some interesting opportunities. We've got people from all kinds of countries with many different perspectives debating these issues. Gives a much more broad picture, you know?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
And that's the defense Israelis use whenever they're caught out. It's absolute nonsense almost every time of course.
and that's the defense of those who do hate the country.
-
Ivan,
Israel != Jews != Zionism
I can be opposed to Zionism, and be opposed to the policies of the nation of Israel, but have nothing at all against Jews. I am a Jew.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Ivan,
Israel != Jews != Zionism
I can be opposed to Zionism, and be opposed to the policies of the nation of Israel, but have nothing at all against Jews. I am a Jew.
I'm not denying that.
I'm just saying that the quote I took is something which is used by many who are utterly upposed to Israel and/or jews in particular to hide their ulterior motives.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
quote all you want, personally I think you hate the people of israel.
Anti-semite now am I? Israels last line of defense, when you cant defend your position, call them Nazis. Absolutely ****ing pathetic
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Okay, at last I get your position with total clarity.
Nice ideas. What's in it for Israel?
And you better be open-minded about that. I work with a man who served in the Israeli army who would have some very choice words about your extremely biased position.
But seriously, what does Israel get out of this?
What - and this is an honest, open question - does Israel get out of the present situation, beyond perpetual guerilla warfare?
-
An excuse to keep expanding.
Btw I believe I know the fairest way to sort it out, anyone who was born or who's parents were born in the region gets to stay, anyone else get thrown onto a plane or boat.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
What - and this is an honest, open question - does Israel get out of the present situation, beyond perpetual guerilla warfare?
A door that remains open, and some measure of dignity.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
What - and this is an honest, open question - does Israel get out of the present situation, beyond perpetual guerilla warfare?
The chance to fill the West Bank with their own settlers and then claim the land as their own.
The chance to surpress their next door neighbour, keep them weak and ensure that it always has a government of their choosing.
-
You know, their weak and oppressed neighbors could try a brilliant concept like, ya know, 'no more bombings'.
-
Yep. I agree wholehartedly. The palestinians would get further following the example of Ghandi than with the sucide bombing route.
Notice I never said that the palestinian side weren't every bit as stupid and pig-headed as the Israeli side.
Personally I think that when they almost had the peace agreement which fell apart over ownership of Temple Mount the US should have just threatened to drop a fuel-air bomb on the place if they couldn't learn to play nice.
-
LOL I agree with you there Kara.
I think it's got to the 'grudge' stage to be honest, it's no longer about 'this' or 'that', it's about 'us' and 'them'. It's a lot lot harder to stop that kind of hatred, because you have 2 'countries' that have never known anything else other hatred and mistrust for each other.
-
Yeah but you can point at Northern Ireland as an example and show that they can (mostly) stop kicking the **** out of each other and try to act like actual human beings.
-
Agreed and totally agreed.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Personally I think that when they almost had the peace agreement which fell apart over ownership of Temple Mount the US should have just threatened to drop a fuel-air bomb on the place if they couldn't learn to play nice.
Damn man, even the yanks arent stupid enough to do something like that. You know how many times Israeli settlers have attacked the Al-aqsa mosque and tried to blow it up to make way for their new temple? If the US did it for them we'd be looking at ww3 before the pieces hit the ground.
Originally posted by karajorma
Yeah but you can point at Northern Ireland as an example and show that they can (mostly) stop kicking the **** out of each other and try to act like actual human beings.
Except it took 400 years after the plantations to get to this point, and still the leading political party on one side wont sit down and talk to the other.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
LOL I agree with you there Kara.
I think it's got to the 'grudge' stage to be honest, it's no longer about 'this' or 'that', it's about 'us' and 'them'. It's a lot lot harder to stop that kind of hatred, because you have 2 'countries' that have never known anything else other hatred and mistrust for each other.
Flipside's got it.
I think we have a winner... :D
-
Originally posted by Gank
Damn man, even the yanks arent stupid enough to do something like that. You know how many times Israeli settlers have attacked the Al-aqsa mosque and tried to blow it up to make way for their new temple? If the US did it for them we'd be looking at ww3 before the pieces hit the ground.
