The air was thick with wanktosterone!
Printable View
The air was thick with wanktosterone!
It's all well and good to be for the people.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@18 June 2003 - 11:24
I am neither anti-Israeli nor anti-Pallestinian.....PEOPLE
But im anti BOTH leaderships.
Your link shows that there is not enough being done to stifle the flow of cash to terrorist organisations.....I agree.
I dont think enough is being done to stifle the flow of cash to Terrorist nations either, via military aid.....doubtless you will disagree.
Let me state for the record that I too, am for the people.
Unfortunately for us both then, that that doesn't do much good, does it?
Tony Blair can't very well sit down with Achmed the bricklayer and hammer out a peace treaty, can he?
As to your next point, do you consider Israel a "terrorist" nation?
You're probably correct in your assumption that I would be a failure as the leader of peace talks.
My current (and best) proposal would involve stripping the populations of both sides down to loincloths, arming them with identical knives, building a 50 ft. wall around the whole area and letting them have at it.
Whoever walked out the gate at the end of the day could have that God-forsaken chunk of the Earth and welcome to it.
You could ladel it with a spoon! :blink:
Quote:
As to your next point, do you consider Israel a "terrorist" nation?
Under the United Nations definition of Terrorism to which the United States as a founding member, has ratified......
Yes, it is a Terrorist State, with more UN resolutions against it than anywhere else in the region.
Does this mean i think all Israeli's are terrorists? ..........No.
Does this mean i think all Pallestinians are terrorists? ............No
Does this mean that i think the PLO and Hammas arent terrorists? .........No
I hope that this clears up my beliefs for you Clocker, I thought i'd made them abundantly clear earlier in the thread.
Great.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@18 June 2003 - 13:04
I hope that this clears up my beliefs for you Clocker, I thought i'd made them abundantly clear earlier in the thread.
Now, other that the US withdrawing support for Israel and joining in the chorus of wailing, what is your proposal for settling this matter?
I believe that I made mine abundantly clear in my last post.
How about if the USA threatened to remove it's support unless the Israelis use it for defence only? I find it hard to believe that the misuse of US weapons against civilians seems to be such a hotly disputed issue.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker
Now, other that the US withdrawing support for Israel and joining in the chorus of wailing, what is your proposal for settling this matter?
If it were Russian helicopters and missiles being used against Israeli residential areas I don't think it would be so hard to reach a consensus on the matter. I wouldnt be trying to condone it thats for sure.
I just stipulated to the US withdrawing all it's support.
The US has joined you in decrying Israeli aggression against the poor, aggrieved Palestinian people.
Now what?
Aha, this of course is the big question.
Unfortunatly, like yourself, im not an Oracle.
If the USA would only condemn the Israeli's when they do something, as loudly as it does the Pallestinians (No More, No less) and exerted its influence (Israel knows that it NEEDS the USA much more than the USA needs the crap it gets for supporting it) I think that peace would be a lot closer than it is now.
I can remember numerous times that Israel has been condemned for an action by most of the world....with no comment coming from the USA.
If you cast your mind back to 9/11, how did the US public react towards the countries/peoples that didnt condemn the act? The peoples in the Middle East are just the same.
Acts of Terrorism should be condemned.....no matter who the perpetrators are, it inflames emotion when it is not condemned.
What happens then? Recruitement is up because of the Innocent Martyrs, money flows in from those that wont fight, but will finance....for the same reason.
I have said away from this thread that US Foreign Policy is the reason that the US is getting more and distrusted in the world. All it needs to be is FAIR in this area...not turn Pro-Pallestinian, to defuse a lot of distrust, especially from the Islamic World.
The above of course, is my "opinion", and im sure that you'll be quick to point this out.
Thats not what I'm talking about. If the USA did threaten to remove their assistance unless the Israelis stopped killing civilians indiscriminately the Israelis would crap themselves and immediately stop. So.. it would never come to "the US withdrawing all it's support".Quote:
Originally posted by clocker
I just stipulated to the US withdrawing all it's support.
As Ratfaced has already pointed out, all we're arguing is for the US to act fairly and stop turning a blind eye to actions it would loudly condemn if it were anyone else. Is that such a terrible thing?
You seem to be determined to go from one extreme to the other, Israel either kills people indiscriminately or the USA removes all support. Those arent the only 2 options as I'm sure your aware.
Many isrealis think that they are better than non israelis and think that they have a right from god to own the land. So they think they are superior.
Isn't this similar to the hitlers view that the germans were the master race chosen by god.
Or is it just me.
I was only trying to simplify the debate, but that doesn't seem to have worked.Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 14:26
You seem to be determined to go from one extreme to the other, Israel either kills people indiscriminately or the USA removes all support. Those arent the only 2 options as I'm sure your aware.
Let's try again...
Let's say the US does as both you and Rat wish.
What then?
Since neither of you have responded to that , I shall tell you what I think happens.
One day, one week, one month later, another 15 year old human bomb steps on a Israeli bus and blows up innocent Israeli civilians.
The Palestinian "freedom fighters" have raised the intentional targeting of civilians to an art form and I wouldn't expect them to abandon a tactic that through your intervention has just caused the Israeli's to lose their biggest supporter.
Who applies responding pressure to the Palestinians now?
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran?
Britain?
Hurry up with your answer, there is a psycho teenager strapping on a plastique filled vest as we ponder.
