Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yippee. Lucky Israel...
Where did you answer it? You are the one spoutism idealism. An idealism that has never worked under any circumstances in any way, shape or form.
Tell me, what do you think the palestinian responsibility is in this mess?
Quite a bit. But they have significantly less power to change than the Israelis do. Also its unclear what the "Palestinian" involves when looking at Palestinian responsibility. Is it the people? I'd say not much responsibility. Hamas? A lot of responsibility. The government? What government?
You can criticise, but expect criticism of your critiques. After all, this is a messageboard..
Actually, the pals get defended plenty. Last time I looked the best part of 30+ arab and non-arab countries in the region are defending them (via the UN) all the time. Who defends Israel?
No, I said I support it existing, I'm not concerned about it. It will continue to exist.
And I was talking about HR violations that Israel has committed. Why must I couch that in terms of sympathy for them?
And what example was given in this thread of something that Palestinians have done that I should criticise them for? I should just bring it up just to make you happy?
What decision?
Thats not what idealism means. And, by the way, thats a point that applies to everyone on this board. Few here are actually involved in the issues they discuss.
They don't have meaningful policy because they have no real leaders and are fractured and disjointed. I've said what they do is fucked up. If thats not a critism, I'm not quite sure what is.
No, I don't have answers to the Israel/Palestine crisis. I don't know enough about the history to propose a solution. I do, however, know that what Israel did to Lebanon was brutal and unwarranted.
Sorry, next time I'll attack everyone who was defending Palestinians committing HR violations. Oh, wait, nobody does. As I've already pointed out discussions concerning their responsibility tend to be short because nobody gives them a pass. Israel on the other hand has tons of defenders who want to justify invading other countries and such.
Well first off its harder to criticize them since they have no government. When you do criticize them, who exactly are you criticizing? Its unclear, and quite complicated. Hamas does terrible things. Fatah does terrible things. The Palestinians have a failure of a state.
Besides that I've said various negative things about the Palestinians in this thread. You asked me what I thought about Palestinian responsibility, and I responded. What, did you miss that as well?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/04/mil-070427-voa03.htm
Again, just because Mugabe is still the leader there doesn't mean its law breaking is going unpunished and unenforced. Unlike when the US/EU breaks laws, its much easier for them to get away with NO punishment.
Considering I am the only one in my school with my first name, which I've posted here before, yes they can find me.
Originally posted by Larkinn
No, I said I support it existing, I'm not concerned about it. It will continue to exist.
Actually, the Pals do have a govt. It is not that complicated. They are split into two different camps - Fatah and Hamas. There might be other smaller groups, but that is the same in any country. Nothing complicated about it at all.
As for missing your criticisms, well with so many words and posts having a crack at Israel, is it any surprise a minute critique of the Pals was missed. In saying that, your jab at them seemed almost blase...
Not if people like Shogie have their way. It will be nothing more than another Arab country.
Because it should be apparent by now that there is a huge contingent of middle eastern nations and their supporters who use these purported human rights violations as a means of delegitimizing Israel and to garner support for terrorists who only want to shove Israel into the sea.
Is Israel sometimes overbearing in dealing with that? Absolutely. But they don't TARGET civilians. It's enemies do.
So, yes, in any analysis of whether or not Israel is being heavyhanded, I expect WHAT they are responding to ... to be part of the assessment.
You seem to have this attitude that you can only discuss Israel's transgressions. They do not occur in a vacuum.
Decisions as to whether Israel has committed violations of human rights without the slightest idea of what they've done.
By excusing the pals, Israel is placed at a disadvantage, de-legitimized (which is the intent of the constant barrage of anti-Israel propaganda) and endangered.
Well, fair enough...but given that I have a horse in this race, which I freely acknowledge, I do see it as affecting me.
And when we're dealing with issues that I consider life and death, then yes, I consider it cavalier to talk about how many hezbollah psychos Israel should have let free to avoid killing 1,000 civilians
who were used by the terrorists as a shield intentionally FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of having people like you talk about how Israel wasn't "proportionate".
So why punish Israel for being attacked by loonies who exist because they're fucked up and responding to those loonies?
And I'd disagree.... and luckily, you're not the final word.
Actually, the Pals do have a govt. It is not that complicated. They are split into two different camps - Fatah and Hamas. There might be other smaller groups, but that is the same in any country. Nothing complicated about it at all.
As for missing your criticisms, well with so many words and posts having a crack at Israel, is it any surprise a minute critique of the Pals was missed. In saying that, your jab at them seemed almost blase...
And my point is that the international laws have had NO effect on Mugabe personally. In fact, he just finished constructing a HUGE palace outside of Harare.
Fair enough re the name..didn't know that...what is your first name...
Shogun is an idiot, and if you equate my views with his, you are as well.
LMAO...purported human rights violations? Yes you are sooo fair minded you are. No country is forced to make HR violations. The int'l community has set up a system of countermeasures to allow countries to break int'l norms if they need too. Israel often goes far past its needs. And yes people use it against Israel when they break int'l law. I don't feel sorry for them one whit.
