Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week
So who has heard of this?
From reading about it, it seems to have a decent base but strays ways too much into an anti-Islamic catch phrase, republican influenced of course.
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamo-fascism-awareness-week/
Editoral -
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/opinion/17dowd.html?ref=opinionthe two Big Lies of the political left: that George Bush created the war on terror and that Global Warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat.
The political density of that single statement just made my head explode.
Uh-oh. Cue the "tens of thousands of camouflaged highly trained elite Islamic sniper ninja terrorist sleeper cells disguised as everyday Americans are living in hidden underground bunkers with stolen suitcase nukes packed in a mixture anthrax and ricin targeted at Christian children living in middle class suburbs are just waiting for more encouragement from the communist/fascist/atheist left before they take over the world by out breeding us" posts.
before they take over the world by out breeding us
that's the mexicans dude.
that's the mexicans dude.
Pssh, Mexicans are nothing compared to the Indians (the ones from India).
But they're not a threat until they grow gills.
Happy Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week!
BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!
when i grow up and shed my soul, i'm gonna be a conservative republican.
when i grow up and shed my soul, i'm gonna be a conservative republican.
Or you could blow yourself and 60 others up and take your soul to heaven where you could share it with 100 virgins, if they have any in heaven. :D
it's actually 72 virgins. or is it crystal raisins? i forget.
it's actually 72 virgins. or is it crystal raisins? i forget.
I think it was versions, the part they have not told those idiots is that they are 72 virgin sheep. :D
"Osama, you misunderstood Me; what I said to you was seventy-two
Virginians." [/voice of God]
Kits, is that a cleaned-up depiction of the famous Pakistani Rage Boy?
Jihad Watch will do about as well as any other site. Lots of hits googling "Rage Boy."
They were encouraging some Photoshop competition -- some different angles.
You know, the Nazis had to set up a fearsome and 'deadly' opponent in order to get most of Germany to follow along... and how many Jews were burnt?
And now America gives us the Jihadist. A caricature that goes ...
BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!
You know, the Nazis had to set up a fearsome and 'deadly' opponent in order to get most of Germany to follow along... and how many Jews were burnt?
And now America gives us the Jihadist. A caricature that goes ...
Cool! Who is getting the contract for the ovens? I am sure the US public would support that. {talk about a make believe notion}
Cool! Who is getting the contract for the ovens? I am sure the US public would support that. {talk about a make believe notion}
For the record, if you want a sure way to get people to stop listening to you, compare someone to hitler or the nazis.
That being said, I think (hope) the point he's making is this is just another 'them.' In this century alone it's been the Germans and Japanese, the Communists, or the terrorists. They're always somehow 'shadowy and lurk among us' and there's always a 'constant threat of ending civilization as we know it.' It's all crap-spewing, and the saddest thing of all is that the boy crieds wolf. What
little danger IS there is not corrected in any worthwhile fashion, it's beaten with a hammer.
Goodwin's law originally stated that as a thread grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler or Nazis approaches one.
This has drifted to be that in any thread, as soon as someone says "that's what the Nazis/Hitler would do/say"
that person automatically loses the argument and the thread ends.
HOWEVER! There is also Quirk's exception, which states that Hitler and Nazism may be mentioned without activating Goodwin's law,
if it is actually relevant to the topic.
I think in this thread, it was relevant. Bandito was talking about the desire for an external enemy. Consider the following quote:
The people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are under attack, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. Herman Goering.
Islam is the new communism.
Cool! Who is getting the contract for the ovens?
Halliburton. duh.
Goodwin's law originally stated that as a thread grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler or Nazis approaches one.
This has drifted to be that in any thread, as soon as someone says "that's what the Nazis/Hitler would do/say" that person automatically loses the argument and the thread ends.
HOWEVER! There is also Quirk's exception, which states that Hitler and Nazism may be mentioned without activating Goodwin's law, if it is actually relevant to the topic.
I think in this thread, it was relevant. Bandito was talking about the desire for an external enemy. Consider the following quote:
Islam is the new communism.
I don't buy it man. After our, and many other countries, sacrifices during WW2, to compare our current government with that of the Nazi's because you hate Bush or whatever the fuck is pissing you off is fucking stupid and you ought to be stoned to death.
I don't buy it man. After our, and many other countries, sacrifices during WW2, to compare our current government with that of the Nazi's because you hate Bush or whatever the fuck is pissing you off is fucking stupid and you ought to be stoned to death.
:lol: that last :lol: comment is something :lol: a nazi would say :lol:
That was a joke.
Serious reply:
True, there are vast differences between Hitler and Bush, between the Nazis and the Republicans.
But I also think it is true that lots of governments (Australia's current PM Howard as well as Bush, for example) like to play on fear of an external threat to boost their popularity, and aren't above twisting the facts to suit their purposes.
Since this is widespread, we might argue that Quirk's exception doesn't apply here and we should invoke Goodwin's law. But the Nazis were particularly explicit in this strategy, and so I still think this is a legitimate mention.
This is not to say that the Bush administration is
in every respect like the Nazis.
Stoned to death? I've tried, but I kept running out.
It wasn't a comparison of Hitler-Bush. Who wants to do that again? Go through all that guff.
It was that external, ultra-demonic enemy, used against a populace to inspire nationalism and fervour, allowing the governing body to do what they want.
Islam is the new Communism - damn right. Hell, I'd go so far as to say Islam is the new war on drugs.
Does Islam deserve it? I don't think so. No more than the Jews during WWII. Does any People deserve it?
It wasn't a comparison of Hitler-Bush. Who wants to do that again? Go through all that guff.
It was that external, ultra-demonic enemy, used against a populace to inspire nationalism and fervour, allowing the governing body to do what they want.
Islam is the new Communism - damn right. Hell, I'd go so far as to say Islam is the new war on drugs.
Does Islam deserve it? I don't think so. No more than the Jews during WWII. Does any People deserve it?
It has very little to do with Islam. It has to do with a minority of radical elements who have co-opted the cause and a majority who are afraid to speak up. There is no way you can compare the democracy of today to the Nazi's and Facists of yesteryear. It is like people who believe in Bible code. Parallels can be drawn from many situations.
There is no way you can compare the democracy of today to the Nazi's and Facists of yesteryear.
I think the comparison was between the democracy of today, and the democracy of Pre-WWII Germany.
I think the comparison was between the democracy of today, and the democracy of Pre-WWII Germany.
Which lead to the rise of Facism and Nazism? No deal. I don't buy the comparison that our current democracy is in someway akin to what lead to the events in Germany and the rise of such evil.
Cool! Who is getting the contract for the ovens? I am sure the US public would support that. {talk about a make believe notion}
Nah, people in the US would never support Hilteresque practices.
[youtube]qnmvToZjRIc[/youtube]
Which lead to the rise of Facism and Nazism? No deal. I don't buy the comparison that our current democracy is in someway akin to what lead to the events in Germany and the rise of such evil.
Neither would have the pre-war Germans.
Americans aren't some sort of super-race that can feel free to use the tactics of fear and nationalism and expect the fundamental goodness of our country to protect us from their ill effects.
Neither would have the pre-war Germans.
Americans aren't some sort of super-race that can feel free to use the tactics of fear and nationalism and expect the fundamental goodness of our country to protect us from their ill effects.
I don't think they don't expect anything, nor do Americans think they are a "super-race". It is MHO that the "ill effects" are overblown.
Nah, people in the US would never support Hilteresque practices.
Sorry, I can't see youtube propaganda at work.
Nah, people in the US would never support Hilteresque practices.
yeah, that is a great example of the average american.:rolleyes:
yeah, that is a great example of the average american.:rolleyes:
hey but it feeds his propaganda, am I right?
kitsune is a bit left of center but history would show him to be a lot less prone to throwing propaganda about than a few others around here.
kitsune is a bit left of center but history would show him to be a lot less prone to throwing propaganda about than a few others around here.
I still don't know what it was, can you tell me?
An interviewer (I'm guessing from a British comedy show) asking people what security measures they'd support against Muslims, from ID cards to badges to number tattoos to incarceration until the end of the war.
An interviewer (I'm guessing from a British comedy show) asking people what security measures they'd support against Muslims, from ID cards to badges to number tattoos to incarceration until the end of the war.
Sounds pretty funny. I will have to check it out when I get home. Reminds me of stuff that Carlos Mencia does with "beaners!". The guy is a hoot.
history would show him to be a lot less prone to throwing propaganda about
But not less prone to posting things to stir up shit. ;)
No, this heavily edited comedy video is not representative of the average American, nor should it be taken as such. In my place of work I'd say only 20% of people I know support these kinds of ideas.
But not less prone to posting things to stir up shit. ;)
No, this heavily edited comedy video is not representative of the average American, nor should it be taken as such. In my place of work I'd say only 20% of people I know support these kinds of ideas.
20%!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!! :sweat: One of my jobs is on a Military Post. I could find maybe 1% of the people who think that way.
20%!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!! :sweat: One of my jobs is on a Military Post. I could find maybe 1% of the people who think that way.
In a building where several thousand IT workers feel as if they are under constant threat of job loss due to outsourcing, a lot of interesting hate directed at foreigners develops when you dump in more than 1,000 H1Bs from other countries who follow different beliefs and barely speak English. Force them to interact under harsh deadlines, and it often gets ugly. In my old group of 12, there were three people who were very vocal about their desire for laws that would ship off every single non-citizen and lock up every Muslim for the security of our country. In my current group there are not as many who voice those opinions while on the job (less than five out of a room of 41), but some of the chatter at the bar suggests the ideas are just as strong and just as prevalent.
I don't talk politics over beer with co-workers, anymore. Ever.
An interviewer (I'm guessing from a British comedy show)
That wasn't a British accent.
The Chasers are that same group that got in trouble for freely being allowed into the APEC secured zone in Australia, right?
It has very little to do with Islam. It has to do with a minority of radical elements who have co-opted the cause and a majority who are afraid to speak up. There is no way you can compare the democracy of today to the Nazi's and Facists of yesteryear. It is like people who believe in Bible code. Parallels can be drawn from many situations.
I think what we tend to lose sight of is that initially the Nazi party was a minority of radical elements who co-opted a cause and led a majority who were afraid to speak up...
There's nothing that's simultaneously more chilling and entertaining than watching 'Triumph of the Will', most expressly the scene with over 100,000 'Road-workers' standing in formation with their shovels on their shoulders. These guys weren't the military, they were roadworkers. And in the film they espoused a certain nationalistic fervour that's (in retrospect quite camp) rather scary.
In a building where several thousand IT workers feel as if they are under constant threat of job loss due to outsourcing, a lot of interesting hate directed at foreigners develops when you dump in more than 1,000 H1Bs from other countries who follow different beliefs and barely speak English. Force them to interact under harsh deadlines, and it often gets ugly. In my old group of 12, there were three people who were very vocal about their desire for laws that would ship off every single non-citizen and lock up every Muslim for the security of our country. In my current group there are not as many who voice those opinions while on the job (less than five out of a room of 41), but some of the chatter at the bar suggests the ideas are just as strong and just as prevalent.
I don't talk politics over beer with co-workers, anymore. Ever.
Sounds pretty harsh.
I think what we tend to lose sight of is that initially the Nazi party was a minority of radical elements who co-opted a cause and led a majority who were afraid to speak up...
I thought the Hitler was tremendously popular right before and during the the beginning of the war?
Hitler brought the whole country out of one of the biggest depressions in history, and raised the standard of living of everyone that was "pure". Hitler was probably just as popular as FDR if not even more.
For the whole Jews part. From a civilian standpoint, they didn't know about the holocaust at the time or just chose to be ignorant, the Jews were probably treated in the same way as blacks were treated in the United States. The US was pretty anti-semitic at the time as well. I think it had to do more with the Nazi party hiding facts and the people too concerned about other interests to care about what was happening to them. That is the scariest part about any country, the people not even caring that they are being taken over from the inside.
Here is an article about why Hitler was so popular:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0703a.asp
Here is the discussion on the cellar:
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=15017. . . and you ought to be stoned to death.
By means of a remarkably big spliff.:joint:
I don't think they don't expect anything, nor do Americans think they are a "super-race". It is MHO that the "ill effects" are overblown.
You can't seriously tell me that Americans don't feel 'special' or 'superior' in majority. Look at any thread on illegal immigration and the whole thing will REEK of excessive nationalism. Any topic comparing the US to any other nation or group of people results in this display of flag waving and preaching.
Since WWII our government has been employing propaganda machines saying that effectively we
are democracy, we
are the perfected government and we must defend our freedom-democracy-liberty machine against the evil intentioned 'other.' The difference now is that the 'war information movies' don't have the 'office of war information' banner at the beginning. In fact, the videos and press that are shared now have been engineered to look like real news, trying to hide their propaganda.
Let's be clear: I'm not using 'propaganda' in the sense that it is exclusively produced by the US. Just about every country that has been involved in a modern war has used it to rally their people. This is mostly because people almost never react the way their leaders want if they are presented with all the information and given a while to decide. It's FAR more effective to create a black-and-white landscape.
The point I'm making is that you cannot refute the claim that Americans have been raised by birth to believe that we are THE beacon of democracy and enemies are all around us, who hate freedom. I think, in fact, that the 90s were the only decade in recent memory where there WASN'T a vast faceless enemy trying to destroy us... mostly because there was no group that could be made into it.
Also... how does it have nothing to do with Islam when the name we given to our enemy is 'The Islamo-fascists.' Why aren't they just fascists?
20%!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!! :sweat: One of my jobs is on a Military Post. I could find maybe 1% of the people who think that way.
Well, despite what many think, the military is actually quite well informed (on the whole) of Muslims, Iraqis, Afghanis etc. This might have something to do with the fact that after a while, the brass finally figured out that you can't fight an insurgency if your soldiers think that all the civilians are bad guys. All that does is cause a bigger rift. There are pamphlets all over the place called campy things like 'Islam and You!'
SNIP
I think, in fact, that the 90s were the only decade in recent memory where there WASN'T a vast faceless enemy trying to destroy us... mostly because there was no group that could be made into it.
Did you notice that in the 1990s there was a spate of movies on the theme of hostile Aliens attacking the Earth, and being repelled (mostly) by the US? Eg. Independence Day and Battlefield Earth. With no Earthly foe, Hollywood had to look upwards.
Meanwhile, their was a spike in nutty conspiracy theorists worried that the UN was going to attempt to take over the USA (and that civilian militias with assault rifles were gonna stop 'em!).
Some part of the American collective psyche has a strong urge to play the role of Defender of the Home Against the Foreign Foe. Partly it is economic - stimulating the arms industry. But I think it is mostly psychological. Through the history of the 20th century and a tide of movies with this theme, this is where a good many Americans see themselves. Take away the foreign foe ... and they suddenly don't have a place to be, a role to fill.
(emphasis: this is not true of
all Americans. Just some, but they're enough to be influential.)
Also those comedians WERE the Chaser team, who did the stunt at the APEC meeting. And while I presume they had to interview hundreds of people to get those comments that went to air, and so those views are probably a tiny minority, nevertheless they still got those replies from
some people. Strange how something can be funny and still very, very scary.
If I've known someone for a long time and even if I've been friends with them since childhood, if I find out that they...
[INDENT][LIST]
[*]Support the war in Iraq
[*]Support the Patriot Act
[*]Aren't totally disgusted by George W. Bush or any member of his cabinet or the judges he's appointed
[*]Don't believe in global warming
[*]Read Alex Jones' websites
[*]Listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Dobbs, Coulter, Beck, O'Riely, Franken, etc.
[*]Support the drug war
[*]Support making abortion illegal
[*]Think "illegals" are the source of our problems.
[*]Think "Zionists" are the problem and not those who want them dead.
[*]etc.
[/LIST][/INDENT]
I immediately cut off all ties and inform them in no uncertain terms that we are no longer friends and I want nothing to do with them. Also that they shouldn't breed so they don't spread that stupidity.
wow, how's that working out for your political ambitions Radar?
[INDENT][LIST]
[*]Support the war in Iraq
[*]Support the Patriot Act
[*]Aren't totally disgusted by George W. Bush or any member of his cabinet or the judges he's appointed
[*]Don't believe in global warming
[*]Read Alex Jones' websites
[*]Listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Dobbs, Coulter, Beck, O'Riely, Franken, etc.
[*]Support the drug war
[*]Support making abortion illegal
[*]Think "illegals" are the source of our problems.
[*]Think "Zionists" are the problem and not those who want them dead.
[*]etc.
[/LIST][/INDENT]
Something I've been thinking about, recently -- why do these things almost always seem to go together? Why is there not more variation in this set of beliefs? (or is there and I'm simply falling prey to generalization?)
I regret to see that "think gays don't deserve equal rights" isnt on your list, radar.
i regret to see that anyone as generally well educated as Radar is has a list of one issue litmus tests that he will use to cut all contact with people. isolating yourself from those that disagree and surrounding yourself with a bunch of "me too's" is what leads our country further and further to the extremes. if you don't have any association with those who disagree it is easy to forget that they are real people who are generally good, fine, upstanding, intelligent people who just disagree with you on issues, and next thing you know they are the enemy.
I regret to see that "think gays don't deserve equal rights" isnt on your list, radar.
It's on my list. It's under "etc"
i regret to see that anyone as generally well educated as Radar is has a list of one issue litmus tests that he will use to cut all contact with people. isolating yourself from those that disagree and surrounding yourself with a bunch of "me too's" is what leads our country further and further to the extremes. if you don't have any association with those who disagree it is easy to forget that they are real people who are generally good, fine, upstanding, intelligent people who just disagree with you on issues, and next thing you know they are the enemy.
