Commissar

I own it. It's fantastic.

24. And some days I wish that's why I wore them.

Hilarious. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you. I was shooting for an element of humor. Notice the clever transformation of 'foreigners' into something the NASCAR crowd can understand.

Man. I clicked that link, and at first I thought it was a list of all of our militarily-significant Iraq War coalition allies.

Dodging what issue? You've admitted that terrorism worked in the Gaza situation. I don't even actually think it was wholly terrorism, but more a combination of terrorism and negotiation. But you've stated numerous times that the pullout is a bow to terrorist demands. I said the exact same thing, and all of a sudden my argument's dismantled?

I don't think 'advocate' means what you think it means.

I agree with this 100%. No, for implying that terrorism is the way to go. And your post has been deleted already, so yes, I'm going for it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm implying that terrorism worked, nothing more. You yourself have said so numerous times, stating that Israel withdrawing from Gaza is giving in to the demands of terrorists.

If this is not advocating terrorism, I don't know what is. I'm reporting you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> For stating that pressure and attacks from Hamas appear to have led the Israelis to call it a day in Gaza? Go for it.

No Palestinian is going to take the side of the Israeli government over Hamas. Hamas is fighting for the Palestinians, whereas the Israelis haven't exactly helped them out much. For now, Hamas seems more beneficial to have around than not. Once they get a state of their own, hopefully they'll put Hamas under wraps. And I'm assuming that above quote was referring only to the Palestinian situation...I know plenty of Merkins who haven't shot any terrorists recently.

C'mon, I can't be both some kind of terrorist sympathizer, one step away from turning some C-4 into a jockstrap, and a holy roller at the same time.

There've been warnings. The numbers guy did tell me to go have sexual relations with myself, after all. High-minded debate, indeed.

Sien Fein and the IRA are two brothers. I do not judge one brother for the actions of the other. Sien Fein preaches peace and diplomacy. The IRA does not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Palestinian Authority, Hamas.

I think he was referring to the fact that portions of the US populace were huge contributors to the IRA's coffers.

EAST TIMOR, EAST TIMOR. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, and Drakron's right.

Look, I need everyone to hold debate for an hour so I can go on my run and not miss any of this.

The UN has never in their history decided that a country should change ownership based on majority population. Given that it is not policy, it is just as random as giving Northern Ireland to Greece. Both are third parties that never actually owned and controlled the land they are being given control over. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you really cannot see why Palestinians ought to have their own state, then what's the point of further debating this? You said yourself that Palestinians have just as much historical claim to the Gaza area. The Gaza area was not part of Israel's initial borders - borders that were established by the displacement of the people living within them and the importation of a completely different group. It's not remotely random.

Apples and Oranges ... Apples to Apples. England acquires Northern Ireland. Israel aquires the Gaza Strip. After a lengthy period of time, the UN steps in and tells England to give Northern Ireland to a third party, Greece based on the fact that England shouldn't control Northern Ireland. After a lengthy period of tiem, the UN steps in and tells Israel to give the Gaza Strip to a third party, Palestine based on the fact that Israel shouldn't control the Gaza Strip. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're leaving out the fact that the population of Northern Ireland isn't 99% - now 100% - Greek. If it were, I could see some logic in the argument.

That's more like it. Sure, but he's not a terrorist, he's not the one that we're talking about. Oh, right. So now they have gone rogue, haven't they? And when will it be a good time for them to knock it off? If we are to believe what they say, they won't stop until every jew is kicked out of the place. Whatever. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A good time for them to knock it off? The day before they first started, I'd say. Hamas is a roadblock to peace, certainly, but they have a lot of support and it's not a simple issue of killing them all or tossing them all in jail; then you'd just have to deal with replacements. After all, death doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent for those attracted to the organization, does it?

I'm arguing that Hiroshima is not part of this debate. It is off topic. Let me make that clear. Nuclear warfare doesn't apply to a debate on the Gaza Strip in any way. US policy doesn't really apply that much given this is between Palestine and Israel. I'd also like to point out that continuing to bring up Hiroshima indicates a partial abandonment of the supposed points you keep arguing for. You are all over the place. You rationalize terrorism as a tactic in this case, and then blast terrorism is you can use the word to knock on the US. Not only does this contradict your stance defending Palestine, but it also contradicts any arguement where you say history doesn't matter in allowing Israel a right to their home land. Then you say history does matter in that murder is justified because of a historical shaft the Palestinians got. In WWII both sides bombed factories. When the US did it 120,000 civilians died. You call that murder and terrorism. But if Germany killed 20 million Russians, 3 million Poles, 6 million Jews, etc. the world doesn't need to step in any do anything? We had no right to protect people or give them back homes after they were stolen? Decide whether you want to argue the situation today, or the situation about the creation of Israel. In either case, there is no real justification for displacing the 9,000 Jews in the Gaza Strip. If you're dealing with the here and now, Hamas made no offer of goodwill in return, and it poses an increased risk of terrorism now in Israel that the Palestinians have gained a tactical inroad to central Israel. If you're dealing with the past, either your belief is that Israel shouldn't have formed in the first place and two seperate states should exist, or that you feel the should live together in peace. On the states issue, why do anything half way? Either fully segregate now to totally end the violence, or don't. Creating 9,000 victims doesn't do anything postive. If you're trying to get them to share the nation in peace, then do that. But we're saying they can't live in peace and must be segregated here, but not on a large scale. It makes no sense whatsoever. I dare someone to make a logical arguement how this makes sense. That was the original point of this thread and I'd like people to get on topic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, I'm not rationalizing terrorism as a tactic. I'm saying it one last time; if you can't or won't understand it, too bad, but I'm really not going to address this point again. I've said that terrorism exists in the Palestinian/Israeli issue, and I've said that I understand why it does. I haven't said I approve of its inclusion. There. Are we clear, or are we going to have to go through this yet again in another ten pages? I am not trying to get them to share the nation in peace. I'm trying to get Palestine its own state, fully autonomous from Israeli control. That is what I have always argued as being essential for any chance of peace in the region.

As far as I can tell, he hasn't threatened to shut the thread down based on your arguments...seems a little uncalled for. Lay off.

How about making a declaration? A truce? Handing over their weapons? Are you really that obtuse? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Handing over their weapons would be like the US mothballing its nuclear arsenal at the height of the Cold War. As far as declarations go, I believe Abbas made one. Could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he did. Hamas doesn't always seem to go along with what the PA says, though, so...you know.

So you've demonstrated. However, there are more than terrorists who you could describe as hating us for our way of life, or simply hating America in general. I know plenty of Europeans with that point of view, and they're not exactly zealots.

1 - You are off-topic. As a mod I expect you to keep the debate on the topic of the Gaza Strip, not something that has been described as being largely irrelevant. 2 - You quote the definition of murder and then throw out collateral damage as the same thing? Look at your definition of murder again. Murder requires intent. Collateral damage implies accidents. I suggest you go back to the dictionary and look up intent. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you arguing that they didn't intend to destroy the cities when they dropped the bombs?

No, no. That's not how diplomacy and negotiations work. The Israeli have already abandoned their settlements. That's a gesture of good will. Now it's up to the terrorists to make a similar gesture. I don't see it happening. Huh? What? Where is it? I don't see anything. Are you trying to make me trust the good intentions of terrorists? Are you sick or just perverted? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What do you want them to do, exactly? Not bomb stuff? Check. Really, tell me...what qualifies as a sign of good faith for you?

No, but I think I can safely claim to have debated with them before. Except that it's not doing the same thing. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first time Israel has pulled out of the Gaza settlements with the intention of turning them over to Palestinian authority.