Thats the only int'l law out there? Don't target civilians? Gee, I wasn't aware of that.
And yes its enemies do target civilians. Although even that is somewhat debatable.
Of course it is. And I've specifically criticised Israel for ONE thing here and ONE thing only, the invasion of Lebanon. I've specifically stated what they responded too.
I never claimed they did, and I discussed what precipitated the invasion into Lebanon.
Bullshit. Did or did they not invade Lebanon killing 1,000 civilians because a handful of their soldiers were killed by a terrorist group in Lebanon?
Excusing the pals? Are you insane? How many times do I need to tell you I hold them responsible for you to get it? Shall I post it again in purple, will you get it that time?
THE PALESTINIANS ARE RESPONSIBLE, IN PART, FOR THE MESS AND FOR ANY VIOLENCE COMMITTED BY THEM.
Do you get it now? You think I am biased because you don't see the criticisms of the pals. Its inconsequential to you. But criticize Israel and suddenly a shitstorm erupts.
Which is why you come off as a screaming banshee whenever this topic is discussed. Some of the shit you've accused me of in this thread is fucking ridiculous.
Yes and those who care about the 1,000 civilians consider it cavalier for you to dismiss their deaths as collateral damage. Recognize your own bias, and for fucks sake, don't accuse other of bias because they don't share your extreme one-sided views.
Lets assume (incorrectly) for a second that ALL civilian deaths were because Hezbollah hid behind them. Other than the deaths there were:
Part of the country rendered unusable because of cluster bombs.
one MILLION IDP's.
Hunks of the country turned to rubble.
Because, as I've pointed out before, if an Asian guy punches you in the face you don't go with an AK-47 and shoot up Chinatown.
Tell me this. Where do you draw the line? Can Israel nuke Iran to protect itself? How about just flatten Tehran? If someone lobs a missile at Israel, can it kill 5,000 civilians? 10,000? 100,000?
Not if people like Shogie have their way. It will be nothing more than another Arab country.
Because it should be apparent by now that there is a huge contingent of middle eastern nations and their supporters who use these purported human rights violations as a means of delegitimizing Israel and to garner support for terrorists who only want to shove Israel into the sea. Is Israel sometimes overbearing in dealing with that? Absolutely. But they don't TARGET civilians. It's enemies do. So, yes, in any analysis of whether or not Israel is being heavyhanded, I expect WHAT they are responding to ... to be part of the assessment.
You seem to have this attitude that you can only discuss Israel's transgressions. They do not occur in a vacuum.
Decisions as to whether Israel has committed violations of human rights without the slightest idea of what they've done. By excusing the pals, Israel is placed at a disadvantage, de-legitimized (which is the intent of the constant barrage of anti-Israel propaganda) and endangered.
Well, fair enough...but given that I have a horse in this race, which I freely acknowledge, I do see it as affecting me. And when we're dealing with issues that I consider life and death, then yes, I consider it cavalier to talk about how many hezbollah psychos Israel should have let free to avoid killing 1,000 civilians who were used by the terrorists as a shield intentionally FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of having people like you talk about how Israel wasn't "proportionate".
So why punish Israel for being attacked by loonies who exist because they're fucked up and responding to those loonies?
And I'd disagree.... and luckily, you're not the final word.
If I were equating them, I'd have said "you and Shogun". Did I say that? I think I give you too much credit for having an intellect. For someone smart, you're not that smart.
Yes, sweetheart, purported. I have enough life experience to know that Amnesty International is not unbiased in its assessments on this issue. I no longer put faith in their conclusions. I know you're young, but you really need to look behind the rhetoric for the truth.
If you think that its debatable then you aren't half as smart as you think you are and I don't care how many top schools you got into because it would mean you don't have the brains you were born with. Lobbing missiles into northern Israel at the civilian population by terrorists in lebanon have no target BUT civilians. The same goes for kadushas sent over from the Gaza or the sweethearts and bastions of international good will who blow themselves up in markets, on buses and near babies and school children.
Right. And I think your objections are baseless and long ago gave as an example what I thought would happen if a terrorist organization took over Canada's southern border. You of course said you don't agree, but frankly, I find your opinion lacks credibility on this issue.
And I think it's fair that when missiles are being sent into your country from another country and that country's legitimate government is incapable of doing anything about it, that it's fair to go in and disentrench them.
And if that terrorist organization is a bunch of cowards and hides behind the civilian population so it can get people like you to say "bad Israel" then they've accomplshed their goals.
Because, get this... if terrorists don't care if they die for their cause, they sure don't care if the civilian population they're hiding behind dies.
No kiddle, it's because there were lots more missiles where they came from and they were raining down on Israeli CIVILIANS.
The only eruption is from you. I've been having a fairly mellow discussion. You might want to work on the name-calling and hysteria though. You really need to get over the offense you take when people have the temerity to disagree with your highness.
