There they go again.
 

I am not sure what influence the conflict in Iraq/Afgan has had on this, nor the element of renewed efforts by Russia to flex it muscles in the area, combined with the attempts by Iran to dominate the sphere of influence. But I can't help to believe they are all related.

Israel attacks Gaza, more than 155 reported killed

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...opNews&sp=true

By Nidal al-Mughrabi

GAZA (Reuters) - Israeli warplanes and combat helicopters pounded the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip on Saturday, killing at least 155 people in the bloodiest day for Palestinians in more than 20 years of conflict.

Militants in the Gaza Strip responded with rocket salvoes that killed one Israeli man and wounded several others. Both sides said they were prepared to launch wider attacks.

In the last week, over 200 missiles have been launched at southern towns in Israel from the Gaza Strip. Two-thirds of children in the town of Sderot suffer from PTSD. Israel wants to show that their disinterest in invading and occupying Gaza again, does not mean Hamas can do whatever they want.

Gaza is so small and so crowded that it's kinda hard to avoid civilian casualties.

I'm usually one of the first people to roll my eyes at Israel's military strikes, but they warned that this one was coming. Plus Hamas refuses to give up the whole "Israel must die" shtick.

Over 200 Palestinians have been killed this year by mis-targeted missiles, misfires, or "work accidents" where they blow themselves up building the missiles.

I'm sick of this bullshit. I'd like to see someone nuke the whole lot of them. Palestinians and Israelis.

War....blah blah blah

Israel occupies Palestine

Palestine gets mad at occupation and attacks Israel.

Israel also responds with an attack on Palestine, killing innocent civilians.

More Palestinians join radical groups and with that comes an increase of attacks on Israel.

Israel elects neo-conservative government who says they will increase security, which consequently, also takes away everyday Palestinian's rights and sometimes restricts them of their needs.

Palestine responds with electing Hamas, who say they will protect Palestine and destroy Israel.


Ah.....circle of love.

Their hate for each other is what defines them. Take away the hate and there is nothing left. Solve that.

Iran may be able to help you out with that in just a few short years.

Does anyone remember a computer game that was out there a few years ago. There were terrorists walking around. You targeted the terrorists, but there was a time delay. If you hit civilians, other civilians would become angry and become terrorists.

The hate developed from extreme nationalism. Take away Jewish and Islamic nationalism and you have nothing left.

Iran will not bomb Israel. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who really doesn't have any leverage anyways, just says that appease his crazy right-winged voters (sound familiar?) and to sound anti-Western. Iran is striving to have influence over its surrounding region, not suicide.

Iran does support the Israeli opposition movements (or terrorist organizations, take your pick) and is extremely anti-Zionist but to jump to nuclear destruction without any sound proof is just logically unsound.

If you can show proof that Ali Khamenei plans to "wipe Israel off the map", present it. Until then, your baseless accusations hold no ground.


*Note that my argument is strictly about Iran nuking Israel.

Prove he will not. This is not a baseless accusation, it is a possible senerio that has been discussed and detailed by people with much greater credentials than anyone on this forum. The likelyhood that they will have some form of an atomic weapon in a few short years is high. Iran has a long standing tradition of radical moves in the area and those have been ignored by the ruling clerics repeatedly. So the possibility exists that they will unleash holy hell on Israel and there is little out there to prove otherwise. If you think you have it put it out there.

The possibility of course exists and it will be discussed by people on all levels but that is not necessarily a strong argument or mean that it has much certainty of happening. People that specialize in defense need to take all scenarios into account and especially worst case scenarios.

I am aware of radical moves by Iran but I have heard of nothing as extreme as killing off two entire countries (Israel and Iran). You can at least make somewhat of a legitimate and logical argument for taking over the embassy in 1979 but no legitimate or logic argument exists for nuking Israel.

You can't ask me to prove that an event will not happen and I realize that I should have used the word evidence instead of proof in my last post. My arguments for Iran not nuking Israel is that Iran is not suicidal, it will hurt their interests in all sectors, and while being radical they have never done anything that extreme and I feel that is much stronger than anything the other side of the table has brought.


If you want to make the argument that Iran should not have atomic weapons, I will not really disagree with that. If Iran does get nuclear weapons, many things will change and those changes are largely subjective based. I just don't believe Iran nuking Israel is a legitimate argument and I feel that many use this as a cover so they can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons because of other reasons.

If there is any country I would be worried about it is Pakistan anyways.

Their mutual hatred predates nationalism by a few thousand years.

Since when did nationalism suddenly pop up? Jewish and Islamic nationalism dates back to the start of both religions. Zionism and the recent Islamic phase are just extremes of that nationalism. Islam didn't rapidly spread throughout the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa in the 800s for no reason. The Romans didn't destroy the Jewish temple for no reason either. All Abrahamic religions have and have always had a very nationalistic following.