Everyone has a list like this. I have one, but its pretty short: The moment I learn someone is racist, I pretty much cut all lines of communication with them. There's no reason to associate with them or try to come to terms when people are that hard set, although you can still understand their point of view and treat them like a human being. Why create more tension when your highly opposite view doesn't have much of a chance to change someone's mind? When neither side has anything to gain from the other, what's the point?
This reaction is the default for most people on their "hot" issues and those polarized issues vary from person to person. I guess if you're extremely passionate about some of these politics, the only possible outcome of discussion is one both parties should probably avoid. :yelsick:
What I find interesting about that list is that an anti-war stance is on the same list as an anti-Palestinian stance:
Support the war in Iraq
Think "Zionists" are the problem and not those who want them dead.
Though by no means universal, the tendency in my country is for those who were opposed to the war to be also sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, and perceive Israel's actions to be the main source of aggression in that region.
The Middle East conflict is viewed very differently in Britain, to the way it is viewed in the States. There are those who are absolutely on Israel's side, and those who are on Palestines, there are those who see blame on both sides. But the majority view, I think, is that whilst it is never acceptable to send suicide bombers onto schoolbuses, it is also never alright to inflict collective punishment, or illegally occupy another people's country. Israel is seen by most, I think, as an illegal occupier and a fairly brutal one at that.
What I find interesting about that list is that an anti-war stance is on the same list as an anti-Palestinian stance:
Though by no means universal, the tendency in my country is for those who were opposed to the war to be also sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, and perceive Israel's actions to be the main source of aggression in that region.
The Middle East conflict is viewed very differently in Britain, to the way it is viewed in the States. There are those who are absolutely on Israel's side, and those who are on Palestines, there are those who see blame on both sides. But the majority view, I think, is that whilst it is never acceptable to send suicide bombers onto schoolbuses, it is also never alright to inflict collective punishment, or illegally occupy another people's country. Israel is seen by most, I think, as an illegal occupier and a fairly brutal one at that.
The war in Iraq has nothing to do with promoting or supporting Zionism. Israel had nothing to do with starting this war. The United States has never fought a war for the benefit of Israel or Jews, but has for Muslims.
Israel is not illegally or legally occupying someone else's land. Each and every single square inch of land Israel has was obtained honestly either won in wars or given to them by the UK in 1948. All of Israel, Jordan, and the area held by the so-called Palestinian people, and parts of Egypt, and other countries was once Israel.
Israel has given food, shelter, clothing, and support to the so-called Palestinian people, and allows Muslim men (AND WOMEN) to live, work, vote, and hold political office in Israel. No Muslim nation allows Jews to do the same or allows even Muslim women to vote or hold political office. Israel has offered to help the Palestinian territory to become a recognized country as long as they stop murdering Jews.
Israel never uses force except in its own defense and is never interested in conquest. Israel is the ONLY free nation in the middle-east.
I'm not suggesting the war in Iraq and the Middle East situation are connected. I'm saying that the people who most commonly hold that view on the war also most commonly hold that view on Israel.
Israel is not illegally or legally occupying someone else's land. Each and every single square inch of land Israel has was obtained honestly either won in wars or given to them by the UK in 1948. All of Israel, Jordan, and the area held by the so-called Palestinian people, and parts of Egypt, and other countries was once Israel.
According to the United Nations, Israel is engaged in illegal occupation. This is a view shared by many Brits and indeed by many other Europeans.
Israel has given food, shelter, clothing, and support to the so-called Palestinian people, and allows Muslim men (AND WOMEN) to live, work, vote, and hold political office in Israel. No Muslim nation allows Jews to do the same or allows even Muslim women to vote or hold political office. Israel has offered to help the Palestinian territory to become a recognized country as long as they stop murdering Jews.
I don't believe that is true. It may be true of Islamic theocratic nations, but not all Moslem nations are theocratic.
Israel never uses force except in its own defense and is never interested in conquest.
Puntive measures against a people are not an act of self defense. And placing settlements in occupied territories is absolutely an act of conquest and expansion.
but the UN is a failed little experiment, so who really cares?:stickpoke :bolt:
Something I've been thinking about, recently -- why do these things almost always seem to go together? Why is there not more variation in this set of beliefs? (or is there and I'm simply falling prey to generalization?)
I'm assuming it has to do with personal philosophy and how they view life. I have always found that people that think the same way as me in philosophy will usually have the same political views as me.
For example, Radar is someone who more or less believes in independence, personal responsibility, and absolute freedom, leading him to libertarianism and usually the views that go with it.
While Dana, quee, and I tend to have a philosophy that favors community building which will lead us more to leftist views.
God, I seriously don't want to start a Palestine - Israel argument but I want to comment on a single thing.
Israel has given food, shelter, clothing, and support to the so-called Palestinian people
They do this because the Palestinian people can not support an independent economy for reasons of relocation, loss of motivation, and the shrinking of a state to one fourth its original size and maintaining the fourth (its around there) most dense population in the world.
This is why a two state solution can never work. Palestine can not support its own economy no matter how much they "change" their culture, a mindset I hate because American culture does not change when it needs too either so criticizing them is extremely hypocritical. I will be more than accepting when Americans find a way not to elect liars into national office and not over consume resources.
If they can't support or defend themselves without murdering others, they don't deserve to be an independent nation. Israel can survive fine even if America cut off every dollar of foreign aid and still be able to defend itself against all of its aggressive neighbors.
American culture does not change when it needs too either
so you're saying i can buy my neighbor?
If they can't support or defend themselves without murdering others, they don't deserve to be an independent nation. Israel can survive fine even if America cut off every dollar of foreign aid and still be able to defend itself against all of its aggressive neighbors.
Palestinians are very peaceful for how many people live there and the situation they are in. It could be A LOT worse, if all Palestinians revolted there would be A LOT more than a few deaths a month.
Also, you and Rzkenrage have threatened to shoot at the government if they take your guns away, you can not seriously tell me that you wouldn't be blowing shit up if they forcefully relocated you and everyone you love then throw you in a cage where you have no hope for a peaceful life. Most Palestinians are peaceful people who are just being screwed over and then you have others trying to stir shit up making it worse. What you are saying is basically equivalent to saying all Americans believe we should attack any country that disagrees with us because the neo-cons do. But, we should be stopping that shouldn't we....
Imagine a foreigner, and there are these people, saying that the world should support anyone that resists the US because Americans support Bush and what they are doing. How would you react? Oh yeah, and everyone in America should be punished even more because of the actions of Bush.
so you're saying i can buy my neighbor?
Ok, I will reword that. I have seen very little change in America except for a few examples where Americans have changed something that they have not been forced to do. But once again, when Americans can stop electing liars into office and stop over consuming resources, it will be much easier to criticize.
That change happened a few centuries after it needed to.
looks like the british government is doing their part helping aid fear against islam:
[youtube]YD38SQ8srXw[/youtube]
It is ironic that the US and GB is supporting a state as extreme as Saudi Arabia.
This is NOT a broadcast by the British Goverment. It is by Channel 4 news which is our most liberal news programme.
The voiceover in the report is Krishnan Guru-Murthy, a British Asian (which shouldn't matter, but I thought I would point it out).
The interview is reasonably well balanced in my opinion. It is not spoon fed news, it allows different opinions to be heard. Jon Snow interviews everyone in the same way - the subjects stand up as well as they choose to.
It is ironic that the US and GB is supporting a state as extreme as Saudi Arabia.
That I agree with.
Frankly I am disgusted that our country awarded the highest possible accolade to the Saudi royals. And that has bugger all to do with whther they are an Islamic nation or not. The Saudi state is a disgrace. It is deeply oppressive, treats women like non-humans in the eyes of the law, practices mutilation as a way to punish thieves (including children), considers homosexuality a crime worthy of barbaric execution and considers a raped woman to be guilty of adultery unless she can produce 4 witnesses. Add that to the fact that many trade unionists and political activists have been imprisoned, without trial and for long periods and tortured and you have a state that is operating so far outside of International law that a civilised country should not be putting out the red carpet for them.
I couldn't give a toss if they're moslems or not, I do give a toss about their utter disregard for human rights.
I agree with Dana.
Though I have heard, and read but I can't find where, that if you are rich in Saudi Arabia, and Iran, you can get away with being gay and that. It does in no way justify what they do but it shows signs of progression.
Not what I'm looking for but here is something.
http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/saudi_arabia/saudinews19.htmIncidentally. I have been on these boards many times and argued against the rampant Islamaphobia which currently exists in the Uk and I suspect in the US. That said, I find the Wahabi interpretation of Islam to be fundamentally opposed to Western values of human (and in this case human also means female) rights. I will fight to my last breath the rising tide of anti-moslem, racist aggression in this country but I also utterly oppose the the promotion of an interpretation of Islam which dictates that a man has the right and duty to ensure his wife and daughters remain covered up in public, to the point of beating them if they refuse. I object to the idea that children born in this country are taught through, wahabi education programmes and preaching, that women are lesser creatures and that homosexuals deserve to be stoned to death.
"Women should have subordinate positions"
That little girls and little boys are being taught this in my country disgusts me. And I refuse to be labelled anti-moslem because of it. I have moslem friends and they're as appalled by this stuff as I am. I have sat and talked about it with them. It worries them that this kind of extreme teaching is filtering in to otherwise respectable mosques.
Thanks to St Paul, many extremist Christian women are being taught that a woman's place is in the home and subservient to a man. I agree that human rights should always come before religion, especially centuries old paternalistic religions.
I guess that's why we both like Sheri S Tepper, huh?
*laughs* God Bless Sheri! I still think Mavin Manyshaped is why I grew up a feminist....well that and Marion Zimmer Bradley :P
The fact of the matter is the so-called Palestinian people weren't thrown in a cage, aren't oppressed by Israel, have never had any land stolen from them, and are only held back by their own actions. The so-called Palestinians aren't wanted by anyone in the middle-east...not even Jordan where 75% of them came from.
Israel didn't create any "situation" for the Palestinians. They did that on their own.
If the so-called Palestinians chose to revolt and start more widespread violence, it would be their own undoing because Israel is fully capable of destroying each and every single one of them, and all of their surrounding nations without any help from America.
Israel just wants to be left the hell alone. Israel is generous and kind and gives food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. to the so-called Palestinians. Israel allows Arab man and women to live, work, vote, and hold political office even though no Arab nation allows Jews or women to do that...and in most cases, the men can't vote either because they are living in a dictatorship or monarchy.
Israel hasn't "screwed over" the so-called Palestinian people. If anything, the opposite is true. Israel has given...and given...and given in hopes of peace, but you can't make peace with those who don't recognize your right to exist. You can't reason with unreasonable people. You can't make peace with those who would give up everything just to see you dead.
As long as the Arab people get it through their heads that Israel is not going anywhere and attacking Israel will result in their own destruction, everything will be fine.
I think this where you and I will have to agree to disagree Radar. We've had this conversation a number of times over the years and I don't believe either of us have moved our position any *smiles*
Which brings me full circle and explains why it's better for me to just disassociate myself with those who have views I find deeply offensive. It's a better solution than going columbine on them.
And those are the only two options?
I can't help it. When someone says, "Sean Hannity told me to support the president and you're unpatriotic if you don't support the war in Iraq" my only options are to distance myself from them or smash their skull in.
I see. I personally prefer a more middle of the road approach...there are people who actively campaign for racist politics...those I have nothing to do with. I do however have friends who hold mildly racist views.
I hate dishonesty, and I hate racism. So I really hate those who are dishonest about their racism....like those who say, "I don't hate Jews, I just hate Zionism". This is like saying, I don't hate Japanese people, I just hate Japan and all the people who live there or support its right to exist.
No it's not. I know plenty of Jews in the UK are frustrated by the Zionist agenda and are dismayed by the zionist government's treatment of palestinians. One of them works with a Christian woman in my town and organises aid trips to Gaza.
I hate dishonesty, and I hate racism. So I really hate those who are dishonest about their racism....like those who say, "I don't hate Jews, I just hate Zionism". This is like saying, I don't hate Japanese people, I just hate Japan and all the people who live there or support its right to exist.
Do you hate Palestinians, or do you hate their attempts to claim particular territory, and the tactics they use?
I don't hate the so-called Palestinian people. I wish them peace, prosperity, and even to be recognized as a nation by the U.N.. I do hate the fact that a significant number of them think it's ok to target women and children in shopping malls for murder. I do hate the fact that no matter how hard Israel tries to peacefully co-exist with them, they are unreasonable and want to wipe Israel off the map and kill as many Jews as possible. I hate the fact that they are more interested in murdering Jews than in peace. I hate the fact that they act as though Israel is a monster for defending itself when they are blowing up Israeli women and children. I hate that many of them are dishonest racists who make baseless and false accusations of apartheid against Israel.
I wish they would act like civilized people and work to build prosperity for themselves and friendship with their neighbors
And the Israeli soldiers who have targetted and shot children?
What about the innocent palestinians whose homes have been destroyed and whose relatives have been killed?
I do hate the fact that no matter how hard Israel tries to peacefully co-exist with them, they are unreasonable and want to wipe Israel off the map and kill as many Jews as possible
I see very little evidence of Israel attempting anysuch thing.
I don't hate the so-called Palestinian people. I wish them peace, prosperity, and even to be recognized as a nation by the U.N.. I do hate the fact that a significant number of them [do repugnant things]
So you don't hate the people, but you do hate how a certain subset of them behaves with respect to disputes over territory.
Yet you claim that anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semetism.
Israeli soldiers have never targeted and shot children. They have shot children who had bombs strapped to them, or who were using slings to hurl rocks at speeds that can kill a man. There's never been a case of Israeli soldiers planning an attack against women and children, but there are hundreds of cases of so-called Palestinian people doing exactly this.
Also, the so-called Palestinians who attack Jews, run and hide amongst so-called Palestinian women and children and endanger them so even though Israel does its best to avoid harming women and children, occasionally those who were endangered by terrorists get killed or caught up in the crossfire. Then the so-called Palestinian people claim they are victims of monsters.
As far as destroyed homes go, they were built in disputed territory. Israel has also destroyed the homes of Jewish settlers who have built in such territory.
The relatives killed were killed because they were taking part in the planning or attacking of Israeli people, or because they were endangered by their own people and they got caught up in it. They died not because of Israel's response, but because Israel was attacked in the first place.
You claim to have seen little evidence in Israel trying to peacefully co-exist with their neighbors. This can only mean your eyes are closed.
Israel has offered concession after concession after concession. Israel has offered land, money, support in becoming a state, etc. In 1996 Israel offered to return all land they had won in battles from 1967 forward, and to sponsor a nation of Palestine in the U.N. if only they would go a single week without killing Israeli people.
They couldn't do it. Why? Because they don't want peace. Israel has gone above and beyond. Israel has been patient, understanding, generous, and kind-hearted to those who want them destroyed. Israel has done more than any other country would do. No other nation on earth would allow themselves to be attacked for 60 straight years without simply having an all out war and completely destroying those who attack it.
Israel can't give any more than it already has. The so-called Palestinian people haven't given anything, haven't had anything stolen from them, haven't been victimized by anyone but their own people who put them in danger, and want nothing less than Israel to cease existing. This is unreasonable and even laughable.
Israel uses DEFENSIVE force, and the so-called Palestinian people use OFFENSIVE force.
So you don't hate the people, but you do hate how a certain subset of them behaves with respect to disputes over territory.
Yet you claim that anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semetism.
The overwhelming majority of so-called Palestinians are raised from birth to hate Israel and Jews. The subset we were discussing are those who actually carry out murders.
When you use deadly force in your defense, it's not murder. The so-called Palestinian people are not using DEFENSIVE force, they are using OFFENSIVE (attacking) force against the weakest members of the Israeli community, women and children.
I didn't say Anti-Zionism is the same as anti-semitism. I said Anti-Zionism = Anti-Jew. Arabs are also Semites.
Zionism is the belief that the state of Israel and its people have a right to exist without having its women and children blown to bits. Zionism has never harmed a single person on earth. Anti-Zionism on the other hand means you don't believe this nation has any right to exist or to defend itself when people attack them. It means you believe every nation on earth other than the Jewish one, has a right to exist and defend itself.
How is this NOT anti-Jew?
From the Guardian newspaper:
Palestinian doctors despair at rising toll of children shot dead by army snipers
As the carnage in Rafah escalates, bullet wounds belie the official Israeli line on killings of young teenagers
Chris McGreal in Rafah
Thursday May 20, 2004
The Guardian
The tiny hole buried under Asma Mughayar's thick black hair, just above her right ear, is an illusion, according to the Israeli army. So is her family's insistance that Asma, 16, and her younger brother Ahmed, were both shot through the head by an Israeli soldier as they fed their pigeons and collected the laundry from the roof of their home in Rafah refugee camp.
But their corpses tell a different story, as do the bodies of other children brought to Rafah's hospital and makeshift mortuaries even before yesterday's carnage, in which Israeli tanks and helicopters fired on a peaceful protest by Palestinians in the camp, killing 10 demonstrators, according to Palestinian paramedics.
Israel disputes the Mughayar family's account: that soldiers shot the children on Tuesday. Hours after their death, Israeli officials blamed the Palestinians, telling reporters that Asma and Ahmed had been killed in a "work accident" - a euphemism for bomb-makers blowing themselves up - or by Palestinian fighters who had left a landmine in the street.
