Gaza Strip

[Commissar]

See ya, Eru.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lurker.

[LoneWolf16]

See ya, Eru.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, drive safe. Or fly safe...whichever one you'll be doing.

[EnderAndrew]

And I don't recall anybody here stating that the killing of innocent civilians is in any way, justified.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Besides the several times Laozi defended it?

 

Or what about:

I would consider Terrarism a method of war if only because 'civilized' war isn't feasible on the kind of shoe string budget Terrarist organizations operate on.

 

People are arguing that Palestine has a right to be upset. I've never said they don't. I'm arguing Palestine is using terrorism to further their cause.

 

IN EVERY OTHER NATION AND SITUATION WE REFUSE TO NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS. WHY HERE?

 

That was my initial question that no one wants to answer. Why is terrorism not a valid tactic simply because of economic disparity elsewhere in the world, but suddenly it is okay to kill innocent civilians just because they are Jewish?

 

Doesn't that make the whole arguement suddenly seem a bit anti-semitic?

 

A few things worth noting.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

Under the uncompromising leadership of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the local Arabs rebelled against the British, and attacked the growing Jewish population repeatedly.

At this time the Jews hadn't claimed land or attacked anyone. They were just being killed for their religious beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Suez_War

In 1952, officers in the Egyptian army overthrew the monarchy under King Farouk, who had previously employed a British puppet government. Abandoning policies which were co-operative with European powers, the new government asserted an independent and Arab nationalist identity. This led to conflict with Israel and the European powers over the Suez Canal.

 

Throughout 1956, tensions increased between Israel and Egypt, with Egyptian fedayeen launching frequent incursions into Israeli territory and Israel launching retaliatory raids into Egyptian territory

You say Israel launched an illegal war to take the Sinai? Israel was being invaded by fundamentalists that undermined the Egpytian government and suddenly wished to see an end to peaceful trading. Israel reacted by taking land that allowed them to defend themselves from the attack they were currently undergoing.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

The 1956 Suez War was a military defeat, but a political victory, for Egypt. Heavy diplomatic pressure from both the United States and the Soviet Union forced Israel to withdraw its military from the Sinai Peninsula (hence: Sinai) of Egypt which in exchange had agreed to stop sending guerrillas into Israel. As a result the border between Egypt and Israel quieted for a while.

 

At the time no Arab state had recognized Israel. The aftermath of the 1956 war saw the region return to an uneasy balance, maintained more by the competition among Egypt, Syria and Jordan than any real resolution of the region's difficulties. Egypt and Syria, aligned with the Soviet bloc, and Jordan, aligned with the West, maintained a constant pressure of guerilla raids on Israel.

 

In 1956, when the US withdrew its support of Egypt's Aswan High Dam facility, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez canal, a move which incensed Britain and France, who were the majority shareholders. The two former Middle Eastern colonial powers partnered with Israel, which attacked Egypt.

It has been stated several times in this thread that Israel started all these conflicts, and that they have started more wars that anyone else in the area.

 

Really?

 

They were involved in three "wars" that were both started by outside forces in all three cases.

 

I love how people forget Israel being attacked. They don't have a right to defend themselves. Why?

 

If someone attacked England, they would have a right to defend themselves. If someone decided all English had to be killed simply for being English, the world would be up in arms. No one defends the Jewish people who have been repeated targets of genocide.

 

The fact that you guys want to ignore the practices of genocide and terrorism and instead attempt to villianize victims frankly makes me both sad and sick.

[SteveThaiBinh]

From the same Wikipedia - "At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance"

And the industrial and military power of Hiroshima was largely intact, because the US had made a decision not to attack it with conventional forces so that it could measure accurately the impact of the atomic bomb. These are not the actions of a country which is deperately doing everything it can to win a war whose outcome is unclear. The US didn't need to bomb Hiroshima for military reasons. It could have dropped a bomb out in Tokyo Bay and scared the Japanese that way.

Technology is not the issue.  Money is not the issue.  Civilian vs government target is the issue.

Civilian target, or civilian death? 'Target' is the preferred option of the US military, because it condemns the terrorists whilst excusing the civilian deaths caused by US actions: "Terribly sorry we killed your children, but we were aiming at the terrorists". Was there ever a term more offensive than 'collateral damage'? The West has written the rules of war to suit itself.

Murdering civilians is not acceptable.

Indeed. That applies to all sides. Above all it applies to politicians on both sides who create an environment in whcih such murders are more likely, simply because the alternative of peacemaking is not politically convenient for them.

If you feel Isreal doesn't have a right to that land, then perhaps it should go to Egypt.  It should be noted that Egypt hasn't made any claim to that land since 1967.

