Palestine Or Israel?

[evilbagpuss]

That is not an argument, that is a statement.

No. when you say something is wrong its an argument. People could always disagree and say "no killing Palestinian civilians is fine". A few more posts and we'll probably get there though...

After rereading all of your posts in this thread I have concluded that you are pro-Palestinian.
Every example of violence you have cited has been Israeli.
You have used the words "genocide" and "war criminal" refering to Israelis.
Not one mention of corresponding acts by Palestinian fighters/leaders.

Is this a fair assessment?

*sigh*

If you cant see the difference between terrorists committing terrorist acts and an Army committing terrorist acts I pity you. We've already covered this ground so we're clearly going round in circles here.

I would hate to think the British army was killing Irish citizens indiscriminately with missile attacks on crowded apartment blocks. Reading between the lines I dont think you guys give a damn that your soldiers kill innocent civilians in your name. Perhaps it all comes down to a desire for revenge, not peace?

By all means kill the terrorists, but lets not pretend that killing civilians with the latest military hardware is either unavoidable, acceptable or justified.

[j2k4]

EBP-

We try not to nit-pick here, nor exercise contrarian inclinations for their own sake, but you seem to be clinging a bit to tightly to your urge to label while denying others the right to disagree with your choice of labels; the only basic difference between us.

Yes, you do seem to be just a wee bit pro-Palestinian; such is your right, here or anywhere.

But the Israelis are, bottom line, doing what the Palestinians are: depriving their opposition of lives.

Would you prefer the Israelis form their own band of terrorists and conduct operations as the Palestinians do?

Do you think the Palestinians envy the Israelis their missles? Do you think they would shun the use of same if they were similarly armed?

All things considered, I think the civilian casualties are due in large part to the fact the operatives of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa, et.al. have a tragic propensity for hiding in densely populated areas so as to exact an additional toll vis `a vis the media when the attacks occur.

It could easily be deduced, from a tactical stand-point, Palestinians believe Palestinian lives are to be wasted by Palestinians (witness the teenage homicide bombers), not the Israeli army, and in both cases they are to be martyred.

We in the west believe such notions as "teenage homicide bombers" to be repugnant, and whatever urge compels their use to be redolent of the odor of cowardice.

[evilbagpuss]

Well your vocabulary is quite impressive but I'm afraid it doesnt add up to much.

We try not to nit-pick here,

I assume your talking about the difference between a terrorist group committing atrocities and an army committing atrocities. Thats not 'nit picking', not by a long shot.

nor exercise contrarian inclinations for their own sake

If you could explain that statement and tell me what is contrarian about my inclinations I would appreciate it. My inclinations do not contradict prevailing wisdom. Prevaling wisdom and International law says that the state sanctioned slaughter of civilians is illegal and unacceptable, regardless of the tactics of terrorist forces. If anyones inclinations are contrarian, they are yours.

I could also state the case as to why dropping a missile onto 150 civilians from a jet fighter is "redolent of the odor of cowardice", but yet again we'd be going round in circles.

I have made all the relevant points I need to in this debate. They have been largely ignored and no matter how well you construct your sentences or how elegant your grammar, nothing justifies the indiscriminate murder of civilians.

[clocker]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@16 June 2003 - 09:50


I have made all the relevant points I need to in this debate. They have been largely ignored and no matter how well you construct your sentences or how elegant your grammar, nothing justifies the indiscriminate murder of civilians.

Plainly put- what are the relevant points you feel you have made?
I don't think that anyone has disagreed with the statement that the murder of civilians is wrong.
You seem to make a distinction between identical acts by the two sides, however.
Somehow the Israelis are depicted as far more guilty than their Palestinian equivalents.
You grant the Palestinian leadership the luxury of "plausable deniability". They can claim that aggression from their side is the act of a "terrorist" when in fact, Hezbollah et al are the army of Palestine in all but name and uniform.
Decry their actions as loudly as the Israeli's and I don't see any disagreement at all.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@16 June 2003 - 10:50
nothing justifies the indiscriminate murder of civilians.

My point being that your last point constitutes a common bottom line.

The only additional points I tried to make were:

1) Your insistance that only your labels are justified, and you will brook no opposition on this point.

2) My opinion that the purposeful treatment of young teens as disposable "weapons" in this generational conflict has no parallel on the Israeli side of the equation, and stands alone as the signal tactic of Palestinian terrorism.

I will again qualify this post as I try to always: These are MY opinions.

I demand no acknowledgement of their legitimacy from you, EBP; this is only a debate.

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

Originally posted by j2k4@16 June 2003 - 17:49
I demand no acknowledgement of their legitimacy from you, EBP; this is only a debate.

Man, I wish I could remember that.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@12 June 2003 - 14:32
If you want to argue about who's land it is by going back in time then your assessments fall flat on their face.
Ever heard of Judea,Jerusalem,Nazareth,Bethlehem and on and on?
The so called occupied West Bank is really Samaria and Judea.
Most of the names of the places in Israel are Jewish names That go back millennia.
This land belonged to the Jews long before the name "Palestinian" existed.

are you an american, and do you favor the idea of giving the entirety of the united states, canada and mexico back to the native americans? the north american continent belonged to them much longer than it has ever belonged to the currently ruling inhabitants, and many of the places bear native american names.

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

Yes I am an American and no I don't favor giving American Indians the entire country Back.
But that's not what I said.
I said that if someone wants to argue about whose land it is by going back in time then lets just keep going.
How far back should we go to determine who's land it really is?
Over the past 2000 years both Jew and Arab have lived in those lands all the way up until now.
Let me say that I have great sympathy for the American Indian and believe they should get something back.
Are you aware that reparations have been taking place for a long time now.
While probably not enough, it's at least a start.
When my friend turned 18 years of age he got quite a bit of money just for being 1/4 Indian.
That was in the seventies.
Now they seem to be opening up casino's everywhere here in California.

[3RA1N1AC]

so... you wouldn't be ecstatic if the rest of the world got together and said, "okay, everybody in america who isn't a native american, you're getting stuck over here in this ghetto... let's say, oklahoma and whichever other states are the least valuable. the rest of the land belongs to the indians now, since they were here originally."

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

Don't even go there.
The palestinian's have been offered 97% of the west bank and the Gaza strip and they refused.
97% of what they want the most, or so they say.
Look at the map links I posted in this thread and you will see proof they want it all.