American politicians attempt to intervene in internal politics of peaceful middle-eastern country.

[Hurlshort]

Have you looked at the history of the region? That land has changed leadership an incredible amount of times. It has been Israel for over 60 years.

 

The Palestinians have a long line to get in when it comes to people who have been pushed off their land.

Did you even look at my post? Israel is a brutal apartheid state which engages in regular terror attacks on civilian targets.

 

Hey, I've never defended the methods of Israel. I find them completely flawed. I also find the surrounding Arab states completely flawed in the way they deal with Israel. There is no good guy, but wiping out a country is overboard when it comes to solutions and peaceful coexistence.

[Fionavar]

I appreciate the nuance of separating a government from race and the intricacies of the Israeli-Palestinian history. I would also ask that everyone be very sensitive to the range of emotions that others have. So, blanket statements of 'wiping out' anyone is not acceptable. You may indeed have passion and cause to challenge, but the argumentative nature of such a statement is polarising. So, please try to find a way to share that without such rhetoric. If that is not possible, such conversations that devolve and present a lack of civility will be closed and members will be contacted about their choices.

 

F

[Volourn]

"The land is rightly Palestinian"

 

No, it isn't. That's a myth. the land wasn't originally theirs. Not by a long shot. This idea that the group no known as 'Palestinians' were actually the people who truly owned 'Palestine' is propaganda.

 

That said, the past is the past. There should eb two states to deal with the current real world situation. One called Isreal. One called Palestian. But, people don't want that. They are selfish and dfon't care about human life and want it all. This is for both sides.

 

It's also funny that as bad as Isreal treats Palestinians (and Palestinians treat Isrealis), the Muslim/Arab stats that decfry the 'evil's of Isreal treat Palestinians just as bad if not worse yet ar elamost never taken to task for it. Hypocrisy, indeed. *shrug*

 

 

 

"Israel is a brutal apartheid state which engages in regular terror attacks on civilian targets.

"

 

Sounds like Palestine. Do you wish them the same fate?

 

Sounds like Russia. Do you wish them the same fate?

 

Sound slike China. Do you wish them the same fate?

 

Sounds like Saddam led Iraq. Did you wish them the same fate?

[Walsingham]

I have a somewhat tangential question. Ma\ke of it what you will. I just spent two days slogging my guts out, in training, and yes I washed out, as my back busted. I saw young fellahs doing physical training until they were on the verge of tears. Sweating, exhausted, passing out. All just so they could go on to do even more intensive training, so they could serve their country and suffer and possibly die.

 

My question is, where does LoF get off on asking all these bloody questions? Has he shed a single bead of sweat - let alone blood - for these ideals? I have mixed feelings towards the Palestinian Israeli question, but I find it hard to stomach his claim to represent them, in light of the undeniable pain both sides have suffered. Indeed I think he demeans the Palestinians by his dilettantism, even as he attempts to claim spurious virtue by association with them!

[lord of flies]

My question is, where does LoF get off on asking all these bloody questions? Has he shed a single bead of sweat - let alone blood - for these ideals?

I guess that you'll never know. My private life is private, I don't go waving it around the internet. I'm not going to appeal to my past or my works to support my arguments, because I'm not a child who hasn't learned what an "ad hominem" is yet.

Sounds like Palestine. Do you wish them the same fate?

 

Sounds like Russia. Do you wish them the same fate?

 

Sound slike China. Do you wish them the same fate?

 

Sounds like Saddam led Iraq. Did you wish them the same fate?

lol not even. If you don't understand things, why do you talk about them?

[I want teh kotor 3]

That comes off as extreme LoF. You want to wipe an entire country off the map? It's really pushing into anti-Semitic territory.

The land is rightly Palestinian, and Israel is a brutal, racist apartheid regime which engages in regular attempts at depopulation of Palestine. My opposition to Israel has nothing to do with the ethnicity of its population; if the situations were reversed, I'd be opposed to Palestine. Attempting to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is an obvious attempt to deflect any criticism of the indefensible Israeli state.

