Gaza Strip

[Commissar]

If you're so positive on a Palestinian state, where do they put it?  Israel decided it wanted its "historic homeland" or whatever, so why can't the Palestinians have theirs, by the same logic?

They could have. The UN told them to share and play nice and Palestine refused.

 

But let us not punish the petulant child, let us punish the people who had no home and were victims of genocide. Palestine occupied that land because the Jews were forcibly removed from it in the first place. I love how people COMPLETELY discount that fact.

 

So let me ask you, how do you determine who has a right to the land? The people who lived in first or most recent? Because if you say first, then as the Muslims are a later branch of Judaism, the land belonged to the Jews first.

 

If you say current possession is 90% of the law, and we'll rule that if you occupy the land now that you own it, then you cannot justify forcible relocation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Palestine refused for all the reasons I've outlined. Palestine refused because it wasn't working.

 

Punish the petulant child? What are we going to do, force them off their land and put them under the control of a government who wants them all dead? We've already done that. Not sure what more we can do.

 

How do I determine who has a right to the Gaza Strip, if that's what you're asking me? Given that Israel is a made-up state thrust into the midst of other states who absolutely did not want it there by outside powers, gained Gaza in a war that it didn't start and then decided to treat the inhabitants like dogs, and then decided that it didn't really want Gaza, anyway...I'd say the people living in Gaza.

[Commissar]

I link unemployment as one of the factors that contributes to terrorism, yes.  It's downright fallacious to suggest that I named unemployment as the sole cause of terrorism.

You said:

The employed aren't suicide bombers.

You made the distinction there that employment makes or breaks a person as a terrorist.

 

McVeigh was employed, as were the 9/11 terrorists, and much of the IRA.

 

Your Jack-Thompson logic of "I saw a criminal who played GTA, so thusly criminals wouldn't commit crime if they didn't play GTA" doesn't work. You know why? Because places like Africa or Mexico City have horrible poverty, yet don't have terrorism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The employed aren't suicide bombers. I didn't say the employed aren't terrorists, I said they're not suicide bombers. Osama bin Laden is a terrorist; he is not a suicide bomber.

 

And what exactly were the 9/11 terrorists employed at? Over here, you mean? That's what the spy world calls a "cover."

 

Terrorists recruit from the disaffected, the downtrodden, the poverty-stricken, and the oppressed (real or imagined), and combine all that with religious zealotry.

 

Edit: Although religious zealotry is not always required, come to think of it. Baader-Meinhof, for example. Point is, it's not the people who have no problems with society, their living conditions, etc. that become terrorists.

[EnderAndrew]

Punish the petulant child?  What are we going to do, force them off their land and put them under the control of a government who wants them all dead?  We've already done that.  Not sure what more we can do.

Since when does Israel want all the Palestinians dead?

 

Your true colors come forth suddenly.

How do I determine who has a right to the Gaza Strip, if that's what you're asking me?  Given that Israel is a made-up state thrust into the midst of other states who absolutely did not want it there by outside powers, gained Gaza in a war that it didn't start and then decided to treat the inhabitants like dogs, and then decided that it didn't really want Gaza, anyway...I'd say the people living in Gaza.

But the settlers living in Gaza don't count as living in Gaza?

 

You say, those living there should own it by living there but then you throw in the Six-Day War. Make up your mind.

 

Which counts? Historical claims or current borders?

 

And outside powers did not create Israel. Palestine was a colony of the UK and was under the purview of the UK. The governing body of Palestine said the Jews could move in.

 

You say that Palestine refused to behave because peace didn't work?

 

Why didn't peace work? Who attacked who?

 

Next you're going to tell me that the sky is green, aren't you?

[EnderAndrew]

The employed aren't suicide bombers.  I didn't say the employed aren't terrorists, I said they're not suicide bombers.  Osama bin Laden is a terrorist; he is not a suicide bomber.

The 9/11 terrorists held jobs. They went on a suicide mission. You maintain those that have a job won't kill themself and that unexployment drives people to terrorism.

 

Then why don't we see terrorists everywhere there is unexployment?

 

Maybe because you are completely wrong on the issue.