"A preliminary investigation indicates they were killed by a bomb intended to be used against soldiers. It was set outside a building by Palestinians to hit an Israeli vehicle. This is probably what happened," a military spokesman said yesterday.
Dr Ali Moussa, head of Rafah hospital, is as furious at the claim as he is at Israel's assertion that almost all the 20 or more people killed during the army's seizure of the Tel al-Sultan district of the Rafah refugee camp were armed men.
"They are liars, liars, liars, because these children have bullet wounds to the head. There is no doubt about it," he says.
Dr Ahmed Abu Nkaria, who pronounced the Mughayar children dead, insists on proving the manner of their killing. He pulls Asma's body from the mortuary's refrigeration unit and fumbles through the teenager's hair to reveal the hole where the bullet entered above one ear and ripped a much larger wound as it emerged above the other.
"The Israeli propaganda is that they were killed in a work accident. These are the kinds of lies they tell all the time," he says. "They say all the dead are fighters. They say they do not deliberately kill children, but about a quarter of the dead from the first day of shooting are children. The evidence is here in the morgue. Does this girl look as if she was blown up by a bomb?"
Asma's body lies in the hospital mortuary unburied, like all the other dead from Tel al-Sultan, because their relatives are trapped in their homes by a curfew. Her 13-year-old brother's corpse is a short drive away in the cold-storage room of an Israeli-owned flower-growing company.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1220635,00.htmlI didn't say Anti-Zionism is the same as anti-semitism. I said Anti-Zionism = Anti-Jew. Arabs are also Semites.
Zionism is the belief that the state of Israel and its people have a right to exist without having its women and children blown to bits. Zionism has never harmed a single person on earth. Anti-Zionism on the other hand means you don't believe this nation has any right to exist or to defend itself when people attack them. It means you believe every nation on earth other than the Jewish one, has a right to exist and defend itself.
How is this NOT anti-Jew?
Because "Zionism" is not "Judaism". Israel is a majority-Jewish nation with aspects of Judaism enshrined in law, but it does not speak for all Jews on Earth. You can oppose Zionism and support Jews. You can support Zionism and support Jews. You can be anti-Jew, and support Zionism as a way to get the Jews out of your own country or a way to instigate Biblical Armageddon. Or you can be anti-Jew and anti-Zionism.
Personally, I do support Israel's right to exist and defend itself. I also support the USA's right to defend itself. I don't pretend that either nation always does so in appropriate ways, and I don't think that the behavior of the enemies of either nation excuses any of that nation's bad behavior.
Zionism is the belief that the state of Israel and its people have a right to exist without having its women and children blown to bits. Zionism has never harmed a single person on earth. Anti-Zionism on the other hand means you don't believe this nation has any right to exist or to defend itself when people attack them. It means you believe every nation on earth other than the Jewish one, has a right to exist and defend itself.
How is this NOT anti-Jew?
From Jews against Zionism:
In their own words Jews Against Zionism describe themselves as:
Jews Against Zionism is an organisation of Jews and others opposed to the Zionist movement and ideology, and to its impact on both Palestinians and Jews. We believe that the conflict in Palestine cannot be resolved without a return of Palestinian refugees and dismantlement of the Zionist structure of the state of Israel; and that this is impossible in the context of “two states“ and a re-partition of Palestine.
We advocate the only approach which can lead to peace with justice in the region; we call fro a unitary, secular and democratic Palestine, the return of Palestinian refugees, and full and equal rights for Palestinians, Israeli Jews, and all other people living in the whole of Palestine.
Because "Zionism" is not "Judaism". Israel is a majority-Jewish nation with aspects of Judaism enshrined in law, but it does not speak for all Jews on Earth. You can oppose Zionism and support Jews. You can support Zionism and support Jews. You can be anti-Jew, and support Zionism as a way to get the Jews out of your own country or a way to instigate Biblical Armageddon. Or you can be anti-Jew and anti-Zionism.
Personally, I do support Israel's right to exist and defend itself. I also support the USA's right to defend itself. I don't pretend that either nation always does so in appropriate ways, and I don't think that the behavior of the enemies of either nation excuses any of that nation's bad behavior.
The only Jews against Zionism are self-deprecating Jews or rabbis who say Jews can't return to their homeland until after the messiah returns. Israel
IS a Jewish state. Saying "I don't hate Jewish people, I just hate Israel" is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than saying, "I don't hate Chinese people, I just hate China...and those who say it has the right to exist and defend itself when attacked."
The Palestinians are perennially crying victim while perennially acting the perpetrator.
No human being should sympathize in any least degree with such behavior or such people, but instead convert them from it or exterminate them for it. I am utterly fed to the teeth with the unfortunate sort of Palestinian, vexed at the neighboring states' refusal to absorb or aid them, preferring to keep them as mudfoots for a proxy-war, and annoyed at the neighboring states' graceless inability to accept what is the new reality. What's so new or particularly so unjust about peoples being moved around by migrations? This has happened before over the millennia. The Jews aren't going to go away. Will it take the death of every Arab in Jordan to drive this home to the idiot fanatics? For Allah's sake, guys, don't drive the Jews of all people to commit genocide. Or can we just settle for killing Islam's idiots off and thereby purifying the religion?
I am utterly fed to the teeth with the unfortunate sort of Palestinian
The so-called Palestinian people are not using DEFENSIVE force, they are using OFFENSIVE (attacking) force against the weakest members of the Israeli community, women and children.
Everyone keeps saying this. Of course there are atrocities on both sides, but WHO IS ON WHO'S LAND??
The argument that it was Israel being awarded land that was rightfully theirs... when was the last time prior to WWII that Israel belonged to the jews? Was it more than a THOUSAND YEARS AGO!?
We as US citizens stake so much claim on our land that we want to keep the unworthy out, but we stole it through trickery and large scale murder piece by piece from it's native tribes. So in a thousand years, do the Sioux and the Cherokee and the other tribes get it back?
There are people alive in Palestine today who were alive when they had their own country. There haven't been any living refugees of the original Israelites for dozens of centuries.
What if a group of people who claimed to have been true descendants of the Gauls demanded their land? Would we just decide to give up all the the land to them? Sorry, france, spain, small pieces of germany, etc. Hope you didn't want that. It belongs to THESE people. They can show you receipts.
I hold no more distaste for how Israel was formed than any other country. All these lines in the dirt are products of murder, thievery, and might-makes-right. Every country on the globe. The part I don't understand is how so many people can blame the palestinians for fighting back!
If the Global community decided to give back the US lands to the native americans, and buy them all the planes trains and guns they needed to keep us subdued... every single one of you real hard core mothers would tie on your bandanna and go Rambo on them, right? Right? But not the palestinians, they're monsters. They throw rocks at soldiers.
What about the SOLDIERS who SHOOT the CIVILIANS? What about bulldozing entire camps because a suicide bomber came in? You say 'they helped plan it.' How the hell do we know that? They said so? There was no investigation, no trial.
I'm not, nor ever would say that the crazy twisted bastards that train kids as soldiers, strap bombs to their chests and blow up cafes are excused or even worth their weight of flesh. The idea that Israel is without blame, doesn't escalate the conflict, and doesn't show blatant disregard for an entire people is so fucking ridiculous it gives me an aneurysm. They're just as twisted as the Palestinian fighters, but they have MUCH bigger guns.
Sorry for the rant. :redface:
How is it that we can separate the American administration from America and Americans in our minds, but not the Israeli government from Israel and jewish people?
It is ok to hate what China does as a nation, it is not ok to hate the Chinese or China. It is ok to hate what America does as a nation...it is not ok to hate America and Americans. It is ok to hate what Israel does as a country...this does not mean hating Israel, Israelis or Jews.
Zionism is not Judaism. Jews are not all Zionists and Zionists do not speak for all the jewsh Diaspora. Zionism doesn't even speak for all Jews in Israel. There are many Israeli Jews working with Palestinians to alleviate their suffering and actively campaigning against their country's far-right, extremist, Zionist stance.
Either Israel is a country just like any other or it is a special case. If it's a country like any other then it can be held to account like any other without that account equating to hatred of the Jews. If it is a special case...does that mean it can do anyting it wants without sanction?
Personally, Radar, I find your stance to be a more anti-semitic stance (sorry anti-jewish) than mine or Queeq's. You have reduced them to a political agenda and held them to be uniquely unnaccountable. To truly see Jews as equal to other 'races' one must hold them to the same standards. You do not do this. You set them aside from the rest of humanity and say no....different rules apply. America is not its administration. Britain is not her Queen. Zimbabwe is not its Dictator. Iraq was not Saddam. Israel is not the Zionist agenda. Zionism and Judaism are two entirely different concepts.
You can't seriously tell me that Americans don't feel 'special' or 'superior' in majority. Look at any thread on illegal immigration and the whole thing will REEK of excessive nationalism. Any topic comparing the US to any other nation or group of people results in this display of flag waving and preaching.
Since WWII our government has been employing propaganda machines saying that effectively we are democracy, we are the perfected government and we must defend our freedom-democracy-liberty machine against the evil intentioned 'other.' The difference now is that the 'war information movies' don't have the 'office of war information' banner at the beginning. In fact, the videos and press that are shared now have been engineered to look like real news, trying to hide their propaganda.
Let's be clear: I'm not using 'propaganda' in the sense that it is exclusively produced by the US. Just about every country that has been involved in a modern war has used it to rally their people. This is mostly because people almost never react the way their leaders want if they are presented with all the information and given a while to decide. It's FAR more effective to create a black-and-white landscape.
The point I'm making is that you cannot refute the claim that Americans have been raised by birth to believe that we are THE beacon of democracy and enemies are all around us, who hate freedom. I think, in fact, that the 90s were the only decade in recent memory where there WASN'T a vast faceless enemy trying to destroy us... mostly because there was no group that could be made into it.
Also... how does it have nothing to do with Islam when the name we given to our enemy is 'The Islamo-fascists.' Why aren't they just fascists?
The bottom line is that I can seriously tell you that Americans don't feel 'special' or 'superior' in majority any more than any other counties citizens do about their home. You mean to try to tell me that people in China, UK, Canada, North Korea, Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, or any other country does not exhibit a certain sense of nationalistic pride?? Every country does so. I have spent a lot of time with soldiers from the UK and a few other countries and they are furiously proud and nationalistic about their owns country, as they should be. We have the same pride as others do. Other countries, many, use film and differing levels of propaganda to support their notions of nationalism. Nothing new there.
What we have is difference among governments, not among people and their response to a sense of nationalistic pride. It is the policy and actions of governments, albeit temporary in nature, that get people all bent out of shape and make them want to spew hate toward each other. We are becoming more and more polarized as a nation and as a world.
This has little to do with Islam because you are using a minority of radical islamic believers to define the cause. Most followers of Islam are peaceful and want to be left alone like many other. I am all for our country using whatever means are available in finding these radicals anywhere in the world in any country and hunting them down and killing them. That is not the issue. The issue is that it is a minority of all of those who follow Islam.
I hate dishonesty, and I hate racism. So I really hate those who are dishonest about their racism....like those who say, "I don't hate Jews, I just hate Zionism". This is like saying, I don't hate Japanese people, I just hate Japan and all the people who live there or support its right to exist.
Jews are a group of people. Zionism is an ideology. I hate the Nazi ideology but I do not hate the German people. I hate the neo-conservative ideology but I do not have hate the American people. I hate Zionism ideology but I do not hate Jewish people, catch my drift?
Calling people that support Palestinians anti-semitic is just a way to limit free speech by placing that issue into a category no one wants to go into without political suicide. It is no different than calling people who are anti-immigration racist. Sure some people that are anti-immigration are racist and sure, some people who are pro-Palestinians are anti-semitic but to call everyone who are anti-immigration racist or everyone that supports the Palestinian people anti-semitic is not only using cheap dirty, and invalid, arguing techniques, but it disallows a mature intelligent discussion on the topic and disintegrates it to 5-year old yelling and bitching match.
The only way peace can be restored in Palestine is a one-state solution going through a bi-national state. That is the only way to stop the fighting and establish good relations,even though it will be a long road.
And a question:
Do you think the Palestinian actions are proactive or a result of what their lives are like? You can never assume that their standard of living is even close to ours, most have no hope for any future. And remember, groups like Hamas didn't start showing up until the 1980s, a good 30 years after the Israeli state was established.
For the "the Jews deserve a homeland" shit. I understand the Jews have been through the hardest times out of almost any group of people but they knew there would be conflict if an Israeli state was established in Palestine so why the hell do we blame Bush for Iraq when he knew how fucked up it will be but not the Israeli fundamentalists, notice how I do not blame all Israelites, when they knew this sort of conflict would erupt? Quee summed up my other argument very well for that.
This has little to do with Islam because you are using a minority of radical islamic believers to define the cause. Most followers of Islam are peaceful and want to be left alone like many other. I am all for our country using whatever means are available in finding these radicals anywhere in the world in any country and hunting them down and killing them. That is not the issue. The issue is that it is a minority of all of those who follow Islam.
Yes, we need to find out what the incentive for people turning to a radical stance is and stopping that. Just going out and killing them probably won't solve much.
Israel IS a Jewish state. Saying "I don't hate Jewish people, I just hate Israel" is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than saying, "I don't hate Chinese people, I just hate China...and those who say it has the right to exist and defend itself when attacked."
It is very different, because "Chinese people" are "people from China". "Jewish people" is not a synonym for "people from Israel".
If the Kurds decide that they want their own country, and claim territory from the nations they are living in, your view on that claim is not synonymous with your view of the Kurdish people.
Why is it that when someone threatens our land or freedom it's ok to do whatever is necessary to get it back but when Muslims do it they're labeled as radicals? Maybe the reason these people become ultra religious is because the only people not trying to “exterminate” them are there fellow Muslims. They don’t just wake up one day and say “I’m tired of living peacefully; I want to be a terrorist”. The reality is most of these people have had their lives ripped apart and have been put through things we can never even begin to understand. We are a very lucky few to be able to live in the types of societies we do, but we have to remember that we make up a very small portion of the demographic.
The reality is most of these people have had their lives ripped apart and have been put through things we can never even begin to understand. We are a very lucky few to be able to live in the types of societies we do, but we have to remember that we make up a very small portion of the demographic.
That is probably true for a lot but I bet some of them would be comparable to conspiracy theorist in the United States. Extremely irrational and, put the in a different situation and I bet this will happen, willing to do anything to achieve what they think is "right".
It has nothing more to do with Islam than abortion clinic bombings have to do with Christianity. They are just in a situation where the incentive to go to such extremes is much higher than in the United States.
It is very different, because "Chinese people" are "people from China". "Jewish people" is not a synonym for "people from Israel".
If the Kurds decide that they want their own country, and claim territory from the nations they are living in, your view on that claim is not synonymous with your view of the Kurdish people.
Wrong. Israel is the land of the Jews. It's the Jewish homeland in the same way China is the homeland of the Chinese. You can't legitimately separate the two.
Jews are a group of people. Zionism is an ideology. I hate the Nazi ideology but I do not hate the German people. I hate the neo-conservative ideology but I do not have hate the American people. I hate Zionism ideology but I do not hate Jewish people, catch my drift?
Calling people that support Palestinians anti-semitic is just a way to limit free speech by placing that issue into a category no one wants to go into without political suicide. It is no different than calling people who are anti-immigration racist. Sure some people that are anti-immigration are racist and sure, some people who are pro-Palestinians are anti-semitic but to call everyone who are anti-immigration racist or everyone that supports the Palestinian people anti-semitic is not only using cheap dirty, and invalid, arguing techniques, but it disallows a mature intelligent discussion on the topic and disintegrates it to 5-year old yelling and bitching match.
The only way peace can be restored in Palestine is a one-state solution going through a bi-national state. That is the only way to stop the fighting and establish good relations,even though it will be a long road.
And a question:
Do you think the Palestinian actions are proactive or a result of what their lives are like? You can never assume that their standard of living is even close to ours, most have no hope for any future. And remember, groups like Hamas didn't start showing up until the 1980s, a good 30 years after the Israeli state was established.
For the "the Jews deserve a homeland" shit. I understand the Jews have been through the hardest times out of almost any group of people but they knew there would be conflict if an Israeli state was established in Palestine so why the hell do we blame Bush for Iraq when he knew how fucked up it will be but not the Israeli fundamentalists, notice how I do not blame all Israelites, when they knew this sort of conflict would erupt? Quee summed up my other argument very well for that.
The word Palestine doesn't refer to a country, it refers to a physical region. Calling someone a "Palestinian" is like calling people from Colorado "Rocky Mountain People".
There is no such thing as a "Palestinian" in exactly the same way there are no "Rocky Mountain People". The Jordanians and other Arabs calling themselves Palestinians lived on the land but so did Jews. Jews have lived on that land constantly since before biblical times. During the years when there was no state of Israel, Jews still lived there. It is Jewish land. During all of the years when there was no state of Israel, the Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians"
[COLOR="Red"]NEVER[/COLOR] owned a single square inch of the land. It was owned by various empires, but never the people who lived on the land. In fact none of them owned any land until it was divided by the British empire and shared with the people who were basically squatters and the Jews.
1947 was the first time in history the so-called Palestinians owned any land at all and the land they were given was historically part of Israel so if anyone has a reason to be mad, it's the Israeli people.
Wrong. Israel is the land of the Jews. It's the Jewish homeland in the same way China is the homeland of the Chinese.
Um, no. Not even close. The Jews existed before Israel, and they still exist throughout the world as citizens of their respective nations. Israel is the homeland of the people who live there.
It doesn't matter who lived where historically. Refer to quee's post.
