Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8

 

2008-08-13 13:02:07
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

This will just be dismissed in one of the following ways...

1. It was an accident, perhaps the warning wasn't communicated adequately to those in the field.

2. It was an accident, the UN observers didn't identify themselves adequately.

3. The UN shouldn't have been in such a hot zone and knew the risks they were exposing themselves to.

4. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Just so I understand the rules here:

To offer a plausible explanation is dismissive, while implying a much less plausible explanation (Israel intentionally targeted UN observers while under intense international scrutiny for their actions in Lebanon) is not at all dismissive.

Got it.
“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
2008-08-13 13:10:40
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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).
Now that I disagree with.

It is more popular. It is also more centrist. On the one end of the spectrum you have the US on the other you have Middle Eastern states - in the middle ground, between those viewpoints, you have the mainstream European view. That is what being more centrist is, occupying the middle ground.
Exactly, it is frankly laughable to accuse the common European viewpoint of being the opposite extreme end of the spectrum to America's viewpoint. We don't have the same ties to the situation that the US have, we are not tangibly backing one side against another and hence have nothing much to gain by being being biased against one side over another. As Bert points out the Middle Eastern POV is the extreme opposite to the US POV, Europe is more centrist but leans slightly towards Palestine.
Wait a minute...it's you Euros here who are applying broad-brush labels.

Centrism would be recognizing both positive and negative on both sides. You excuse Hamas' behavior because the Palestinian people have been treated badly by the Israelis, the Arabs, and the international community at large. But you don't excuse Israel's behavior despite the poor treatment of the Jewish people throughout history...primarily by Europeans.

See what I did there? I recognized the plight of the Palestinian people...which is exacerbated by the actions of Hamas--and pointed out your application of double standards. But don't let that sway your broad-brush descriptions of the US and veneration of enlightened Europe. I guess that makes it easier for you all to feel superior.
“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
2008-08-13 13:24:13
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6710|Éire

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

This will just be dismissed in one of the following ways...

1. It was an accident, perhaps the warning wasn't communicated adequately to those in the field.

2. It was an accident, the UN observers didn't identify themselves adequately.

3. The UN shouldn't have been in such a hot zone and knew the risks they were exposing themselves to.

4. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Just so I understand the rules here:

To offer a plausible explanation is dismissive, while implying a much less plausible explanation (Israel intentionally targeted UN observers while under intense international scrutiny for their actions in Lebanon) is not at all dismissive.

Got it.
Read the linked story on that Israeli attack and get back to me with a plausible explanation, bearing in mind that the Israelis were warned on numerous occasions that the observers were operating in the region.
2008-08-13 13:26:39
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6710|Éire

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Now that I disagree with.

It is more popular. It is also more centrist. On the one end of the spectrum you have the US on the other you have Middle Eastern states - in the middle ground, between those viewpoints, you have the mainstream European view. That is what being more centrist is, occupying the middle ground.
Exactly, it is frankly laughable to accuse the common European viewpoint of being the opposite extreme end of the spectrum to America's viewpoint. We don't have the same ties to the situation that the US have, we are not tangibly backing one side against another and hence have nothing much to gain by being being biased against one side over another. As Bert points out the Middle Eastern POV is the extreme opposite to the US POV, Europe is more centrist but leans slightly towards Palestine.
Wait a minute...it's you Euros here who are applying broad-brush labels.

Centrism would be recognizing both positive and negative on both sides. You excuse Hamas' behavior because the Palestinian people have been treated badly by the Israelis, the Arabs, and the international community at large. But you don't excuse Israel's behavior despite the poor treatment of the Jewish people throughout history...primarily by Europeans.

See what I did there? I recognized the plight of the Palestinian people...which is exacerbated by the actions of Hamas--and pointed out your application of double standards. But don't let that sway your broad-brush descriptions of the US and veneration of enlightened Europe. I guess that makes it easier for you all to feel superior.
I'm sorry, who excuses Hamas's behaviour exactly?
2008-08-13 13:35:24
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7001|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Now that I disagree with.