Perhaps it should 'go' to the people who live there and who have lived there for generations. Self-determination, anyone? What business does Israel, Egypt or anyone else have in 'giving' this land?

[jaguars4ever]

What I believe is that given Israel was attacked (and did not initiate or provoke the war), they should be allowed to retain their military gains provided any existing interenational bodies of representation decide otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

But by those "allowances" wouldn't Palestine's actions just be another means to the same "gains"? Its all condoning death for land and resourses

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The problem is, an international union will not accept proactive aggression in conquest as validity for gain of land.

 

Also, your argument brings up another issue: How does one differentiate between terrorist and freedom fighter?

[Musopticon?]

See ya, Eru.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lurker.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What did I do this time?

[Commissar]

Also, your argument brings up another issue: How does one differentiate between terrorist and freedom fighter?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depends on if you agree with them or not.

[EnderAndrew]

Furthermore, what do you want the Palestinians to hit?  Soldiers?  That's not nearly as effective as killing civilians.

 

Just look at Iraq.  Tell me what the American public gets more worked up about: is it when a civilian contractor or journalist gets captured and killed, all in technicolor, or is it when we get the usual report that three Marines were killed in a carbombing incident outside of Baghdad?  The populace accepts military loss of life far more readily than civilian loss of life.  If you're playing to win, you're playing to win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet no one in this thread is defending the murder of innocent civilians?

 

I understand the logic. That doesn't make the practice right.

 

The UN, US and England as third parties are intervening in the situation. They are judging right and wrong here. They are telling Israel to make concessions to terrorists and not holding Palestine accountable.

 

I'm not debating how logical or efficient Palestine's actions are.

 

Do the concepts of right and wrong not mean anything?

 

We live in a society of multi-tiered social contracts. The arguements in this thread defend Palestine practicing whatever tactics they can, except it ignores two vital points.

 

The first is that murdering innocent civilians should never be tolerated by any world government.

 

The second is that Palestine has demonstated that they have no intention to follow diplomacy or seek peace. People are being forcibly removed from the homes by soldiers under the premise that it will bolster diplomacy. Everyone here knows that is BS.

 

You're using smoke-screens and other issues, when the topic is the Gaza Strip. Egypt isn't a party to what is going on.

 

In my original post I asked how it is at all cool or justified to remove people forcibly from their homes in this situation. Is it going to bring peace? No. Will it help diplomacy? No.

 

Will it create more victims? Yes.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Furthermore, what do you want the Palestinians to hit?  Soldiers?  That's not nearly as effective as killing civilians.

Brutally efficient.

 

Edit: Terrorist tactics, I mean.

Killing civilians is not effective in the slightest, nor good tactics. Iraq will be decades recovering from this, both in terms of the lost skills of the people killed and the pyschological damage to the survivors. Without the insurgency, the US would probably have been gone by now. The insurgents see only the short term goal of evicting the US and ignore the long term goal of building a strong nation. It's criminal stupidity, as well as bloody murder.

[EnderAndrew]

Also, your argument brings up another issue: How does one differentiate between terrorist and freedom fighter?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depends on if you agree with them or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WRONG

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freedom%20fighter

 

A freedom fighter targets an oppressive government. A terrorism targets civilians.

 

Does this distinction completely escape you?

 

Edit:

Without the insurgency, the US would probably have been gone by now. The insurgents see only the short term goal of evicting the US and ignore the long term goal of building a strong nation. It's criminal stupidity, as well as bloody murder.

Amen! The US said they'd pull out the second the area is stable. If the insurgents wanted the US out, all they have to do is stop attacking. They don't care about getting us out of the area. They want to kill people for the sake of killing people.

[Laozi]

The fact that you guys want to ignore the practices of genocide and terrorism and instead attempt to villianize victims frankly makes me both sad and sick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

And the fact that you only see one set of victims in this strikes me as a bit short sighted, while intentional or not.

[EnderAndrew]

And the fact that you only see one set of victims in this strikes me as a bit short sighted, while intentional or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said Palestine has a right to be upset. You're putting words in my mouth.

 

You however only see one set of victims and repeatedly said Palestine has a right, and that the Israeli people are terrorists simply for living in their lands.

 

And you called me a racist?

[LoneWolf16]

Furthermore, what do you want the Palestinians to hit?  Soldiers?  That's not nearly as effective as killing civilians.

Brutally efficient.

 

Edit: Terrorist tactics, I mean.

Killing civilians is not effective in the slightest, nor good tactics. Iraq will be decades recovering from this, both in terms of the lost skills of the people killed and the pyschological damage to the survivors. Without the insurgency, the US would probably have been gone by now. The insurgents see only the short term goal of evicting the US and ignore the long term goal of building a strong nation. It's criminal stupidity, as well as bloody murder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True enough...and if one were to think about it, allowing the U.S. to finish building up Iraq and leave...and then attacking, would definitely be more effective...