 

Israel belongs to the Jews, because they were there before the Palestinians had a Quran (or however the hell you spell it) to worship. Israel doesn't attempt to depopulate Palestine, it attempts to win back its territory that is occupied by people who constitute invaders. And even if they were "depopulating," your beloved Commies aren't against depopulation themselves.

Edited February 21, 2010 by I want teh kotor 3

[lord of flies]

Israel belongs to the Jews, because they were there before the Palestinians had a Quran (or however the hell you spell it) to worship. Israel doesn't attempt to depopulate Palestine, it attempts to win back its territory that is occupied by people who constitute invaders. And even if they were "depopulating," your beloved Commies aren't against depopulation themselves.

Yeah, like two thousand years ago. They came in, invaded, and took the Palestinians land. "We used to live there, a long time ago" makes as much sense as a justification for Jews taking over Palestine as for Europeans taking over East Africa. Whereas, the Israeli invasion took place within living memory and they are currently engaging in a campaign of occupation and unlawful settlement against civilian natives.

[Calax]

That comes off as extreme LoF. You want to wipe an entire country off the map? It's really pushing into anti-Semitic territory.

The land is rightly Palestinian, and Israel is a brutal, racist apartheid regime which engages in regular attempts at depopulation of Palestine. My opposition to Israel has nothing to do with the ethnicity of its population; if the situations were reversed, I'd be opposed to Palestine. Attempting to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is an obvious attempt to deflect any criticism of the indefensible Israeli state.

 

Israel belongs to the Jews, because they were there before the Palestinians had a Quran (or however the hell you spell it) to worship. Israel doesn't attempt to depopulate Palestine, it attempts to win back its territory that is occupied by people who constitute invaders. And even if they were "depopulating," your beloved Commies aren't against depopulation themselves.

By that logic, america belongs to the french and english, europe belongs to greece, north africa belongs to Macedon along with india etc etc.

 

I mean "taking back" is just a matter of perspective, Israel is trying to take back their "holy land" from the Canaanites, Palestine is trying to have their land that they were forced out of by the UN post WW2. That place has been fought over for millenia and probably won't settle down simply because "Oh, they had it first". I mean if Israel didn't utterly have a stranglehold on what's considered Palestine you'd probably have significantly less abuses. I mean Israel is putting up fences to discourage attacks, but these have the double usage of killing the economy of the Palestinians and putting many families through hardship because those who work in Israeli sectors are arbitrarily kept out depending on who's on duty and when they get there.

[Volourn]

"Yeah, like two thousand years ago. They came in, invaded, and took the Palestinians land. "We used to live there, a long time ago" makes as much sense as a justification for Jews taking over Palestine as for Europeans taking over East Africa. Whereas, the Israeli invasion took place within living memory and they are currently engaging in a campaign of occupation and unlawful settlement against civilian natives."

 

I see. So.. your logic is if you can hold the land for x amount of time, it's yours lawfully and morally. So, if Isreal can survive for a few centuries, Palestine will no longer have the right to argue its their land? Give me a break.

 

Sorry, bub, it's not how things work. It shouldn't work for Polanksi nor should it work land.

 

Bottom line is both sides should elarn to coexist. Until then, needless deaths on both sides by both sides will continue to happen while cheerleaders like you who love to dehumanize people so as to make it okay to wipe them off the map will continue to party.

 

 

"not even. If you don't understand things, why do you talk about them?"

 

Yes, even.

 

 

Sorry, but the Palestinians are not innocents in this - espicially since Palestinians seem to enjoy killing Palestinians as much as Isrealis do. *shrug*

 

Then again, you probably feel suicide bombers are justified in targeting little children or Isreali civilians at the mall or coffee shop. Give me a break.

[Trenitay]

They're all just wrong. They should all move out and find some other to live. The whole thing is just stupid.

[Humodour]

The Palestinians (or Jews, I'm not fussy) should all come live in Australia. We have some lovely desert we're not using and they wouldn't have to fight anybody for it every single day.