You can not just say, "we lived there 2,000 years ago" so it should be ours now because of the countless other groups of people that have been taken over and moved out. And even so, the Jews have only lived in Israel for 1,000 years out of the past 3,000 since Judaism has only been around for that long. That means that Arabs have been living there for twice as long as the Jews and you say that it is the land of the Jews?
Also, Judaism as it was 2,000 years ago is dead ever since the Romans burned down the temple so there is no need for an Israeli homeland. But, even if there old religion didn't die, no religion or group of people should be given land on the blood of others. If something has already happened, not much we can do but help integrate the populations and that is what we should be doing with Palestine.
Regardless of who controlled the land...individual people owned individual houses and now live in permanent refugee camps, whilst the people who drove them from their homes occupy those houses or houses built upon the land the Palestinian family vacated.
There has never been a minute in the last 3000 years where Jews did not live in the area known as Israel. The Arabs who lived there did not ever own a single grain of sand let alone any actual land. The land was owned by various empires. The Roman, Egyptian, Ottoman, and British empires all owned it at different times.
Those who lived on the land (Jews and Arabs) didn't own the land during these years. When the land was given to them in 1947, it was the first time any Arabs had owned any part of the land they were squatting on.
Israel is the home of the Jews in the same way China is the homeland of the Chinese. To claim otherwise is either dishonest or laughably stupid.
Regardless of who controlled the land...individual people owned individual houses and now live in permanent refugee camps, whilst the people who drove them from their homes occupy those houses or houses built upon the land the Palestinian family vacated.
Oh, so if you own land that you don't live on, and I build a house on it. You're the bad guy when you tear down the house and make me leave?
Israel is the home of the Jews in the same way China is the homeland of the Chinese. To claim otherwise is either dishonest or laughably stupid.
Nope. Jews predate Israel.
Oh, so if you own land that you don't live on, and I build a house on it. You're the bad guy when you tear down the house and make me leave?
If I am the Israelis in this instance then I never owned the land in the first place. Somebody bigger than me stole it from you and handed me the keys.
I always assume Zionists think we should give NY & or FL back to the Native Americans & TX back to Mexico.
If somebody stole my land I'd convince my children to blow themselves up in those people's buses and pizza shops!
Oh, no wait, I wouldn't. I'd get over it. I'd love my children and teach them to love.
What if you and your children were living in cramped unhealthy conditions and they risked a sniper bullet in the head when they left the house?
maybe if i (and my neighbors)didn't send them out with explosives on them i wouldn't have to worry about snipers.
Suicide bombing is a relatively new phenomenon. I do believe it is a response to the brutalising effects of occupation. And the effects are brutal.
it's not a response. it is a choice. a response is when the doctor hits your knee with a hammer and your leg bounces. A causes B. I'm pretty sure that no man, woman, or child has every woken up and thought "this occuption sucks" and spontaneously exploded.
I'm not suggesting that the situation is anything less than shit, but blowing yourself and non-combatants up is not a response to anything other than a persons fucked up allegiance to a misguided notion.
I'm pretty sure that no man, woman, or child has every woken up and thought "this occuption sucks" and spontaneously exploded
My brain did. You can see evidence of it all over this message board.
Nope. Jews predate Israel.
Yep. Chinese people predate China, but China is still the home of the Chinese people exactly the same way that Israel is the homeland of the Jews.
If I am the Israelis in this instance then I never owned the land in the first place. Somebody bigger than me stole it from you and handed me the keys.
No, if you're Israel, someone stole it from you, someone stole it from them, someone stole it from them, and then that person broke it in pieces and give you some of it back.
If somebody stole my land I'd convince my children to blow themselves up in those people's buses and pizza shops!
Oh, no wait, I wouldn't. I'd get over it. I'd love my children and teach them to love.
Excellent point, though to be more accurate, the land was never yours to begin with so it wasn't stolen from you. :)
They were living there for 2,000 fucking years. It wasn't like the people living in Palestine moved in in 70 AD, the were living there before that too. The Jews moved out when the temple was destroyed by the Romans.
No one is given a piece of land. The Israelis don't deserve Israel and the Palestinians don't deserve Palestine. I don't have a problem with anyone living in Palestine, it is just when you kick people out, then that is totally different.
Yep. Chinese people predate China,
No they don't.
I'm not suggesting that the situation is anything less than shit, but blowing yourself and non-combatants up is not a response to anything other than a persons fucked up allegiance to a misguided notion.
I understand that Lookout. However, if you and your people are facing the world's fourth military superpower and you are restricted in your movements within your own country, you've seen your family members brutalised and humiliated and your grandfather still has a set of keys for the house your family were forced to abandon..you may look to see what you can do. David has become Goliath and the palestinian has discovered an altogether larger sling.
When we devasted Baghdad with Shock and Awe, we killed non combatants. That may not have been our ultimate goal, but it was something our military and politicians were unconcerned about. When Israel sends rockets into a crowded market place, or destroys a house which has been divided up into flats, one of which contains a suspected 'terrorist', they kill non-combatants. This is not a concern to them.
One side in that conflict is imprisoning the other. There is little to no freedom of movement for Palestinians. They are divided from their farms, their workplaces, hospitals, schools...checkpoints are a random and violent affair if you are a Palestinian civilian. Israel can do this because they are a wealthy and militarily powerful. Palestinians have very little to compare with Israel's arsenal.
Strapping on a bomb and targetting civilians is terrorism...in that it creates terror. But all those who have fought with violence against occupation have been considered terrorists at one time or another. The French resistance were considered terrorists by many. The ANC was considered a terrorist group.
Palestinians are creating fear and dismay amongst the ordinary people of Israel, because it's the only way they have to fight back. The Israelis meanwhile are creating terror amongst the ordinary people of Palestine, because they think to terrorise them into submission.
The world is horrified at someone strapping a bomb to themselves and blowing up a schoolbus, but they are not horrified at the death and suffering inflicted on ordinary Palestinians, many of them children, by Israeli terror tactics.
From the Independant:
Names of children under the age of 18 killed during the operations mounted by the Israeli military in Gaza since 25 June, according to the Palestinian Centre of Human Rights
Bara Nasser Habib, 3 (hit by shrapnel to the head and body, Gaza City, 26 July)
Shahed Saleh Al-Sheikh Eid, 3 days old (bled to death after airstrike, Al-Shouka, 4 August)
Rajaa Salam Abu Shaban, 3 (died of fractured skull in air raid, Gaza City, 9 August)
Jihad Selmi Abu Snaima, 14 (killed by a shell, Al-Shoukha, 10 september)
Khaled Nidal Wahba, 15 months (died of wounds from an airstrike, 10 July)
Rawan Farid Hajjaj, 6 (killed with his mother and sister in an airstrike, Gaza City, 8 July)
Anwar Ismail Abdul Ghani Atallah, 12 (shot in the head, Erez, 5 July)
Shadi Yousef Omar 16 (shot in the chest by IDF, Beit Lahya, 7 July)
Mahfouth Farid Nuseir, 16 (killed by missile while playing football, Beit Hanoun, 11 July)
Ahmad Ghalib Abu Amsha, 16, (killed by missile while playing football, Beit Hanoun, 11 July)
Ahmad Fathi Shabat, 16 (killed by missile while playing football, Beit Hanoun, 11 July)
Walid Mahmoud El-Zeinati, 12 (died of shrapnel wounds, Gaza City, 11 July)
Basma Salmeya, 16 (killed in Israeli airstrike, 12 July, Jabalia)
Somaya Salmeya, 17 (killed in Israeli airstrike, 12 July, Jabalia)
Aya Salmeya, 9 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July)
Yehya Salmeya, 10 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July)
Nasr Salmeya, 7 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July)
Huda Salmeya, 13 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July)
Eman Salmeya, 12 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July)
Raji Omar Jaber Daifallah, 16 (died of shrapnel wounds from missile, Gaza City, 13 July)
Ali Kamel Al-Najjar, 16 (killed by Israeli tank shell, Al-Maghazi refugee camp, 19 July)
Ahmed Ali Al-Na'ami, 16 (killed by Israeli tank shell, Al-Maghazi refugee camp, 19 July)
Ahmed Rawhi Abu Abdu, 14 (killed by drone missile, Al Nusairat refugee camp, 19 July)
Mohammed 'awad Muhra, 14 (killed by Israeli bullet to the chest, Al-Maghazi refugee camp, 20 July)
Fadwa Faisal Al-'arrouqi, 13 (died from shrapnel wounds, Gaza City, 20 July)
Saleh Ibrahim Nasser, 14 (killed by artillery fire, Beit Hanoun, 24 July)
Khitam Mohammed Rebhi Tayeh, 11 (killed by artillery fire, Beit Hanoun, 24 July)
Ashraf 'abdullah 'awad Abu Zaher, 14 (shot in the back, Khan Younis, 25 July)
Nahid Mohammed Fawzi Al-Shanbari, 16 (killed by artillery fire, Beit Hanoun, 31 July)
'aaref Ahmed Abu Qaida, 14 (killed by artillery fire, Beit Hanoun, 1 August)
Anis Salem Abu Awad, 12 (killed by airstike, Al-Shouka, 2 August)
Ammar Rajaa Al-Natour, 17 (killed by drone missile, Al Shouka, 5 August)
Kifah Rajaa Al-Natour, 15 (killed by drone missile, Al Shouka, 5 August)
Ibrahim Suleiman Al-Rumailat, 13 (killed by drone missile, Al Shouka, 5 August)
Ahmed Yousef 'abed 'aashour, 13 (killed by missile fire, Beit Hanoun, 14 August)
Mohammed 'abdullah Al-Ziq, 14 (killed by drone missile, Gaza City, 29 August)
Nidal 'abdul 'aziz Al-Dahdouh, 14 (killed by rifle fire, Gaza City, 30 August)
Jihad Selmi Abu Snaima, 14 (killed by artillery fire, Rafah, 10 September)
From B'Tselem (The Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories):
8 March 07: Israeli soldiers use two Palestinian minors as human shields
Testimonies taken by B'Tselem reveal that during the army's operation in Nablus in late February, soldiers used two Palestinian children, a fifteen-year-old boy and a eleven-year-old girl, and a twenty-four-year old man as human shields. The use of human shields constitutes a flagrant breach of international humanitarian law and is explicitly and clearly prohibited by Israeli military orders. B'Tselem wrote to the Judge Advocate General and demanded that he immediately order a Military Police investigation into the matter.
The military operation, which was given the name "Hot Winter," began on 25 February, and was intended "to undermine the terror infrastructure" in Nablus , in part by arresting wanted persons and destroying explosives laboratories. The army imposed a complete curfew for more than two consecutive days on the Old City (the Casbah), in which tens of thousands of Palestinians live. One person, who went up to his roof during the curfew, was shot and killed by soldiers, and his son was wounded.
According to the testimonies, on the first day of the operation, around five o'clock in the morning, soldiers came to the house of the 'Amirah family, in the Old City , and removed all the occupants from the house and took them to a nearby house, where other Palestinians were also being held. Then the soldiers ordered one of the family, 15-year old 'Amid to accompany them in their search of three other houses. According to 'Amid's testimony, the soldiers pushed him with the barrels of their rifles and forced him to enter rooms of the house in front of them, open cabinets and empty out the contents, and open windows. In one instance, according to the testimony, a soldier shot several shots into the room.
Other soldiers took 'Amid's cousin, Samah 'Amirah, 24, and used him as a human shield in a similar fashion. Part of this incident was recorded on by AP television cameras and broadcast both on Israeli television and abroad. 'Amirah was forced to enter every room in his house, while soldiers followed him. Afterwards a soldier would shoot a round of bullets into each room.
In another incident, which took place on the morning of 28 February, also in the Old City , soldiers took control of the Dadush family house and locked the six members of the family in one room of the house. Throughout the day, soldiers interrogated all of the members of the family about the location of armed Palestinians who fired at soldiers in the area during the operation. Around eight o'clock at night, soldiers forced eleven-year old Jihan Dadush to lead them twice to one of the adjacent houses that she had mentioned to the soldiers in response to their questions. The second time, when they arrived at the house, the soldiers forced her to open the door and enter in front of them. After combing the inside of the house, the soldiers returned her to her house. In her testimony to B'Tselem, Jihan said that after the soldiers left, "I was shaking with fear. I was afraid they would kill me or put me in jail. The only thing I wanted to do was sleep… I am afraid that the soldiers will come back and take me."
B'TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories was established in 1989 by a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members. It endeavors to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel.
The artcile can be accessed here
http://www.btselem.org/english/About_BTselem/Index.asp
There are other sides to the story. We are so used to taking our news from that region from the mouths of Israeli Generals and Ministers, we have forgotten that the Palestinians suffer.
No they don't.
Yes, they do.
I understand that Lookout. However, if you and your people are facing the world's fourth military superpower and you are restricted in your movements within your own country, you've seen your family members brutalised and humiliated and your grandfather still has a set of keys for the house your family were forced to abandon..you may look to see what you can do. David has become Goliath and the palestinian has discovered an altogether larger sling.
When we devasted Baghdad with Shock and Awe, we killed non combatants. That may not have been our ultimate goal, but it was something our military and politicians were unconcerned about. When Israel sends rockets into a crowded market place, or destroys a house which has been divided up into flats, one of which contains a suspected 'terrorist', they kill non-combatants. This is not a concern to them.
One side in that conflict is imprisoning the other. There is little to no freedom of movement for Palestinians. They are divided from their farms, their workplaces, hospitals, schools...checkpoints are a random and violent affair if you are a Palestinian civilian. Israel can do this because they are a wealthy and militarily powerful. Palestinians have very little to compare with Israel's arsenal.
Strapping on a bomb and targetting civilians is terrorism...in that it creates terror. But all those who have fought with violence against occupation have been considered terrorists at one time or another. The French resistance were considered terrorists by many. The ANC was considered a terrorist group.
Palestinians are creating fear and dismay amongst the ordinary people of Israel, because it's the only way they have to fight back. The Israelis meanwhile are creating terror amongst the ordinary people of Palestine, because they think to terrorise them into submission.
The world is horrified at someone strapping a bomb to themselves and blowing up a schoolbus, but they are not horrified at the death and suffering inflicted on ordinary Palestinians, many of them children, by Israeli terror tactics.
There is no "occupation". The so-called Palestinian people owned zero land until they were given some at the same time as Israel. The keys those people hold belong to houses build on land they never owned. They were never wronged. Any killing they do, especially when blowing up women and children genuinely IS terrorism and has no legitimate justification.
The world is rightly horrified at seeing children taught to hate Jews more than they love to live. The world should not be horrified at the death and suffering of the so-called Palestinian people because they have brought it upon themselves through their constant attacks and murder. The so-called Palestinians are NOT oppressed or caused to suffer at the hands of Israel.
None of the so-called Palestinians have fought against an Israeli occupation because there is no Israeli occupation for them to fight. They merely want to kill Jews and don't recognize their right to live on the land they have HONESTLY acquired.
Israel doesn't practice terrorism or apartheid. Israel doesn't initiate violence, it only uses violence in its defense. Israel is kind, generous, and peace-loving and isn't interested in conquest and its 6 decades of offering concessions, food, shelter, clothing, etc. to the people who constantly attack them prove this fact.
I still want to know how chinese people can predate china.
Names of children under the age of 18 killed during the operations mounted by the Israeli military in Gaza since 25 June, according to the Palestinian Centre of Human Rights
Each and every one of those kids died because so-called Palestinian people blew up Jewish men and women and planned attacks against Israel. These people hid among women and children so when Israel retaliated, these women and children would die. In other words, they were killed by the actions of their own people, not Israel.
Every one of those deaths rests squarely on the shoulders of those who attack Israeli Jews. When will those people learn that when you mess with the bull, you get the horns? When will they put the lives of their own women and children above their own desire to murder Jews?
From B'Tselem (The Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories):
The artcile can be accessed here http://www.btselem.org/english/About_BTselem/Index.asp
There are other sides to the story. We are so used to taking our news from that region from the mouths of Israeli Generals and Ministers, we have forgotten that the Palestinians suffer.
Yes, let's blame the people who used the so-called Palestinian people as human shields, and not the murderers who made them need a shield in the first place.
I still want to know how chinese people can predate china.
There were people in America, before there was a U.S.A. There were people in China before there was a nation of China. The Chinese people were still Chinese before there was a China, and the people in America were Americans before we started using the term "Americans" to describe them. It's the same people regardless of what you call them.
Jews have ALWAYS lived in Israel even after the temple was destroyed. There has never been a single day during the last 3,000 years when Jewish people didn't live in Israel.
The land was there before the people were.
People arrived. Decided on a name and voila! There's China.
Or on the other hand...if you want to be pedantic about it and only allow the statement to encompas the time since people arrived, why do you think indigenous Americans sometimes choose to identify themselves as something other than American? Or why does the inuit nation choose to call themselves that rather than...well...Americans or Canadians or whatever part of the area they happen to live in.
They can call themselves Cherokee or Purple gorillas for all I care. I use the term "American" to describe them because they currently live within the borders of the U.S.A..
The fact remains that there were people in what is described as "China" long before it was called "China" and those people looked the same and spoke the same language as they do now.
Israel is the land of the Jews in the same way that China is the land of Chinese people, Italy is the land of the Italian people, Greece is the land of the Greek, etc.
your argument was that 'the people' predated 'the country'. By your statement above, that's simply not correct.
