Palestine Or Israel?

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

Btw
Why does everyone pick on Oklahoma?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@17 June 2003 - 00:03
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."

Sounds like, being the sole perpetrator of sin and evil in the world, we're about to be forced to confront our "just" desserts by a bunch of puny, whiny, do-gooders from foreign lands-Woe is me!

I say we should go to the U.N. and sue for "right of return"!

Seriously-

Even those members I disagree with regularly must feel absolutely beset by the unrelenting stupidity, the utterly astounding disregard for fact and reason on display here in the last 48 or so hours.

It puts me in mind of the dreaded "Red Tide"-ugly and depressing, however temporary.

[evilbagpuss]

Even those members I disagree with regularly must feel absolutely beset by the unrelenting stupidity, the utterly astounding disregard for fact and reason on display here in the last 48 or so hours.

The hypocrisy concerns me more.

Your argument is that the Jews owned the land over 2000 years ago and so it belongs to them. Yet you mock the idea of the American Indians being given back their land which was taken from much more recently.

Tell me... how do you get those clearly conflicting views to gel? Perhaps you believe in one rule for Jewish people and another for the Gentiles?

I find your replies dishonest. You claim to be pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian yet you think nothing of Palestinian men being shot in the head while carrying babies, the mutilated corpses of Palestinian children or missile attacks on crowded areas full of women and children.

Your main argument seems to be "well they do it to the Israelis" while you ignore the logical implication of this argument i.e that by using similar methods the Israelis are terrorists as well.

If this isnt "astounding disregard for fact and reason" I dont know what is.

At least ShockAndAwe has the honesty to come out and say he wants the Palestinians "driven from the land". You dress up your views with an impressive if somewhat unnecessary vocabulary and pseudo-intellectual reasoning in, what I can only assume is, the vain hope people will forget the facts you have conveniently ignored.

To be brutally honest it sickens and depresses me. I take heart in the fact that there are many Israelis who disagree with state sanctioned atrocities.

[clocker]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 June 2003 - 00:32


At least ShockAndAwe has the honesty to come out and say he wants the Palestinians "driven from the land". You dress up your views with an impressive if somewhat unnecessary vocabulary and pseudo-intellectual reasoning in, what I can only assume is, the vain hope people will forget the facts you have conveniently ignored.

Got a mirror handy?

[echidna]

j2k4 & S&A :: you guys seem convinced that might is right
i agree that in the short term that it does convince people under duress
but it is not a way of building trust or stability

we all know that the USA will not tolerate any other nation amassing anything like the weapons that the USA has
and so the USA will retain the might

but it doesn't make it right
it just makes the USA the biggest, best-armed thug in the playground

palestine belongs to the palestinians [muslim, jew and christian]
the zionist invasion is a recent aberration of over a thousand years history
israel gets it's right though might borrowed from the USA [and the holocaust allows israels no right to enact it's own genocide]

you're defending a mafiocracy, seemingly because it is american led, and that's just immoral and nasty [but probably patriotic], i fail to see how you cats can assume the moral or semantic high ground defending violence as a political tool

[clocker]

Originally posted by echidna@17 June 2003 - 07:15
i fail to see how you cats can assume the moral or semantic high ground defending violence as a political tool

Unlike the Palestinians.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 June 2003 - 01:32

Even those members I disagree with regularly must feel absolutely beset by the unrelenting stupidity, the utterly astounding disregard for fact and reason on display here in the last 48 or so hours.

The hypocrisy concerns me more.

Your argument is that the Jews owned the land over 2000 years ago and so it belongs to them. Yet you mock the idea of the American Indians being given back their land which was taken from much more recently.

Tell me... how do you get those clearly conflicting views to gel? Perhaps you believe in one rule for Jewish people and another for the Gentiles?

I find your replies dishonest. You claim to be pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian yet you think nothing of Palestinian men being shot in the head while carrying babies, the mutilated corpses of Palestinian children or missile attacks on crowded areas full of women and children.

Your main argument seems to be "well they do it to the Israelis" while you ignore the logical implication of this argument i.e that by using similar methods the Israelis are terrorists as well.

If this isnt "astounding disregard for fact and reason" I dont know what is.

At least ShockAndAwe has the honesty to come out and say he wants the Palestinians "driven from the land". You dress up your views with an impressive if somewhat unnecessary vocabulary and pseudo-intellectual reasoning in, what I can only assume is, the vain hope people will forget the facts you have conveniently ignored.