Precisely, you have simplified it to the point where your arguing "what if this happened?" when it would never happen.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker
I was only trying to simplify the debate, but that doesn't seem to have worked.
Ratfaced and I are not saying the US should remove all support.
We're saying they shouldnt just sit back and do nothing while their support is used to kill civilians. What is so wrong with that?
If Israel stopped killing civilians, ended its 36 year occupation, gave back the land they dont own and destroyed the illegal settlements and the Palestinians still wouldnt accept it, then no one would have any sympathy for them. If the Palestinians did accept it then great.
Why are you so determined that Israel should continue to kill innocent people? You can hardly take the moral highground with such an attitude.
You seem awfully certain of that.Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 15:03
Precisely, you have simplified it to the point where your arguing "what if this happened?" when it would never happen.
Based on what, if I might ask?
My supposition was based on historical fact. The scenario I described has been repeated countless times already.
If the US were to withhold/moderate it's support for Israel, who then, does the same to Palestine?
Respondevous sil vous plait
Why not forget the history just for a moment and find out what the latest body counts is? Who ever has the highest body count could be classed as the victim?
Then we could all give whichever that is, our support, even if only temporarily!
But should it be point = point ? Which is worth more a Palestinian or an Israeli?
Oh you know, the last 30 years, little things like that. Also any President who did such a thing would be comitting political suicide, as I'm sure you already know. If the US was going to remove it's support, it would have done so by now in response to some of the terrible atrocities Israel has committed.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker
You seem awfully certain of that.
Based on what, if I might ask?
Now... do you think it's possible for you to answer some of my questions? Here are a couple you seem to want to avoid like the plague.
1) We're saying they (the US) shouldnt just sit back and do nothing while their support is used to kill civilians on a regular basis. What is so wrong with that?
2) Why are you so determined that Israel should continue to kill innocent people?
Heres a new one for you.
3) Are you getting round to the point that the only way forward that doesnt involve the destruction of Israel is for Israel to continue killing Palestinian civilians till there are none left? No Palestinians no problem? Is that your attitude?
Say what you mean clocker, you seem to be skirting round the issue. The only solution I've seen you provide is to give them all loincloths and knives and let them get on with it. Hardly realistic.
Apart from that you seem to be inferring the good old tried and tested ethnic cleansing method. I hope Im mistaken in that inference.
Wee mouse is bang on with her ideas on religion and the twisting that's done to it for evil ends.
Seem to me America is an awful big place (believe its twice the size of Wales!)
Could they not find something of Israel or Palestine proportions where they could create and fit a new state?
Just a suggestion and not really much dafter than some of the baloney goin on in here!
It looks like peace may be near. now, will hamas ever back down? they are now the only roadblocks in this "road to peace".
the palestinian prime minister supports two separate states, and suprisingly so does sharone.
hamas & hezbolla... bastards :angry:
israel sees that these are the last people standing forcefully in the way, that is why they are trying to eliminate them.
obviously they could work close w/ the prime minister to bring hamas down.. :angry:
Oh you know, the last 30 years, little things like that. Also any President who did such a thing would be comitting political suicide, as I'm sure you already know. If the US was going to remove it's support, it would have done so by now in response to some of the terrible atrocities Israel has committed.Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss+18 June 2003 - 15:38--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss @ 18 June 2003 - 15:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker
You seem awfully certain of that.
Based on what, if I might ask?
Now... do you think it's possible for you to answer some of my questions? Here are a couple you seem to want to avoid like the plague.
1) We're saying they (the US) shouldnt just sit back and do nothing while their support is used to kill civilians on a regular basis. What is so wrong with that?
2) Why are you so determined that Israel should continue to kill innocent people?
Heres a new one for you.
3) Are you getting round to the point that the only way forward that doesnt involve the destruction of Israel is for Israel to continue killing Palestinian civilians till there are none left? No Palestinians no problem? Is that your attitude?
Say what you mean clocker, you seem to be skirting round the issue. The only solution I've seen you provide is to give them all loincloths and knives and let them get on with it. Hardly realistic.
Apart from that you seem to be inferring the good old tried and tested ethnic cleansing method. I hope Im mistaken in that inference. [/b][/quote]
1.) Absolutely nothing
2.) I have never said in a single post that they should. I defy you to find a direct quote from my writing that does say that.
3.) No. Refer to #2.
This should leave you unable to say that I won't directly answer your questions. Although I feel that I have been providing direct answers to every question in the past, you have consistently refused to do the same. I attempted to leave no room for interpretation in this set of responses. Let's see if you are able to do the same.
1.) Based on my take on the past 30 years of history, I don't see any reason whatsoever to suppose that Palestine will abandon it's tactics of terror. Who will you have rein them in should Israel assume a passive/non-retaliatory stance?
2.) How do you propose to cut off the supply of funds/armaments from Palestine's Arab supporters?
3) Exactly what does your vision of the Palestinian state consist of? Where do you draw the borders?
Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>1.) Absolutely nothing[/b]
Then why the blatant hostility when Rat Faced and I made a simple point about not killing civilians? You started going off on one about the US removing all support.. teenagers with plastique vests etc. Almost as if the idea of not killing Palestinian civilians was utterly preposterous and would lead to the destruction of Israel in a matter of months.
You've also implied that you cant fight terrorism without dropping missiles on apartment blocks. I cant be bothered to get the exact quote but I will if you wish.