It is more popular. It is also more centrist. On the one end of the spectrum you have the US on the other you have Middle Eastern states - in the middle ground, between those viewpoints, you have the mainstream European view. That is what being more centrist is, occupying the middle ground.
Exactly, it is frankly laughable to accuse the common European viewpoint of being the opposite extreme end of the spectrum to America's viewpoint. We don't have the same ties to the situation that the US have, we are not tangibly backing one side against another and hence have nothing much to gain by being being biased against one side over another. As Bert points out the Middle Eastern POV is the extreme opposite to the US POV, Europe is more centrist but leans slightly towards Palestine.
Wait a minute...it's you Euros here who are applying broad-brush labels.

Centrism would be recognizing both positive and negative on both sides. You excuse Hamas' behavior because the Palestinian people have been treated badly by the Israelis, the Arabs, and the international community at large. But you don't excuse Israel's behavior despite the poor treatment of the Jewish people throughout history...primarily by Europeans.

See what I did there? I recognized the plight of the Palestinian people...which is exacerbated by the actions of Hamas--and pointed out your application of double standards. But don't let that sway your broad-brush descriptions of the US and veneration of enlightened Europe. I guess that makes it easier for you all to feel superior.
First off, your definition of centrism seems to be way off. Centrism is being in the middle. The European perspective on the conflict is in the middle, therefore is centrist.

You fall back on the same old, the Jews got persecuted so it's ok, argument. That whole line of reasoning is irrelevant. Yes, Jews were persecuted. Yes, that is a bad thing. They weren't being persecuted in Palestine, so it is utterly irrelevant to the case in hand. The persecution of the Palestinians by the Jewish immigrants to Palestine is very relevant though - because it is something that centrally involves both parties. The plight of the Palestinian people was caused by the Jews, the plight of the Jews was not caused by the Palestinians - there is a very clear difference there.

It's the difference between:

"We got screwed over by someone, so we're going to screw someone else over"

and

"You screwed us over, so we're going to screw you over"

Simple.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-08-13 13:45:36)

2008-08-13 14:35:28
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6643|Escea

Still shouldn't have been standing in the firing line holding a shoulder-mounted camera tbh.
2008-08-13 14:35:45
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:


Exactly, it is frankly laughable to accuse the common European viewpoint of being the opposite extreme end of the spectrum to America's viewpoint. We don't have the same ties to the situation that the US have, we are not tangibly backing one side against another and hence have nothing much to gain by being being biased against one side over another. As Bert points out the Middle Eastern POV is the extreme opposite to the US POV, Europe is more centrist but leans slightly towards Palestine.
Wait a minute...it's you Euros here who are applying broad-brush labels.

Centrism would be recognizing both positive and negative on both sides. You excuse Hamas' behavior because the Palestinian people have been treated badly by the Israelis, the Arabs, and the international community at large. But you don't excuse Israel's behavior despite the poor treatment of the Jewish people throughout history...primarily by Europeans.

See what I did there? I recognized the plight of the Palestinian people...which is exacerbated by the actions of Hamas--and pointed out your application of double standards. But don't let that sway your broad-brush descriptions of the US and veneration of enlightened Europe. I guess that makes it easier for you all to feel superior.
First off, your definition of centrism seems to be way off. Centrism is being in the middle. The European perspective on the conflict is in the middle, therefore is centrist.

You fall back on the same old, the Jews got persecuted so it's ok, argument. That whole line of reasoning is irrelevant. Yes, Jews were persecuted. Yes, that is a bad thing. They weren't being persecuted in Palestine, so it is utterly irrelevant to the case in hand. The persecution of the Palestinians by the Jewish immigrants to Palestine is very relevant though - because it is something that centrally involves both parties. The plight of the Palestinian people was caused by the Jews, the plight of the Jews was not caused by the Palestinians - there is a very clear difference there.

It's the difference between:

"We got screwed over by someone, so we're going to screw someone else over"

and

"You screwed us over, so we're going to screw you over"

Simple.
But it's perfectly OK to apply that logic to the Palestinian side. Got it.

