Gaza Strip

[EnderAndrew]

I'm being genuine here when I say that I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.  There's virtually no terrorism in Mexico, either, or Denmark...what does that prove? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This coming from the man that directly linked unemployment to terrorism.

 

What else are you going to do when your poor? I understand. It's okay.

 

Well people are poor in Mexico as well in case you weren't aware.

[EnderAndrew]

Since there is no "law of war" except to win, you can rule out the first definition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are wrong.

 

The Geneva Convention operates as the law of war for the world, and killing civilians is always unlawful.

 

Terrorist activities operate outside the purview of a recognized war anyways. They aren't part of any war. They exist solely as murder.

[213374U]

And if the Palestinians consider themselves to be at war, as many of the militant organizations do?

There has been no official declaration of war from the NPA, for starters. The militant groups aren't "officially" sanctioned by said authority, either. So yeah. Sorry buddy, but "it doesn't count", because it's not war.

 

 

Revive their faith and interest in the Party, huh?  Wonder why it waned?  My wife's family lived through this particular period of Soviet history; her father was a member of an underground press association.  When one of their number was taken up, they publicized it, they didn't call it a day.  The gulags only led to more resistance and more dissatisfaction; it's impossible to make a contrary argument.

Dissatisfaction is not equal to armed militancy. And again, I haven't denied that there were underground movements. I have denied they had any significant impact, which they didn't. Among other things because terrorism feeds on publicity, and one of the soviet tenets was to give dissidents and their actions none.

 

 

Actually, I'm hard-pressed to boil your argument down to any one point.  Is it that the Palestinians shouldn't be given a state until they stop harboring terrorists?

Yes, that's basically it.

 

 

That's essentially an argument for the status quo, and apparently Israel hasn't found the status quo too palatable recently.  The status quo just means more suicide bombers, more Israeli airstrikes on apartment buildings, more of the same old, same old.  They've decided to, as the hippies put it, give peace a chance.  I for one think it's about damned time.

Yes, it's about damned time. But what has been Hamas and the rest of the terrorists' answer? Have they made any good will gestures? No, they haven't and they never will. For they are fundamentalists and the only thing they will settle for is the complete destruction of the Israeli state. That's why it's not possible to negotiate with those people. When you can provide adequate proof that they have a real intention to give peace a chance, then I will believe it. Then I will be the first supporter of negotiations. Until then, you're just playing games. End of story.

[Commissar]

I'm being genuine here when I say that I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.  There's virtually no terrorism in Mexico, either, or Denmark...what does that prove? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This coming from the man that directly linked unemployment to terrorism.

 

What else are you going to do when your poor? I understand. It's okay.

 

Well people are poor in Mexico as well in case you weren't aware.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You: "Unprotected sex is linked to the spread of AIDS."

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

 

Same logic you're employing, and I come off as a blithering idiot in that exchange.

 

As I said, unemployment is not the sole cause of terrorism. Unemployment is a factor that plays heavily into terrorist recruiting. Argue it all you want, it's still going to remain true.

[EnderAndrew]

I say make Palestine a state whether or whether not they harbor terrorists.

 

And then we treat them like any other nation which openly supports terrorism. Let's see how much longer the Palestinian authorities continue to support Hamas.

[213374U]

Since there is no "law of war" except to win, you can rule out the first definition.  So "to kill brutally or inhumanly" would be the fall back, or "to slaughter wantonly."  I'd say dropping a bomb which is very, very capable of leveling an entire city is pretty wanton (merciless), brutal and possible inhuman, not having suffered through a nuclear blast I wouldn't know and don't care to speculate.

Again, you fail to acknowledge my point. I'm beginning to think this is personal. You are not convicted of murder if you kill in self-defense. Self-defense is what the US did in Japan. Thus, it was not murder, regardless of what a dictionary says. If you want to get technical, get a law dictionary, and look it up there. Colloquial definitions are not good enough.

[EnderAndrew]

You: "Unprotected sex is linked to the spread of AIDS."

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

You know those questions on SAT tests where you had to link one analogy to another?

 

I'm guessing you missed those questions.

 

You made an absolute statement, not I.

 

Your statement is that employed men are never terrorists. Therefore, terrorists only come from unemployed ranks.

 

That is flat out untrue as people with jobs have been suicide bombers. You made an absolute statement that was wrong, and you have no proof to back it up. And you're attacking my logic by drawing false analogies.

 

You shouldn't ask for heated debate if you're not prepared to enter it.

[Commissar]

Yes, it's about damned time. But what have been Hamas and the rest of the terrorists' answer? Have they made any good will gestures? No, they haven't and they never will. For they are fundamentalists and the only thing they will settle for is the complete destruction of the Israeli state. That's why it's not possible to negotiate with those people. When you can provide adequate proof that they have a real intention to give peace a chance, then I will believe it. Then I will be the first supporter of negotiations. Until then, you're just playing games. End of story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Prove that it's not going to work. Until then, you're just playing games. End of story.

 

Won't know until they've tried, will they?

[Commissar]

You: "Unprotected sex is linked to the spread of AIDS."

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

You know those questions on SAT tests where you had to link one analogy to another?

 

I'm guessing you missed those questions.

 

You made an absolute statement, not I.

 

Your statement is that employed men are never terrorists. Therefore, terrorists only come from unemployed ranks.

