Gaza Strip

[213374U]

As for self defense, I don't agree with that eiter. The USA was already winning the war, the Japanese had simply not refused to surrender.  It'd be like if your neighbor(to stick with my prior comparative theme) had killed your dog, so you killed his dog and his cat then demanded his surrender.  He refuses, so you bulldoze his house...

If the only way to prevent my neighbor from attacking me again after he has attacked me is to bulldoze his house, then it is perfectly valid as self-defense, provided that my life is at risk. It's exactly the way it goes when you are trying to justify your use of lethal force against an aggressor in front of a court of law. I don't care if you accept it or not. Fact is, your feeble grasp of laws is beginning to leave you in a difficult situation.

 

 

I don't care what YOU need, fact is you contradicted yourself. I think its fairly evident, thus I have nothing more to say on the issue.

"Na na na, I don't care what you say, I win, I'm not listening."

 

Seriously, I hope your attitude towards moderation issues is a bit more open to arguments that differ with your viewpoint, or we are in some serious sh*t.

[Drakron]

They didn't colonize into another country.  Israel claimed the Gaza Strip as belonging to their nation 50 years ago.

 

WRONG, Israel NEVER claim the Gaza strip as part of Israel.

 

That would be like the UN demanding out-of-the-blue that the UK give up Northern Island and hand it to Greece.

 

Apples and Oranges ...

 

Seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Serious I think you sould CHECK YOUR FACTS before you make claims.

[EnderAndrew]

Are you arguing that they didn't intend to destroy the cities when they dropped the bombs?

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.

[Commissar]

Seriously, I hope your attitude towards moderation issues is a bit more open to arguments that differ with your viewpoint, or we are in some serious sh*t.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[Shadowstrider]

Only those who signed it.  Additionally, it wasn't signed before the nukes were dropped and thus not applicable.

 

Nope again.  Collateral damage.

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.

 

I find this very funny, for many reasons. Feel free to request my removal from the moderation team for discussing terrorism, and replying to a post that you made.

 

If you'd prefer we can lock the thread (not me, I don't have permission to do that here), since it is so clearly off-topic.

 

Additionally, it isn't off-topic at all. The topic of this thread is the gaza strip and the forced removal of Israeli settlers. You then claimed that by doing this the Israeli were giving into terrorists. From there it went into a discussion about terrorism. That is the evolution of this thread. What did you expect the thread to turn into "I agree" and "I disagree?" You can't have a debate without drawing examples, and examples are often from outside the scope. Feel free to ask that this thread be locked, if you feel it is straying.

 

All that said, you raising the point that it was off-topic is off-topic, as is this. Feel free to edit it out and I will edit my own post on it out, as well.

 

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}>

 

Feel free to go back and read. I am not of the opinion that "no murder is ever justified, especially not civilians." I think there are ways that killing is justified. It was your opinion that no killing of civilians is ever justified. I used collateral damage as evidence that killing/murder can lead to excess killing.

[213374U]

Handing over their weapons would be like the US mothballing its nuclear arsenal at the height end of the Cold War.

That's more like it.

 

 

As far as declarations go, I believe Abbas made one.  Could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he did.

Sure, but he's not a terrorist, he's not the one that we're talking about.

 

 

Hamas doesn't always seem to go along with what the PA says, though, so...you know.

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.

[EnderAndrew]

That would be like the UN demanding out-of-the-blue that the UK give up Northern Island and hand it to Greece.

 

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.

[Commissar]

Are you arguing that they didn't intend to destroy the cities when they dropped the bombs?

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.

[Commissar]

Handing over their weapons would be like the US mothballing its nuclear arsenal at the height end of the Cold War.

That's more like it.

 

 

As far as declarations go, I believe Abbas made one.  Could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he did.

Sure, but he's not a terrorist, he's not the one that we're talking about.

 

 

Hamas doesn't always seem to go along with what the PA says, though, so...you know.

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?

[Shadowstrider]

As for self defense, I don't agree with that eiter. The USA was already winning the war, the Japanese had simply not refused to surrender.  It'd be like if your neighbor(to stick with my prior comparative theme) had killed your dog, so you killed his dog and his cat then demanded his surrender.  He refuses, so you bulldoze his house...

If the only way to prevent my neighbor from attacking me again after he has attacked me is to bulldoze his house, then it is perfectly valid as self-defense, provided that my life is at risk. It's exactly the way it goes when you are trying to justify your use of lethal force against an aggressor in front of a court of law. I don't care if you accept it or not. Fact is, your feeble grasp of laws is beginning to leave you in a difficult situation.

 

Reread what I said, then rethink your statement.

 

BTW - We're both off topic.

 

 

"Na na na, I don't care what you say, I win, I'm not listening." 

 

Seriously, I hope your attitude towards moderation issues is a bit more open to arguments that differ with your viewpoint, or we are in some serious sh*t.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bad analogy. Where did I say I wasn't "listening?" I said I had nothing further TO SAY. See the difference.

[Commissar]

That would be like the UN demanding out-of-the-blue that the UK give up Northern Island and hand it to Greece.

 

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.

[EnderAndrew]

I find this very funny, for many reasons.  Feel free to request my removal from the moderation team for discussing terrorism, and replying to a post that you made.

I haven't said that everyone who disagrees with me is off-topic. Hiroshima has been discussed and dismissed as being off-topic. Continuing to bring it up derails the main conversation.

If you'd prefer we can lock the thread (not me, I don't have permission to do that here), since it is so clearly off-topic.