Centrism is looking at both sides objectively. You and those like you are just as guilty of NOT doing that as we in the US are.
“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
2008-08-13 14:36:47
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:


Exactly, it is frankly laughable to accuse the common European viewpoint of being the opposite extreme end of the spectrum to America's viewpoint. We don't have the same ties to the situation that the US have, we are not tangibly backing one side against another and hence have nothing much to gain by being being biased against one side over another. As Bert points out the Middle Eastern POV is the extreme opposite to the US POV, Europe is more centrist but leans slightly towards Palestine.
Wait a minute...it's you Euros here who are applying broad-brush labels.

Centrism would be recognizing both positive and negative on both sides. You excuse Hamas' behavior because the Palestinian people have been treated badly by the Israelis, the Arabs, and the international community at large. But you don't excuse Israel's behavior despite the poor treatment of the Jewish people throughout history...primarily by Europeans.

See what I did there? I recognized the plight of the Palestinian people...which is exacerbated by the actions of Hamas--and pointed out your application of double standards. But don't let that sway your broad-brush descriptions of the US and veneration of enlightened Europe. I guess that makes it easier for you all to feel superior.
I'm sorry, who excuses Hamas's behaviour exactly?
I don't know...have you used the term "freedom fighter" to describe them before?
“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
2008-08-13 14:39:51
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6710|Éire

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Wait a minute...it's you Euros here who are applying broad-brush labels.

Centrism would be recognizing both positive and negative on both sides. You excuse Hamas' behavior because the Palestinian people have been treated badly by the Israelis, the Arabs, and the international community at large. But you don't excuse Israel's behavior despite the poor treatment of the Jewish people throughout history...primarily by Europeans.

See what I did there? I recognized the plight of the Palestinian people...which is exacerbated by the actions of Hamas--and pointed out your application of double standards. But don't let that sway your broad-brush descriptions of the US and veneration of enlightened Europe. I guess that makes it easier for you all to feel superior.
I'm sorry, who excuses Hamas's behaviour exactly?
I don't know...have you used the term "freedom fighter" to describe them before?
I only describe people who target legitimate military and security targets as freedom fighters and I'm damn sure the mainstream European media wouldn't have used such partisan language to describe them.
2008-08-13 14:40:08
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

This will just be dismissed in one of the following ways...

1. It was an accident, perhaps the warning wasn't communicated adequately to those in the field.

2. It was an accident, the UN observers didn't identify themselves adequately.

3. The UN shouldn't have been in such a hot zone and knew the risks they were exposing themselves to.

4. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Just so I understand the rules here:

To offer a plausible explanation is dismissive, while implying a much less plausible explanation (Israel intentionally targeted UN observers while under intense international scrutiny for their actions in Lebanon) is not at all dismissive.

Got it.
Read the linked story on that Israeli attack and get back to me with a plausible explanation, bearing in mind that the Israelis were warned on numerous occasions that the observers were operating in the region.
Have you been in much combat? Have you approved targets based on UAV video? Do you even have a concept of the term "fog of war"?

Didn't think so. Sit back in your comfy chair and do some more generaling. You're clearly qualified.
“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
2008-08-13 14:42:58
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6710|Éire

M.O.A.B wrote:

Still shouldn't have been standing in the firing line holding a shoulder-mounted camera tbh.
What about the UN observers who were killed by an Israeli strike despite several warnings that they were operating in the region?

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Despite_6_w … _observers
2008-08-13 14:48:34
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6710|Éire

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Just so I understand the rules here:

To offer a plausible explanation is dismissive, while implying a much less plausible explanation (Israel intentionally targeted UN observers while under intense international scrutiny for their actions in Lebanon) is not at all dismissive.

Got it.
Read the linked story on that Israeli attack and get back to me with a plausible explanation, bearing in mind that the Israelis were warned on numerous occasions that the observers were operating in the region.
Have you been in much combat? Have you approved targets based on UAV video? Do you even have a concept of the term "fog of war"?

Didn't think so. Sit back in your comfy chair and do some more generaling. You're clearly qualified.
Okay so you're obviously qualified, maybe you can tell me how many warnings from top level officials does it take to get the message across that International UN observers are operating in a region.

