'This is like apartheid': ANC veterans visit West Bank

2008-07-12 08:01:02

#26

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6832|'Murka

ZombieVampire! wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Not at all similar. The Brits were fighting the Continental and French Armies. And it's not like the colonies were adjacent to GB, either. Oh, and the colonists weren't attacking British civilians instead of the British military...I guess that's a key difference, too.
Problems:

1) You hadn't secured French support before rebellion

2) By your logic where the people are is irrelevant, it's just whether they can succeed

3) See 2.

How are those problems? They explain how the situations are completely different, and you didn't prove otherwise...in fact, you reinforced it. Thanks.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-07-12 08:02:31

#27

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6644|Escea

AutralianChainsaw wrote:
FEOS wrote:
AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Like the poster above you said, thank god your ancestor didnt think like you or you would still be a british colony.
Not at all similar. The Brits were fighting the Continental and French Armies. And it's not like the colonies were adjacent to GB, either.

Add in the total lack of instant world-wide media, the UN, and about a thousand and a half other things...and one can easily see that the two situations are entirely different.

You are confusing my criticism of their methods with a criticism of the overall cause. You are wrong.

I'm saying that if they want to further their cause (and, by extension stop furthering Israel's cause), they have to realize that they are only hurting themselves with their militant actions. Every rocket fired into civilian areas intentionally, every bombing of a civilian business or bus, just provides some measure of justification for Israel's actions in response. As long as they keep giving Israel any sort of justification, they will never get what they want because they cannot defeat Israel militarily...ever.
Yes it's different, but the main objective is the same.. fight against the occupier.

You do what you can with the mean that you have. The pals cannot fight in an open field, they have no army.. it's a guerrila war.. Yes they are using suicide bombers but they also are using conventional attack like when they abducted gilad shalit (sp).

I'm trying to put myself in their shoes.. I try to imagine how i would react if my familiy was living under extreme conditions.. unable to travel freely in my own land.. unable to live a normal life because some people with an invincible army decided that my land was their promised land. That i would never be able to live peacefully as an equal human being with them because they think that they are god's chosen people.

In top of that, they would raid the little land that i have just to punish us because some of our people are fighting back. If they killed my family with a tank or a warplane.. omfg who knows what i would do to punish them

Abducting troops with the intent to kill is illegal I believe. They don't have to fight in an open field, why not launch a rocket from there and then nick off? Why fire it from an apartment rooftop?

The Pals have to realise that they're only under marshal law so to speak because they asshats running their country think its a good idea to launch rockets into the civilian populations of a neighbouring country. If rockets weren't being fired at all and attacks weren't purposefully being carried out on Israeli towns, they would be allowed to do a lot more.

During riots across the world they lock down the streets. When the riot and violence passes, they open them up again, simple as that.

2008-07-12 08:02:34

#28

ZombieVampire!: The Gecko; +69|6248

No, they demonstrate the the relevant points are quite similar.

You can always find a way to make two situations completely different if you look at it from the right angle.

2008-07-12 08:08:47

#29

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6832|'Murka

AutralianChainsaw wrote:
Yes it's different, but the main objective is the same.. fight against the occupier.

You do what you can with the mean that you have. The pals cannot fight in an open field, they have no army.. it's a guerrila war.. Yes they are using suicide bombers but they also are using conventional attack like when they abducted gilad shalit (sp).

I'm trying to put myself in their shoes.. I try to imagine how i would react if my familiy was living under extreme conditions.. unable to travel freely in my own land.. unable to live a normal life because some people with an invincible army decided that my land was their promised land. That i would never be able to live peacefully as an equal human being with them because they think that they are god's chosen people.

In top of that, they would raid the little land that i have just to punish us because some of our people are fighting back. If they killed my family with a tank or a warplane.. omfg who knows what i would do to punish them

We weren't fighting against an occupier. We were fighting for independence from our parent country. They had very few troops in the colonies at the time.

If you're a Palestinian and you don't like what Israel is doing...you do what is effective, not just what violent means you have available. This is one case where violence works against Hamas. They have not done effective ends-ways-means analysis of how to reach their goal. Israel's center of gravity here is world support because they are viewed as victims of daily terrorism. Continuing to attack their civilian population only reinforces that CoG. To take away Israel's CoG in this situation, Hamas must stop giving Israel a reason to appear as the victim...continuing attacks does the opposite. If Hamas stopped the attacks, Israel loses the depiction of "victim" and starts looking more like an aggressor...if they continue heavy-handed incursions and whatnot.

Odd that Israel hasn't executed any incursions into Gaza since they signed that ceasefire agreement...I guess they take those things more seriously than Hamas--another thing that keeps Hamas from attaining their goal.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-07-12 08:10:23

#30

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6764|tropical regions of london

but theyre jews

2008-07-12 08:33:28

#31

AutralianChainsaw: Member; +65|6619

M.O.A.B wrote:
Abducting troops with the intent to kill is illegal I believe. They don't have to fight in an open field, why not launch a rocket from there and then nick off? Why fire it from an apartment rooftop?

The Pals have to realise that they're only under marshal law so to speak because they asshats running their country think its a good idea to launch rockets into the civilian populations of a neighbouring country. If rockets weren't being fired at all and attacks weren't purposefully being carried out on Israeli towns, they would be allowed to do a lot more.

During riots across the world they lock down the streets. When the riot and violence passes, they open them up again, simple as that.

Here's my point.. why would they have to be ALLOWED to do more? Even if the rockets stopped, the israelis would still control the lives of the pals.. Nobody should live under the occupation of another people.

2008-07-12 08:42:12

#32

AutralianChainsaw: Member; +65|6619

FEOS wrote:
AutralianChainsaw wrote:
Yes it's different, but the main objective is the same.. fight against the occupier.

You do what you can with the mean that you have. The pals cannot fight in an open field, they have no army.. it's a guerrila war.. Yes they are using suicide bombers but they also are using conventional attack like when they abducted gilad shalit (sp).

I'm trying to put myself in their shoes.. I try to imagine how i would react if my familiy was living under extreme conditions.. unable to travel freely in my own land.. unable to live a normal life because some people with an invincible army decided that my land was their promised land. That i would never be able to live peacefully as an equal human being with them because they think that they are god's chosen people.

In top of that, they would raid the little land that i have just to punish us because some of our people are fighting back. If they killed my family with a tank or a warplane.. omfg who knows what i would do to punish them
We weren't fighting against an occupier. We were fighting for independence from our parent country. They had very few troops in the colonies at the time.

If you're a Palestinian and you don't like what Israel is doing...you do what is effective, not just what violent means you have available. This is one case where violence works against Hamas. They have not done effective ends-ways-means analysis of how to reach their goal. Israel's center of gravity here is world support because they are viewed as victims of daily terrorism. Continuing to attack their civilian population only reinforces that CoG. To take away Israel's CoG in this situation, Hamas must stop giving Israel a reason to appear as the victim...continuing attacks does the opposite. If Hamas stopped the attacks, Israel loses the depiction of "victim" and starts looking more like an aggressor...if they continue heavy-handed incursions and whatnot.

Odd that Israel hasn't executed any incursions into Gaza since they signed that ceasefire agreement...I guess they take those things more seriously than Hamas--another thing that keeps Hamas from attaining their goal.

Trust me, the world is mostly behind the pals.. only in America you see a majority supporting israel.. mainly because of your biased mainstream media.

Do you agree with me that the West Bank is a lot more peaceful than Gaza? If yes then tell me why israel keep building illegals settlements in the West Bank? And what about east Jerusalem?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080709/ts … 0709122212

If that is what peace bring to palestinians in the west bank and Jerusalem, i don't blame hamas for fighting.. Notice that no settlements are build in Gaza

Last edited by AutralianChainsaw (2008-07-12 08:45:26)

2008-07-12 09:01:28

#33

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6644|Escea

AutralianChainsaw wrote:
M.O.A.B wrote:
Abducting troops with the intent to kill is illegal I believe. They don't have to fight in an open field, why not launch a rocket from there and then nick off? Why fire it from an apartment rooftop?

The Pals have to realise that they're only under marshal law so to speak because they asshats running their country think its a good idea to launch rockets into the civilian populations of a neighbouring country. If rockets weren't being fired at all and attacks weren't purposefully being carried out on Israeli towns, they would be allowed to do a lot more.

During riots across the world they lock down the streets. When the riot and violence passes, they open them up again, simple as that.
Here's my point.. why would they have to be ALLOWED to do more? Even if the rockets stopped, the israelis would still control the lives of the pals.. Nobody should live under the occupation of another people.

Here's something your missing, if the rockets stopped, the pals would be offered more freedom and probably help from the Israelis, but as it stands they're not going to get that. You don't prevent a terror cell by supplying it with everything it needs and taking a light hand to its presence. The Israelis would very likely provide aid to the Palestinian civilians, but they're not going to do that when there is just as high a chance its going to go straight to the militants. Pals have to learn exactly who would benefit them more, and its not Hamas.

2008-07-12 09:38:47

#34

AutralianChainsaw: Member; +65|6619

M.O.A.B wrote:
AutralianChainsaw wrote:
M.O.A.B wrote:
Abducting troops with the intent to kill is illegal I believe. They don't have to fight in an open field, why not launch a rocket from there and then nick off? Why fire it from an apartment rooftop?

The Pals have to realise that they're only under marshal law so to speak because they asshats running their country think its a good idea to launch rockets into the civilian populations of a neighbouring country. If rockets weren't being fired at all and attacks weren't purposefully being carried out on Israeli towns, they would be allowed to do a lot more.

During riots across the world they lock down the streets. When the riot and violence passes, they open them up again, simple as that.
Here's my point.. why would they have to be ALLOWED to do more? Even if the rockets stopped, the israelis would still control the lives of the pals.. Nobody should live under the occupation of another people.
Here's something your missing, if the rockets stopped, the pals would be offered more freedom and probably help from the Israelis, but as it stands they're not going to get that. You don't prevent a terror cell by supplying it with everything it needs and taking a light hand to its presence. The Israelis would very likely provide aid to the Palestinian civilians, but they're not going to do that when there is just as high a chance its going to go straight to the militants. Pals have to learn exactly who would benefit them more, and its not Hamas.

See my last reply to FEOS:

"Do you agree with me that the West Bank is a lot more peaceful than Gaza? If yes then tell me why israel keep building illegals settlements in the West Bank? And what about east Jerusalem?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080709/ts … 0709122212

If that is what peace bring to palestinians in the west bank and Jerusalem, i don't blame hamas for fighting.. Notice that no settlements are build in Gaza"

What is the incensitive of making peace when those already at peace with israel get more land stolen and more illegal settlements full of jewish extremist build right next to them?

edit: fixed the link

Last edited by AutralianChainsaw (2008-07-12 09:39:45)

2008-07-12 13:22:54

#35

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6832|'Murka

Well, then. It seems that more than the US supports the Israelis if the situation in the West Bank is any indication.

Do the Palestinians in the West Bank live in peace? Yes

Are they able to come and go as they please? Yes

Are they subject to blockades and road closures? No

The opposite answers apply to Gaza...because of Hamas' actions.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-07-12 19:51:19

#36

ZombieVampire!: The Gecko; +69|6248

So your answer to injustice is sit back and hope it goes away?

2008-07-12 20:57:15

#37

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6832|'Murka

ZombieVampire! wrote:
So your answer to injustice is sit back and hope it goes away?

No. You haven't bothered to read my posts, have you?

Do that, then come back and see if you still have the same question.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-07-12 21:00:12

#38

ZombieVampire!: The Gecko; +69|6248

Yep, still there.

2008-07-12 21:09:07

#39

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6832|'Murka

Then you either didn't read or don't comprehend basic English.

The answer to injustice is to bring that injustice to light. They can't do that if they are constantly giving Israel justification for their actions. Every time they lob a rocket at civilians or blow up a bus or a cafe, it overshadows what is happening to them. Israel then rolls in, does their thing, and people think it's justified because Israel has been attacked.

If Hamas would stop giving Israel the justification, and if Israel continued to launch offensives and strike targets in Gaza, then there would be no public support for Israel's actions, as they would be unjustified. Hamas terrorism is the worst thing for the prospects of a Palestinian nation.

So, by "sitting back" they would make it go away. By fighting back, they are reinforcing existing Israeli practices.

I'm all for fighting when you need to, but if you can achieve your goals without fighting, that's even better.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-07-12 21:10:30

#40

ZombieVampire!: The Gecko; +69|6248

No, if they sat back everyone would forget about it and they'd lose their land.

Although, I'm curious as to how you theory would apply to South Africa.

2008-07-12 21:18:33

#41

HollisHurlbut: Member; +51|6419

AutralianChainsaw wrote:
Nobody should live under the occupation of another people.

Well, if you invade someone, then they kick your ass, you kinda lose the right to dictate what they do when they take over part of your country to keep you from doing it again.

2008-07-12 21:58:50

#42

ZombieVampire!: The Gecko; +69|6248

Except that the invasion was what led to Israel being created.

2008-07-12 23:21:26

#43

HollisHurlbut: Member; +51|6419

ZombieVampire! wrote:
Except that the invasion was what led to Israel being created.

You realize I'm talking about Gaza and the West Bank, right? Six-Day War? 1967? Ringin' any bells for ya?

2008-07-13 01:56:45

#44

ZombieVampire!: The Gecko; +69|6248

The conflict goes back further than that.

2008-07-13 04:11:45

#45

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6832|'Murka

ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, if they sat back everyone would forget about it and they'd lose their land.

Although, I'm curious as to how you theory would apply to South Africa.

Why? Did the ANC target primarily civilians or the Apartheid government?

Wonder how well the theory worked for Ghandi...

ZombieVampire! wrote:
The conflict goes back further than that.

But not the OTs.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-07-13 06:17:28

#46

ZombieVampire!: The Gecko; +69|6248

FEOS wrote:
ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, if they sat back everyone would forget about it and they'd lose their land.

Although, I'm curious as to how you theory would apply to South Africa.
Why? Did the ANC target primarily civilians or the Apartheid government?

M.O.A.B wrote:
ZombieVampire! wrote:
M.O.A.B wrote:
Less rockets fired = allowed to do more
And should the South African rebels have surrendered too?
Yep

FEOS wrote:
Wonder how well the theory worked for Ghandi...

Which was a completely different situation. India was a colonial asset. All the Indians had to do was make it non-profitable.

FEOS wrote:
ZombieVampire! wrote:
The conflict goes back further than that.
But not the OTs.

Israel is occupied territory. Or was, at least.

2008-07-13 11:23:15

#47

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6832|'Murka

ZombieVampire! wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Wonder how well the theory worked for Ghandi...
Which was a completely different situation. India was a colonial asset. All the Indians had to do was make it non-profitable.

Oh...I thought colonial issues were the same thing...at least according to your argument earlier. I guess it's only different if it doesn't support your argument?

ZombieVampire! wrote:
FEOS wrote:
ZombieVampire! wrote:
The conflict goes back further than that.
But not the OTs.
Israel is occupied territory. Or was, at least.

Was being the operative word. Once your precious UN recognized it and gave it membership, there was no going back.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-07-14 02:33:25

#48

ZombieVampire!: The Gecko; +69|6248

FEOS wrote:
ZombieVampire! wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Wonder how well the theory worked for Ghandi...
Which was a completely different situation. India was a colonial asset. All the Indians had to do was make it non-profitable.
Oh...I thought colonial issues were the same thing...at least according to your argument earlier. I guess it's only different if it doesn't support your argument?

No. South Africa was an issue of a white minority who were in the country, and not British (but were descended from them). India was an issue of British dominance. That is: for India to continue to be oppressed, Britain had to send more troops. In the US, by contrast, there were significant groups who supported Britain.

FEOS wrote:
ZombieVampire! wrote:
FEOS wrote:

But not the OTs.
Israel is occupied territory. Or was, at least.
Was being the operative word. Once your precious UN recognized it and gave it membership, there was no going back.

Only if the UN has legitimacy to give away the territory, which is debatable.

2008-07-14 02:35:27

#49

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6711|Éire

Lotta_Drool wrote:
fuck the palestinians.

You should apply for a job at the UN.

2008-07-14 03:03:18

#50

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6832|'Murka

ZombieVampire! wrote:
FEOS wrote:
ZombieVampire! wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Wonder how well the theory worked for Ghandi...
Which was a completely different situation. India was a colonial asset. All the Indians had to do was make it non-profitable.
Oh...I thought colonial issues were the same thing...at least according to your argument earlier. I guess it's only different if it doesn't support your argument?
No. South Africa was an issue of a white minority who were in the country, and not British (but were descended from them). India was an issue of British dominance. That is: for India to continue to be oppressed, Britain had to send more troops. In the US, by contrast, there were significant groups who supported Britain.

The bottomline being that each situation is different. You can't put a cookie-cutter answer to every problem just because aspects are similar.

You keep advocating for Hamas to keep up the violence...how well has that worked for them so far?

ZombieVampire! wrote:
FEOS wrote:
ZombieVampire! wrote:

Israel is occupied territory. Or was, at least.
Was being the operative word. Once your precious UN recognized it and gave it membership, there was no going back.
Only if the UN has legitimacy to give away the territory, which is debatable.

There is a difference between recognizing a country and giving away territory. The UN did the former, not the latter...it was at least not as simplistic as that, anyway.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

BF2S Forums 'This is like apartheid': ANC veterans visit West Bank

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Board footer