Let's use China as an example. During the history of what we now know as China, there have been other names for the mass of land such as 'Mongolia' during Khans reign, and I think you'll find the language was different. I'm pretty sure Chinese people would not refer to themselves as Mongolian just because that's what China was once called. Things have changed a bit since Khan left the scene too. It's a different place now than it was then. Not the same.
The people who lived in what you now call America didn't speak the same language as you do and they definitely didn't call themselves american did they?
While this statement is true:
Israel is the land of the Jews in the same way that China is the land of Chinese people, Italy is the land of the Italian people, Greece is the land of the Greek, etc.
It certainly does not prove your argument that the people predated the country.
The Chinese people were in China before the country was called China and yes, they did speak CHINESE.
I believe the majority of Chinese people speak either Mandarin or Cantonese. I don't believe there is such a thing as Chinese as a language although you might say that all the languages spoken in China are Chinese...if you were ignorant enough to do so.
Mandarin & Cantonese are dialects of the CHINESE language. I happen to speak 4 languages myself and you would be a fool to challenge me on this.
I live in Australia and I speak English.
I happen to speak 4 languages myself and you would be a fool to challenge me on this.
Are you a Kung Fu Master? lol
No, but I am a cunning linguist, and a master debater.
I think you are a
Kung Fu Master. ;) srsly
There were people in America, before there was a U.S.A. There were people in China before there was a nation of China. The Chinese people were still Chinese before there was a China, and the people in America were Americans before we started using the term "Americans" to describe them. It's the same people regardless of what you call them.
Jews have ALWAYS lived in Israel even after the temple was destroyed. There has never been a single day during the last 3,000 years when Jewish people didn't live in Israel.
You are wrong, Radar.
Before there was a china, there were Han people and Qin people and Sichuan people and Canton people and Hakka people.
Qin Shi Huang Di conquered and united all of what we currently know as china. He personally created the chinese language, from his own Qin language, and standardized a method of writing across all of his empire. The people still continued to
speak their own languages, but were forced to learn and write what we now know as chinese. The people still continued to be Han people and Qin people and Hakka people, and many still do
to this day, while others have in the intervening centuries grown to identify as chinese.
You are definitely wrong in this case, radar. Maybe a different example would be more apt. They were not chinese on the virtue that they happened to live in what later eventually became china, they were not chinese by virtue of their ethnicity, they were not chinese by virtue of their language, they were not chines by virtue of their identity. They were not chinese.
I give up. To blame the civilians for the Israelis using human shields wins it. You can't argue stupid.
If, lets say, someone used your brother for a human shield to clear out your neighbor's house because he was dealing drugs and guns, it would really be your fault anyway for not noticing your neighbor was a drug dealer. You deserve it. I don't even think UG would back you up on this one.
Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck how many languages you claim to speak, you'd come across just as big a douche in each of them. You reason like a block of cheese.
Radar, you are a Zionist. Why do we expect any kind of rational response from you?
How can you see a list of dead children and lay the blame at the door of their grieving parents, refusing to lay any of the responsibility at the doors of those who killed them? Answer: because the life of twelve year old Palestinian is worth less to you than the life of a twelve year old Israeli. The life of an eighteen month old Palestinian toddler, is worth less to you than the life of an Israeli soldier. The life of a Palestinian is worth less to you than the life of a dog.
I give up. To blame the civilians for the Israelis using human shields wins it. You can't argue stupid.
If, lets say, someone used your brother for a human shield to clear out your neighbor's house because he was dealing drugs and guns, it would really be your fault anyway for not noticing your neighbor was a drug dealer. You deserve it. I don't even think UG would back you up on this one.
Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck how many languages you claim to speak, you'd come across just as big a douche in each of them. You reason like a block of cheese.
If my neighbor was shooting everyone in the neighborhood on a shooting spree for no apparent reason, and I picked up his own child to use as a human shield, there would be no fault in it. If you think there would be, you are part of the problem. If he shoots his own child, he's the monster. If he shoots the neighbors he's the monster. If I seek shelter from his unwarranted killing spree behind his children who he is presumably less likely to shoot at, I am NOT the monster.
Radar, you are a Zionist. Why do we expect any kind of rational response from you?
Because I'm a Zionist and Zionists give intelligent, thoughtful, well-reasoned, articulate, truthful, and rational responses while anti-Zionists attempt to justify murder, falsely claim to be victims when they are predators, and otherwise spread stupidity and lies about Israel.
How can you see a list of dead children and lay the blame at the door of their grieving parents, refusing to lay any of the responsibility at the doors of those who killed them? Answer: because the life of twelve year old Palestinian is worth less to you than the life of a twelve year old Israeli. The life of an eighteen month old Palestinian toddler, is worth less to you than the life of an Israeli soldier. The life of a Palestinian is worth less to you than the life of a dog.
The life of a 12 year old so-called Palestinian or that of a toddler is worth as much as the life of any other 12 year old. I think it's a tragedy that the so-called Palestinian people don't value the lives of their children and place them in harm's way and endanger them by attacking Israel and then hiding amongst them. It's a shame that they want to kill Jews more than they love their children and that they raise their children to strap bombs to themselves and kill Jews.
The one who killed them is not the guy who fired the missile in response to a terrorist act. The one who killed them is the terrorist who endangered them by hiding amongst them.
In L.A. a year or two ago, a guy shot up a bunch of cops and came outside holding his 1 year old baby in front of himself as a human shield. He was the aggressor. He attacked the police. And he endangered his baby by using her as a human shield. The baby was killed and the death of that baby did not rest on the shoulders of the police who were trying to take this murderer out, it rests on the shoulders of the guy who started shooting at police in the first place. In this example, if the police used his child as a human shield, they would not be endangering his child, but if the murderer uses the child he would.
You are wrong, Radar.
Before there was a china, there were Han people and Qin people and Sichuan people and Canton people and Hakka people.
Qin Shi Huang Di conquered and united all of what we currently know as china. He personally created the chinese language, from his own Qin language, and standardized a method of writing across all of his empire. The people still continued to speak their own languages, but were forced to learn and write what we now know as chinese. The people still continued to be Han people and Qin people and Hakka people, and many still do to this day, while others have in the intervening centuries grown to identify as chinese.
You are definitely wrong in this case, radar. Maybe a different example would be more apt. They were not chinese on the virtue that they happened to live in what later eventually became china, they were not chinese by virtue of their ethnicity, they were not chinese by virtue of their language, they were not chines by virtue of their identity. They were not chinese.
I am not wrong. Han is a form of Chinese. In fact it's called "Han Chinese".
The following is from a wikipedia article...
Chinese or the Sinitic language(s) (汉语/漢語, Pinyin: Hànyǔ; 华语/華語, Huáyǔ; or 中文, Zhōngwén) can be considered a language or language family. Originally the indigenous languages spoken by the Han Chinese in China, it forms one of the two branches of Sino-Tibetan family of languages[3]. About one-fifth of the world’s population, or over 1 billion people, speak some form of Chinese as their native language. The identification of the varieties of Chinese as "languages" or "dialects" is controversial [4]. As a language family Chinese has an estimated nearly 1.2 billion speakers; Mandarin Chinese alone has around 850 million native speakers, outnumbering any other language in the world.
Spoken Chinese is distinguished by its high level of internal diversity, though all spoken varieties of Chinese are tonal and analytic. There are between six and twelve main regional groups of Chinese (depending on classification scheme), of which the most populous (by far) is Mandarin (c. 850 million), followed by Wu (c. 90 million), Min (c. 70 million) and Cantonese (c. 70 million). Most of these groups are mutually unintelligible, though some, like Xiang and the Southwest Mandarin dialects, may share common terms and some degree of intelligibility. Chinese is classified as a macrolanguage with 13 sub-languages in ISO 639-3, though the identification of the varieties of Chinese as multiple "languages" or as "dialects" of a single language is a contentious issue.
The standardized form of spoken Chinese is Standard Mandarin (Putonghua/Guoyu), based on the Beijing dialect. Standard Mandarin is the official language of the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China in Taiwan, as well as one of four official languages of Singapore. Chinese—de facto, Standard Mandarin—is one of the six official languages of the United Nations. Of the other varieties, Standard Cantonese is common and influential in Cantonese-speaking overseas communities, and remains one of the official languages of Hong Kong (together with English) and of Macau (together with Portuguese). Min Nan, part of the Min language group, is widely spoken in southern Fujian, in Taiwan (where it is known as Taiwanese or Hoklo) and in Southeast Asia (where it dominates in Singapore and Malaysia and is known as Hokkien).
Feel free to read more at...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_languageIf my neighbor was shooting everyone in the neighborhood on a shooting spree for no apparent reason, and I picked up his own child to use as a human shield, there would be no fault in it.
I think you just blew my mind Radar. The fact that its his own child doesn't make it acceptable for
you to put it at risk by using it as a shield. What an outrageous statement to make. I am appalled.
Radar, I speak Chinese. And I know for certain that how ever many thousand years ago, there WAS no chinese identity of any sort, before Qin Shi Huang Di unified china. As I already said, if you could have been bothered to read, before Qin Shi Huang Di commanded a unified writing style for all of his domain, not only did each former nation-state have its own independent language, but its own completely different identity and culture. We aren't talking, like, an athens-sparta kind of difference, where they were separate but still both greek... we're talking, like, the difference between brazil and italy. Possibly some common linguistic roots way back there somewhere, but... utterly separate cultures. Then, imagine some dictator took over both italy and brazil, and decreed that they had to write the same way, even if they didnt say everything the same way. Hundreds of years later, portugese and italian would become part of the same language family, rather than separate languages, right?
Look, you are not going to win this one, radar. All the historical evidence is against you. Before there was a china, there absolutely were NO chinese. Only long after Qin Shi Huang Di unified what is now china were there any chinese people.
Simply picking out one word from my entire post and saying, nolookthatischinese, is both intellectually dishonest and just plain stupid.
Don't try looking for logic Ibram. You're talking to a man who deems it acceptable to use children as human shields.
Yeah, but only if their parents are dicks. Sins of the father and all that.
WARNING:
Israeli and (white) American children: not OK for human shield use.
They can call themselves Cherokee or Purple gorillas for all I care. I use the term "American" to describe them because they currently live within the borders of the U.S.A..
And "the Jews" do not currently live within the borders of Israel. Some do, but being Israeli and being Jewish are not the same thing. Also, there are plenty of people who live within the current borders of Israel, and have done so since before Israel, and are not Jewish. So I don't know how your "lived in what became the USA = American" applies to Israel.
The fact remains that there were people in what is described as "China" long before it was called "China" and those people looked the same and spoke the same language as they do now.
They were many different nations until they were conquered. Once the empire was consolidated, they became Chinese. If the empire hadn't held, they would be many nations.
Israel is the land of the Jews in the same way that China is the land of Chinese people, Italy is the land of the Italian people, Greece is the land of the Greek, etc.
Israel is the land of the Jews in the same way that Europe is the land of the Christians. They appeared somewhere else, gained political power there, and spread throughout the world. But American Christians have no claim on Rome.
So if I ban guns and Radar revolts I get to use his children as body shields? Nice...
But anyways, Radar, I want you to answer these questions with zero bullshit.
1) Your argument for Israel becoming a state is because their was an Israeli state 2,000 years ago and the Jews should return to their home. Now, the
Lakota People of Minnesota and North and South Dakota had been living in that area for long time, I haven't seen any dates of when they moved in. But in the late 1700s and early 1800s white settlers moved in and either killed them or forced them to live in reservations. Now, you are saying that Israel should get its state back after 2,000 years, why aren't you fighting for a Lakota state of only losing their land of 250 years? Remember, like the Jews, the Lakota people have been living in this area when it has been under foreign occupation as well. For example, I am good friends with someone of Lakota decent and he goes to my school.
2) Igoring a larger state of Palestine, the people living in Palestine have been living in that area and have owned property there for over 3,000 years (Jews living in Palestine are considered Palestinians), do you not believe in a human right of owning property? Those people have owned land whether they were under foreign control or not, and you are justifying the forced movement of over 4 million refugees. How can this be with your strong libertarian influences. I, and I'm sure you wouldn't either, would not give up my house so the Lakota people could move back in, why should the Palestinian people give up their personal property for people that have not lived there for 2,000 years (assuming most Jews immigrated, which is highly true)?
3) You have justified Israel's actions with the thought that a few bad apples can spoil the whole bunch. A very few amount of Palestinians (less than 1 in 1,000) have resorted to terrorist like actions and many Palestinians look down upon these actions but have zero means of stopping them. Now, are you willing to say it is OK for you to be bombed (this includes everyone you love) because of the actions of Bush and the neo-cons or are you going to stop them yourself? The choice is yours.
The fact of the matter is the so-called Palestinian people weren't thrown in a cage, aren't oppressed by Israel, have never had any land stolen from them, and are only held back by their own actions. The so-called Palestinians aren't wanted by anyone in the middle-east...not even Jordan where 75% of them came from.
Israel didn't create any "situation" for the Palestinians. They did that on their own.
If the so-called Palestinians chose to revolt and start more widespread violence, it would be their own undoing because Israel is fully capable of destroying each and every single one of them, and all of their surrounding nations without any help from America.
Israel just wants to be left the hell alone. Israel is generous and kind and gives food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. to the so-called Palestinians. Israel allows Arab man and women to live, work, vote, and hold political office even though no Arab nation allows Jews or women to do that...and in most cases, the men can't vote either because they are living in a dictatorship or monarchy.
Israel hasn't "screwed over" the so-called Palestinian people. If anything, the opposite is true. Israel has given...and given...and given in hopes of peace, but you can't make peace with those who don't recognize your right to exist. You can't reason with unreasonable people. You can't make peace with those who would give up everything just to see you dead.
As long as the Arab people get it through their heads that Israel is not going anywhere and attacking Israel will result in their own destruction, everything will be fine.
Man, you need a history lesson.
I think you just blew my mind Radar. The fact that its his own child doesn't make it acceptable for you to put it at risk by using it as a shield. What an outrageous statement to make. I am appalled.
I wouldn't be putting the child at risk by using him as a human shield. His father would be putting him at risk if he kept shooting my direction while I was holding his child.
Radar, I speak Chinese. And I know for certain that how ever many thousand years ago, there WAS no chinese identity of any sort, before Qin Shi Huang Di unified china. As I already said, if you could have been bothered to read, before Qin Shi Huang Di commanded a unified writing style for all of his domain, not only did each former nation-state have its own independent language, but its own completely different identity and culture. We aren't talking, like, an athens-sparta kind of difference, where they were separate but still both greek... we're talking, like, the difference between brazil and italy. Possibly some common linguistic roots way back there somewhere, but... utterly separate cultures. Then, imagine some dictator took over both italy and brazil, and decreed that they had to write the same way, even if they didnt say everything the same way. Hundreds of years later, portugese and italian would become part of the same language family, rather than separate languages, right?
Look, you are not going to win this one, radar. All the historical evidence is against you. Before there was a china, there absolutely were NO chinese. Only long after Qin Shi Huang Di unified what is now china were there any chinese people.
Simply picking out one word from my entire post and saying, nolookthatischinese, is both intellectually dishonest and just plain stupid.
Historical evidence proves that the language spoken by the Han Chinese
(before the unification of all the kingdoms of China) was mandarin Chinese. Anything you say to the contrary is false. So knock yourself out if you want.
Don't try looking for logic Ibram. You're talking to a man who deems it acceptable to use children as human shields.
You are hardly in a position to judge the logic of others or even to discuss logic. As an anti-Zionist, you are immune to logic and reason and have no ability to grasp reality or truth.
If my neighbor was shooting everyone in the neighborhood on a shooting spree for no apparent reason, and I picked up his own child to use as a human shield, there would be no fault in it.
Dude, that is fucking idiotic.
No it isn't. If someone is shooting at me, HE is the person doing the endangering. HE is the one with the gun. If I pick up his kid and use him as a shield, HE should stop shooting at me. If he shoots at me while I'm holding his kid HE is the person endangering his kid, not me.
It's fucking idiotic to say I am the bad guy when someone else is killing and I'm trying not to die.
No it isn't. If someone is shooting at me, HE is the person doing the endangering. HE is the one with the gun. If I pick up his kid and use him as a shield, HE should stop shooting at me. If he shoots at me while I'm holding his kid HE is the person endangering his kid, not me.
It's fucking idiotic to say I am the bad guy when someone else is killing and I'm trying not to die.
No human being with an ounce of sense would use an inocent child to protect them from harm.
What if you believe he is unlikely to shoot any child, and none of his are available? Are you justified in picking up the child of an innocent bystander to hide behind?
Well, he definitely thinks he's a kung fu master, but I think he's more of a troglodyte myself.
Thoughts anyone?
Well, he definitely thinks he's a kung fu master, but I think he's more of a troglodyte myself.
Thoughts anyone?
I vote troglodyte with a hint of proto-Neanderthal.
I think that's pretty accurate Merc. Nice work.
But in the late 1700s and early 1800s white settlers moved in and either killed them or forced them to live in reservations.
But that's not the end of the story. After that, the Lakota people indoctrinated their children in hate and taught them to attack the white settlers with terror and assymetrical tactics.
Watch out...Admin is here!
So if I ban guns and Radar revolts I get to use his children as body shields? Nice...
But anyways, Radar, I want you to answer these questions with zero bullshit.
1) Your argument for Israel becoming a state is because their was an Israeli state 2,000 years ago and the Jews should return to their home.
False. My argument for Israel becoming a state AGAIN has nothing to do with it being a state earlier, though having a small portion of the land that was historically the homeland of the Jews is cool. My argument for Israel becoming a state was that the rightful owners (the U.K.)