 

Terrorism IS a brutally efficient practice. Its purpose is to instill fear, and the murder of the innocent does a damn fine job of inciting terror.

[Commissar]

I love how people forget Israel being attacked.  They don't have a right to defend themselves.  Why?

 

If someone attacked England, they would have a right to defend themselves.  If someone decided all English had to be killed simply for being English, the world would be up in arms.  No one defends the Jewish people who have been repeated targets of genocide.

 

The fact that you guys want to ignore the practices of genocide and terrorism and instead attempt to villianize victims frankly makes me both sad and sick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I think if the north half of England decided to transplant itself into the middle of Iran and claim that it had a right to exist there, people would generally believe that the Iranians would be justified in trying to get that part of their country back.

 

I'd happily defend Israel if Israel had been there all along, but the fact of the matter is it's a made-up state that was plopped down in the midst of a group of other states who don't particularly like it. Arab nations in the region view Israel's existence as an act of war, rightly or wrongly, and wholly illegal. The UN did indeed approve Israel's formation, but it was the Americans and the British who set the whole thing up. The Arabs have, from the beginning, been opposed to Israel.

 

I'm not saying it should be wiped out, by any means, but I am saying that for stability to have even a remote chance, the Palestinians need to be given their own state - which would include Gaza - and Israel would need to relinquish the land it conquered via conflict. If all that happens and Israel is still getting attacked, then by all means, I'll be the first to say that they ought to be defended. Not until that point, though.

[jaguars4ever]

Ah, feel the love.

 

 

 

 

 

And who said we didn't have any "foaming-at-the-mouth" political debates anymore?

[Musopticon?]

Indeed. Watching this is rfreshing.

[Commissar]

Furthermore, what do you want the Palestinians to hit?  Soldiers?  That's not nearly as effective as killing civilians.

Brutally efficient.

 

Edit: Terrorist tactics, I mean.

Killing civilians is not effective in the slightest, nor good tactics. Iraq will be decades recovering from this, both in terms of the lost skills of the people killed and the pyschological damage to the survivors. Without the insurgency, the US would probably have been gone by now. The insurgents see only the short term goal of evicting the US and ignore the long term goal of building a strong nation. It's criminal stupidity, as well as bloody murder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd disagree. They know that we're going to have bases in Iraq, which they clearly don't want. And they're not particularly concerned about building a strong nation. Iraq is another one of those states cobbled together by outsiders, with three distinct ethnic groups that I honestly don't see living peacefully together. The problem with the constitution is a good indication of that.

[Commissar]

WRONG

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freedom%20fighter

 

A freedom fighter targets an oppressive government.  A terrorism targets civilians.

 

Does this distinction completely escape you?

 

Edit:

Without the insurgency, the US would probably have been gone by now. The insurgents see only the short term goal of evicting the US and ignore the long term goal of building a strong nation. It's criminal stupidity, as well as bloody murder.

Amen! The US said they'd pull out the second the area is stable. If the insurgents wanted the US out, all they have to do is stop attacking. They don't care about getting us out of the area. They want to kill people for the sake of killing people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, it does escape me. Who decides whether a government's oppressive or not? As I said, it's simply a matter of whether you agree with them or not.

 

And, "They want to kill people for the sake of killing people," is about as correct as, "They hate us for our freedom." Neither are true; they're killing people with a goal in mind. Namely, getting us out and getting themselves in control. They don't want us to ever even think of going into that part of the world with guns blazing again.

[EnderAndrew]

Well, I think if the north half of England decided to transplant itself into the middle of Iran and claim that it had a right to exist there, people would generally believe that the Iranians would be justified in trying to get that part of their country back.

The Israeli people didn't transplant themselves so your analogy is flawed. They already lived in the area, and that was the historic birthplace of their people. Yes Muslims claim that they too descended from the Jewish people, so historic claims are both valid.

 

Jewish people already lived there, and Jews that no longer had homes because they were victims of genocide needed a place to stay. Pray tell, what is your solution to this?

Arab nations in the region view Israel's existence as an act of war, rightly or wrongly, and wholly illegal.  The UN did indeed approve Israel's formation, but it was the Americans and the British who set the whole thing up.  The Arabs have, from the beginning, been opposed to Israel.

And many have openly said they will only be happy when every Jew is dead. People forget that Jews were being massacred in the area before Israel is formed. People seem to be operating on the assumption that Arabs in the area are only upset about the forming of the Israeli nation. If that was the case, then Jews wouldn't have been massacred before the state was created.