[Calax]

Then again, you probably feel suicide bombers are justified in targeting little children or Isreali civilians at the mall or coffee shop. Give me a break.

What's better, directly targeting or shrugging it off as "Collateral"?

[Hurlshort]

I'd definitely say direct targeting. In fact it seem like a fairly absurd question. There is a fairly large difference between 1st degree murder and manslaughter in a court of law.

[Trenitay]

The dead people are just as dead.

[Volourn]

"What's better, directly targeting or shrugging it off as "Collateral"? "

 

Easy question. 'Shrugging it off as collateral' is definitely better than purposefully targetting civilians. Of course, that doesn't make either right.

 

Just like manslaughter and murder are both wrong; but murder is obviously (to the sane) worse. *shrug*

[Meshugger]

The Palestinians (or Jews, I'm not fussy) should all come live in Australia. We have some lovely desert we're not using and they wouldn't have to fight anybody for it every single day.

 

Could you please make up a story that muhammed ascended to the heavens in one end of the desert and another one that tells that the residues of the old jewish temple, and subsequently its old wall, is on the other end of the same desert? Convincingly enough, and they will move there like flies gather around sh*t. They even give people Nobel's peace price for that kind of stuff! You'll become a hero!

Edited February 22, 2010 by Meshugger

[Calax]

"What's better, directly targeting or shrugging it off as "Collateral"? "

 

Easy question. 'Shrugging it off as collateral' is definitely better than purposefully targetting civilians. Of course, that doesn't make either right.

 

Just like manslaughter and murder are both wrong; but murder is obviously (to the sane) worse. *shrug*

Except in this case the collateral has SIGNIFICANTLY more bodies to it than the targeting.

[Volourn]

Just like manslaughter and murder are both wrong; but murder is obviously (to the sane) worse. *shrug*

[Calax]

Just like manslaughter and murder are both wrong; but murder is obviously (to the sane) worse. *shrug*

So if it's got intent, it's worse than "accidental" or "incidental" or "collateral" deaths due to actions, no matter the body count?

[Killian Kalthorne]

So if it's got intent, it's worse than "accidental" or "incidental" or "collateral" deaths due to actions, no matter the body count?

 

Yep.

[Hurlshort]

So if it's got intent, it's worse than "accidental" or "incidental" or "collateral" deaths due to actions, no matter the body count?

 

Yep.

 

Pretty much every court of law agrees with Killian on that point. Intent is a major factor in any criminal case. You could argue that gross negligence can be equal to intent, that might be a stronger stance to take. I'd still place intent in front, but it it a better argument.

[Killian Kalthorne]

This reminds me of a part of a sci fi campaign a friend told me about. The PCs were to body guard a rock star who had assassins after him. At the next concert they were expecting a sniper to be in the audience and one of the PCs wanted to use a missile launcher against the assassins. The other PCs were flabberghasted by this and her only response was "I'm not aiming at the civilians."

[213374U]

Just like manslaughter and murder are both wrong; but murder is obviously (to the sane) worse. *shrug*

So if it's got intent, it's worse than "accidental" or "incidental" or "collateral" deaths due to actions, no matter the body count?

People will be dead either way, but it's the main factor deciding whether a commander can be tried as a war criminal or not.

 

*ahem*

[Walsingham]

I was thinking the other day that Christianity could make a rather bold statement by renouncing any special ties to the Holy Land. All the officials get together and say for the record that it was no more holy than, say, New Jersey. Be a great precedent for the other Abrahamics.

[Orogun01]

I was thinking the other day that Christianity could make a rather bold statement by renouncing any special ties to the Holy Land. All the officials get together and say for the record that it was no more holy than, say, New Jersey. Be a great precedent for the other Abrahamics.

Is that a plot to discredit the Holy Land, making sure that everybody leaves it and then take it for yourself?

 

But seriously, you have to ask how much credibility is needed to make such thing work. Not only that but an unification of thought amongst all of the Christian religions and even then you still are left with a message that can't find it's recipient.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Orogun01