GAVE the land to the Jews to build a new homeland in a portion of their historical one.
Now, the Lakota People of Minnesota and North and South Dakota had been living in that area for long time, I haven't seen any dates of when they moved in. But in the late 1700s and early 1800s white settlers moved in and either killed them or forced them to live in reservations. Now, you are saying that Israel should get its state back after 2,000 years, why aren't you fighting for a Lakota state of only losing their land of 250 years? Remember, like the Jews, the Lakota people have been living in this area when it has been under foreign occupation as well. For example, I am good friends with someone of Lakota decent and he goes to my school.
This is unrelated to my reasons for supporting the legitimate state of Israel. But even so, the Indians did not ever own land. Indians didn't even believe land could be owned. They thought of land as a living organism that belonged to whatever god they happened to believe in.
Land can't be stolen from those who never owned it.
2) Igoring a larger state of Palestine, the people living in Palestine have been living in that area and have owned property there for over 3,000 years (Jews living in Palestine are considered Palestinians), do you not believe in a human right of owning property? Those people have owned land whether they were under foreign control or not, and you are justifying the forced movement of over 4 million refugees. How can this be with your strong libertarian influences. I, and I'm sure you wouldn't either, would not give up my house so the Lakota people could move back in, why should the Palestinian people give up their personal property for people that have not lived there for 2,000 years (assuming most Jews immigrated, which is highly true)?
The so-called Palestinian people did not live there for 3,000 years and most certainly
NEVER owned any of the land. If I build a house on your land without your knowledge and live there for 40 years, I don't have any legitimate claim to your land. Also, your laughable claim that the Jews had moved away for 2,000 years is entirely false.
I certainly support private property ownership. In fact, private property ownership is the foundation of all human rights.
3) You have justified Israel's actions with the thought that a few bad apples can spoil the whole bunch. A very few amount of Palestinians (less than 1 in 1,000) have resorted to terrorist like actions and many Palestinians look down upon these actions but have zero means of stopping them. Now, are you willing to say it is OK for you to be bombed (this includes everyone you love) because of the actions of Bush and the neo-cons or are you going to stop them yourself? The choice is yours.
Your 1 in a thousand numbers are ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of so-called Palestinian people support the murder of Jews, and deny the right of Israel to exist. The number who been involved in planning, assisting, or carrying out attacks against Israeli Jews is closer to 2-5% than 1%.
The percentage is irrelevant though. Those who don't take part in the attacks shelter, and protect those who do. This makes them just as guilty as those doing it. The so-called Palestinian people are endangering their own people by hiding among them after attacking Jews.
Israel is fully capable of killing each and every single Muslim in the middle-east without any help from America. The only reason Israel doesn't do this is because they aren't interested in conquest, in taking what others have, in killing Muslims, or in doing anything other than living in peace on their own honestly acquired land
(all of the land they hold). Israel will do whatever it takes for this to happen, whether they are extending a hand of friendship or a gun to put a bullet through those who would destroy them.
Peace would exist tomorrow if the so-called Palestinians would just stop killing Jews. The problem is they aren't interested in peace. They are only interested in killing Jews and wiping Israel off the map which will NEVER happen. Israel will be around even after America is gone.
You know, the only thing Jewish Israelis ever did was whine more than anyone else who ever had their country invaded. They whined and whined till the rest of the world got together and decided to give them something to shut them up, and now they're still fucking whining.
When will they be happy? Never.
I'm sorry, but I'm just sick and tired of people trying to excuse Israels actions in the middle east and call everyone else the bad guys.
Chosen people my arse. They're just people like everyone else.
False. My argument for Israel becoming a state AGAIN has nothing to do with it being a state earlier, though having a small portion of the land that was historically the homeland of the Jews is cool. My argument for Israel becoming a state was that the rightful owners (the U.K.) GAVE the land to the Jews to build a new homeland in a portion of their historical one.
The so-called Palestinian people did not live there for 3,000 years and most certainly NEVER owned any of the land. If I build a house on your land without your knowledge and live there for 40 years, I don't have any legitimate claim to your land. Also, your laughable claim that the Jews had moved away for 2,000 years is entirely false.
So the arabs that were booted out
NEVER built houses with their own money, on land they were given from the UK, legally and with the knowledge of the UK government?
Oh, and while we're at it, the Diaspora never happened. In fact, when Israel was founded, the Israelis didn't move in on hundreds of boats and planes like we've seen in pictures... they came out of their caves and rose from the mud they'd been hiding in.
I certainly support private property ownership. In fact, private property ownership is the foundation of all human rights.
Unless it's Palestinians, then their 'ownership' is not a right
Your 1 in a thousand numbers are ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of so-called Palestinian people support the murder of Jews, and deny the right of Israel to exist. The number who been involved in planning, assisting, or carrying out attacks against Israeli Jews is closer to 2-5% than 1%.
So you're saying that of the five or so million folks living in Israel, 125,000-250,000 of them are fighting Israel? Jesus, why aren't they winning!?
The percentage is irrelevant though. Those who don't take part in the attacks shelter, and protect those who do. This makes them just as guilty as those doing it. The so-called Palestinian people are endangering their own people by hiding among them after attacking Jews.
Here we get to your "If I use your child for a human shield, you're not allowed to get mad" argument.
Israel is fully capable of killing each and every single Muslim in the middle-east without any help from America. The only reason Israel doesn't do this is because they aren't interested in conquest, in taking what others have, in killing Muslims, or in doing anything other than living in peace on their own honestly acquired land (all of the land they hold). Israel will do whatever it takes for this to happen, whether they are extending a hand of friendship or a gun to put a bullet through those who would destroy them.
Peace would exist tomorrow if the so-called Palestinians would just stop killing Jews. The problem is they aren't interested in peace. They are only interested in killing Jews and wiping Israel off the map which will NEVER happen. Israel will be around even after America is gone.
Because it's the chosen land. Chosen by the UN.
You know, the only thing Jewish Israelis ever did was whine more than anyone else who ever had their country invaded. They whined and whined till the rest of the world got together and decided to give them something to shut them up, and now they're still fucking whining.
When will they be happy? Never.
I'm sorry, but I'm just sick and tired of people trying to excuse Israels actions in the middle east and call everyone else the bad guys.
Chosen people my arse. They're just people like everyone else.
Yes, what crazy people for claiming that those who strap bombs to themselves and blow up women and children are bad guys. Merely because the nations around them don't recognize their right to exist and have promised to murder them all and drive them into the ocean, they think they are bad guys.
They asked for a country
(no whining necessary, though they had plenty to whine about nearly being wiped out by Nazis) and the U.N. did the right thing with the U.K. and gave them some of their historical homeland back.
You ask when they will be happy. The answer is when they can walk around their streets without fear of being blown to bits every day. When they can know that the countries around theirs recognize their right to exist and stop trying to destroy them. When they can go about their business without having to look over their shoulder.
That doesn't seem like too much to ask for.
False. My argument for Israel becoming a state AGAIN has nothing to do with it being a state earlier, though having a small portion of the land that was historically the homeland of the Jews is cool. My argument for Israel becoming a state was that the rightful owners (the U.K.) GAVE the land to the Jews to build a new homeland in a portion of their historical one.
Fuck that shit, the people who
live in Palestine should be deciding what is happening to their homeland, whether they own it or not, not a country thousands of miles away. That is the whole point of the American Revolution, freedom from oppression, and then you justify the oppressive actions of colonization later on just because it works in your interests, bullshit. The people that were living in Palestine should have decided what happened, not the British.
This is unrelated to my reasons for supporting the legitimate state of Israel. But even so, the Indians did not ever own land. Indians didn't even believe land could be owned. They thought of land as a living organism that belonged to whatever god they happened to believe in.
Land can't be stolen from those who never owned it.
Just because they didn't own land in the European way doesn't mean they didn't have a right to live there. The fact is that people were living there for thousands of years and we kicked them out, whether the fit your bullshit definition of "owning" land or not, they still lived there.
And your views are wrong, just because some American Indians didn't believe that land could be owned doesn't mean all of them didn't. There were cultures much different than the plain Indian culture, which only occurred after European settlers came to North America by the way.
The so-called Palestinian people did not live there for 3,000 years
Oh really, then where did they come from?
Lets look at genetics:
Nebel et al. regard their findings in good agreement with historical evidence that suggest that "Part, or perhaps the majority, of the Muslim Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD... These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries, some even since prehistoric times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Genetic_analyses_of_regional_populations
and most certainly NEVER owned any of the land. If I build a house on your land without your knowledge and live there for 40 years, I don't have any legitimate claim to your land.
What is your definition of owning land? And please back up your analogy, I'm calling bullshit on it. Show me where Palestinians built houses on land without someone's knowledge.
Also, your laughable claim that the Jews had moved away for 2,000 years is entirely false.
A lot of Jews living in that area moved away when the temple was destroyed, but no, not all of them moved away. Yet, most of the Jews or Christians converted to Islam, hence why Muslims were and are the majority from the 12th century to today.
Look at the second graph down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Early_demographics
I certainly support private property ownership. In fact, private property ownership is the foundation of all human rights.
Then why are justifying the action of kicking people out of their homes that they privately owned. You can say the British owned Palestine all you want but the fact is that individual Palestinians owned individual land and houses before Israel was created.
Your 1 in a thousand numbers are ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of so-called Palestinian people support the murder of Jews, and deny the right of Israel to exist. The number who been involved in planning, assisting, or carrying out attacks against Israeli Jews is closer to 2-5% than 1%.
This is controversial. I've heard that the majority of Palestinians want peace but can not do it with Israel pressing down on them. I can't find my source to back mine up but whatever. And just because they elected Hamas does not mean they support their views, Hamas was basically the only choice they had considering how corrupt and run down Fatah was.
The percentage is irrelevant though. Those who don't take part in the attacks shelter, and protect those who do. This makes them just as guilty as those doing it. The so-called Palestinian people are endangering their own people by hiding among them after attacking Jews.
How so? If you are talking about hospitals and schools that is a load of shit. Hamas and them run hospitals, schools, etc so you can't expect Palestinians to just avoid those places.
Peace would exist tomorrow if the so-called Palestinians would just stop killing Jews. The problem is they aren't interested in peace. They are only interested in killing Jews and wiping Israel off the map which will NEVER happen. Israel will be around even after America is gone.
I call bullshit on this. I guarantee that most Palestinians will be happy with a one-state solution, something Israel hasn't considered either. Also, just focusing on physical violence is very biased in this situation. Israel can hurt Palestinians without physical violence while Palestinians can not. Israel can punish Palestinians by flipping a switch, so directly comparing those two is very flawed.
But that's not the end of the story. After that, the Lakota people indoctrinated their children in hate and taught them to attack the white settlers with terror and assymetrical tactics.
And if America was taken over by communists and everything Americans once knew of was destroyed in the 1960s you think the same thing wouldn't happen?
So the arabs that were booted out NEVER built houses with their own money, on land they were given from the UK, legally and with the knowledge of the UK government?
They built houses with their own money on land they never owned. In fact the UK didn't give any land to those people until 1947. The ones who lived on the wrong side of the line had to move out.
Oh, and while we're at it, the Diaspora never happened. In fact, when Israel was founded, the Israelis didn't move in on hundreds of boats and planes like we've seen in pictures... they came out of their caves and rose from the mud they'd been hiding in.
Yes, the majority of Jews were not in Israel and came back. But there were always Jews in Israel for every minute of the last 3,000 years. In fact they were the majority for most of those years.
Unless it's Palestinians, then their 'ownership' is not a right
Wrong. They have a right to private property ownership too. Building a house on someone else's property does not grant you ownership. They can also lose land in military disputes as has happened for thousands of years. When they attack Israel and they lose land, they have no valid complaints.
So you're saying that of the five or so million folks living in Israel, 125,000-250,000 of them are fighting Israel? Jesus, why aren't they winning!?
Nice try playing with the numbers. We were talking about the numbers among the so-called Palestinian people who do not live within Israel, but fine if you want to talk about the ones who are in Israel we can do that too.
The population of Israel is 6,426,679. Of that 16% are Muslim (1,028,268) people. I said 2-5% of the so-called Palestinian people actively take part in attacks against Jews
(whether it's planning, doing paperwork, buying supplies, recruiting kids and teaching them to hate Jews, etc.) 2% of that number is 20,565. I think this is a fair number.
Here we get to your "If I use your child for a human shield, you're not allowed to get mad" argument.
If it's ok for you to shoot at me because I'm a Zionist, it's equally ok for me to put your child between you and me.
Because it's the chosen land. Chosen by the UN.
As well they should...and it was the U.K. and the U.N. working together to do the right thing...which they did.
MYTH
“The Jews have no claim to the land they call Israel.”
FACT
A common misperception is that all the Jews were forced into the Diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E. and then, 1,800 years later, suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years.
The Jewish people base their claim to the Land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 2) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people; 3) the territory was captured in defensive wars and 4) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham.
Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in the Land of Israel continued and often flourished. Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea.
The Crusaders massacred many Jews during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem and elsewhere during the next 300 years. By the early 19th century — years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement — more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel.1 The 78 years of nation-building, beginning in 1870, culminated in the reestablishment of the Jewish State.
Israel's international "birth certificate" was validated by the promise of the Bible; uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; Israel's admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other states; and, most of all, the society created by Israel's people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence.
MYTH
“Palestine was always an Arab country.”
FACT
The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C.E., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what are now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century C.E., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word "Filastin" is derived from this Latin name.3
The Hebrews entered the Land of Israel about 1300 B.C.E., living under a tribal confederation until being united under the first monarch, King Saul. The second king, David, established Jerusalem as the capital around 1000 B.C.E. David's son, Solomon built the Temple soon thereafter and consolidated the military, administrative and religious functions of the kingdom. The nation was divided under Solomon's son, with the northern kingdom (Israel) lasting until 722 B.C.E., when the Assyrians destroyed it, and the southern kingdom (Judah) surviving until the Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C.E. The Jewish people enjoyed brief periods of sovereignty afterward before most Jews were finally driven from their homeland in 135 C.E.
Jewish independence in the Land of Israel lasted for more than 400 years. This is much longer than Americans have enjoyed independence in what has become known as the United States.4 In fact, if not for foreign conquerors, Israel would be 3,000 years old today.
Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."5
Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:
[INDENT]We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.6[/INDENT]
In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."7
The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."8
Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]
Yes, the majority of Jews were not in Israel and came back. But there were always Jews in Israel for every minute of the last 3,000 years. In fact they were the majority for most of those years.
Radar's second last post
There were Jews living in Israel for the past 3,000 years, but they have no been the majority since before the 5th century BC. Between the 5th and 12th (??) it has been Christians and then Muslims up to this day. So both Christians and Muslims have just as much right to that land as Jews have.
Source (Look at second graph):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Early_demographics
They built houses with their own money on land they never owned. In fact the UK didn't give any land to those people until 1947. The ones who lived on the wrong side of the line had to move out.
Wrong. They have a right to private property ownership too. Building a house on someone else's property does not grant you ownership. They can also lose land in military disputes as has happened for thousands of years. When they attack Israel and they lose land, they have no valid complaints.
Both these arguments are basically the same so I will combine them.
One question. How would the Palestinians have gotten "ownership" of the land they build their houses on?
And once again, you are foolishly support colonization. The people that live on the land should have control over it, not some country over a thousand miles away.
In answer to your question, to gain ownership of the land, they would have to get a deed issued by the government who controlled the land at the time. Each time a new empire took over, they'd require a new deed.
They asked for a country (no whining necessary, though they had plenty to whine about nearly being wiped out by Nazis) and the U.N. did the right thing with the U.K. and gave them some of their historical homeland back.
OK then Radar, if that's how you feel, when are you going to give your back yard back to the indigenous Americans?
That was the point I was making. What was yours???
that the standards which we apply to every other civilised nation don't apply to Israel as they're a special case?
OH yeah, I forgot about that! Stupid me huh?
OK then Radar, if that's how you feel, when are you going to give your back yard back to the indigenous Americans?
That was the point I was making. What was yours???
If the United States Government were to dissolve, or to suddenly give all land to American Indian tribes, any deeds I have would be void. I wouldn't have much to say about it. I would never give land back to the indigenous Americans because they never owned it in the first place. You can't give something back to someone who never had it in the first place.
I'll tell you something I wouldn't do. I wouldn't start training my daughter to hate the American Indians or to blow them up. I, unlike the American Indians actually do own my land, and if my deed were made void, I'd fight to defend it, but not if it would risk the lives of my wife or daughter. If it got too ugly, I'd cut my losses and move somewhere else. I'd act like a reasonable and rational person and move on.
Radar, do you see anything wrong with the logic you've just employed in this last post of yours?
If so, go ahead and share. If not, you're a lost cause.
that the standards which we apply to every other civilised nation don't apply to Israel as they're a special case?
In the eyes of the anti-Zionists, Israel shouldn't be allowed to exist or to defend themselves when attacked. Clearly its these people who don't feel that Israel should be held to the same standards. Israel is trying to live under the same standards. When people attack them, they attack back. Israel has never ever ever ever ever been the aggressor, and has ALWAYS been the defender. Every use of force on the part of Israel has been in DEFENSE, and every attack against Israel has been OFFENSIVE.
You can bet your ass that if Mexico started blowing up Americans in Southern California, America wouldn't make concessions, offer land, give food, clothing, and shelter, or otherwise assist those people. You can bet your life if this happened consistently for decade after decade, Mexico would be taken over entirely and a huge number of their population would be destroyed.