This is exactly why I hate the whole argument about "surgically precise, laser-guided, technologically sophisticated" weaponry...it's complete bullshit.
2008-08-13 15:02:11
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6643|Escea

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:


Read the linked story on that Israeli attack and get back to me with a plausible explanation, bearing in mind that the Israelis were warned on numerous occasions that the observers were operating in the region.
Have you been in much combat? Have you approved targets based on UAV video? Do you even have a concept of the term "fog of war"?

Didn't think so. Sit back in your comfy chair and do some more generaling. You're clearly qualified.
Okay so you're obviously qualified, maybe you can tell me how many warnings from top level officials does it take to get the message across that International UN observers are operating in a region.

This is exactly why I hate the whole argument about "surgically precise, laser-guided, technologically sophisticated" weaponry...it's complete bullshit.
Information isn't always distributed amongst other countries. Take intelligence for example, the US and UK's intelligence agencies share information through mutual trust, something like that. Now some countries may be your allies, or they may not be your enemy, but that doesn't always mean you will supply them with the information. Information can be misunderstood, targets can be misunderstood and people can be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
2008-08-13 15:08:55
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Read the linked story on that Israeli attack and get back to me with a plausible explanation, bearing in mind that the Israelis were warned on numerous occasions that the observers were operating in the region.
Have you been in much combat? Have you approved targets based on UAV video? Do you even have a concept of the term "fog of war"?

Didn't think so. Sit back in your comfy chair and do some more generaling. You're clearly qualified.
Okay so you're obviously qualified, maybe you can tell me how many warnings from top level officials does it take to get the message across that International UN observers are operating in a region.

This is exactly why I hate the whole argument about "surgically precise, laser-guided, technologically sophisticated" weaponry...it's complete bullshit.
How is this any different than any other fratricide or collateral damage situation? It's not.

PGMs aren't infallible...85% success rates are the norm. Sometimes seekers go stupid. Sometimes the wrong target gets lased or locked. There are far more plausible explanations for the event than deliberate targeting of the UN observers.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-08-13 19:20:22)

“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
2008-08-13 18:56:43
san4
The Mas
+311|7108|NYC, a place to live

Bertster7 wrote:

san4 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

[snip]

In fact I can't even say I agree with your point about the Palestinians bringing greater light to their cause by not killing school children. Maybe they would now, but if they hadn't conducted a horrific terror campaign, then they would've disappeared in obscurity and no one would be paying them any attention. It was probably in the interests of their state to do so and since they are simply using the same tactics that Israel used (with great success) to take the land from them in the first place, it is not hard to see why - which is not justification, but rationalisation.
You're saying that if the Palestinians had just accepted the partition plans they have been offered they would have disappeared into obscurity? They would have had a state sixty years ago.

The Arabs' & Palestinians' strategy of trying to reclaim land through violence has been an extraordinary failure.
Accepting the partition plan or not had very little to do with the Palestinians themselves. It was the Arab League putting al-Husayni in charge of things that caused the problem and he was a notorious anti-Semite. His actions and the response of the Arab league to the partition plan are what precipitated the war.

You also make it sound like the partition plan was the start of the problem, it wasn't. There had been at least 30 years of conflict prior to that, where many of the worst acts of Zionist terrorism occurred, as did a number of riots by Arabs in which many were killed.

Had the Palestinians not pursued, in general, the course they have, then I do believe they would be in a worse state than they are now.
Actually, the partition plan was the beginning of a Palestinian state. But a choice was made that violence was preferable. The fact that someone other than the Palestinians made that choice does not make it any less stupid or harmful to their cause. That same choice has been made repeatedly over the last 60 years by the Palestinians and by others on their behalf.

Until now, I have never heard anyone say that the Palestinians are better off without a state of their own.
2008-08-14 01:41:30
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6710|Éire

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Have you been in much combat? Have you approved targets based on UAV video? Do you even have a concept of the term "fog of war"?

Didn't think so. Sit back in your comfy chair and do some more generaling. You're clearly qualified.
Okay so you're obviously qualified, maybe you can tell me how many warnings from top level officials does it take to get the message across that International UN observers are operating in a region.