You are a new moderator, so perhaps you don't realize that you can do more than just lock topics. You can also get them back on topic, such as I am attempting to do. Instead of killing conversation by suggesting the thread should lock, perhaps you could be more helpful and re-rail the conversation.

Additionally, it isn't off-topic at all.  The topic of this thread is the gaza strip and the forced removal of Israeli settlers.  You then claimed that by doing this the Israeli were giving into terrorists.  From there it went into a discussion about terrorism.  That is the evolution of this thread.  What did you expect the thread to turn into "I agree" and "I disagree?"  You can't have a debate without drawing examples, and examples are often from outside the scope.  Feel free to ask that this thread be locked, if you feel it is straying.

Unless you are calling the US a terrorist organization, I think you are a bit confused. Go back a few posts and you will see how I explained yet again why Hiroshima is off-topic exactly.

 

War is won by destroying the enemy's resolve. So you could stretch any act of war to be an act of "terrorism" by saying that you are terrorizing your opponents, but both you and I know that contradicts every proper connotation of the world terrorist.

 

Intentionally misdefining a term to derail a thread from its original topic is not something I expect from a mod.

 

Feel free to go back and read.  I am not of the opinion that "no murder is ever justified, especially not civilians."  I think there are ways that killing is justified.  It was your opinion that no killing of civilians is ever justified.  I used collateral damage as evidence that killing/murder can lead to excess killing.

That doesn't change the fact that you are calling collateral damage murder. Murder is willful and unlawful. Collateral damage is not against the law and is not willfull. Again, you are using intentional misdefinitions to siderail the proper debate.

 

You admit here that the collateral damage/murder arguement wasn't even in line with your actual beliefs. What purpose then does the semantic debate serve other than to get the thread off topic?

[EnderAndrew]

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.

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.

[Drakron]

The fact the Ulster is connected to the UK by the fact that the majority of its population at the time of Irish independence was from the british islands and did not view itself as part of Irland.

 

As a matter of fact, acording to YOUR logic the island of Irland sould still be under the English crown since it was conquered centuries ago and the local population opinion does not matter.

 

Funny, it seens the only way to break away in your opinion is downright war ... how civilized of you.

 

(Even more funny is tradicionaly the USA have always been supporters of the IRA ... a terrorist organization before and after the Republic of Irland being established)

[213374U]

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.

Moderators are supposed to lead by example. His comment seemed to hint that his view on whether or not I had contradicted myself was final, and refused to continue the argument. That's what I was aiming at.

 

 

Reread what I said, then rethink your statement.

But in your example, the house has an inherently superior value to that of the dog. That is a straw man, as in WWII, the Japanese didn't just intend to "annoy" the US. The US were fighting to prevent the Japanese from repeating their stunt at Pearl Harbor as soon as they got another chance. Human lives, not houses, not pets.

 

 

Bad analogy.  Where did I say I wasn't "listening?"  I said I had nothing further TO SAY.  See the difference.

Right. Which means you just aren't going to acknowledge any further arguments, regardless of their validity. My point exactly.

 

And yes, I'm off-topic. But I didn't start it.

[Drakron]

The UN has never in their history decided that a country should change ownership based on majority population.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

EAST TIMOR, EAST TIMOR.

[Commissar]

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.

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.

[Commissar]

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

[EnderAndrew]

The fact the Ulster is connected to the UK by the fact that the majority of its population at the time of Irish independence was from the british islands and did not view itself as part of Irland.

 

As a matter of fact, acording to YOUR logic the island of Irland sould still be under the English crown since it was conquered centuries ago and the local population opinion does not matter.

The portion of Ireland has independence because they were granted independence.

 

Let me clarify my arguement. My arguement is that right or wrong, Israel exists, and we should address the present situation rather than argue about transgressions 2 generations ago. Either segregate Israel or don't. Don't remove 9,000 people from their homes unless you plan to fully segregate and create two states.

 

Telling Israel to give up on land they acquired from Egypt 50-60 years ago today is random and silly. And we're not asking them to give the land to Egypt.

 

My arguement would be to tell the IRA to stop killing civilians. The UK might be persuaded to give Northern Ireland independence as well someday, but I don't see the UK caving into terrorism. I see the IRA as a group that foils themself.

(Even more funny is tradicionaly the USA have always been supporters of the IRA ... a terrorist organization before and after the Republic of Irland being established)

Really?

 

The US supports the England and doesn't support terrorism. When have we supported the IRA?

[Commissar]

The UN has never in their history decided that a country should change ownership based on majority population.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

EAST TIMOR, EAST TIMOR.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, and Drakron's right.

[Commissar]

The US supports the England and doesn't support terrorism.  When have we supported the IRA?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[EnderAndrew]

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.

They have zero historical claim. Palestine never actually owned the Gaza Strip.

 

And I am for a Palestinian state. I've been saying that the entire time. Are you not reading my posts?

 

A pullout of 9,000 people is partial segregation. Either fully segregate and create two states, or don't. This half-way thing accomplishes absolutely nothing.

[Drakron]

Really?

 

The US supports the England and doesn't support terrorism.  When have we supported the IRA?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What?

 

You missed the fact that Sien Fein leaders always been admited to the Whit House until recently?

 

And I would suggest you read a bit over Irland independence ...

[Drakron]

They have zero historical claim.  Palestine never actually owned the Gaza Strip.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You want me to go over african nations that also have zero historical claim (since they never existed as state) gained independence?

[213374U]

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?

Sure. But now it's up to the Palestinians to tidy up the house. They brewed it, they are going to drink it. Israel has already made their move.