All they'd have had to do is successfully bluff both sides into thinking they'd do it. :)
Besides if the yanks said they'd blow up anything the Jews built there too it would have prevented the problem. If both sides are going to act like children maybe someone should start treating them like children.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Anti-semite now am I? Israels last line of defense, when you cant defend your position, call them Nazis.
maybe when you start accepting historical reality instead of laying all the blame with 1 party.
The UN favoured the creation of Israel
Arabs opposed it and tried to destroy it from day 1
Israel won and took warspoils (as they were entitled to)
Hadn't there been an attack there wouldn't be a problem now.
There have always been jews in the region
The name Palestine was coined after the Romans forced many jews to leave (before that the province was called Judea)
The Ottomans encouraged jews to come and live in Palestine.
And a significant part of the land of what would ahve been the 1948 Israeli state was fairly bought from the people who already lived there.
When jews were engaging in terrorism other jews quickly put an end to it. The other party encourages it.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
A door that remains open, and some measure of dignity.
er...what the hell does that mean, exactly?
I think the Un should take over - turn the most disputed territories into neutral, UN controlled 'free' cities, force the Arab nations bordering Israel to offer concrete and binding non-agression treaties (with sever repercussions if they break them - including terrorist attacks), and in exachange Israel hands back buffer territory.
Insofar as I know, the like sof the Gaza strip are basically buffer zones against attack... I don't think there's any economic value for the most part. It's obvious that force will not solve this problem, and it's also obvious that this situation is having a destabilising effect on a large part of the world. If neither side (Palestine or the Israelis) are able to find a compromise and solution, then maybe one should be forced upon them. i.e. if they can;t be equally happy, then they can be equally unhappy.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
maybe when you start accepting historical reality instead of laying all the blame with 1 party.
Maybe you should learn some historical reality first before telling other people to accept it.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
The UN favoured the creation of Israel
So what. The UN was one year old at the time and the arabs had no say in what was done. The only reason the UN favoured it was because of the holocaust, and what they did favour wasnt enough for the Zionists.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Arabs opposed it and tried to destroy it from day 1
Of course they did, read Ben Gurions quote, we stole their land
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Israel won and took warspoils (as they were entitled to)
No they're not entitled to, this is called ethnic cleansing and its unacceptable in the civilised world. Are you going to try and argue that it is?
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Hadn't there been an attack there wouldn't be a problem now.
If Israel hadnt declared itself an independant state there wouldnt have been an attack, can play the blame game as long as yopu want, it only goes back as far as the time european jews started eimmigrating to the area
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
There have always been jews in the region
Yes, a minority. Something like 30,000 to 750,000 arabs at the turn of the century.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
The name Palestine was coined after the Romans forced many jews to leave (before that the province was called Judea)
No it wasnt, Judea is a small part of palestine and not even fully in Israel now as sandwich has already pointed out. And some proof that the Romans forced the jews out, anything I've read on the matter says Judaism spread with the roman empire rather than away from it.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
The Ottomans encouraged jews to come and live in Palestine.
No the didnt, mass jewish immigration didnt start till the turn of the century and didnt really take off until after the British signed the Balfour declaration and then captured Palestine from the Ottoman Empire.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
And a significant part of the land of what would ahve been the 1948 Israeli state was fairly bought from the people who already lived there.
7% Thats not significent.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
When jews were engaging in terrorism other jews quickly put an end to it. The other party encourages it.
No they didnt, they absorbed the terrorist groups into the IDF. They later issued medals to commemerate their deeds. Begin, Shamir and Sharon are all former terrorists. How can you say they dont like terrorists, when at least 3 of their elected leaders have been one?
-
As much as I'de like to see the situation be resolved, I have to disagree with those supporting the notion of the UN putting its foot down.
Neither side has asked for the UN to intervene directly (though Arafat has called on the world to do something blabla). There is such a thing as sovereignty. This is between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Political and economic pressure is acceptable, but sending in the troops and claiming the place as a UN protectorate is not.
Permanent peace won't come until a change of mentality occurs, on both sides. You can forcefully keep them apart, but not forever.
Aide from that, there are still two problems. First, the UN would never do something like that. Such an actions would be dead before it was even introduced, via our friends the US and their veto power. Secondly, the UN has a history of utter incompetenance. They are, in short, incapable.
________
ionia: door open to what exactly?