See the above for your responses to questions 2 and 3.
Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>1.) Based on my take on the past 30 years of history, I don't see any reason whatsoever to suppose that Palestine will abandon it's tactics of terror. Who will you have rein them in should Israel assume a passive/non-retaliatory stance?
[/b]
This implies that Israeli retaliation has been "reining them in". The facts clearly do not support this view. If anything Israeli aggression increases the level of Palestinian terrorism not lessens it. Retaliation simply creates the 'tit for tat' cycle of killing that has been going on for decades. At some point in time one side is going to have to be attacked and not retaliate. I would have thought that was obvious. How else can peace come about?
<!--QuoteBegin-clocker@
2.) How do you propose to cut off the supply of funds/armaments from Palestine's Arab supporters?
[/quote]
I have never pretended to have the solution to that problem, but again dropping missiles on apartment blocks and killing women and children isnt going to solve it.
<!--QuoteBegin-clocker
3) Exactly what does your vision of the Palestinian state consist of? Where do you draw the borders? [/quote]
You dont ask for much do you? Again its not related to killing civilians but I guess it would involve giving back the occupied territories and destroying the illegal settlements. The finer details would have to be decided in peace talks between the two sides.
It's nice to see you dont support state sponsored atrocities or ethnic cleansing but I cant understand why its taken so many posts and so much anger on your part to get to this stage. It was your reaction to a simple point that made me think you believe Israel should continue its policy of atrocities and/or the lives of Palestinians are so worthless that they shouldnt even be brought into the equation.
You think I've been blatantly hostile? I will admit to trying to pin you down on your statements but that hardly rises to the level of hostility.Quote:
Then why the blatant hostility when Rat Faced and I made a simple point about not killing civilians?
I will take this to mean that you searched and searched but could find no such quote. Primarily because I've never said anything remotely like that.Quote:
You've also implied that you cant fight terrorism without dropping missiles on apartment blocks. I cant be bothered to get the exact quote but I will if you wish.
I agree. One of my main questions to you has consistently been: why not ask/demand this of the Palestinians?Quote:
This implies that Israeli retaliation has been "reining them in". The facts clearly do not support this view. If anything Israeli aggression increases the level of Palestinian terrorism not lessens it. Retaliation simply creates the 'tit for tat' cycle of killing that has been going on for decades. At some point in time one side is going to have to be attacked and not retaliate. I would have thought that was obvious. How else can peace come about?
Again, you confuse disagreement with anger. Or perhaps it's my stunning condescencion - a trait I thought I had mastered until I ran into you. I now realize there are levels I hadn't envisioned.Quote:
It's nice to see you dont support state sponsored atrocities or ethnic cleansing but I cant understand why its taken so many posts and so much anger on your part to get to this stage. It was your reaction to a simple point that made me think you believe Israel should continue its policy of atrocities and/or the lives of Palestinians are so worthless that they shouldnt even be brought into the equation.
*sigh* ok Mr calm and collected lets fight this tooth and nail, point by point if we must...
Here are a few choice quotes immediately after rat faced and I dared to say Israel shouldnt kill civilians....
Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Great.
Now, other that the US withdrawing support for Israel and joining in the chorus of wailing, what is your proposal for settling this matter?[/b]
Notice how no one said anything about the US withdrawing support? Wailing? What are you on about?
Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
just stipulated to the US withdrawing all it's support.
The US has joined you in decrying Israeli aggression against the poor, aggrieved Palestinian people.
[/b]
Poor aggrieved Palestinian people? Is that your idea of "pinning me down"? Again your 100% stuck on the US withdrawing its support issue even though you brought it up in the 1st place. Again we merely dared to suggest that the USA shouldnt ignore the fact that its $$'s are being used to carry out atrocities.
At this point Im wondering whether I should arrange a paramedic for the heart attack your soon to have. No hostility here eh? :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by clocker
One day, one week, one month later, another 15 year old human bomb steps on a Israeli bus and blows up innocent Israeli civilians.
The Palestinian "freedom fighters" have raised the intentional targeting of civilians to an art form and I wouldn't expect them to abandon a tactic that through your intervention has just caused the Israeli's to lose their biggest supporter.
Who applies responding pressure to the Palestinians now?
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran?
Britain?
Hurry up with your answer, there is a psycho teenager strapping on a plastique filled vest as we ponder.
Now for your next point....
Here. Its not my fault you cant recall what you said a short time ago. :angry:Quote:
Originally posted by clocker
I will take this to mean that you searched and searched but could find no such quote. Primarily because I've never said anything remotely like that
and in response you say.....Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss
Fight terrorism. Dont kill innocent women and children
<!--QuoteBegin-clocker@
How do you propose to fight terrorism in such an honorable and bloodless way?
Queensbury rules don't seem to be in effect.[/quote]
Silly me eh? Imagine trying to fight terrorism without killing women and children in missile attacks on residential areas :rolleyes:
<!--QuoteBegin-clocker
why not ask/demand this of the Palestinians?
[/quote]
You mean why not ask this of the terrorists? Because by definition you cannot negotiate with terrorists.
I rest my case, Mr "Im not hostile". :lol:
*sigh*
Dont sulk. You demanded I prove every last word of my previous post. Getting all high and mighty about it when I meet those demands is more than a little irrational.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker
*sigh*
Dont sulk. You demanded I prove every last word of my previous post. Getting all high and mighty about it when I meet those demands is more than a little irrational. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss+18 June 2003 - 22:28--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss @ 18 June 2003 - 22:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker
*sigh*
From my comfy seat on the sidelines I see a totally different picture.
This topic is going nowhere fast, and I think it should be closed. Everyone has had more than enough say on the matter. :rolleyes:
i don't know which US general it was who made the famous quote during the vietnam war
it went something like;
Quote:
Originally posted by american with more firepower than sleep+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (american with more firepower than sleep)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>we had to destroy the village in order to liberate it[/b]
i have found this concept [and it's complete lack of plausible reason] to be endlessly useful in contextualising the actions of US force
i don't think it is in the nature of US foreign policy to be fair, i just wish a degree of even-handedness would be applied, [or at least a charade of even-handedness]
the support for israel has so much more to do with domestic issues from lobby groups to 'defence industry' jobs and with peripheral external issues to do with the manipulation of regional [in]stability for short term financial and political ends, than it has with any desire for peace in the cradle of christendom/islam/judaism
considering the attitude typified by the quote i imagine that collateral damage from the israeli use of US arms would be quite understandable, johnson&johnson sell a lotta band-aids apart from anything else
i also get the impression that clocker and j2k4 and S&A are members of a comparatively small minority of americans who actually care about and consider the situation
and also to the even smaller group who are at all informed as to the history and current politic of the region
i heard today that less than 12% of US college graduates regularly read newspapers, with such high levels of apathy and ignorance [no offence meant people but there are a lot of folk to teach in the US] politics is based upon very simple messages [often with very moral/ethical flavors] and concepts which would be quashed in most other democratic systems are not only tolerated but are the accepted and favoured norm
<!--QuoteBegin-imagine...
NUFChttp://raq599.uk2net.com/UKFootie/badges/new.gif is playing a heavily contested championship match against MUFChttp://raq599.uk2net.com/UKFootie/badges/mnu.gif, the most powerful and influential referee in the world is to adjudicate the match,
but he is wearing MUFC socks!
and he keeps giving penalties to MUFC while he has run out of cards to issue to MCFC
[/quote]
the betting shops are going to strike :: no-one would trust or believe the outcome
in short it would be a fraud
[i don't think this is the best example, but the USA is sooooo obviously biased, why would anyone trust it's judgement on israel v. palestine? especially if you're a palestine supporter]
colinmac :: of cause this topic is going nowhere fast, it's about middle eastern politics, way deadlier stalemates have been going on for decades
I can't think of any country who's foreign policy is based on being "fair". "Enlightened self interest" is about the best that you can hope for. I can certainly understand how it could be argued that our current stance does not meet this requirement either.Quote:
don't think it is in the nature of US foreign policy to be fair, i just wish a degree of even-handedness would be applied, [or at least a charade of even-handedness]
When has there ever been peace in this region? With 3 major religions laying claim to the same plot of earth somebody is always going to feel that they got the short end of the stick. And two of these religions ( not sure about Judaism, I'm not a scholar) don't particularly leave a lot of room for any other theology. Both Christianity and Islam are aggressively expansionist.Quote:
the support for israel has so much more to do with domestic issues from lobby groups to 'defence industry' jobs and with peripheral external issues to do with the manipulation of regional [in]stability for short term financial and political ends, than it has with any desire for peace in the cradle of christendom/islam/judaism
This concept, while personally flattering, I think is somewhat flawed. Does the source for what you heard take into account that news is disseminated via more diverse outlets than newsprint?Quote:
also get the impression that clocker and j2k4 and S&A are members of a comparatively small minority of americans who actually care about and consider the situation
and also to the even smaller group who are at all informed as to the history and current politic of the region
i heard today that less than 12% of US college graduates regularly read newspapers, with such high levels of apathy and ignorance [no offence meant people but there are a lot of folk to teach in the US] politics is based upon very simple messages [often with very moral/ethical flavors] and concepts which would be quashed in most other democratic systems are not only tolerated but are the accepted and favoured norm
Out of curiousity, is the circulation of your country's newspapers growing in proportion to population growth or shrinking?
My impression is that shrinking newsprint readership is a worldwide phenomonon not just a sign of the "dumbing down" of America. Believe me, I am not claiming that as a nation we couldn't/shouldn't do much better, I simply question the prevailing attitude that Americans are , as a nation, stupider and less informed than any other "1st world" nation.
- i agree that foreign policy is not based on fairness, i just think historically it can pay off if you pretend well
- more than 'the three major religions' have co-existed in palestine successfully before. the romans ran the region peacefully for centuries after the fall of the first israeli occupation (the siege of Masada & such) the Phoenician empire did a pretty good job too, and up until the 40s apart from unrelated regional conflict spilling over every now and then [crusades, ottomans, world wars] the region known as palestine or israel has been a notably cosmopolitan and tolerant region of diverse cultural and religious influences. it seems to be when one part of that mix gets power out of balance or parties outside the region take a military interest that it becomes a blood bath. some parties would definitely like to rewrite history so we though that there had always been war there [archaeologists get shot at by extremest orthodox zionists in israel, and grenade attacks on digs have been known :: but we don't here about that on CNN]
- i think all of the monotheistic faiths are flawed by their denial of each other and all the polytheists/animists and others, most of the really excessive bad stuff that has been perpetrated in the name of religion has been by monotheists
- newspapers are still huge here, the number of papers continues to shrink though, i've tended to find that american tend to educate themselves about different stuff more, many americans i have know have been very specialist in their knowledge, often at the expense of general knowledge. i agree that we're probably all getting duller and reading less, but i know where the primary market for faux news, friends and survivor is and it's all in one nation. all of it counts as 'media' in the brave new global economy [i wanna live in a society, not an economy] around here the allies of the noecons are trying to rig a free trade deal with the states which would make your TV our TV [and not at all the other way around]
- i think that is one of the main problems that anyone has in trying to get across to the US public, the US public is very good at telling [and making sitcoms and movies and music and...] and very good at selling what it tells, but america doesn't culturally consume very much outside it's own production, eg. the american market for foreign films is tiny yet the world market of movies is predominantly american, this is the same with TV and music too
anyway, bedtime4me :sleeping:
Quote:
I agree. One of my main questions to you has consistently been: why not ask/demand this of the Palestinians?
Because the Pallestinians are, by and large INDIVIDUALS.
If we could control individuals like this, then there would be no such thing as murder. Everytime there is an apartment building smashed, the Israeli's have created another 100+ potential terrorists and have increased their funding. That seems a cockeyed way to "Control" terrorism in the region.
When was the last time the Pallestinian Authority retaliated, while its own offices/police stations and hospitals were getting bombed?
I agree with you 100% on this whole paragraph.Quote:
I can't think of any country who's foreign policy is based on being "fair". "Enlightened self interest" is about the best that you can hope for. I can certainly understand how it could be argued that our current stance does not meet this requirement either.
The Christians have, by and large given up their claim.....as long as they have full access to the Holy places...(It helps if Israel doesnt blow the churches up too ;) )Quote:
When has there ever been peace in this region? With 3 major religions laying claim to the same plot of earth somebody is always going to feel that they got the short end of the stick. And two of these religions ( not sure about Judaism, I'm not a scholar) don't particularly leave a lot of room for any other theology. Both Christianity and Islam are aggressively expansionist.
Judaism isnt expansionist....in fact I think they are the opposite. Although they will accept converts, its not with open arms (some of the sects wont even talk to other Jews, never mind other religions)
The funny thing is they are all devolved from the same basic religion...the differences being that Islam and Christians believe different people to be the messiah (although Islam does except Christ as a prophet) while the Jews dont think he's arrived yet....the other 2 major religions dont have this shit, and they are unrelated (Differences between Hindu and Islam in northern India excepted)....but forgive me, i go off topic :P
Well? what picture? Dont keep us in suspenders. Speak up! You usually have no trouble doing this ;)Quote:
From my comfy seat on the sidelines I see a totally different picture.
Oh...And i HAVE to say.........
This happens all the time in the Premiership, we're used to it. The referees are all scared of Ferguson... :angry:Quote:
QUOTE (imagine...)
NUFC is playing a heavily contested championship match against MUFC, the most powerful and influential referee in the world is to adjudicate the match,
but he is wearing MUFC socks!
and he keeps giving penalties to MUFC while he has run out of cards to issue to NUFC
As ANYONE that doesnt support MUFC....or play Championship Manager 3. Its fixed, I turned all their players into 4th division crap, and loaded up NUFC with the best Internationals in the world...ManU STILL won the bloody title, and NUFC was still 4th :(
@clocker
Try and imagine, if you can, a world reversed....
Palestine is the one favoured by the USA. Jewish people are murdered in their hundreds as laughing Palestinians drop missiles from attack helicopters onto crowded streets. Helicopters and missiles paid for by US tax dollars of course.
The UN is doing its best to stop whats going on but the USA keeps on using its veto to block most resolutions. The media seems largely pro-Palestinian as it reports Jewish suicide bombers and the number of Palestinian dead, whereas Jewish casuaulties are not considered newsworthy and Palestinian atrocities are covered up and left unreported. The brutal 36 year occupation of whats left of Israel doesnt seem likely to end soon.
Now.. think of it like this, if you would support and defend the USA's actions in this imaginary scenario just as much as you do now.... then I respect you for that. I may disagree strongly with you but at least you'd be applying your views equally to both sides regardless.
I suspect you would be outraged though wouldnt you? So my question is why would that imaginary scenario be any worse than whats happening today?
The only way you could say that imaginary conflict would be any worse was if you believed a Jewish life to be worth more than a Palestinians life.
If that imaginary scenario were happening I would still be here arguing the same points for the Jewish people. Would you still be here arguing the same points, defending the USA's actions?
Wasn't the Pax Romana based primarily on military might and cultural oppression/assimilation? Weren't the Romans in essence the Americans/Borg of 2500 years ago?Quote:
more than 'the three major religions' have co-existed in palestine successfully before. the romans ran the region peacefully for centuries after the fall of the first israeli occupation (the siege of Masada & such) the Phoenician empire did a pretty good job too
This may be true. Probably due to the frenetic pace of modern life. If so, I would suspect that the Japanese would exhibit this to a greater extent than we ( but that is sheer supposition).Quote:
newspapers are still huge here, the number of papers continues to shrink though, i've tended to find that american tend to educate themselves about different stuff more, many americans i have know have been very specialist in their knowledge, often at the expense of general knowledge
American culture, to the extent that it can be defined, is more flexible and in greater flux than you may give us credit for. Salsa outsells ketchup. Rap/hiphop outsells grunge/pop. Michael Jordan/Williams sisters outsell everybody.Quote:
think that is one of the main problems that anyone has in trying to get across to the US public, the US public is very good at telling [and making sitcoms and movies and music and...] and very good at selling what it tells, but america doesn't culturally consume very much outside it's own production
The PLO has been organized since the 60's and Yasir Arafat has been the titular head since 1969. He has been included in peace negotiations and treated as a de facto legitimate political figure for decades. He is also a terrorist.Quote:
Because the Pallestinians are, by and large INDIVIDUALS.
It seems to me that you have to make up your mind- either the Palestinians are an organized political entity ( in which case they must be dealt with and held accountable as such) or they are a unorganized/amorphous rabble and have no place at the world's political forum.
Out of town till Monday. Then I'm sure we'll all get an earful. :PQuote:
QUOTE
From my comfy seat on the sidelines I see a totally different picture.
Well? what picture? Dont keep us in suspenders. Speak up! You usually have no trouble doing this
I did say "By and Large".Quote:
The PLO has been organized since the 60's and Yasir Arafat has been the titular head since 1969. He has been included in peace negotiations and treated as a de facto legitimate political figure for decades. He is also a terrorist.Quote:
Because the Pallestinians are, by and large INDIVIDUALS.
It seems to me that you have to make up your mind- either the Palestinians are an organized political entity ( in which case they must be dealt with and held accountable as such) or they are a unorganized/amorphous rabble and have no place at the world's political forum.
As I understand it, Hammas are the ones that are committing most terrorist actions now.
This is a seperate organisation to the PLO that does NOT regard Arrafat as its leader, in fact Arafat isnt even (and never has been) a member....the PLO as an organisation, have been surprisingly quiet since the Pallestinian Authority was established.
Hammas is much more Religiously organised, whereas PLO was/is a Nationalist movement (PLO charter accepts Jews that were there prior to Israel as Pallestinians...Hammas doesnt)
Hamas.....history and aims
A Quote from that history.....
I highlighted the phrase of interest to you Clocker ;)Quote:
In Hamas' worldview, Islamic precepts forbid a Jewish state in the area known as Palestine, the Jewish people have no legitimate connection to the land of Israel and Yasir Arafat is a traitor to the Islamic Palestinian cause. As its covenant proclaims, "The land of Palestine is an Islamic trust...It is forbidden to anyone to yield or concede any part of it...Israel will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it..."
Seems as if the PLO wants it's cake and to eat it too. If the PA/PLO want to be viewed as the legitimate face of Palestine then any support (covert or otherwise) and any unwillingness to quash Hamas is unacceptable.Quote:
Do most Palestinians support suicide bombings?
Since a second intifada (uprising) broke out in the fall of 2000, polls show that up to 70 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza back suicide bombings. The bombings—and Hamas—were much less popular in the mid-1990s, when the peace process was moving along more quickly. Many Palestinians consider Hamas’ attacks a legitimate way of resisting Israeli occupation and argue that the world pays less attention to Palestinian losses—including about 1,600 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since the second intifada began—than to Israeli ones. Pollsters say Palestinian support for anti-Israel violence hardened further during the spring 2002 Middle East crisis.
Has Arafat taken action to stop suicide terrorists?
The sides differ bitterly. Palestinian officials say that Arafat is doing all he can to crack down and warn that Israel’s spring 2002 incursion into the West Bank devastated the security apparatus Arafat could use to fight terrorism. But Israeli officials say that Arafat has played a double game—arresting militants after bombings but then quickly releasing them; denouncing suicide terrorists in English while praising them as “martyrs” in Arabic; funding secular suicide-bombing groups such as the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades; and using terror as a political tool. In June 2002, the Bush administration concluded that Arafat’s ongoing links to terrorism made him unsalvageable and called for his removal. Middle East experts say Arafat, who dislikes major rifts among Palestinians, was unwilling to risk a showdown with the increasingly popular suicide bombers, especially under pressure from Israel’s right-leaning prime minister, Ariel Sharon, who is reviled by Palestinians.
The above quote was taken from here
Looking at it another way, you could argue that the way the US/world ignores Israeli atrocities actually creates the support for suicide bombers. No one seems to give a damn about their innocent dead so why should they care about innocent Israelis? It's not a viewpoint I agree with but you can certainly see how some Palestinians reach that conclusion.Quote:
The bombings—and Hamas—were much less popular in the mid-1990s, when the peace process was moving along more quickly. Many Palestinians consider Hamas’ attacks a legitimate way of resisting Israeli occupation and argue that the world pays less attention to Palestinian losses—including about 1,600 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since the second intifada began—than to Israeli ones.
PS I'd still like you to answer my previous post.
The Israelis are laughing as they fire missles?Quote:
@clocker
Try and imagine, if you can, a world reversed....
Palestine is the one favoured by the USA. Jewish people are murdered in their hundreds as laughing Palestinians drop missiles from attack helicopters onto crowded streets. Helicopters and missiles paid for by US tax dollars of course.
This single post characterizes your entire approach to this thread.
Whilst making tepid proclamations about your impartiality the underlying current has always been that the Israeli actions are somehow worse because they enjoy US backing.
Fine.
I've already stated that I am pro-Israel.
I would imagine that this statement exposes my bias in the debate.
I think that without American support the continued existence of the State of Israel would be impossible.
When Syria and Iran renounce support for Hezbollah and Hamas respectively, then I'll consider curtailing support for Israel.
Not before.
You however, enjoy throwing low blows from your high horse ("laughing as they drop missiles").
When asked before to state your side in the debate you answered "neither, I'm for justice".
Please drop the Christ impersonation.
If you want to debate a question your first obligation is to pick a side from which to debate.
This whole thread you've been quacking like a duck while claiming to be dove.
I'm not buying into it anymore.
Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Israelis are laughing as they fire missles?[/b]
How do you know they are not? Heres a good idea though, in the interests of a healthy debate ignore that one word and try answering the question without throwing a tantrum and stamping your feet.
Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I think that without American support the continued existence of the State of Israel would be impossible.[/b]
Yet again Im forced to repeat myself.... I am not arguing for the US to remove their support, simply for them to put a little pressure on the Israelis instead of ignoring their atrocities.
So... when these countries, one of which is identified by Bush as being part of the axis of evil, stop supporting the terrorists, you'll say "NOW the Israelis should stop killing civilians". This smacks of a tit for tat attitude to me. Again the difference between an "axis of evil" country supporting atrocities and the worlds only superpower supporting atrocities flies straight over your head.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker
When Syria and Iran renounce support for Hezbollah and Hamas respectively, then I'll consider curtailing support for Israel.
Not before.
You seem to have missed this part of my post during your tantrum.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker
When asked before to state your side in the debate you answered "neither, I'm for justice".
Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss
If that imaginary scenario were happening I would still be here arguing the same points for the Jewish people.
Get over the use of one word in what was otherwise a very fair and even handed post. I dont see it as a Christ impersonation either. I see it as being human. You should try 'pretending' to be human and see all civilians deaths as atrocities too. Hey, you might even like it.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker
You however, enjoy throwing low blows from your high horse ("laughing as they drop missiles").
When asked before to state your side in the debate you answered "neither, I'm for justice".
Please drop the Christ impersonation.
<!--QuoteBegin-clocker@
If you want to debate a question your first obligation is to pick a side from which to debate.[/quote]
Utter bullshit. You think the "pick a side and then lets go for each others throats" attitude is the way to conduct a debate? It's been a recurring theme throughout your posts though.
<!--QuoteBegin-clocker
This whole thread you've been quacking like a duck while claiming to be dove.[/quote]
Man... you are immature... is the "quacking like a duck" phrase the schoolyard favourite these days? Grow up.
Lets get this back on track... forget this "pick a side" bullshit. If you are going to pick a side, pick the human one and remember we're all the same species regardless of religeon. Now...
I apologise profusely for using the word 'laughing' I hope that placates your rage. Ignore that word and try and answer the post again I want to know what your views would be if the tables were turned.
PS calm down
READ your own post.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@20 June 2003 - 15:33
Seems as if the PLO wants it's cake and to eat it too. If the PA/PLO want to be viewed as the legitimate face of Palestine then any support (covert or otherwise) and any unwillingness to quash Hamas is unacceptable.Quote:
Do most Palestinians support suicide bombings?
Since a second intifada (uprising) broke out in the fall of 2000, polls show that up to 70 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza back suicide bombings. The bombings—and Hamas—were much less popular in the mid-1990s, when the peace process was moving along more quickly. Many Palestinians consider Hamas’ attacks a legitimate way of resisting Israeli occupation and argue that the world pays less attention to Palestinian losses—including about 1,600 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since the second intifada began—than to Israeli ones. Pollsters say Palestinian support for anti-Israel violence hardened further during the spring 2002 Middle East crisis.
Has Arafat taken action to stop suicide terrorists?
The sides differ bitterly. Palestinian officials say that Arafat is doing all he can to crack down and warn that Israel’s spring 2002 incursion into the West Bank devastated the security apparatus Arafat could use to fight terrorism. But Israeli officials say that Arafat has played a double game—arresting militants after bombings but then quickly releasing them; denouncing suicide terrorists in English while praising them as “martyrs” in Arabic; funding secular suicide-bombing groups such as the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades; and using terror as a political tool. In June 2002, the Bush administration concluded that Arafat’s ongoing links to terrorism made him unsalvageable and called for his removal. Middle East experts say Arafat, who dislikes major rifts among Palestinians, was unwilling to risk a showdown with the increasingly popular suicide bombers, especially under pressure from Israel’s right-leaning prime minister, Ariel Sharon, who is reviled by Palestinians.
The above quote was taken from here
In Particular...
ieQuote:
The bombings—and Hamas—were much less popular in the mid-1990s, when the peace process was moving along more quickly.
Before the incoming Israeli government tore up the Peace Plan unilaterally, that the previous Israeli government had agreed too (a peace settlement BTW that the USA had been instrumental in acheiving).
The incoming Israeli Government then REVERSED the removal of settlements and re-deployed the military.
Just about any "Country" could have taken this as a declaration of war, however the Pallestian Authority/PLO has tried to stick with the diplomacy that so nearly worked.
The people are getting more and more disillusioned and are now turning to other Terrorist Organisations...due to the REFUSAL of the PLO to take up a major campaign.