I'm not saying it should be wiped out, by any means, but I am saying that for stability to have even a remote chance, the Palestinians need to be given their own state - which would include Gaza - and Israel would need to relinquish the land it conquered via conflict.  If all that happens and Israel is still getting attacked, then by all means, I'll be the first to say that they ought to be defended.  Not until that point, though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So Egypt shouldn't be punished for attacking Israel? And Palestine shouldn't be punished for practising terrorism?

 

But Israel should be punished for being victims of genocide?

[EnderAndrew]

Yes, it does escape me.  Who decides whether a government's oppressive or not?  As I said, it's simply a matter of whether you agree with them or not.

That is not what I said. Freedom fighters target oppressive GOVERNMENTS. Terrorists target innocent CIVILIANS.

 

Apparently you don't see that distinction.

And, "They want to kill people for the sake of killing people," is about as correct as, "They hate us for our freedom."  Neither are true; they're killing people with a goal in mind.  Namely, getting us out and getting themselves in control.  They don't want us to ever even think of going into that part of the world with guns blazing again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently you've never seen when CNN shows Al Jazeera TV, or read the news reports to the terrorist tapes that come out.

[jaguars4ever]

Yes, it does escape me.  Who decides whether a government's oppressive or not?  As I said, it's simply a matter of whether you agree with them or not.

That is not what I said. Freedom fighters target oppressive GOVERNMENTS. Terrorists target innocent CIVILIANS.

But that's our definition. In the Islamic world a freedom fighter can even be one who practices their Holy Jihad.

[LoneWolf16]

Yes, it does escape me.  Who decides whether a government's oppressive or not?  As I said, it's simply a matter of whether you agree with them or not.

That is not what I said. Freedom fighters target oppressive GOVERNMENTS. Terrorists target innocent CIVILIANS.

 

Apparently you don't see that distinction.

And, "They want to kill people for the sake of killing people," is about as correct as, "They hate us for our freedom."  Neither are true; they're killing people with a goal in mind.  Namely, getting us out and getting themselves in control.  They don't want us to ever even think of going into that part of the world with guns blazing again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently you've never seen when CNN shows Al Jazeera TV, or read the news reports to the terrorist tapes that come out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The term "innocent" is subjective, isn't it?

 

And yes, I happen to agree that video taped decapitation is above and beyond what's necessary.

[EnderAndrew]

But that's our definition.  In the Islamic world a freedom fighter can even be one who practices their Holy Jihad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the dictionary's definition. And if the dictionary (which I linked) is no longer allowed to define words in our language, then civilized debate ends completely.

[Commissar]

Well, I think if the north half of England decided to transplant itself into the middle of Iran and claim that it had a right to exist there, people would generally believe that the Iranians would be justified in trying to get that part of their country back.

The Israeli people didn't transplant themselves so your analogy is flawed. They already lived in the area, and that was the historic birthplace of their people. Yes Muslims claim that they too descended from the Jewish people, so historic claims are both valid.

 

Jewish people already lived there, and Jews that no longer had homes because they were victims of genocide needed a place to stay. Pray tell, what is your solution to this?

Arab nations in the region view Israel's existence as an act of war, rightly or wrongly, and wholly illegal.  The UN did indeed approve Israel's formation, but it was the Americans and the British who set the whole thing up.  The Arabs have, from the beginning, been opposed to Israel.

And many have openly said they will only be happy when every Jew is dead. People forget that Jews were being massacred in the area before Israel is formed. People seem to be operating on the assumption that Arabs in the area are only upset about the forming of the Israeli nation. If that was the case, then Jews wouldn't have been massacred before the state was created.

I'm not saying it should be wiped out, by any means, but I am saying that for stability to have even a remote chance, the Palestinians need to be given their own state - which would include Gaza - and Israel would need to relinquish the land it conquered via conflict.  If all that happens and Israel is still getting attacked, then by all means, I'll be the first to say that they ought to be defended.  Not until that point, though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So Egypt shouldn't be punished for attacking Israel? And Palestine shouldn't be punished for practising terrorism?

 

But Israel should be punished for being victims of genocide?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Heh. Well, as to your first argument...just because the dim Teutonic woods of northern Europe are the birthplace of my ancestors doesn't mean I have a right to claim parts of Germany for my own state.

 

And yes, the Jews have long been persecuted, which is why I wonder at the stupidity of having them set up shop right in the midst of one of their primary persecutors. Solution? Don't have one. I'd have said give them something in Africa, though, since nobody really seems to care about that region.

 

Israel isn't being punished. Israel is finally moving out of territory that doesn't belong to it. Simple as that.

[Lucius]

But that's our definition.  In the Islamic world a freedom fighter can even be one who practices their Holy Jihad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the dictionary's definition. And if the dictionary (which I linked) is no longer allowed to define words in our language, then civilized debate ends completely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but I think you're being rather short sighted here.