[Commissar]

Punish the petulant child?  What are we going to do, force them off their land and put them under the control of a government who wants them all dead?  We've already done that.  Not sure what more we can do.

Since when does Israel want all the Palestinians dead?

 

Your true colors come forth suddenly.

How do I determine who has a right to the Gaza Strip, if that's what you're asking me?  Given that Israel is a made-up state thrust into the midst of other states who absolutely did not want it there by outside powers, gained Gaza in a war that it didn't start and then decided to treat the inhabitants like dogs, and then decided that it didn't really want Gaza, anyway...I'd say the people living in Gaza.

But the settlers living in Gaza don't count as living in Gaza?

 

You say, those living there should own it by living there but then you throw in the Six-Day War. Make up your mind.

 

Which counts? Historical claims or current borders?

 

And outside powers did not create Israel. Palestine was a colony of the UK and was under the purview of the UK. The governing body of Palestine said the Jews could move in.

 

You say that Palestine refused to behave because peace didn't work?

 

Why didn't peace work? Who attacked who?

 

Next you're going to tell me that the sky is green, aren't you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The settlers living in Gaza certainly count as living in Gaza. They're Israeli citizens, however, and while that territory is still Israeli, they're obliged to obey Israeli law within it; Israeli law says they have to move.

 

If, theoretically, they stayed, then I'd assume you'd have no problems with a representative democracy being set up in the Strip? Something tells me Palestinians would get most of the votes.

 

I don't have any true colors; I think the Palestinians have been oppressed by the Israeli government. You'd be hard-pressed to contradict that statement.

 

And peace didn't work because it benefited the Israelis while disadvantaging the Palestinians. If you don't believe me, check out the respective unemployment rates of the two groups.

[Commissar]

The employed aren't suicide bombers.  I didn't say the employed aren't terrorists, I said they're not suicide bombers.  Osama bin Laden is a terrorist; he is not a suicide bomber.

The 9/11 terrorists held jobs. They went on a suicide mission. You maintain those that have a job won't kill themself and that unexployment drives people to terrorism.

 

Then why don't we see terrorists everywhere there is unexployment?

 

Maybe because you are completely wrong on the issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe because you're ignoring all the other factors I've spoken of? And again, if you're going to use the 9/11 terrorists, you're going to have to do better. They were sent over here with a mission; getting a job wasn't a career change for them, it was a way for them to accomplish that mission.

[EnderAndrew]

And peace didn't work because it benefited the Israelis while disadvantaging the Palestinians.  If you don't believe me, check out the respective unemployment rates of the two groups.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Before the state was created, the Israeli people were blessed with a great deal of wealth. Much of that wealth was stolen from them during the Holocaust.

 

Since when should Israel be forced to share their wealth?

 

Next, we should argue that Americans should be forced to relocate out of California because of the growing population of unemployed Mexican immigrants, and that we should hand over any wealth we've accumulated as a country because we profit from wealth, and thusly we're punishing those who don't have it.

 

The country was formed, and people were told to share. One side from the very beginning refused before economics or anything else was a factor. Before a single Jew was moved into Palestine, Palestine vocally admitted they had no intention to go along with UN law.

 

Yet people here insist that makes the Israeli people terrorists and illegal occupiers of Palestinian land.

 

So those that break the law are defended, and victims are villianized. Repeatedly I keep knocking down these arguements as they have no logical backing. So if the arguements aren't based off logic, then why make such a big deal to defend terrorism as a valid means of dealing with unemployment?

[Commissar]

So if the arguements aren't based off logic, then why make such a big deal to defend terrorism as a valid means of dealing with unemployment?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Talk about twisting my words. I said that terrorism is linked to unemployment, as the unemployed are the ones who get recruited to do the suicide bombing. You said that's impossible, because Mexico has high unemployment rates but no terrorism. I'd like to refute this one more time, and I thought of an analogy:

 

You: "The spread of AIDS is linked to unprotected sex."

Me: "But I've had unprotected sex, and I don't have AIDS; therefore, your premise is entirely incorrect."