This is exactly why I hate the whole argument about "surgically precise, laser-guided, technologically sophisticated" weaponry...it's complete bullshit.
How is this any different than any other fratricide or collateral damage situation? It's not.

PGMs aren't infallible...85% success rates are the norm. Sometimes seekers go stupid. Sometimes the wrong target gets lased or locked. There are far more plausible explanations for the event than deliberate targeting of the UN observers.
So all the technology that people go on about in these arguments often makes no difference whatsoever to the amount of civilians killed? To me this kind of incident is no different to the real IRA detonating a bomb in an area where they knew many civilians would be located...sure they never meant to target the civilians but they sure knew they might be there.

Armies always get a pass on killing innocent people just because they say they never meant it while militants get crucified for it...to me they are both guilty.
2008-08-14 06:25:09
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6526|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Centrism would be recognizing both positive and negative on both sides. You excuse Hamas' behavior because the Palestinian people have been treated badly by the Israelis, the Arabs, and the international community at large. But you don't excuse Israel's behavior despite the poor treatment of the Jewish people throughout history...primarily by Europeans.
Its reasonable for Hamas to be attacking the Israelis in response to invasion and daily attacks by the Israelis.
Israels behaviour towards the Palestinians is not a reasonable response to the actions of the Germans 60 years ago, (and after the Zionist project had already begun in Palestine).

So when it comes to the Israelis you're ready to find any excuse.

FEOS wrote:

PGMs aren't infallible...85% success rates are the norm. Sometimes seekers go stupid. Sometimes the wrong target gets lased or locked. There are far more plausible explanations for the event than deliberate targeting of the UN observers.
Yeah sure, the building was hit four times by accident or due to a technical fault
How is this any different than any other fratricide or collateral damage situation? It's not.
Attacking a neutral and independent third party whose location is clearly marked and well know to you, whose presence is as much for your protection as for anyone elses, with precision guided weapons is clearly a bit more than 'collateral damage'.

But when it comes to the Palestinians you're ready to plain invent stuff completely unsupported by any evidence at all.

FEOS wrote:

They've accomplished nothing except to get themselves labeled as terrorists because they target civilians nearly exclusively.
'Nearly exclusively'? How so? Proof or STFU

FEOS wrote:

I guess it's OK that Hamas' basic strategy involved violating the GC and sacrificing Palestinian civilians so they can make Israel look bad
Hamas don't need to lift a finger to make Israel look bad.
Your argument is on a par with saying GWB allowed Bin Laden to take out the two towers so Iraq would look bad.

I think we've pretty much got an idea of your 'centrism', basically you believe ambrosia flows from the butt of every Israeli.

Here's one for you, did you know Israel is one of the main destinations for trafficked women in the world?
http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_a … avery.html
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/israel.htm
http://www.catwinternational.org/factbook/Israel.php
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h … gewanted=2
But of course we all know the New York Times is an extreme anti-semitic organisation so you're free to ignore it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002 … -sex_x.htm
But then the US state department are a bunch of Koran thumping ululating nutters so no matter there either.

However just maybe you'll believe the Israelis themselves.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News … 87,00.html
'Sex slavery rife in Israel
Jerusalem - Thousands of foreign women have been smuggled into Israel and sold into prostitution, earning the criminal underworld millions of dollars a year, a parliamentary investigation has found.

For the last four years, between 3,000 and 5,000 women have been sold as sex slaves for 8,000 to 10,000 dollars and forced to work up to 18 hours a day, said the head of the inquiry, Zehava Gal-On, of the left-wing opposition Yahad party.

On average the women receive four dollars for every 120 dollars that clients pay their pimps for their services.'

Israel has no laws against slavery, and the women themselves are usually prosecuted while the pimps never are.
Fine people the Israelis.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-08-14 06:37:29)

Fuck Israel
2008-08-14 11:18:32
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7001|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Wait a minute...it's you Euros here who are applying broad-brush labels.

Centrism would be recognizing both positive and negative on both sides. You excuse Hamas' behavior because the Palestinian people have been treated badly by the Israelis, the Arabs, and the international community at large. But you don't excuse Israel's behavior despite the poor treatment of the Jewish people throughout history...primarily by Europeans.