Israel has the power to destroy all of its neighbors without any help from America. The only thing stopping this is Israel's own restraint. Were I in charge of a nation and my neighbors were blowing up my people for decades, I'd kill each and every single living thing in that country if it would save the people in mine. I'd give them the choice to live in peace or to rest in peace. This is what Israel should do.
Israel should put the fate of the so-called Palestinians in their own ability to stop their people from attacking Israeli Jews. Let them know in no uncertain terms that if there is a single attack against Jews, every man, woman, and child will be allowed to evacuate and those who don't will be killed. This would mean the so-called Palestinians would report all of their own people who planned attacks for fear of losing everything. They would kill these people before they could kill Jews.
Radar, do you see anything wrong with the logic you've just employed in this last post of yours?
If so, go ahead and share. If not, you're a lost cause.
There is no flaw in my logic. You suggestion that I have such a flaw is based on the notion that if I fight for my land, I'm the same as the so-called Palestinians. The difference is they
N-E-V-E-R owned any land during the entire 3,000 years in question just as the American Indians NEVER owned any land here. They wouldn't be fighting for their own land and I would be.
Think what you like Radar. I disagree with your point and don't think you're seeing the bigger picture. That's your right, but I'm not going to debate the issue with you any longer because there's no point when you are being so small minded.
Finally we agree on something. We both think the other is small-minded and can't grasp the big picture.
I'm pretty sure everyone here thinks you're small minded and can't grasp reality.
I dunno, radar makes sense more often than UG or tw does... but on this one, I say he's half-way talking out of his ass.
I don't side with either the israelis or the palestinians in general. I think theyre both in the wrong. I think both sides need to reign in their more extreme elements, and I think this fight has been going on so long that it doesnt matter who started it, not that it can impartially be judged who did start it. The israelis should absolutely be treating the palestinians better, but... the palestinians should absolutely be treating the israelis better. The palestinians should absolutely not be killing israelis, but... the israelis should absolutely not be killing palestinians.
Theyre both absolutely in the wrong, and will both continue to absolutely be wrong until the cycle of violence is broken, by one side or by both.
Of course they're all being shit heads. Neither side's leadership has shown much reasonability. It's the prisoner's dilemma, neither side believes the other will work with them. The reason I think Israel has more of a claim of responsibility is that they have the CAPABILITY of significantly changing the situation of the area. They have a potent military and fair resources to bring to bear.
If the palestinians somehow convinced everyone to become peaceful, it would take decades for any noticeable change to come about. If Israel stopped the insanity and then, I dunno, worked on building up a west bank/gaza infrastructure and economy, the change would start in a matter of A decade.
The long and short of it is, 99.9% of people everywhere just want to live their life in peace, eat dinner with their friends and family, and have some cool parties/weddings/births. If these simple desires are taken care of, it's amazing how little extremism will take root.
My argument for Israel becoming a state was that the rightful owners (the U.K.) GAVE the land to the Jews to build a new homeland in a portion of their historical one.
Because one country gives another country something that never belonged to them to give away does not support the notion that the action was legitimate or right. You point holds no water, or sand, whatever the case may be.
Because one country gives another country something that never belonged to them to give away does not support the notion that the action was legitimate or right. You point holds no water, or sand, whatever the case may be.
You are neglecting the indisputable fact that it
DID belong to them because it was won in battle. The UK owned the land. Before that the Turks owned it, Before that the Roman's owned it, etc.
This is how border disputes and land ownership have always been decided throughout history.
The UK were the rightful owners of land and they gave it to create a few different countries. People that previously lived on that land
(whether it was for a day or a thousand years) had no legitimate claim of ownership.
Merely living on land does not make it yours and the number of years you have lived on it doesn't change this.
I dunno, radar makes sense more often than UG or tw does... but on this one, I say he's half-way talking out of his ass.
I don't side with either the israelis or the palestinians in general. I think theyre both in the wrong. I think both sides need to reign in their more extreme elements, and I think this fight has been going on so long that it doesnt matter who started it, not that it can impartially be judged who did start it. The israelis should absolutely be treating the palestinians better, but... the palestinians should absolutely be treating the israelis better. The palestinians should absolutely not be killing israelis, but... the israelis should absolutely not be killing palestinians.
Theyre both absolutely in the wrong, and will both continue to absolutely be wrong until the cycle of violence is broken, by one side or by both.
Ibram, I don't like what Israel has been forced to do to defend themselves and neither do they. What is the proper response in your mind for those who don't believe you have a right to exist in the first place, have stated their desire to murder everyone in your country and drive them into the sea and to erase your country from the map? What is the proper response for those who blow up women and children in crowded shopping malls, bus stops, etc.? What is the proper response against people who blow you up during peace talks or murder your Olympic athletes?
You are neglecting the indisputable fact that it DID belong to them because it was won in battle. The UK owned the land. Before that the Turks owned it, Before that the Roman's owned it, etc.
This is how border disputes and land ownership have always been decided throughout history.
Okay. I'll buy that as a hypothetical. At what point is it no longer acceptable to attempt to win land by battle?
When human beings cease to exist. As long as there are human beings, there will be war and land disputes.
Radar, what is the proper response to those who raze your home to the ground? What is the proper response to those who shoot your children (some of them babies)? What is the proper response to those who treat you as prisoners, even though you have committed no crime?
There's a young man, a Palestinian, whose middle class parents (yes there are a few of them left) sent him to be educated at Bradford university, in the UK. He returned home to visit his family during the Summer recess and the Israeli government have refused to allow him to leave Palestine and return to the UK for the third year of his degree. We're approaching the last 3 weeks of the first semester and he is still trapped behind the Wall. He is not a terrorist. He has committed no crime. He is just a young man trying to educate himself
The people living in the occupied territories are mainly crammed into one of the most densely populated areas of the planet, with very few amenities, intermittent (in some cases no) electricity supplies, tragically high unemployment rates, little access to medical care without running the gauntlet of checkpoints and occassionally opened gateways where they are routinely refused (this holds true for pregnant women trying to get to the hospitals). They are imprisoned. There is nowhere from them to go and even if there was, access to routes out are all but vanished.
These people have been imprisoned. The Gaza strip is the world's biggest prison camp in all but name.
The fact that Arab leaders and academics make hideous and unconscionable statements about the Holocaust, and about wiping Israel off the map is irrelevant to Israel's treatment of these people. The relatively small number of people who are involved in rebellion, do not justify Israel dehumanising and brutalising innocent civilians. To suggest it is wickedness incarnate for Hamas to send suicide bombers to kill Israeli babies and yet mere defence when Israel sends its soldiers or its bombs to kill Palestinian babies is intellectually bankrupt.
When human beings cease to exist. As long as there are human beings, there will be war and land disputes.
Ok. What rules apply within those conflicts? What are the acceptable routes to winning a land dispute?
Israel is not responsible for the living conditions of their neighbors or their unemployment rates. It sounds like that young man should not live inside of Israel. If he lived outside of Israel in the Palestinian territory, he would not require the permission of the Israeli government to leave the area. I realize this is a catch 22.
There are people right here in America who can't travel either because they have been placed on a list. Of course I am against such policies here or there unless someone has reason to suspect a crime has been committed.
I suspect there is more to your friend's story than you know. The U.K. has been getting tighter with security and it may be blocked on their side without telling your friend.
Those who had homes torn down include both the Israeli Zionists and the so-called Palestinian people. Both have illegally built homes in disputed areas and both have been torn down by the Israeli government. I have never suggested that everything the Israeli government does is right, but everything it does is in its defense because they are under constant threat from their neighbors.
Those who lost homes in 1947, in 1967, or other battles are irrelevant. Israel was legitimately and honestly given land in 1947 and those who lost homes didn't own the land. It's a shame for them, but 60 years should have given them time to get over it. In the 6-day war, Israel was on the DEFENSIVE side of attacks by neighboring countries. In all fairness when Israel won, it could have taken HUGE pieces of land from the losing countries but it didn't. It only took a fairly small amount of land to act as a buffer originally and now uses this land for homes.
Those who lost land in the war have only their own governments to blame.
Israel does not go after women and children. Anyone who says they do is a liar. This is a statement of fact. Israel does all it can to retaliate without harming women and children but the terrorists hide among them. The deaths of those people rest squarely on the heads of those who hid among them to endanger them.
Israel doesn't hand AK-47s to toddlers and tell them the most glorious thing they can do is kill Arabs, but the reverse is true. Israel doesn't blow up crowded shopping malls full of Arab women and children, but the opposite is true. As a rule, Israel doesn't shoot children unless those children have a bomb strapped to them or otherwise pose an immediate danger (guns, slings with rocks, etc). Israel doesn't just randomly attack civilians. It only attacks those who have been involved in the planning or carrying out of attacks or known terrorist groups like Hamas or the PLO.
In stark contrast to the Arabs, Israel uses force only in defense.
Why don't the so-called Palestinians build their own hospitals? Why don't they build their own electrical stations? Why don't they build their own water treatment facilities and pumps?
Those who want to kill the Israelis expect Israel to provide them with water, food, electricity, etc. and call Israel monsters when they are cut off because they won't stop killing Jews or because they choose a terrorist organization to lead them.
Ok. What rules apply within those conflicts? What are the acceptable routes to winning a land dispute?
You can read about some of the rules here,
Geneva Conventions
Basically both sides should be wearing uniforms to help avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. Both sides agree to treat prisoners in a way that doesn't violate their human rights. Both sides agree not to fire missiles from hospitals or blow up hospitals that aren't being used to launch attacks, etc.
Other than that, they kill each other until one gives up. To the winner goes the spoils.
when Israel sends its soldiers or its bombs to kill Palestinian babies
What sort of filter do you have on your perception that you can say that is what they do? Do you think the generals say to their tank commanders, "hey, drive around until you find a baby, and then kill it"?
What sort of filter do you have on your perception that you can say that is what they do? Do you think the generals say to their tank commanders, "hey, drive around until you find a baby, and then kill it"?
Israel doesn't do this. But Hamas straps bombs to children or women and tell them to do exactly this.
The people of Enron didn't put a gun to someone's head like some blue collared criminals do, but does that make what they did any less worse?
Comparing the actions of Israelis and Palestinians is basically comparing white and blue collared crime. There are many similarities but are too different fairly compare them face to face. That is why all the "stats" are total shit.
Ok, if you want to use a whitecollar/bluecollar example (which is a bogus comparison) it's like a huge WTA protest with thousand and thousands of people and some of them toss trashcans through the windows of businesses so the cops toss teargas into the crowd and fire rubber bullets. Some of the people who get hit weren't those involved in trashing someone else's property.
The innocent ones who got hurt were hurt because the ones who weren't innocent hid among the crowd and nobody did anything. The crowd didn't take part in the destructive act, but condoned it and allowed the guilty people to hide among them. If the crowd had pointed them out, and told them this kind of behavior wasn't acceptable, and turned the bad guys over to the police, the innocent ones wouldn't have been harmed or gotten beaten unconscious with a club.
Don't blame the police because they were forced to bust heads when some of the crowd started throwing glass bottles at them. Don't blame the businesses for using the police to defend their property. Blame those who started the problem in the first place when they deviated from peaceful protests into violent clashes or the destruction of property.
How is the white collar/blue collar example bogus? You can't just say it is bad, show it.
A main difference between white and blue collar crime is the power and resources involved. If a blue collared worker needs to get money, he or she will most likely be forced to take it individually, which will usually involve some sort of forceful method such as an armed robbery. A white collared worker does not have to do that. He or she can use his or her resources to slyly take money away from a great number of people without violence.
The same can be applied to the Palestine/Israeli situation. The only way Palestinians can attack Israel is by physical force, usually by terrorist attacks. This is directly comparable to a stick up where one person or a small group will get physically hurt at one moment. While Israel can cut off supplies to the entire Palestinian region which hurts millions of people for a long time but usually does not involve direct physical attacks like a white collared worker can steal from thousands of people over a period of time without physical violence.
So, if Israel has the power and resources to avoid direct physical attacks, why would they use them just like why would a white collared worker get money by an armed robbery when he or she can use other methods? That is why comparing individual deaths or war tactics is pointless in this debate. We have two completely different styles of warfare so most "stats" are just picking out a biased comparison that will hurt one group while leaving the other unhurt.
I am not getting into proactive and reactionary attacks with this since that is just justification for attacks and have nothing to do with the overall tactics used by either side.
The whitecollar/bluecollar example is bogus because Israel isn't committing any kind of crime, let alone a white color crime. Also because Israel isn't trying to exert control over their neighbors; it is merely trying to defend itself from those who would destroy it. Israel has never been interested in conquest, has never said they would wipe other nations off the map, have never said they would kill all Arabs, etc. And lastly, murder is murder. It's not white or blue collar.
Israel is using defensive physical force against people who have actually harmed them. The Palestinians are using aggressive physical force against women and children who have not harmed them.
Israel isn't cutting off supplies from other people. They have cut off providing supplies that they were generously giving to those who wanted Israel destroyed. I'm sure the generous Arab nations will give until it hurts to those people right? Oh wait, no they won't because they don't care about the so-called Palestinians. They only give when it means Jews will be killed.
Israel does all it can to avoid physical attacks. This is why they have such tight security. Israel tries to avoid attacking other than when they must. Israel will do ANYTHING necessary to protect themselves and those who attack Israel are begging for destruction.
If Israel is the white-collar all powerful criminal elite (mafia), and the so-called Palestinians are the blue-collar street thugs, the guys on the street should know they can't mess with the organized crime bosses. When they do, they die and so do their families.
The difference is even stupid street thugs know not to rob a mob boss where the so-called Palestinians never seem to learn this lesson.
Its amazing, to me, that someone as smart as you usually seem to be, radar, could believe that this issue is so perfectly black-and-white, without a shade of gray to be found.
It makes me sad. Its people like you, radar, who cause so much suffering, both in israel/palestine and elsewhere in the world. You people who believe so absolutely in who's right and who's wrong that you dont see that, regardless of who's right and who's wrong, people are suffering and dying, children are getting shot or maimed or blown up, wives are losing husbands, mothers losing daughters, sons losing fathers. People like you, radar, cause that suffering, people like you on both sides of the conflict.
If you are completely confident that you or your 'side' is absolutely in the right, that is possibly the surest sign that you are not.
If you are completely confident that you or your 'side' is absolutely in the right, that is possibly the surest sign that you are not.
Wise words.
Its amazing, to me, that someone as smart as you usually seem to be, radar, could believe that this issue is so perfectly black-and-white, without a shade of gray to be found.
It makes me sad. Its people like you, radar, who cause so much suffering, both in israel/palestine and elsewhere in the world. You people who believe so absolutely in who's right and who's wrong that you dont see that, regardless of who's right and who's wrong, people are suffering and dying, children are getting shot or maimed or blown up, wives are losing husbands, mothers losing daughters, sons losing fathers. People like you, radar, cause that suffering, people like you on both sides of the conflict.
If you are completely confident that you or your 'side' is absolutely in the right, that is possibly the surest sign that you are not.
Yes, I am sure Israel is right because they are the defenders, and those who want to seem them destroyed are the attackers. My conviction has absolutely no connection to the veracity of my opinion.
This does not mean I don't feel pity and sadness for those who have lost loved ones on both sides. I find it horrible when anyone dies on either side of this conflict. I'm disgusted by it. It's a perfect example of why I believe religion is stupid. I think to myself, "When will this madness end?"
The answer to this question is simple. It will end when the so-called Palestinian people learn to care more about their children than they do about killing Jews. It will end as soon as the so-called Palestinian people want it to end. Israel will always use brutal force in their defense. History has proven thousands of times that when Israel chooses not to attack, they continue to be attacked so the fate of everyone on both sides is in the hands of the attackers...
(the so-called Palestinians)
If they stop attacking Israel and electing terrorists as their leaders, Israel will stop retaliating with even harsher force and the longer they can go without murdering Jews, the more relaxed security will be and the better the conditions will get.
The whitecollar/bluecollar example is bogus because Israel isn't committing any kind of crime
Crime had nothing to do with this analogy, I was pointing out how Israel's greater power and influence influenced their tactics and how they look to the outside world.
I am not going to respond to the rest of the post because it will get us nowhere. While I do have understanding of their troubles, I have admitted and am critical to Palestinian mistakes and wrongdoings but you have never admitted to any mistake on the Israeli side. Your closemindedness is mindblowing and extremely dangerous.
I will say this though. There is only one way peace can be achieved in the Palestinian/Israeli area and that is the one state solution. If you really want peace and the deaths to stop, you have to realize that this is the only way. If you can not accept this and are still focused on the Zionist goal, you must realize that your side will allow the continuation of deaths on both the Israeli and Palestinian side with no progress being made except making a turn to genocide for a side not yet determined because of some unreachable bullshit ideal. The Palestinians are not going to drop their weapons down no matter how much you tell them too for reason you will probably never understand because you can NEVER relate to them. You can rant all you want but it will never happen and I hope you can acknowledge this. That means if you want progress in this region, you will have to give up your ideals for reality.
One thing you, and the Arabs must admit, is Israel is going nowhere. It will never go away and nothing they can do will change this. Israel will NEVER stop defending themselves or retaliating with deadly force when attacked with deadly force.
You are correct, the deaths must stop. The only way this will happen is when the aggressors (so-called Palestinians) stop killing Jews. You must realize that the fate of the so-called Palestinians rests in their own hands. As long as they kill Jews, the deaths on both sides will continue. If they stop, there won't be deaths on either side.