In order for one group to hate another, nationalism needs to be present. Racism against blacks didn't begin until a white identity was established and valued.

Hamas keeps poking Israel, they're gonna get smote. And make no mistake, there's little they can do *but* poke. Israel could wipe Gaza off the map in a week, but they don't.

This is not to say that the Palestinians are getting a fair break...they aren't. But you don't poke the giant next door and expect to get away with it indefinitely.

I'm sure the intent is to foment further unrest and support from the other anti-Israeli nations around them. If the Israelis look like big horrible bullies, more money and resources flow into Gaza. The whole thing is probably the Middle-Eastern equivalent of advertising to increase your business income.

It's the middle-east version of little brother badgering big brother in the back seat, hoping big brother will retaliate and Dad will stop the car.

The crusades weren't about nationalism. And Rome's expansion into the middle east wasn't about hatred any more than Hitler's attempted expansion into Russia.

The hatred between the peoples of the Middle East is ancient and visceral - two words understood by Westerners on a mostly intellectual level. To compare their relationship to racism is almost comical.

Deus vult! Deus vult!

How were the crusades not about nationalism? Actually provide an argument that supports your statement.

The early people of Islam, people who identified being Muslims, believed that their religion was superior to others and should be spread throughout the region. Nationalism is when a group of individuals believes that their ideology or identity is superior to others. How was the Islamic campaign not about nationalism? If they did not believe their religion was superior, why would they violently spread it?

When did I say that Rome's expansion was about hatred?

Rome's expansion was for the same reasons as any other imperialistic power, nationalism and power. You cannot be imperialistic without being nationalistic for the same reasons as stated above. People like Urbane Guerrilla wants to forcefully spread their ideology of capitalism and democracy because they believe it is superior to all other socio-ecomomic setups.

Rome destroyed the Jewish Temple because of the Jewish rebellions. The Jews were rebelling because they would not accept being ruled by any foreign power, which is a form of nationalism.

Yes, and where did this hatred stem from? That type of relationship doesn't just come from nowhere. It had to come from the clashing of two nationalistic and proud identities that has been passed on through the years. In order for that hatred to be passed down, both identities needed to be kept, and the hatred involved kept the nationalism. If you get rid of the nationalism, you will naturally get rid of the hatred as well.

I was not comparing the actual relationship but comparing how hateful relationships begin, which is with an overly proud identity.

In order to hate a group of people you need to have classifications. In the United States, the largest classification is race, then we have religion and so forth. Those classifications are identities.

Some identities do not have any pride to them and are essentially meaningless. I am identified as someone who is raised in Wisconsin, but I do not hold any pride to being from Wisconsin therefore, I can not hold any hard feelings against anyone not from Wisconsin. If someone makes fun of me from being from Wisconsin, I laugh at them for saying something that ridiculous. If I defended myself and my raised state, that would mean I do have pride in my state and have potential nationalism in that area.

To be proud of an identity very easily leads to nationalism. I am a student of the University of Minnesota. When the University of Iowa comes to play football against us, we do not like the Hawkeye fans and verbally attack them at any given chance.

So in this situation we have two identities where the population of each are overly proud of their identity to the point where they think they are superior to the other. There is no real reasoning why I should hate the Iowa fans and they have no real reasoning why they should hate me. But we still do and the only reason that tradition of hatred gets passed down is because of nationialism. If University of Minnesota fans did not think that their school was superior to Iowa, as irrational as that seems, that rivalry would not exist.

Our situation is the same for Jews and Muslims except theirs is on a much more stronger and deeper level. But the fact that both are fueled by nationalism stays the same.

We often see muslims fighting muslims in the middle-east, when nationalism trumps religion. When muslims band together, across national borders, to fight infidels, that is not nationalism.
If you choose to defend Minnesota, it's statism not nationalism.
I think you're definition of nationalism is much too broad to make clear/concise arguments that people will understand.

I use nationalism as an identity that feels superior to other identities. I defined it in my argument because it is not necessary used commonly by that definition. But we do have other examples of broader definitions of nationalist with white nationalists.

I used that term because there is no other word that fits my definition and that is by far the closest.

That is the accepted definition of nationalism within a particular nation, but when you apply it to larger or smaller groups, even with a disclaimer, it's confusing.
Probably because nationalism, unlike many of the other labels that have cropped up in international politics during the last 20 years, goes way back, with most people understanding what it is.
Or perhaps I'm an old fogey. ;)

...or both.

This just in...
McKinney relief boat hit by Israeli ship

*underline mine* lol - She doesn't even care what Bush, the sitting president, has to say. She wants Obama to say something. What's he gonna say? "I'll look into it in 3 weeks"

Nothing new for Israel. :mad:

A better headline could have been: "McKinney lost at sea." :lol2:

Shhhh! As the world waits for Obama to voice his opinion on Gaza, America's president-in-waiting hits the golf course

A couple comments from the bottom of a the article - Perspective IS reality. Amazing how we can look at the same situation and come away with totally different views of it. Guess we see what we want to see.

Classicman, what are you trying to prove?

Obama is doing what he has always done, strategically playing the public perception game. This incident could have no positive effects for Obama since both sides have made extreme actions so why in the hell would he make a statement if he doesn't have to?

He is playing the game that all politicians play. Do not be surprised by this and soon, with your endless efforts, people will stop reading your threads as just anti-Obama babble.

Bon voyage, Jihad Cindy McKinney; Update: Israeli Navy turns back S.S. Moonbat

By Michelle Malkin • December 30, 2008 12:36 AM

Cindy’s ship intercepted and turned back after crashing into Israeli Navy gunboat…



Move over, Hanoi Jane Fonda. Jihad Cindy McKinney is sailing to Gaza to deliver medical supplies to Hamas.

Is it a one-way ticket? We can only hope. Via the AJC:

Former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is a high-profile member of a boatload of activists that set sail Monday from Cyprus to deliver medicine to war-torn Gaza.

McKinney, who ran as the Green Party candidate for president, sees the voyage as a humanitarian mission, said her father, former Georgia state Rep. Billy McKinney.

“Her mother did not want her to go,” he said, referring to concerns at home for her safety. “But I think that certain people have missions in life and you can’t deter them.”

The activists, organized by the Free Gaza Group, said their 66-foot yacht called “SS Dignity” would defy an Israeli blockade of Gaza and ferry 16 activists and three tons of Cypriot-donated supplies. The supplies are intended to help treat the wounded from Israeli bombings against targets in Gaza, in retaliation for rocket fire aimed at civilians in southern Israeli towns.

Flashback: Cynthia McKinney’s Arab and Islamist Donors

***

Update 5:22am Eastern. Carl in Jerusalem reports that the S.S. Moonbat has been turned back by the Israeli Navy…

The yacht carrying former US Congresscritter and Green Party Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney tried to outmaneuver an Israeli navy gunboat off Gaza Tuesday morning. The yacht rammed into the Israeli gunboat, which then turned it around and sent it back to Cyprus.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said the boat ignored an Israeli radio order to turn back early Tuesday. He said the boat tried to outmaneuver the navy ship and crashed into it, lightly damaging both vessels. The navy then escorted the boat to the territorial waters of Cyprus.

Protest boat organizer Derek Graham said the Israeli ship “rammed” the protest boat.
According to the ‘Free Gaza’ website of the boat’s organizers (which I will not grace with a link), the boat is now headed to ’safety’ in Lebanon.



http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/30...inney/?print=1

Palestinian roots for Israel against Hamas:

Absolutely nothing - how bout you?
WTF are you talking about? I posted an article and specifically and INTENTIONALLY posted two comments from there of opposing views. Where was I anti-Obama? Please cite one thing where I have disparaged him since he got elected? Just one. Otherwise, post your apology.

That has been in the past two days. Because you are emphasising certain parts of the articles, you seem to be making a statement against Obama and with your past complaining of people doing the same against Bush, it would be natural to assume the sides are now switched. You called people out on it before, people have have been called out in the past for posting numerous threads to make a statement against something (rzkenrage for example), and now it seems you might be getting into it.

I don't care if you are anti-Obama, I am myself, but when you start bolding or underlining articles to make a statement against someone, it really seems you are trying to make a personal point and when you string a bunch of those together all with a common purpose, it seems like you are posting the articles just to make that single point.

Maybe you did innocently put those two quotes together but since the second really seems to counter the first quote, and with the way you have been posting in the last two days, it would seem more likely that you wanted to emphasis "This man was obsessed with becoming president not being president", which would fit well with the your string of articles the last two days, and not just give two opposing viewpoints.

That is where my statement came from. I said that Obama is playing the public perception game so he will naturally stay out of this issue to counter the argument I got from your post.

The other two lines were more aggressive, maybe too aggressive, but if you are making a crusade against Obama, just admit it and create an anti-Obama thread. If not, I apologize.

Well lets see -
#1) I supported Obama in the first quote - I certainly did not disparage him at all I thought SHE acted like an idiot not him.

#2) I posted something from Barney Frank - and mentioned a note of caution. WTF? That all you got?

#3 & #4 are specific quotes representing two different sides of the same issue. - NEITHER ONE IS MINE!

Read what I actually wrote: " Amazing how we can look at the same situation and come away with totally different views of it. Guess we see what we want to see."

You are a very smart young man, but you are/were way off base here.

Apology accepted - lets just move on. No harm no foul.