Sorry, but it doesnt surprise me.
I lay the huge rise in the recruitment to Hamas in the region firmly at the Door of Sharron and his policies.
I have to admit, if i was in their shoes I would be tempted to get more aggresive...and no one here can accuse me of being any type of warmonger.
You want him replaced?Quote:
Middle East experts say Arafat, who dislikes major rifts among Palestinians, was unwilling to risk a showdown with the increasingly popular suicide bombers, especially under pressure from Israel’s right-leaning prime minister, Ariel Sharon, who is reviled by Palestinians.
Are you mad?
Look at your post. Everyone that could replace him as leader of the Pallestinians is leaning more and more into FIGHTING...he wamts peace through DIPLOMACY. Note that the PLO has not, despite the overwelming provocation, started any new campaigns.
He is fighting his own people to stay in power because he believes it will be all out war for some Hamas supporter to get into power there.
Its the attitude of the Right Wing Israeli government and now the USA that is making the Pallestinian people more and more intollerant.
Look at the REASONS that support for Hamas is growing...its a fact that it is, but there are REASONS. Take those reasons away, and support falls off.
EBP, The foot stamping and tantrum throwing are coming from your side in my opinion.
You may characterize your post as "otherwise fair and even handed" I do not.
BTW, "in the interest of a healthy debate" you may first wish to familiarize your self with the definition of the word "debate" which specifically details "Two opposing sides arguing a question". Google it.
quack.Quote:
Man... you are immature... is the "quacking like a duck" phrase the schoolyard favourite these days? Grow up.
Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>in the interest of a healthy debate" you may first wish to familiarize your self with the definition of the word "debate" which specifically details "Two opposing sides arguing a question". Google it.[/b]
I'm glad you brought that up duck boy :) Out of the 4 definitions from www.dictionary.com only one of them involves 2 'teams' and that is in the formal context. What you will never grasp is that this debate doesnt have to have 2 'teams' divided into pro-palestinian/pro-israeli.
<!--QuoteBegin-www.dictionary.com
1)A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2)Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3)A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4)Obsolete. Conflict; strife. [/quote]
You start off the post denying acting like a small child having a tantrum, then you end it with "quack". Very convincing.
If you really think your juvenile behaviour either bothers me or does anything to further your 'point' in this debate... keep dreaming. :P Compare Rat faceds post to yours. A world apart eh? I'd like to see your attempt to answer that, it would certainly be more amusing than your farmyard impressions.
Finally... to cater for your narrow mind we could divide this into 2 'teams' pro-peace and pro-hatred. I think that should accomodate us two quite nicely.
You start off the post denying acting like a small child having a tantrum, then you end it with "quack". Very convincing.Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss+20 June 2003 - 23:37--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss @ 20 June 2003 - 23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-clocker
in the interest of a healthy debate" you may first wish to familiarize your self with the definition of the word "debate" which specifically details "Two opposing sides arguing a question". Google it.
If you really think your juvenile behaviour either bothers me or does anything to further your 'point' in this debate... keep dreaming. :P Compare Rat faceds post to yours. A world apart eh? I'd like to see your attempt to answer that, it would certainly be more amusing than your farmyard impressions.
Finally... to cater for your narrow mind we could divide this into 2 'teams' pro-peace and pro-hatred. I think that should accomodate us two quite nicely.[/b][/quote]
This has gone far enough.
If you are "pro-peace" why have you not attempted to find the middle ground with Clocker, who at no time has been "having a tantrum" or has needed to "calm down". I fail to find personal insults, exclamation marks or the words Utter Bullshit in his threads. ( He did tell you to "google it", which I find stunningly condescending!- bad Clocker)
These comments are not conciliatory, but rather the opposite. If you think he is the child, you must take the high road and let him expose himself.
Why do innocent palestineans die, killed by laughing Jews. This is a very telling line, reveals your bias, which you claim not to have. That is one of those things which come out in anger, which can be retracted, but cannot be erased.
To me, this is a discussion forum, and is not about picking a side and sticking with it to the death, carefully twisting or distorting the words of the opponent to suit your side and win points with the judges. This forum is not about formal debate, but an evolving discussion to determine what is "right", not "who" is right.
A discussion requires concession on both sides, not name calling and provacation. A line like.."I see your point there, but here is where I tend to differ with you". This allows the discussion to move forward to the issues that remain, the road of progress paved by the concessions made and the points agreed upon. When I read this thread, page 3 reads much like page 5. It doesn't progress, it spins. And "spin" is quite apropos for this thread.
In regard to the topic, it seems that the Palestineans can't keep their extremists in line, leading to suicide bombings and Israels subsequent retaliation. A retaliation, which is less than pinpoint. This is a postive feedback cycle.
It seems that everytime a truce is call, it is the Palestine side which breaks it. Arafat condemns the acts, and declares loss of control. That is my experience, I don't claim be an expert.
The botton line is that there is a significant Palestinean contingent which does not want peace, they want to kill the Jews. Until this can be resolved, which would require changing the Palestinean charter, peace will never come.
Peace will never come until one group eliminates the other. Each side has its supporters, and if the US were to withdraw support from Israel completely, I feel confident that the Palestineans would eliminate the Jews. I am not as convinced that this would happen if the opposite were to happen.
I think both sides are just a bunch of lunatics, killing each other to defend their belief in a loving God. The irony is so bitterly rich.