 

No one is defending terrorism. I don't defend terrorism. I've said that it's apparently worked in this case, and that I can understand - note, not condone, but understand - why some Palestinian groups have resorted to it. Before we get into the whole, "But by saying it worked, you're justifying it!" rigamarole again, let me once more state that just because something works doesn't mean it's justified; using my example from earlier in the thread, shooting an annoying coworker would work to keep him from annoying me, but it is not justified.

 

I do not think the Palestinians should be using terrorism. I do think that they should be allowed their own state, and I think that state should consist of lands that contain an overwhelming portion of Palestinians, who were there long before the Israeli state was formed. Your analogy about Mexican immigrants in California doesn't work, because Mexicans already have a state; the Palestinians do not. You argued passionately for the right of Israelis to have a state of their own, and I agree with that argument. I also agree that the Palestinians should have a state of their own.

 

You say that the state was formed, and that both sides were told to share Gaza after the Israelis took it over; would you be so emphatic on the sharing point if it'd been the other way around? The Israelis were told to share - and by the way, it's a little ridiculous to assert that they willingly complied all along the line - and it was their government in control of the area. They 'shared' by cutting off the Palestinian portion of Gaza - the great majority of Gaza, in other words - from everywhere else. Sharing, it seems to me, would involve equal rights, but that certainly has not been the case in Gaza.

[Judge Hades]

The mess started with World War 2. The US and Britain stuck their nose in where it doesn't belong and we have paying for it since. You would think the US would learned their lesson about getting involved with idiocy like this but the government hasn't.

[EnderAndrew]

The mess started with World War 2.  The US and Britain stuck their nose in where it doesn't belong and we have paying for it since.  You would think the US would learned their lesson about getting involved with idiocy like this but the government hasn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, we shouldn't have gotten invovled in WW2 at all. In fact, when the Nazis were practicing genocide, we should have all just let them continue. Yep.

[Judge Hades]

Did they attack US citizens on US soil? Nope. The Japanesse did and we were right in dropping the atomic bombs on them. Since they were allies with the Germans we had the right to attack them then, but after the war we screwed up. It wasn't our place to take land from one set of people to give it to another set of people.

[EnderAndrew]

Did they attack US citizens on US soil?  Nope.  The Japanesse did and we were right in dropping the atomic bombs on them.  Since they were allies with the Germans we had the right to attack them then, but after the war we screwed up.  It wasn't our place to take land from one set of people to give it to another set of people.

By golly you're right. The Nazis didn't attack us, so we should have left them alone!

 

You can't argue with that logic!

[Judge Hades]

We aren't the world police, Ender. We have problems within our own country that needs to be solved. When the US has zero problems with all aspects of life within our borders then we should get involved with other countries. Till then we need to mind our own store.

[Shadowstrider]

By golly you're right.  The Nazis didn't attack us, so we should have left them alone!

 

You can't argue with that logic!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Actually you can't. It is a very valid stance, not one that I agree with, but it is just as valid as "we should've attacked them sooner because of genocide." On one hand you have "it is our responsibility to police the world" (your stance, apparently) on the other you have "It isn't our responsibility to police the world."

 

Neither is less valid than the other. Your own bias is blinding your sense of logic, and I should point out it isn't the only time in this thread. I've been watching silently, as you clearly have your opinion and you're not being really reasonable, but now you're just plain wrong, so I figured I'd post.

[EnderAndrew]

Neither is less valid than the other.  Your own bias is blinding your sense of logic, and I should point out it isn't the only time in this thread.  I've been watching silently, as you clearly have your opinion and you're not being really reasonable, but now you're just plain wrong, so I figured I'd post.

No, I've been very clear when I'm operating from logic and when I'm not.

 

I noted that logic doesn't dictate society. For instance, if we operated on what was logical, then I'd push for A Modest Proposal. I outright said that in this thread.

 

There is however a problem with Hade's logic.

 

Hitler made it quite clear that he wanted total world domination, and that does affect the US on many levels including our economy, our idealogy and our national security.

 

From a pure logical standpoint, getting involved earlier would have saved the lives not only of civilians, but also of soldiers. If we prevented Germany from economic gains, or the ability to build such a large war machine, countless lives could have been prevented.

 

We would have saved lives and money.

 

How is that faulty logic?