 

That is flat out untrue as people with jobs have been suicide bombers. You made an absolute statement that was wrong, and you have no proof to back it up. And you're attacking my logic by drawing false analogies.

 

You shouldn't ask for heated debate if you're not prepared to enter it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I said that employed men are never suicide bombers. The one example to contradict me that you managed to come up with was the 9/11 attackers...who only got jobs here so they could carry out their suicide attacks. So yes, I guess you're technically right. They became employed so that they could fly planes into a building. They weren't pulled from middle management to do it, though.

[Shadowstrider]

Since there is no "law of war" except to win, you can rule out the first definition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are wrong.

 

The Geneva Convention operates as the law of war for the world,[...]

 

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

 

and killing civilians is always unlawful.

 

Nope again. Collateral damage.

 

Terrorist activities operate outside the purview of a recognized war anyways.  They aren't part of any war.  They exist solely as murder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wrong again. Terrorism has existed, as a part of war since its inception. Threat of war is a form of terrorism. Placing heads of the opposition on a spike to incite fear is a form of terrorism. Hurling the bodies of the sick over the walls of towns or in water supplies (also the first known form of warfare by disease), also terrorism. All of these occur(ed) during wars. Terrorism and war go hand in hand.

 

Terrorists don't exist to murder. They kill for a cause. Whether that cause is just is debatable, whether it is an effective form of warfare is debatable. Everything you said is wrong.

[EnderAndrew]

Prove that it's not going to work.  Until then, you're just playing games.  End of story.

 

Won't know until they've tried, will they?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Scientific proofs operate on observation.

 

Given the observation that Hamas has yet to make a single goodwill gesture since the beginning of the conflict, but Israel has, it does not make sense that one more will suddenly change the tide, especially when that goodwill gesture is not directly linked to the demands of Hamas.

 

Hamas has not said they want a Palestinian state or 50% of the land or anything like that. Hamas says they want every Jew to die.

 

Have you ever tried negotiating with a zealot?

 

Someone once said the definition on insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. Given that definition, it is insane to expect Hamas will suddenly act completely in contradiction to their nature.

 

Logic really doesn't support the pro-Palestinian arguement here at all. I have yet to see a single logical arguement here at all really.

[Commissar]

Terrorists don't exist to murder.  They kill for a cause.  Whether that cause is just is debatable, whether it is an effective form of warfare is debatable.  Everything you said is wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nuh uh! They hate us for our freedom!

[213374U]

Prove that it's not going to work.  Until then, you're just playing games.  End of story.

 

Won't know until they've tried, will they?

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?

[EnderAndrew]

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.

 

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.

[Commissar]

Have you ever tried negotiating with a zealot?

No, but I think I can safely claim to have debated with them before.

 

Someone once said the definition on insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.  Given that definition, it is insane to expect Hamas will suddenly act completely in contradiction to their nature.

 

Logic really doesn't support the pro-Palestinian arguement here at all.  I have yet to see a single logical arguement here at all really.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[Drakron]

They just obeyed a UN security council resolution and now the palestinians have to make a "gesture of good ill"?

 

I am sorry but as a modern european I get the impression that colonialism=bad ...

[Commissar]

Prove that it's not going to work.  Until then, you're just playing games.  End of story.

 

Won't know until they've tried, will they?

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?

[EnderAndrew]

Nuh uh!  They hate us for our freedom!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oversimplification doesn't prove your point. Your attempt to be witty actually brings up a point against you.

 

There are no doubt zealots who hate us for our way of life. I wouldn't say that every terrorist does, but the reason some Palestinians were celebrating the death of innocent civilians on 9/11 is because they see it as a victory for their idealogy.

 

You foolishly believe reason applies to a zealot, and it doesn't.

[213374U]

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?

How about making a declaration? A truce? Handing over their weapons?

 

Are you really that obtuse?

[Commissar]

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.

 

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?

[EnderAndrew]

They just obeyed a UN security council resolution and now the palestinians have to make a "gesture of good ill"?

 

I am sorry but as a modern european I get the impression that colonialism=bad ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

 

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

 

Seriously.

[Shadowstrider]

Since there is no "law of war" except to win, you can rule out the first definition.  So "to kill brutally or inhumanly" would be the fall back, or "to slaughter wantonly."  I'd say dropping a bomb which is very, very capable of leveling an entire city is pretty wanton (merciless), brutal and possible inhuman, not having suffered through a nuclear blast I wouldn't know and don't care to speculate.

Again, you fail to acknowledge my point. I'm beginning to think this is personal. You are not convicted of murder if you kill in self-defense. Self-defense is what the US did in Japan. Thus, it was not murder, regardless of what a dictionary says. If you want to get technical, get a law dictionary, and look it up there. Colloquial definitions are not good enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nice try at deflecting the issue. I didn't fail to acknowledge your point, I'm still waiting for you to form one.

 

No idea why you would think this is personal. I don't care about you one way or the other (or this issue for that matter).

 

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...

 

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.

[Commissar]

You foolishly believe reason applies to a zealot, and it doesn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[Commissar]

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?

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.

[Drakron]

Knock off WW II pacific theater of operations or I end up writting 10 pages over the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagazaki and I dont think any of us want that ...

 

Let me put this in very simple terms, if after 50 years historians (not conspiracy crackpots) cannot reach a conclusion over the reasons and need to use atom bombs in Japan none of us can, its a VERY complex issue that simply enough we will never know.