Until the day that the so-called Palestinians do drop their weapons and stop calling for the destruction of Israel, they will continue to die down to the very last one of them. Israel is better at killing so this could very well be a reality if the so-called Palestinians don't get it through their heads that Israel is here forever and for every Jew they kill, 10 of their people will die.
I'm all for peace in that region. I want the killing to stop. It will never stop unless the so-called Palestinians stop first. Israel has given all it will give. The so-called Palestinians can take it and have peace, or refuse it, continue to kill Jews and eventually be destroyed completely.
The question is when will the so-called Palestinians care more about the lives of their children than they do about killing Jews?
Okay, so... You think israel is nothing but a beleaguered defender, nothing but a victim? That there is no conceivable reason that the palestinians are attacking them, except that they exist?
Oh, and what happened to, any land rightfully won in war is land owned? If that's so true, why do you so deny palestine's ability to, conceivably, fight israel until they cede territory?
I never said that the so-called Palestinians didn't have a reason to attack Israel. That reason is mindless hatred, racism, a false sense of being a victim or of having had something taken from them that they never actually owned, etc. They hate Israel because Israel is successful and they are not. They hate Israel because Israel is the land of the Jews and it's the only free nation in the entire middle-east.
If they declare war against Israel, they will lose. Israel would be within their rights to give them a chance to leave and kill each and every single living thing remaining and take ALL of the land.
They can learn to live with what they have, or they can die and get nothing. The choice is their own.
Ugh, I have already said that the Palestinians will not drop down their weapons unless their is some sort of miracle so if you do want to talk about solutions instead of pointing fingers, we will both have to work with that premise.
For your side, when you mean Israel will not go away what do you mean by that? Do you mean the Jewish state of Israel will not go away, the state called Israel will not go away but it can let go of its Jewish and Zionist status, or do you mean the Jews will not go away?
Working backwards, I will never be accepting of a solution that will kick the Jews out to the Mediterranean Sea. I do not believe the Jewish state should be there, but the individual Jews should not be kicked out just like the Palestinians should not have been kicked out of their homes. I would content with a Palestinian/Jewish state called Israel that is not most importantly a Jewish homeland but a state for Jews, Muslims, Christian, and others to live together equally but I would much rather the name be changed but that is not a big factor. If you are saying that Israel will not give up its "Jewish State" status, then I am afraid genocide for an undetermined side will be inevitable and I am hoping we both can agree that we want to avoid that.
Now like I said, we need to start with a premise that the Palestinians will not give up their guns if the situation remains unchanged or else we are not dealing with reality so I will try to go through the possibilities I see as reality.
Like I said earlier, I can not accept the destruction of Israel in the sense of kicking the Jews out and that the remain of Israel as a "Jewish homeland" will result in genocide so hopefully we are talking about the last possibility.
Would you be willing to accept a Israeli/Palestinian state where Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others would be treated as equals, which is only possible if Israel gives up its "Jewish homeland" status? I realize that this is very borderline unrealistic but I feel it is the most effective solution and basically the only hope for peace. If Israel opens it borders and the standard of living for Palestinians rise dramatically, I am almost positive that the terrorist attacks will not only go down, but the peaceful Palestinian people will start to turn against them because of more profitable options, which is what you want.
I can go into more details later but if you want peace, I recommend you look into the one-state solution as the last hope for the region and if you have any other opinions except "the Palestinians give up their guns" because I have repeatably said that is not going to happen please give them.
The Zionist and Jewish State of Israel will NEVER go away. Jews will NEVER give up their homeland. This is not up for debate.
Zionist = Jewish. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar. The only Jews who oppose Zionism (a Jewish State) are either self-hating Jews (like those raised in Iran) or the rabbis who don't disagree that Israel is owned legitimately but who say the Jews aren't supposed to return to Israel until the coming of the messiah.
Since we've established that the Zionist state of Israel is here to stay, that it has the power to defeat each and every one of its neighbors, and that it will always use deadly force against those who use deadly force against it, we can look to how the violence can stop.
I've told you that fire will always burn you and that this fire is here for eternity. When you put your hand in fire you get burned. How many times do you need to get burned before you stop reaching into the fire? Does it take the fire burning your entire body to death? Should I pity those who are stupid to keep reaching into the fire when they get burned? Can the people who keep getting burned be taken seriously when they claim to be victims?
Israel treats the so-called Palestinians better than they are treated in any Arab state. Non Jewish men and women are allowed to live, work, vote, and hold political office in Israel including Muslims and Christians. Jewish men and women (or any women for that matter) aren't allowed to vote in Arab countries. In fact in most Arab countries, Arab people aren't allowed to vote because they are either brutal dictatorships or monarchies.
Israel is already fair and generous to the so-called Palestinians. In fact there is only one right that Jewish people have above other people and that is the right of return. Non-Jews must do paperwork to become a citizen.
So again, we are at an impasse. Israel will kill those who kill Israeli people. Israel isn't going anywhere ever. The only way to stop getting killed by Israel or to get any kind of mercy is to stop killing Israeli people. End of story.
Until this happens, the so-called Palestinian people will continue to die in much larger numbers than the Jews they kill. Eventually they will run out of people to kill Jews or they will learn that when you reach into fire, you get burned.
You do nothing to create empathy among others for Israel or Jews Radar. All you do is create enmity by sermonizing your point which seems to be the same point ad nauseum with different words, while belittling every person who tries to discuss the issue with you.
I wonder why they bother?
My theory is that most rational people on this planet realize that there is no absolute right or wrong, and that 'god' didn't give anyone any piece of land and that things change in the world regardless of who likes it and who doesn't, so therefore they feel a moral responsibility to show you the error in your thinking before you, like all other extremists come to a shattering end.
If Israel is so unwilling to bend then it must surely break. As with Palestine. I really don't care if you think Israel can 'crush' their enemies or not. The fact is, without the US on its side, Israel will more likely be the crushee if it comes to a conflict in the middle east without US and British forces.
So you go ahead and pontificate all you like, but the only person you're fooling is yourself.
The Zionist and Jewish State of Israel will NEVER go away. Jews will NEVER give up their homeland. This is not up for debate.
Then let the genocide begin.
Zionist = Jewish. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people, based on principles and ethics embodied in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the Talmud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism
Zionism is an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish People in the Land of Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
Since this shows that they are not interchangeable I guess these definition are lying to us. Damn Wikipedia and its unreliability.
The only Jews who oppose Zionism (a Jewish State) are either self-hating Jews (like those raised in Iran) or the rabbis who don't disagree that Israel is owned legitimately but who say the Jews aren't supposed to return to Israel until the coming of the messiah.
Shut the fuck up. You do not know the views of Jews who oppose the Israeli state so stop pretending you do. Many Jews oppose Israel for the same reasons Dana and I do.
You do nothing to create empathy among others for Israel or Jews Radar. All you do is create enmity by sermonizing your point which seems to be the same point ad nauseum with different words, while belittling every person who tries to discuss the issue with you.
I wonder why they bother?
My theory is that most rational people on this planet realize that there is no absolute right or wrong, and that 'god' didn't give anyone any piece of land and that things change in the world regardless of who likes it and who doesn't, so therefore they feel a moral responsibility to show you the error in your thinking before you, like all other extremists come to a shattering end.
If Israel is so unwilling to bend then it must surely break. As with Palestine. I really don't care if you think Israel can 'crush' their enemies or not. The fact is, without the US on its side, Israel will more likely be the crushee if it comes to a conflict in the middle east without US and British forces.
So you go ahead and pontificate all you like, but the only person you're fooling is yourself.
Whether you choose to admit it or not, the whole world isn't gray. There are black and white issues. There are true dichotomies in this world, if you can't recognize them, you should seek professional help because you can't grasp reality.
Israel can crush every Arab nation in the middle-east without any help from America or the UK. For the record, I haven't been "pontificating", I've been stating facts.
FACTS
[LIST]
[*]The Zionist nation of Israel will never go away.
[*]Israel will use deadly force against those who kill Israeli Jews.
[*]Israel will use any level of force necessary to defend itself up to and including the complete destruction of those who would destroy it.
[*]Israel doesn't practice apartheid.
[*]Israel is the only free and democratic nation in the middle-east.
[/LIST]
Since these are the facts, the so-called Palestinian people can choose to accept these facts, or continue to attack Jews and eventually find themselves completely destroyed.
If refusing to give up their country is being inflexible than so be it. Israel has as much legitimacy as any other country and will defend itself like any other country or better. America would destroy any nation that tried to constantly attack it or claim it had no legitimate right to exist.
I hate to see the suffering on both sides of this dispute, but the fact remains that each and every single death on both sides is a result of the aggression of the so-called Palestinians. All of this suffering is at their hands. When they stop killing Jews, the suffering will end, and not a second before.
FACTS
The Zionist nation of Israel will go away when they're all extinct.
Any nation will use deadly force against those who kill their own
Any nation will any level of force necessary to defent itself...blah blah blah
Israel is not the only nation that doesn't practice apartheid
Israel is far from free although it may be democratic
Blah blah blah...
Through the course of this thread, you've proved yourself to be other than a master debater. In fact, so far all I can see is a one trick pony.
I see. The extent of your debate skills is "nuh uh! blah blah blah"
I rebutted your facts. They just weren't that exceptional Radar. Just more of the same rhetoric you've been spewing for a number of pages now.
Like I said, a one trick pony.
You can't rebut facts. You merely lied and claimed they were false. You've disproven nothing.
I heard about a trick you do with a pony, but we'll save that for another discussion.
You can't assume an Israeli-centric world.
You could basically write the same thing for an Arab-centric view.
FACTS
[list]
[*]Arabs can never allow a Jewish state in the Middle East
[*]They will continue to fight, no matter the odds against them
[*]Blah, blah
[/list]
It just solidifies the fact that there is no solution that doesn't involve hurting one side.
You do nothing to create empathy among others for Israel or Jews Radar. All you do is create enmity by sermonizing your point which seems to be the same point ad nauseum with different words, while belittling every person who tries to discuss the issue with you.
I wonder why they bother?
I think it's because of a great lack of understanding: they can't understand how wrong they are, siding with the antidemocracy here.
My theory is that most rational people on this planet realize that there is no absolute right or wrong, and that 'god' didn't give anyone any piece of land and that things change in the world regardless of who likes it and who doesn't, so therefore they feel a moral responsibility to show you the error in your thinking before you, like all other extremists come to a shattering end.
Is this another way of saying to us that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is some kind of vice?
If Israel is so unwilling to bend then it must surely break. As with Palestine. I really don't care if you think Israel can 'crush' their enemies or not. The fact is, without the US on its side, Israel will more likely be the crushee if it comes to a conflict in the middle east without US and British forces.
Wasn't that way in 1947 or 1956. Any reason to think something fundamental has changed? For that is what it would take. In extremis, Israel will use its nukes on enemy states' population centers, making the peace of the desert. So the enemy states must somehow not provoke Israel's... Shabbos punch.
Quite bluntly, Israel has been willing to bend, and as bluntly, Israel doesn't have a lot of bending room, while the Palestinian Authority's position seems to be that they haven't anything to lose by being unbending. If the fighting were up to Israel and the Palestinians solely, it would have been long over by now. The Palestinians have been kept as a catspaw to conduct a protracted war by proxy. It is easy to see who is keeping the Palestinians without creative options: Jordan and Syria. Lebanon I'm not quite sure whether it's Lebanon or really Syria -- not enough data.
Extremism in any form is always harmful to someone.
If it's better to harm someone else in your extreme pursuit of liberty (and that's a debatable statement in itself) then you're no better than any other extremist. You're just another wolf in sheeps clothing.
With regard to the last part of your post UG, with respect, I'm going to leave that go. I think it's been debated long and hard on this forum and many others.
Anyway, that's enough from me. You lot can have at it from here on in. :)
You can't assume an Israeli-centric world.
You could basically write the same thing for an Arab-centric view.
FACTS
[list]
[*]Arabs can never allow a Jewish state in the Middle East
[*]They will continue to fight, no matter the odds against them
[*]Blah, blah
[/list]
It just solidifies the fact that there is no solution that doesn't involve hurting one side.
Well you got my point. I wonder why it was so hard for Radar to see it. Must be blinders he's wearing I guess.
It's not extremists to say that a nation will never just pack it up and leave, especially a nuclear power. It's not extremists to say that a nation will never stop killing those who attack it. It's not extremist to say that the aggressors are the ones who have to stop the violence rather than the defenders.
It is extremist to suggest that a nation allow itself to be bombed and attacked for 60 years without doing something about it. It is extremist to suggest that Israel cease to exist as the Jewish homeland it was created to be.
You can't assume an Israeli-centric world.
You could basically write the same thing for an Arab-centric view.
FACTS
[list]
[*]Arabs can never allow a Jewish state in the Middle East
[*]They will continue to fight, no matter the odds against them
[*]Blah, blah
[/list]
It just solidifies the fact that there is no solution that doesn't involve hurting one side.
That is simple. If the Arabs will not allow a Jewish state and will continue to attack no matter what, the only solution is for them to be destroyed completely and the odds of this are much greater than the odds are that the Zionist state of Israel will ever go away.
Israel can wipe out all of these nations without any help from the UK, the UN, or America.
Eradicating the Palestinians would guarantee Isreals own eradication at the hands of neighboring Muslim countries.
Actually it wouldn't because Israel alone can defeat them all without any help from the USA, the UK, or the UN.
You are neglecting the indisputable fact that it DID belong to them because it was won in battle. The UK owned the land. Before that the Turks owned it, Before that the Roman's owned it, etc.
This is how border disputes and land ownership have always been decided throughout history.
The UK were the rightful owners of land and they gave it to create a few different countries. People that previously lived on that land (whether it was for a day or a thousand years) had no legitimate claim of ownership.
Merely living on land does not make it yours and the number of years you have lived on it doesn't change this.
Ok, based on that theory the US owned Europe after WW2. Give it back. The US owns Iraq. The US owns Afganistan. The US owns Italy. The US owns a hell of a lot of property and you all need to give it back right now.
Ok, based on that theory the US owned Europe after WW2. Give it back. The US owns Iraq. The US owns Afganistan. The US owns Italy. The US owns a hell of a lot of property and you all need to give it back right now.
It's funny you should say that. This is part of the reason the cold-war was started. Russia felt that since France had been defeated, it no longer existed as a country and when Germany fell, they felt that Germany, France, and Italy should be divided among the allied forces.
I happen to agree with them. France would be a much nicer place if America owned it. Also, if you think America doesn't own Iraq or Afghanistan you're nuts.
Ever heard of the term, "You broke it, you bought it?" Puppet regimes have been setup that have allegiance to America.
Ah, don't you love the smell of colonialism in the morning?
I kind of wish we were still under British control as well...
Well.....ya know deep down Americans are just failed Londoners really :P
The whole world is either a failed Londoner or a London wannabe :p
Hey...my ancestors didn't fail. They just committed vile crimes (like stealing cabbages from someone back yard to feed their kids).
I don't want to be a Londoner. I really love being an Aussie. ;)
Thanks for being silly enough to send my family here you lot. :)
*grins*
The majority of the early English settlers to America were people who'd migrated from rural or depressed areas of the country to London (many from Wales actually) in hopes of finding work/wealth/a future and ended up with some rather stark survival choices to make. Many of those transported were such people who'd turned to petty crime or prostitution. Many of those who didn't end up being transported for crimes, ended up selling themselves into indentured servitude in order to try their luck in the New World, having realised rather sharply, that London was not a good place to be if you weren't part of an 'honourable' i.e. apprenticed trade.
Only parodying the archetypal London arrogance.
As you were.
The smart ones found their way out of the fog.
*grins* the ones who weren't butchered by Jack :P
Or who died of Van Dyke Syndrome - where no-one could understand a word they said...
The Dykes drive vans over there? They go for SUVs and such, over here.
Well.....ya know deep down Americans are just failed Londoners really :P
The whole world is either a failed Londoner or a London wannabe
There is a lot of truth to that. :)
I happen to agree with them.
That is stupid.
[quote]France would be a much nicer place if America owned it.
Screw that, they can keep it.
Also, if you think America doesn't own Iraq or Afghanistan you're nuts.
Bull shit. We don't own jack shit. What we have is a responsiblity to fix things and make it as right as possible before we bag out.
Puppet regimes have been setup that have allegiance to America.
Yea, people say that about Israel all the time. Sometimes I think they are right.This is blowing my mind.
I agree with merc more than radar.
It's usually much the opposite...
Puppet regimes have been setup that have allegiance to America.
Yea, people say that about Israel all the time. Sometimes I think they are right.
Or vice versa.
i just gotta say muslims arent scarey people at all.. whats the booga booga for?
Welcome to the Cellar Amy:)
November 11-17th is
Falafel-eating Islamo-Fascist Iranian Agent Awareness Week. Bill O'Reilly will probably be heading this campaign up.
November 11-17th is Falafel-eating Islamo-Fascist Iranian Agent Awareness Week. Bill O'Reilly will probably be heading this campaign up.
Good thing the whole idea was total bull shit dreamed up by some left-wingers in an attempt to hammer something that never got off the ground... yea, good point.
"The brainchild of top FBI counterterrorism officials Phil Mudd and Willie T. Hulon, according to well-informed sources, the project didn’t last long. It was torpedoed by the head of the FBI’s criminal investigations division, Michael A. Mason, who argued that putting somebody on a terrorist list for what they ate was ridiculous — and possibly illegal."Possibly illegal? Just for eating a felafel??? Hmmm...no wonder the local lebo shop closed down.