[Judge Hades]

And perhaps we would have saved more money and lives if we produced more atomic bombs and destroyed Berlin and other various locations.

 

Germany was aggressive and allied with Japan. Japan attacked US citizens on US soil so we had the right to attack back at that point. Simple genocide against another group should not be our concern. It had no effect on the US and caused the US to make major mistakes after the war.

[EnderAndrew]

Germany was aggressive and allied with Japan.  Japan attacked US citizens on US soil so we had the right to attack back at that point.  Simple genocide against another group should not be our concern.  It had no effect on the US and caused the US to make major mistakes after the war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find the concept that genocide should be overlooked as appauling.

 

But since we're talking about pure logic, you're wrong to think it would have no impact on us.

 

Our allies were decimated in the war, and Germany was the ally of the country we were attacked by. If you think allowing Germany to decimate our allies wouldn't impact our way of life or economy, then you're the one who doesn't understand pure logic.

 

Your arguement is weak from a moralistic and logical standpoint.

[Shadowstrider]

Your stance is we should police the world. Hades' is that we shouldn't. Neither is faulty or wrong, necessarily, just conflicting. I didn't say your logic was wrong, I said "You can't argue with his logic" as it is sound.

 

His is that militaries should be used in defense, or for counter strikes, yours is proactive approach.

 

There is no problem with his stance, it is simply that because someone wants power doesn't mean that we should go on a crusade against them, unless they make a move against you.

 

It'd be akin to your neighbor wanting to park in your space. You can either wait for him to park there, and then act, or you could act before he does. Neither is less valid than the other. I'm not going to repeat that again, no matter how many times you rephrase your complaints.

[Judge Hades]

I don't particular care if you consider my position weak or not. Its my view and its not going to change. As for overlooking genocide the US is doing so right now in Somalia, then again Somalia has no worth to the US government.

[213374U]

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree.  It's much better to make absolutely no attempt to understand where terrorism comes from, how it can exist; much better to believe that we can actually win by shooting every terrorist we see, rather than attempting to do something about the root cause of terrorism itself.  Because that worked in Alge...oh, wait.  Well, at least it worked in Northern Irela...uh.  Well.  I'm sure it worked somewhere, right?

Oh, right. So it's better to give in to the demands of terrorists. After all, that's what we have done in this case, isn't it? Yes, that is apparently the only way to defeat it. If it encourages terrorism to pop up elsewhere well, we'll give in too, right?

 

And yes, it worked. It worked in the Soviet Union. Twenty to sixty million deaths, but it worked.

 

 

I can indeed understand terrorism.  I can understand a lot of things without applauding them or even thinking that they're a morally worthy act.  Americans working themselves up into a froth over terrorism doesn't solve anything; I simply realize that.

No, you don't understand it. You justify it. That's the problem. "Hey, they are unemployed, and their lives suck. What are they going to do?"

How does trying to live in peace sound? That's what the jews have done for... well... always, and it looks like it's worked for them.

 

Murdering civilians out of spite is never understandable, let alone condonable.

 

 

Oh, and one other thing...you'd be hard-pressed to find "they deserve it" or anything resembling it in my statements.  I don't, in fact, think the Israelis deserve to be targets of suicide bombings, but I understand why they are.  I consider myself lucky to have been gifted with the ability to see the full visible spectrum, not just black and white.

Sorry buddy, but you have no idea what you are talking about. When it comes to terrorism, there is only black and white. And it's attitudes like your own that allow terrorist movements to live on. So, whatever.

[metadigital]

...

But let us not punish the petulant child, let us punish the people who had no home and were victims of genocide.  Palestine occupied that land because the Jews were forcibly removed from it in the first place.  I love how people COMPLETELY discount that fact.

 

So let me ask you, how do you determine who has a right to the land?  The people who lived in first or most recent?  Because if you say first, then as the Muslims are a later branch of Judaism, the land belonged to the Jews first.

 

If you say current possession is 90% of the law, and we'll rule that if you occupy the land now that you own it, then you cannot justify forcible relocation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ender,

 

as apalling as genocide is, you cannot simply dispossess the people who have lived in an area for three thousand years to try to undo the harm:

...