See what I did there? I recognized the plight of the Palestinian people...which is exacerbated by the actions of Hamas--and pointed out your application of double standards. But don't let that sway your broad-brush descriptions of the US and veneration of enlightened Europe. I guess that makes it easier for you all to feel superior.
First off, your definition of centrism seems to be way off. Centrism is being in the middle. The European perspective on the conflict is in the middle, therefore is centrist.

You fall back on the same old, the Jews got persecuted so it's ok, argument. That whole line of reasoning is irrelevant. Yes, Jews were persecuted. Yes, that is a bad thing. They weren't being persecuted in Palestine, so it is utterly irrelevant to the case in hand. The persecution of the Palestinians by the Jewish immigrants to Palestine is very relevant though - because it is something that centrally involves both parties. The plight of the Palestinian people was caused by the Jews, the plight of the Jews was not caused by the Palestinians - there is a very clear difference there.

It's the difference between:

"We got screwed over by someone, so we're going to screw someone else over"

and

"You screwed us over, so we're going to screw you over"

Simple.
But it's perfectly OK to apply that logic to the Palestinian side. Got it.
What are you talking about?
Apply what logic? I've outlined how it's completely different. The Israelis screwed the Palestinians over, and so for them to be aggrieved and take it out on the Israelis is understandable. The Jews were screwed over by lots of people, NOT the Palestinians - so it's a totally different scenario.

Can you not see the vast difference.

Acts committed by those involved in the conflict are relevant. Any others are not.

FEOS wrote:

Centrism is looking at both sides objectively. You and those like you are just as guilty of NOT doing that as we in the US are.
First off that's not what centrism is:
centrism

noun
a political philosophy of avoiding the extremes of left and right by taking a moderate position or course of action
Taking a moderate position between the extremes of left and right. The US is one extreme, the ME is another, Europe's position is not only the middle ground, but is also moderate and so satisfies every criteria for being centrist.

Secondly, that's not the case at all - I'm very familiar with the history surrounding all of this and prior to that I was a supporter of the Israelis, it's only after I've actually learnt about this conflict that I've found out what a bunch of despicable cunts they are and have been to the Palestinians ever since the Jewish agency became active in Palestine.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-08-14 11:39:11)

2008-08-14 11:23:25
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7001|SE London

san4 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

san4 wrote:


You're saying that if the Palestinians had just accepted the partition plans they have been offered they would have disappeared into obscurity? They would have had a state sixty years ago.

The Arabs' & Palestinians' strategy of trying to reclaim land through violence has been an extraordinary failure.
Accepting the partition plan or not had very little to do with the Palestinians themselves. It was the Arab League putting al-Husayni in charge of things that caused the problem and he was a notorious anti-Semite. His actions and the response of the Arab league to the partition plan are what precipitated the war.

You also make it sound like the partition plan was the start of the problem, it wasn't. There had been at least 30 years of conflict prior to that, where many of the worst acts of Zionist terrorism occurred, as did a number of riots by Arabs in which many were killed.

Had the Palestinians not pursued, in general, the course they have, then I do believe they would be in a worse state than they are now.
Actually, the partition plan was the beginning of a Palestinian state. But a choice was made that violence was preferable. The fact that someone other than the Palestinians made that choice does not make it any less stupid or harmful to their cause. That same choice has been made repeatedly over the last 60 years by the Palestinians and by others on their behalf.

Until now, I have never heard anyone say that the Palestinians are better off without a state of their own.
What a ridiculous statement. (I love the way you start out with "actually" as though you're about to contradict something I've said and then don't, but phrase it to give that impression)

So you are saying the Palestinians should have taken an offer they had no option of accepting?

As for them taking that same choice repeatedly over the past 60 years, that's obviously complete gibberish - since they haven't had an option to.


How about the Israelis just abide by international law? Ever heard of the right of return?
2008-08-14 12:40:38
san4
The Mas
+311|7108|NYC, a place to live

Bertster7 wrote:

san4 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Accepting the partition plan or not had very little to do with the Palestinians themselves. It was the Arab League putting al-Husayni in charge of things that caused the problem and he was a notorious anti-Semite. His actions and the response of the Arab league to the partition plan are what precipitated the war.