To be brutally honest it sickens and depresses me. I take heart in the fact that there are many Israelis who disagree with state sanctioned atrocities.

If I were to grant without question your mis-perception of my stance, I could just as easily state that yours stands at a precise 180 degrees opposite.

I have made no qualification as to Israel's "right" to the land, historical or otherwise-the only relevant fact is they are currently occupying a plot of land whose borders are in a constant state of flux due to the conflicts they find themselves engaged in over the past 55 years.

Now, I'm going to make a leap here; try to follow:

Indigenous peoples who have been defeated in war, or relieved of their lands through whatever means by a superior force, and are defined therefore as defeated or otherwise subjugated, no longer own the land.

The U.S. is not the first country (and certainly won't be the last) to usurp, however violently, brutally or unfairly, control of lands inhabited by other people, so resign yourself to the fact the U.S. is not the progenitor of that "sin".

Herewith a few facts about me, and my beliefs:

I do not suffer any qualms about being a member of a "conquering race".

Neither will I suffer a lecture from you as to the plight of the Amerindians; I am very well acquainted with them and their "plight" (as I'm sure you would refer to it); you see, I live on a reservation-my two children are tribal members-ALL of my ex-inlaws are tribal elders who are steeped in their history, and not one of them would find a shred of agreement with your suppositions.

I owe them nothing, and just to make myself clear, I don't think I owe the descendants of historically enslaved Africans anything, either.

Now, then-back to the mideast:

Arafat is a hate-filled, terrorist-monger who treats the Palestinian "nation", such as it is, as his personal play-toy; an international "social experiment" gone awry. In case you hadn't noticed, no Arab country offers to help the Palestinians-have you ever given any thought to the origins of that enigma?

Do you have any capacity at all to get past the imagery of conflict and your unquestioning attachment to a cause whose leadership constitutes the largest impediment to peace?

Must you insist on practicing the politics of emotion rather than the politics of reason?

I have stated very clearly my support for the peoples on both sides of the conflict.

The leadership is another matter.

Just for the sake of asking:

What do you think of the Arafat's (hence Palestine's) stated (and as yet, unrenounced) stated goal of eradication of the Jews?

[Rat Faced]

I appear to get a different inference from the arguments to evil bagpus.

j2k4 appears to agree with me...although much more elegantly worded....ie: Both leaderships are a bunch of bastards.

evilbagpus, also appears to agree with me: although he is trying to play Devils Advocate on the side of the pallestinians....ie: Both sides are a bunch of bastards


So.....

why are you both arguing over semantics?




I cant resist this though...please forgive me j2k4...

Indigenous peoples who have been defeated in war, or relieved of their lands through whatever means by a superior force, and are defined therefore as defeated or otherwise subjugated, no longer own the land.

Isnt this the opposite of the US argument used for not coming into WWII earlier than they did (or one of them)...ie The breakup of the British Empire was one of the "prices" that the British had to pay for aid in Europe?



:-"

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 June 2003 - 10:52
I cant resist this though...please forgive me j2k4...

Indigenous peoples who have been defeated in war, or relieved of their lands through whatever means by a superior force, and are defined therefore as defeated or otherwise subjugated, no longer own the land.

Isnt this the opposite of the US argument used for not coming into WWII earlier than they did (or one of them)...ie The breakup of the British Empire was one of the "prices" that the British had to pay for aid in Europe?



:-"

My "Indigenous peoples..." statement was meant to acknowledge only the ability of a militarily superior power to hold dominion over a weaker one, as in the case of creating, expanding or buffering empire-i.e., the recently dissolved Eastern bloc, whose countries were most assuredly "subjugated"; the actual ownership of the land, at the time, had defaulted to the greater U.S.S.R.

I believe the break-up of the British Empire would be more correctly viewed as a natural evolution arising from Britain's sorry financial state following the war: Olde Blighty was broke.

Rebuilding the the British Isles took priority over maintainance of the empire-simple as that.

Empires are nice, but they're not free.

In light of this, any input the U.S. had would have been more on the order of "good advice".

[evilbagpuss]

evilbagpus, also appears to agree with me: although he is trying to play Devils Advocate on the side of the pallestinians....ie: Both sides are a bunch of bastards


So.....

why are you both arguing over semantics?

It's a little more than semantics Ratfaced. The Palestinians are not provided with the cutting edge in US military hardware and expertise so they can carry out atrocities with more efficiency.

Also no one here is trying to pretend that the Palestinian terrorists are a civilized democratic organisation.

These 2 important facts seem lost on jk24

edit: unforgivable typo!!