I have said repeatedly that two wrongs do not make a right.  Regardless of the past, we have to accept what has been done is done and make the best possible decisions regarding the present situation.

 

Creating more victims doesn't fix anything.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also, the six-year-old's argument "we were here first" isn't very useful.

 

FACT: the land is deeply contested.

 

The UN was trying create a compromise when it set up Isreal. But everyone needs to compromise to reach a peace, even the Israelis.

 

Come on now. What are we (humanity) trying to achieve here? Peace? Co-existence? Freedom to live life without fear of attack, and threatening no others? I hope so. Revenge is an empty vessel: it does not sate an appetite; it is the spiritual equivalent of drinking sea water.

 

Personally, I would have said that proper integration of the Jewish culture into the countries of the world, as has happened in the US (thankfully) is a much superior strategem than starting a turf war in one of the poorer regions of the world.

 

But there is an Israel, now. And there ought to be a Palestine, too.

[Drakron]

The mess started with World War 2.  The US and Britain stuck their nose in where it doesn't belong and we have paying for it since.  You would think the US would learned their lesson about getting involved with idiocy like this but the government hasn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually it started around the end WW I, I came across a very curious bristish document called "Balfour Declaration".

 

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/balfour.htm

[Judge Hades]

The only way there will be peace in this world is when people learn to leave each other alone or there is no more people at all.

[Commissar]

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree.  It's much better to make absolutely no attempt to understand where terrorism comes from, how it can exist; much better to believe that we can actually win by shooting every terrorist we see, rather than attempting to do something about the root cause of terrorism itself.  Because that worked in Alge...oh, wait.  Well, at least it worked in Northern Irela...uh.  Well.  I'm sure it worked somewhere, right?

Oh, right. So it's better to give in to the demands of terrorists. After all, that's what we have done in this case, isn't it? Yes, that is apparently the only way to defeat it. If it encourages terrorism to pop up elsewhere well, we'll give in too, right?

 

And yes, it worked. It worked in the Soviet Union. Twenty to sixty million deaths, but it worked.

 

 

I can indeed understand terrorism.  I can understand a lot of things without applauding them or even thinking that they're a morally worthy act.  Americans working themselves up into a froth over terrorism doesn't solve anything; I simply realize that.

No, you don't understand it. You justify it. That's the problem. "Hey, they are unemployed, and their lives suck. What are they going to do?"

How does trying to live in peace sound? That's what the jews have done for... well... always, and it looks like it's worked for them.

 

Murdering civilians out of spite is never understandable, let alone condonable.

 

 

Oh, and one other thing...you'd be hard-pressed to find "they deserve it" or anything resembling it in my statements.  I don't, in fact, think the Israelis deserve to be targets of suicide bombings, but I understand why they are.  I consider myself lucky to have been gifted with the ability to see the full visible spectrum, not just black and white.

Sorry buddy, but you have no idea what you are talking about. When it comes to terrorism, there is only black and white. And it's attitudes like your own that allow terrorist movements to live on. So, whatever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What worked in the Soviet Union, exactly? To my knowledge, they haven't defeated any terrorists at the cost of twenty million deaths, let alone sixty million. Last I heard, Russia's still going at it with the Chechens.

 

You call it giving in to the demands of terrorists, I call it negotiating a settlement. The major terrorist conflicts of the last fifty years have been settled not by one side winning a victory of arms, but by negotiating. Negotiation is the only thing that has a chance to work in Israel, and negotiation involves concession.

 

Yeah, the Israelis tried to live in peace, while oppressing the Palestinians. Of course that's a strategy doomed to fail.

 

And you may well believe that there's only black and white with terrorism, but that's not really the way the world works. We're going to learn that pretty soon. Hell, we've learned it; why do you think we're encouraging Sunni political leaders - some of whom are strongly suspected of being part of the Iraqi 'insurgency' - to come to the negotiating table? Because we've been in there for years now and force alone has...not...worked.

 

But hey, you're entitled to your own opinion.

[metadigital]

The only way there will be peace in this world is when people learn to leave each other alone or there is no more people at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The latter is more probable than the former, unfortunately.