Sweetie, you're the one calling me names and cursing me and you have the nerve to say *I* sound like a screaming banshee on this topic. Go back and look at the way you've talked to me and the way shogie has talked to me and all of his rants and ravings....
I figure I'm a model of control compared to both of you.
One-sided? Not really.
But on the issue of Lebanon, I think the press was BS on the subject. And you can talk about the 1,000 til your face turns blue.
I think Israel had every right to take out those missiles.... same as I think the US would have done in similar circumstances.
You can say you disagree. And I understand that you do, but all the repetition in the world won't make me change my mind.
Right....
No, but that's not a very good analogy to the entire Hezbollah firing missiles in to Israel, is it? No. Of course not. In fact, it's fairly disingenuous.
Try again. You're the one who's supposedly good with logic problems and syllogisms. Well, so am I and that one doesn't hold up.
Again, a false argument. Tell me, how much damage and death do Israel have to take before you think it should be allowed to respond?
Originally posted by Larkinn
One person hurt, and any amount of damage. But, as I've said, a proportional response. Actually even if nobody is hurt and no damage and they are just firing in missiles.
Who said I never "realized" that every country does what they want anyway?
It is more than obvious it is a dog eat dog world.
However, might does not always make right. There exists precise differences in scale or scope in each and every case the interested amateur observes concerning global issues.
The best I can hope for personally is to read serious research into the issue while applying the same moral standards to all sides, regardless of their accompanying media reputation.
Otherwise, I am contributing to the same hypocrisy I lament others for.
And remember, no one berates you individually, Swampfox. I'm quite sure the criticism is meant for our leaders and representatives. Much like everyone else in the world, they only do whats in their best interest - even back home among their very own constituents.
Elliott Spitzer is just one but a great example of how hyopcrisy manifests itself domestically. Spitzer builds a political career by tossing people in cages for ten, 20 years for the very same crime he's been hiding from the public.
So it's no surprise our leaders (and vice versa) are criticized by others in the community for heavy-handedness, torture, aggressive war and allying with violent dictators.
My question to our leaders goes like this...why not try and take some personal responsibility rather than hiding behind "everyone does it" rationalizations?
José;671855 said:So you think a given ethnic group has the right to keep the natives of the land herded into enclaves like Gaza, Larkin, denying their right to live in their homeland?
This is the fundamental reason behind the palestinian armed struggle.
Would you accept a similar situation in America, let's say, whites preventing native americans from leaving their reservations?
Originally posted by Larkinn
Would you accept Native Americans sending suicide bombers into American cafes to kill American civilians?
Originally posted by Larkinn
Which doesn't justify killing civilians.
Originally posted by Larkinn
Who are the natives of the land exactly? Given that tangled mess is so unclear I'd just as soon say forget the past and try and create a workable solution that BOTH sides can live with nowadays.
Originally posted by Larkinn
Who are the natives of the land exactly? Given that tangled mess is so unclear I'd just as soon say forget the past and try and create a workable solution that BOTH sides can live with nowadays.
José;671887 said:Are native Americans confined to reservations?
Are they treated as foreigners in their own homeland and shot dead everytime they try to leave them?
Or do they enjoy equal rights as american citizens?
The targetting of civilians is always wrong
but this doesnt change the fact that the native american, south african and palestinian armed struggles were/is a reaction to the supremacist policies perpetrated by the racist dictatorships that existed in the US and South Africa and continues to exist in Palestine.
Remove the cause: jewish ethnic supremacism in Palestine, and its effect, the palestinian armed struggle, will lose its meaning completely.
Six decades of conflict, hundreds of thousands of jews, arabs and americans dead, two american skyscrappers knocked down and a deep international crisis clearly show that allowing the jewish racial dictatorship to keep the palestinian people confined into ethnic enclaves is anything but a workable solution that BOTH sides can live with nowadays.
In reality, this is the recipe for another 60 years of conflict that will not spare the West.
And you are presenting a false dichotomy.
The security of the jewish population of Palestine does not need to be built upon the subjugation of the palestinian people as the south african (and american) case clearly shows.
All you need is legal mechanisms to limit majority rule in a unitary state under the supervision of the international community.
José;671888 said:So the answer is yes.
According to you, a given ethnic group who immigrated to Palestine over the last 80 years or so can deny the native people of Palestine their right to live in their homeland keeping them confined in ethnic enclaves.
You rationalize a situation of jewish supremacism against the palestinian people you would never accept in America if it were enforced against american jews.
You support democracy in America and South Africa and jewish racism in Palestine.
This is an ideological mess, Larkinn.
I strongly urge you to rethink your political ideas and bring some order to them, son.
Who are the natives of the land exactly? Given that tangled mess is so unclear I'd just as soon say forget the past and try and create a workable solution that BOTH sides can live with nowadays.
Which doesn't justify killing civilians.
Would you accept Native Americans sending suicide bombers into American cafes to kill American civilians?