You also make it sound like the partition plan was the start of the problem, it wasn't. There had been at least 30 years of conflict prior to that, where many of the worst acts of Zionist terrorism occurred, as did a number of riots by Arabs in which many were killed.

Had the Palestinians not pursued, in general, the course they have, then I do believe they would be in a worse state than they are now.
Actually, the partition plan was the beginning of a Palestinian state. But a choice was made that violence was preferable. The fact that someone other than the Palestinians made that choice does not make it any less stupid or harmful to their cause. That same choice has been made repeatedly over the last 60 years by the Palestinians and by others on their behalf.

Until now, I have never heard anyone say that the Palestinians are better off without a state of their own.
What a ridiculous statement. (I love the way you start out with "actually" as though you're about to contradict something I've said and then don't, but phrase it to give that impression)

So you are saying the Palestinians should have taken an offer they had no option of accepting?

As for them taking that same choice repeatedly over the past 60 years, that's obviously complete gibberish - since they haven't had an option to.


How about the Israelis just abide by international law? Ever heard of the right of return?
You are saying the Palestinians never had the option of accepting any partition plan? From the 1950's to 2008?
2008-08-14 12:42:34
san4
The Mas
+311|7108|NYC, a place to live

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Centrism would be recognizing both positive and negative on both sides. You excuse Hamas' behavior because the Palestinian people have been treated badly by the Israelis, the Arabs, and the international community at large. But you don't excuse Israel's behavior despite the poor treatment of the Jewish people throughout history...primarily by Europeans.
Its reasonable for Hamas to be attacking the Israelis in response to invasion and daily attacks by the Israelis.
Israels behaviour towards the Palestinians is not a reasonable response to the actions of the Germans 60 years ago, (and after the Zionist project had already begun in Palestine).

So when it comes to the Israelis you're ready to find any excuse.
Is it also reasonable for Hamas to work towards the goal of complete destruction of Israel?
2008-08-14 13:36:20
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|7066
The biases in these Israel threads in astounding.

Everyone says things like "both sides are to blame" to show everyone how even-minded they are but then go ahead and show one-sided example on violence.

It's no wonder theres no peace over there. You can't even get people in BF2S to agree on anything.
2008-08-14 14:04:42
PureFodder
Member
+225|6705
Presision guided weapons are a way of minimizing casualties, right up to the point when you decide to drop a presicion guided one ton bomb on a crowded civillian area.

Especially as this was done just before the announcement of a cease-fire (which was obviously cancelled due to the bombing) and likely done in order to prevent the ceasefire.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h … A9649C8B63

As far as the pro/anti Israel positions being equally valid. The international court of Justice and the accumulated weight of numerous independent human rights groups and all the UN votes on Israel show that while both sides have committed serious crimes agaisnt each other, the scale of the Israeli crimes greatly outshadows that of the Palestinians.
2008-08-14 19:09:06
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6831|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:


Okay so you're obviously qualified, maybe you can tell me how many warnings from top level officials does it take to get the message across that International UN observers are operating in a region.

This is exactly why I hate the whole argument about "surgically precise, laser-guided, technologically sophisticated" weaponry...it's complete bullshit.
How is this any different than any other fratricide or collateral damage situation? It's not.

PGMs aren't infallible...85% success rates are the norm. Sometimes seekers go stupid. Sometimes the wrong target gets lased or locked. There are far more plausible explanations for the event than deliberate targeting of the UN observers.
So all the technology that people go on about in these arguments often makes no difference whatsoever to the amount of civilians killed? To me this kind of incident is no different to the real IRA detonating a bomb in an area where they knew many civilians would be located...sure they never meant to target the civilians but they sure knew they might be there.

Armies always get a pass on killing innocent people just because they say they never meant it while militants get crucified for it...to me they are both guilty.
If by "often" you mean about 15% of the time (on average), then sure.

The difference between the military and the militants is that the military doesn't mean to kill civilians and takes measures to mitigate collateral damage. The militants specifically target to maximize civilian casualties. If you don't see the difference in guilt there, you are hopeless.
“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

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard