Agreed. Both sides more or less deserve whatever they get. I don't batter an eyelid when a Palestinian or an Israeli gets wankeredPug wrote:
Do they bring it on themselves?
Yes. And I mean both sides.
Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-08-12 10:33:27)
Well at least I posted a link, you could have made up that OP for all I know...not a single link for any of those stories.SgtHeihn wrote:
No, their are plenty of threads showing Israeli heavy handedness. No one posts any bad stuff about the Palestinians.Braddock wrote:
Seems to me like you're only showing one side.SgtHeihn wrote:
I feel that both sides should be shown here.
It would be just as easy to list all the heavy handed attacks by Israel over the years but what would be the point? As Cam points out, two wrongs don't make a right. Israel have an actual recognised state with a fully functioning Government and a military that is bolstered by huge US donations on an annual basis, they should not be carrying on in the same way as the rogue militant groups they are fighting. Palestine must be allowed to establish a fully recognised and functional state in order to finally reel in these militant groups and the short sighted approach of Israel is never going to enable this, Israel always seem more concerned that more Palestinians than Jews are killed in the back and forth fighting instead of making the concessions needed to secure some form of meaningful peace with their neighbours...and it is Israel who have to make the concessions, they are the ones who set up a state in someone else's land.
Oh and Braddock, don't try and use a wikki site where at the top its says:
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
This article or section is incomplete and may require expansion and/or cleanup.
And the kicker
This article does not cite any references or sources.
And I could counter that argument with a similar attitude e.g. maybe if the Israelis were more precise in their attacks and stopped killing loads of civilians then the Palestinians wouldn't feel so justified in carrying out indiscriminate bombings...two wrongs don't make a right.SgtHeihn wrote:
I never said I was pro-Israel.
I condemn the attacks on both sides, but maybe, just maybe if the Palestinians stop blowing up buses and attack shopping malls filled with civilians,
the Israelis wouldn't be trying to blow the back to the stone age.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-08-12 11:12:44)
over your headBraddock wrote:
Seems to me like you're only showing one side.SgtHeihn wrote:
I feel that both sides should be shown here.
I saw the horrors that the fighters had created. I saw bodies of women and children, who were murdered in their houses in cold blood by gunfire, with no signs of battle and not as the result of blowing up the houses. From my experience I know well, that there is no war without killing, and that not only combatants get killed. I have seen a great deal of war, but I never saw a sight like Deir Yassin.
In the houses there were dead, in all about a hundred men, women and children. It was terrible. I did not see any signs of defilement, mutilation, or rape. ... It was clear that they (the attackers) had gone from house to house and shot the people at close range. I was a doctor in the German army for 5 years, in World War I, but I had not seen such a horrifying spectacle.
These sorts of acts are perfectly comparable to acts of terrorism committed by Hamas, now a party that is sort of ruling the state. All the acts of terrorism described above were committed by the Irgun, now Likud - ruling Israel. There is abhorrent state sponsored terrorism on both sides - though as the Israelis became richer their tools became more sophisticated. Both sides have committed atrocities, but when it comes down to amount of suffering inflicted, the Israelis are way, way ahead - they're also ahead on rule breaking and denial of past crimes.Clement Atlee wrote:
Hon. Members will have learned with horror of the brutal and murderous crime committed yesterday in Jerusalem. Of all the outrages which have occurred in Palestine, and they have been many and horrible in the last few months, this is the worst. By this insane act of terrorism 93 innocent people have been killed or are missing in the ruins. The latest figures of casualties are 41 dead, 52 missing and 53 injured. I have no further information at present beyond what is contained in the following official report received from Jerusalem:
"It appears that after exploding a small bomb in the street, presumably as a diversionary measure — this did virtually no damage — a lorry drove up to the tradesmen's entrance of the King David Hotel and the occupants, after holding up the staff at pistol point, entered the kitchen premises carrying a number of milk cans. At some stage of the proceedings, they shot and seriously wounded a British soldier who attempted to interfere with them. All available information so far is to the effect that they were Jews. Somewhere in the basement of the hotel they planted bombs which went off shortly afterwards. They appear to have made good their escape."
Your post makes perfect sense in light of your location. The picture the Americans get for this conflict is completely different than that of (roughly) the rest of the world.SgtHeihn wrote:
OK first off, I have noticed A LOT of Israel = Bad going on here. I feel that both sides should be shown here.
Do a search for Israel on these forums and you will only find negative threads. I made a thread showing that they are not the only ones to blame for this issue.oug wrote:
Your post makes perfect sense in light of your location. The picture the Americans get for this conflict is completely different than that of (roughly) the rest of the world.SgtHeihn wrote:
OK first off, I have noticed A LOT of Israel = Bad going on here. I feel that both sides should be shown here.
How is that, exactly? Since we have access to the same international media you do.oug wrote:
Your post makes perfect sense in light of your location. The picture the Americans get for this conflict is completely different than that of (roughly) the rest of the world.SgtHeihn wrote:
OK first off, I have noticed A LOT of Israel = Bad going on here. I feel that both sides should be shown here.
Access to yes, but what most people watch and see is the mainstream domestic media, which has a distinct pro-Israel bias. Not to mention things being ingrained at a social and cultural level.FEOS wrote:
How is that, exactly? Since we have access to the same international media you do.oug wrote:
Your post makes perfect sense in light of your location. The picture the Americans get for this conflict is completely different than that of (roughly) the rest of the world.SgtHeihn wrote:
OK first off, I have noticed A LOT of Israel = Bad going on here. I feel that both sides should be shown here.
I wasn't bringing in cultural influence. I was trying to show the bias of opinions on this forum. The trend these days is to view the Palestinians as the oppressed culture and the Israelis as the terrible oppressor. When you look at it, both sides are equally guilty.Bertster7 wrote:
Access to yes, but what most people watch and see is the mainstream domestic media, which has a distinct pro-Israel bias. Not to mention things being ingrained at a social and cultural level.FEOS wrote:
How is that, exactly? Since we have access to the same international media you do.oug wrote:
Your post makes perfect sense in light of your location. The picture the Americans get for this conflict is completely different than that of (roughly) the rest of the world.
Different countries have differing mainstream viewpoints on these issues. These viewpoints typically reflect the angle presented by the most mainstream media outlets there. Peoples views on topics WILL be influenced by where they live, it's not just a question of having access to other sources of information, it's a matter of general cultural exposure.
So you're saying that those who are anti-Israel in the discussion have their views constructed by their own mainstream media outlets. Yet it's the US that has the problem...interesting.Bertster7 wrote:
Access to yes, but what most people watch and see is the mainstream domestic media, which has a distinct pro-Israel bias. Not to mention things being ingrained at a social and cultural level.FEOS wrote:
How is that, exactly? Since we have access to the same international media you do.oug wrote:
Your post makes perfect sense in light of your location. The picture the Americans get for this conflict is completely different than that of (roughly) the rest of the world.
Different countries have differing mainstream viewpoints on these issues. These viewpoints typically reflect the angle presented by the most mainstream media outlets there. Peoples views on topics WILL be influenced by where they live, it's not just a question of having access to other sources of information, it's a matter of general cultural exposure.
You weren't, but FEOS appears to have been denying the effects of cultural influence, which is what this point was in response to.SgtHeihn wrote:
I wasn't bringing in cultural influence. I was trying to show the bias of opinions on this forum. The trend these days is to view the Palestinians as the oppressed culture and the Israelis as the terrible oppressor. When you look at it, both sides are equally guilty.Bertster7 wrote:
Access to yes, but what most people watch and see is the mainstream domestic media, which has a distinct pro-Israel bias. Not to mention things being ingrained at a social and cultural level.FEOS wrote:
How is that, exactly? Since we have access to the same international media you do.
Different countries have differing mainstream viewpoints on these issues. These viewpoints typically reflect the angle presented by the most mainstream media outlets there. Peoples views on topics WILL be influenced by where they live, it's not just a question of having access to other sources of information, it's a matter of general cultural exposure.
Palestinians for attacking civilian targets.
Israel for using heavy handed tactics
The Palestinians would bring greater light on their cause if the stopped killing school children.
Only not so much.Bertster7 wrote:
but FEOS appears to have been denying the effects of cultural influence, which is what this point was in response to.
No. I'm saying there is cultural bias.FEOS wrote:
So you're saying that those who are anti-Israel in the discussion have their views constructed by their own mainstream media outlets. Yet it's the US that has the problem...interesting.Bertster7 wrote:
Access to yes, but what most people watch and see is the mainstream domestic media, which has a distinct pro-Israel bias. Not to mention things being ingrained at a social and cultural level.FEOS wrote:
How is that, exactly? Since we have access to the same international media you do.
Different countries have differing mainstream viewpoints on these issues. These viewpoints typically reflect the angle presented by the most mainstream media outlets there. Peoples views on topics WILL be influenced by where they live, it's not just a question of having access to other sources of information, it's a matter of general cultural exposure.
No, I don't disagree with either.Bertster7 wrote:
No. I'm saying there is cultural bias.FEOS wrote:
So you're saying that those who are anti-Israel in the discussion have their views constructed by their own mainstream media outlets. Yet it's the US that has the problem...interesting.Bertster7 wrote:
Access to yes, but what most people watch and see is the mainstream domestic media, which has a distinct pro-Israel bias. Not to mention things being ingrained at a social and cultural level.
Different countries have differing mainstream viewpoints on these issues. These viewpoints typically reflect the angle presented by the most mainstream media outlets there. Peoples views on topics WILL be influenced by where they live, it's not just a question of having access to other sources of information, it's a matter of general cultural exposure.
I'm also saying the bias in the US is pro-Israeli in contrast to the rest of the world.
Do you disagree with either of those assessments?
Well, it's fairly obviously the case - not because American media is any worse, but because in this case it represents the most extreme pro-Israel bias to be found anywhere in the world. When looking at bias, the degree of bias is the most important thing and the US has a greater pro-Israel bias than anywhere else in the world outside Israel.FEOS wrote:
No, I don't disagree with either.Bertster7 wrote:
No. I'm saying there is cultural bias.FEOS wrote:
So you're saying that those who are anti-Israel in the discussion have their views constructed by their own mainstream media outlets. Yet it's the US that has the problem...interesting.
I'm also saying the bias in the US is pro-Israeli in contrast to the rest of the world.
Do you disagree with either of those assessments?
What I do disagree with is the position that your bias, induced by your mainstream media, is somehow better than the bias induced by our mainstream media.
Are daily attacks a necessity now? No, they're not. They could stop almost entirely and do their global image a lot of good.SgtHeihn wrote:
OK, point taken.
They have brought light to their cause, so attacks on every day Israelis is still a necessity?
Majority of the cease fires both sides have brokered have been broken by militants. If you want peace why do they continue to fire rockets?
Before you say they are independent groups, why haven't the Palestinians concentrated on disarming these splinter groups?
Fixed.SgtHeihn wrote:
Majority of the cease fires both sides have brokered have been broken by militants. If you want peace why do they continue to fire rockets from densely populated civilian centers?
ty kam.Kmarion wrote:
Fixed.SgtHeihn wrote:
Majority of the cease fires both sides have brokered have been broken by militants. If you want peace why do they continue to fire rockets from densely populated civilian centers?
You are right and I think a lot of the people that you would probably consider as pro-Palestine on these forums would actually agree with your points here but the thing is a lot of people look at the original root of the problem - Israel establishing a state in an already occupied land at the expense of the indigenous people of said land - and use this as an important factor in evaluating a situation where two parties are equally guilty of atrocities. If Israel had been carved out of Germany we could have avoided a whole lot of trouble and the Germans wouldn't really have been in a position to complain, why did the Palestinians have to pay for the sins of the Nazis? Surely you can identify with how hard done by they must feel?SgtHeihn wrote:
I wasn't bringing in cultural influence. I was trying to show the bias of opinions on this forum. The trend these days is to view the Palestinians as the oppressed culture and the Israelis as the terrible oppressor. When you look at it, both sides are equally guilty.
Palestinians for attacking civilian targets.
Israel for using heavy handed tactics
The Palestinians would bring greater light on their cause if the stopped killing school children.
I'm not missing your point at all. You feel your bias is "better" because it's more popular and you also think it's more centrist. It's not. You are biased against Israel to the same degree that many in the US are biased against the Palestinian militants (notice I did make a distinction there).Bertster7 wrote:
Well, it's fairly obviously the case - not because American media is any worse, but because in this case it represents the most extreme pro-Israel bias to be found anywhere in the world. When looking at bias, the degree of bias is the most important thing and the US has a greater pro-Israel bias than anywhere else in the world outside Israel.FEOS wrote:
No, I don't disagree with either.Bertster7 wrote:
No. I'm saying there is cultural bias.
I'm also saying the bias in the US is pro-Israeli in contrast to the rest of the world.
Do you disagree with either of those assessments?
What I do disagree with is the position that your bias, induced by your mainstream media, is somehow better than the bias induced by our mainstream media.
I've expressed that really, really badly and you may well miss the point I'm trying to make due to that, but basically what I'm trying to say, is that being at one polar extreme is clearly worse than being more towards the middle ground.
It's not a case of our bias is better than your bias - it's a case of the general consensus around the world is better than your bias.