PDA

View Full Version : Israeli/Palestinian Conflict MEGATHREAD


Pages : 1 [2]

GarfieldJL
01-20-2009, 10:48 PM
So now Israel's lying about being at fault?

No, they just tend to take responsibility until they learn it wasn't their fault so it doesn't turn into a three-ring circus in the UN which it usually does anyways...


:iceburn:


Hardly, because while the shell apparently did land in a home, it looks more like the shell didn't explode when it was supposed to and not a deliberate targetting of civilians that is being implied.

Adavardes
01-20-2009, 10:51 PM
Hardly, because while the shell apparently did land in a home, it looks more like the shell didn't explode when it was supposed to and not a deliberate targetting of civilians that is being implied.


Oh, so the use of White Phosphorus in any situation is an okay tactic, and the fact that it went off when it wasn't supposed to makes the use more valid.

Yup.

GarfieldJL
01-20-2009, 10:59 PM
Oh, so the use of White Phosphorus in any situation is an okay tactic, and the fact that it went off when it wasn't supposed to makes the use more valid.


It was to provide Israeli troops with cover, not shell the Palestinians for the fun of it. It's a balancing act between trying to protect civilians and protect your troops.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-20-2009, 11:02 PM
It was to provide Israeli troops with cover, not shell the Palestinians for the fun of it. It's a balancing act between trying to protect civilians and protect your troops.
except you can't prove the first point and all available evidence points towards israel being the aggressor despite your excuses.

GarfieldJL
01-20-2009, 11:51 PM
except you can't prove the first point and all available evidence points towards israel being the aggressor despite your excuses.

No, the Fox News article indicates the shell was probably an accident, and the BBC, Guardian, etc. sources have a history of using doctored photos, staged scenes, etc. to bash the Israelis.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-21-2009, 12:02 AM
well that's certainly definitive.

Jae Onasi
01-21-2009, 12:15 AM
No, the Fox News article indicates the shell was probably an accident, and the BBC, Guardian, etc. sources have a history of using doctored photos, staged scenes, etc. to bash the Israelis.
May I ask how you 'accidentally' shoot off a white phosphorus device at not 1 but 2 different targets? Israel violated Protocol III (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm) of the Geneva Conventions by doing that. The WP injuries are corroborated by multiple sources--sorry, there's no wiggle room on the 'X source made it up' on this one. Too many people saw what Israel did, and too many have WP injuries for Israel to deny its actions.

GarfieldJL
01-21-2009, 08:13 PM
May I ask how you 'accidentally' shoot off a white phosphorus device at not 1 but 2 different targets? Israel violated Protocol III (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm) of the Geneva Conventions by doing that. The WP injuries are corroborated by multiple sources--sorry, there's no wiggle room on the 'X source made it up' on this one. Too many people saw what Israel did, and too many have WP injuries for Israel to deny its actions.

Actually it's relatively easy and quite a few other countries would have had a lot more of these accidents. Anyways a lot of these shells that are used to provide smoke screens were probably set on fuses so they go off in the air and thus react to the oxygen in the air instead of people. There likely was a malfunction which is possible and it went off late, or they miscalculated the firing solution. Israel really has no motive to arbitrarily targetting civilians and plenty of motive to try to minimize civilian deaths in their military operations.

If this was deliberate, there would have been more than just two incidents. The smoke screen was to protect Israeli troops it could have just as easily had been a friendly fire incident. They weren't arbitrarily firing shells in to try to hurt children, despite what the English speaking version of Al Jazeerez (that is quite literally what people have called the BBC), would like people to believe.

I'm saying Jae, that the World Press, BBC, etc. have absolutely no credibility when it comes to Israel. They all literally have a history of reporting propaganda from the terrorist groups as what happened. Furthermore, most news organizations rip their news stories directly from the AP and Reuters.

jrrtoken
01-21-2009, 08:27 PM
Actually it's relatively easy and quite a few other countries would have had a lot more of these accidents. Anyways a lot of these shells that are used to provide smoke screens were probably set on fuses so they go off in the air and thus react to the oxygen in the air instead of people. There likely was a malfunction which is possible and it went off late, or they miscalculated the firing solution. Israel really has no motive to arbitrarily targetting civilians and plenty of motive to try to minimize civilian deaths in their military operations.They have the clearest motive; Israel has been attacked by Palestinians (Which, FYI, Israel kicked them all out in '48) since it's inception. Israeli deaths from Palestinian retaliation has obviously annoyed Israel to the point of genocide.
They weren't arbitrarily firing shells in to try to hurt children, despite what the English speaking version of Al Jazeerez (that is quite literally what people have called the BBC), would like people to believe.Okay, says who? Since I doubt you live in the UK, I believe that your opinion is with merit. Oh, and it's Al Jazeera, that's like saying Ahmadinejad as Ahmadinepeanutbetutterandjellyjad.
I'm saying Jae, that the World Press, BBC, etc. have absolutely no credibility when it comes to Israel. They all literally have a history of reporting propaganda from the terrorist groups as what happened. Furthermore, most news organizations rip their news stories directly from the AP and Reuters.Okay, so really no media source can be trusted, right?

GarfieldJL
01-21-2009, 08:43 PM
They have the clearest motive; Israel has been attacked by Palestinians (Which, FYI, Israel kicked them all out in '48) since it's inception. Israeli deaths from Palestinian retaliation has obviously annoyed Israel to the point of genocide.

Actually the Palestinians were in regions like West Bank ended up losing their land when Syria, Jordan, and Egypt claimed that land as their own after Israel managed to hold off several Middle Eastern countries at the same time.
wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War)

The Arabs that stayed in Israel instead of fleeing are Israeli citizens.


Okay, says who? Since I doubt you live in the UK, I believe that your opinion is with merit. Oh, and it's Al Jazeera, that's like saying Ahmadinejad as Ahmadinepeanutbetutterandjellyjad.

Okay so I mispelled it on accident, big deal. The reason I know about the BBC's reputation is because I did a report concerning media coverage of the Israeli/Lebanon conflict.


Okay, so really no media source can be trusted, right?

Most media sources are not trustworthy when it comes to anything relating to Israel. There are a few that are trustworthy, but not many.

jrrtoken
01-21-2009, 08:49 PM
Actually the Palestinians were in regions like West Bank ended up losing their land when Syria, Jordan, and Egypt claimed that land as their own after Israel managed to hold off several Middle Eastern countries at the same time.No, I was referring to the fact that when Israel was given initial territory, there were already people living there. They were all uprooted, which is why Palestinians are referred to all too well as refugees.
Okay so I mispelled it on accident, big deal. The reason I know about the BBC's reputation is because I did a report concerning media coverage of the Israeli/Lebanon conflict.So really your claim that BBC is compared with Al-Jazeera is opinionated, right?
Most media sources are not trustworthy when it comes to anything relating to Israel. There are a few that are trustworthy, but not many.Care to list a few?

GarfieldJL
01-21-2009, 09:25 PM
No, I was referring to the fact that when Israel was given initial territory, there were already people living there. They were all uprooted, which is why Palestinians are referred to all too well as refugees.

And as I said that isn't true, the Arabs that fled Israel in the 1948 war are not citizens, but the ones that stayed in Israel at the formation of the country are citizens. The Arab countries took over the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and took it away from the Palestinians. Israel didn't take West Bank until the end of the Six Day War, and that was for use as a buffer zone.


So really your claim that BBC is compared with Al-Jazeera is opinionated, right?

No, I'm referring to the Balen Report, which the BBC is trying to keep from being released.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1575543.ece


Care to list a few?

Fox News is one, though it's best if you have both CNN and Fox News both report the same story so to try to filter out any opinions.

Astor
01-22-2009, 03:19 AM
I'd refused to get involved in Hot Topics anymore, but...

They weren't arbitrarily firing shells in to try to hurt children, despite what the English speaking version of Al Jazeerez (that is quite literally what people have called the BBC), would like people to believe.

That's right, because we're all extremist loving, Israel hating lefties over here in good Old Blighty. :dozey:

FYI, there's already an English version of Al Jazeera.

GarfieldJL
01-22-2009, 09:55 AM
Straight question, requesting a straight answer:

What does the (mainstream) media have to do with any of this when jmac has provided you sources that come from the IDF or another Israeli?

The fact that there have been incidents in the past where Israel immediately took responsibility for something and it turned out that when the evidence was finally gone over, it was anywhere from highly unlikely to next to no possible way they could have been responsible. If they just came out saying, "We didn't do it!" all the time everybody would think they did and were just covering it up, which would make the situation worse for them.

Fact is, the IDF said that they were using the shells containing the Phosphorous to create a smoke screen to shroud their armored vehicles. That requires quite a bit of precision.

There are also some other indications from at least one source that jmac provided that indicates this doesn't sound like a deliberate targetting of civilians. Furthermore, Israel had no motive to target civilians with shells especially with their armored vehicles in the vicinity.

It could have ended up just as easily where they hit one of their own vehicles with a shell.
They are also trying to undermine Hamas, a cause them to lose support of the Palestinians, and killing children doesn't help them in that objective.
They really don't want dead youngsters on the evening news, it ticks off the general public in Israel.
They don't want to give the propagandists any ammunition.



Or are you just attempting to derail the thread? I'd recommend (:dozey:) you stop that. It's pretty irrelevant to the topic we're trying to peacefully discuss.

I'm not derailing anything, I'm showing that there is a pattern. We saw it in 2000 and 2006 for starters, I could go back and find stuff in the 1990s too.

No, I was referring to the fact that when Israel was given initial territory, there were already people living there. They were all uprooted, which is why Palestinians are referred to all too well as refugees.

To add to what I said earlier:

What happened was that when Israel became a country it was attacked by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. The Israelis managed to hold onto their territory and fight off five countries at the same time, but these countries also invaded places like Gaza Strip (Egypt), West Bank (Jordan), and the Golan Heights (Syria and Lebanon), territory that was supposed to be the Palestinians' for their country of Palestine. Those countries then refused to return the land they took from the Palestinians.

Israel did not take West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights until the Six Day War which happened in 1967 if I remember correctly, but the point is it occurred well after Israel became a country.

Years later Israel returned the majority of the land they took from Egypt and the two countries signed a peace agreement which they have both honored to this day, which shows Israel is interested in peace.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-22-2009, 08:51 PM
I'd refused to get involved in Hot Topics anymore, but...



That's right, because we're all extremist loving, Israel hating lefties over here in good Old Blighty. :dozey:

FYI, there's already an English version of Al Jazeera.and they all sound british anyway


FOREIGNERS http://lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=1768

GarfieldJL
01-24-2009, 09:34 PM
That's right, because we're all extremist loving, Israel hating lefties over here in good Old Blighty. :dozey:

FYI, there's already an English version of Al Jazeera.

I was referring to the BBC, not the British populace.

And if there is nothing going on why have they refused to release the Balen Report after a court ordered them to do so?

Astor
01-25-2009, 07:56 AM
And if there is nothing going on why have they refused to release the Balen Report after a court ordered them to do so?

You clearly haven't been following the situation, because the BBC won a High Court battle to prevent the release of the document.

They don't have to release anything.

BBC Statement, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/04_april/27/balen.shtml)

I'm not providing another source, as they all report the same thing - that the BBC won the appeal.

GarfieldJL
01-25-2009, 03:32 PM
Well I didn't hear about it then, but I'm not letting them off the hook, because if there was nothing in there that is embarassing they would have released it by now. The BBC would welcome the court's ruling because they can now don't have to divulge information if it puts their credibility in question.

Well guess the US isn't the only country where Journalism has officially died.

The BBC's decision to spend an estimated £200,000 of licence feepayers' money to keep the Balen Report secret has been widely condemned.
The corporation was accused of hypocrisy because it has regularly used freedom of information legislation to break news stories.
The attempt to force the BBC to publish the report - compiled in 2004 by its editorial adviser Malcolm Balen - was led by lawyer Steven Sugar, who represented himself in court.
The ruling will disappoint the Jewish community which would have wanted to know whether the 20,000-word document had found any evidence of anti-Israeli bias in news programming.-- Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-451138/Report-BBCs-anti-Israel-bias-stay-secret.html)

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-27-2009, 03:55 PM
*posts article from a competing news organization which contains speculation and meaningless figures*

well i guess that matter's settled garfield.






anyway, if you don't count the artillery and naval bombardment that's been going on throughout the "ceasefire", israel has just launched another attack on gaza.

here's a nice bbc story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7853803.stm

EnderWiggin
01-27-2009, 08:21 PM
anyway, if you don't count the artillery and naval bombardment that's been going on throughout the "ceasefire", israel has just launched another attack on gaza.

here's a nice bbc story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7853803.stm
Unbelievable.

_EW_

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-27-2009, 09:14 PM
Unbelievable.

_EW_nonsense! it's perfectly believable!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_TgttR9V0k

EnderWiggin
01-27-2009, 09:31 PM
nonsense! it's perfectly believable!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_TgttR9V0k

Point, but it is freaking annoying.

_EW_

Jae Onasi
01-28-2009, 04:43 AM
Well I didn't hear about it thenPerhaps because the conservative media "accidentally" left that rather important piece of information out when they reported on the case? If they keep the outrage of their conservative, pro-Israeli viewers/readers going, conservative media stands to gain in terms of viewer/reader numbers.

There are plenty of other countries over in the Middle East besides the Brits. Canadians, French, Germans, Greeks, Spaniards, Americans, you name it, they've reported on it. You can't tell me that every single one of those agencies is sitting at a table to make up a story so they can spread anti-Israeli hate. It's far more likely that they're going to try to scoop each other to get the breaking story rather than cooperate on some kind of anti-Israeli agenda. The terrible plight of the Palestinians, frankly, is a compelling story of mass suffering, and so it's naturally going to get more press attention than the latest society page news or soccer scores in Israel.

Pavlos
01-28-2009, 06:08 AM
-- Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-451138/Report-BBCs-anti-Israel-bias-stay-secret.html)
:lol:

The Daily Mail?! Oh dear, you should really do more research into the way the media works in this country before using certain... disreputable news sources. The Mail never has been and never will be anything other than sensationalism dressed up as a broadsheet; rather like its left-wing cousin, the Indie, but at least that started with the high-minded intent of becoming the new paper of record...

Astor
01-28-2009, 07:02 AM
:lol:

The Daily Mail?! Oh dear, you should really do more research into the way the media works in this country before using certain... disreputable news sources. The Mail never has been and never will be anything other than sensationalism dressed up as a broadsheet; rather like its left-wing cousin, the Indie, but at least that started with the high-minded intent of becoming the new paper of record...

Indeed. There's a reason it's frequently referred to as the Daily Ban This Sick Filth.

Well guess the US isn't the only country where Journalism has officially died.


It's ironic in the extreme that you claim Journalism has died in this country (because, of course, you seem to be an expert) and then choose the worst source imaginable as a counter.

EnderWiggin
01-28-2009, 09:13 AM
It's ironic in the extreme that you claim Journalism has died in this country (because, of course, you seem to be an expert) and then choose the worst source imaginable as a counter.

If you are referring to him talking about the Indie, reread what he wrote.

He says that the Daily Mail is "rather like" it's "left wing cousin." He doesn't say that it's any better or any more reputable.

_EW_

Astor
01-28-2009, 09:43 AM
If you are referring to him talking about the Indie, reread what he wrote.

He says that the Daily Mail is "rather like" it's "left wing cousin." He doesn't say that it's any better or any more reputable.

_EW_

I'm referring to Garfield's claim that UK journalism has died. But, rereading my post, It could be misread. I'll change it. :)

GarfieldJL
01-28-2009, 10:06 PM
Perhaps because the conservative media "accidentally" left that rather important piece of information out when they reported on the case? If they keep the outrage of their conservative, pro-Israeli viewers/readers going, conservative media stands to gain in terms of viewer/reader numbers.

Context, please because I can't find what post you quoted me on. I do know Fox News will not report a lot of stuff the Associated Press says without some other independent source corroborating it. In fact they publicly slammed the AP on Television saying that it used to be that you could trust whatever they said, and that now you can't trust anything they say.



There are plenty of other countries over in the Middle East besides the Brits. Canadians, French, Germans, Greeks, Spaniards, Americans, you name it, they've reported on it. You can't tell me that every single one of those agencies is sitting at a table to make up a story so they can spread anti-Israeli hate. It's far more likely that they're going to try to scoop each other to get the breaking story rather than cooperate on some kind of anti-Israeli agenda. The terrible plight of the Palestinians, frankly, is a compelling story of mass suffering, and so it's naturally going to get more press attention than the latest society page news or soccer scores in Israel.

No but I can say they all get their news from the same source. Most news agencies rip their articles off of the AP or Reuters. A lot of News Agencies have an agenda.

I'd really like to see what was in the Balen Report, but from the BBC's massive spending to cover it up it sounds like it would be pretty damaging.

Jae, I also found a court case that threw another news agency's credibility in France into serious question. Furthermore a lot of news agency's are tied to the same people.

Additionally, a lot of countries still harbor significant Anti-Semetic feelings to begin with, coupled with a left-wing agenda.

Furthermore, most journalists go to the same universities, and they can pick up the bias there, I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, I'm saying they don't even know they're doing it.

jonathan7
01-28-2009, 10:14 PM
Furthermore, most journalists go to the same universities, and they can pick up the bias there, I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, I'm saying they don't even know they're doing it.

And your not biased at all, right?

EnderWiggin
01-28-2009, 10:15 PM
I'm referring to Garfield's claim that UK journalism has died. But, rereading my post, It could be misread. I'll change it. :)

My mistake :)

_EW_

jrrtoken
01-28-2009, 10:17 PM
No but I can say they all get their news from the same source. Most news agencies rip their articles off of the AP or Reuters.Well, yeah, they've been doing that for decades. Where have you been?A lot of News Agencies have an agenda.K...
I'd really like to see what was in the Balen Report, but from the BBC's massive spending to cover it up it sounds like it would be pretty damaging.I believe you don't live in the UK, right? Common sense states that Britons should know a lot more about the BBC's affairs than Americans, right?Additionally, a lot of countries still harbor significant Anti-Semetic feelings to begin with, coupled with a left-wing agenda.God, so criticizing Israel's actions makes someone Anti-Semetic? That's sort of like saying that voting against Obama means that you're racist.
Furthermore, most journalists go to the same universities, and they can pick up the bias there, I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, I'm saying they don't even know they're doing it.Okay, so it is a conspiracy.

EnderWiggin
01-28-2009, 10:23 PM
Oh for a second I thought this was the media bias thread instead of the Israel thread.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
01-28-2009, 10:26 PM
And your not biased at all, right?

That's not what I'm saying, do I have a bias yes, however my bias is based on past events, and I can admit when I'm wrong about something.


Everyone else here is biased too, the problem with your argument here is that I'm not just talking about bias, I'm saying there is a history of outright dishonesty on the part of the media, particularly when it comes to Israel.


The past track records of these agencies lead me to question whether they are even telling the truth, even the photos might not be genuine.

jonathan7
01-28-2009, 10:33 PM
That's not what I'm saying, do I have a bias yes, however my bias is based on past events, and I can admit when I'm wrong about something.

Everyone else here is biased too, the problem with your argument here is that I'm not just talking about bias, I'm saying there is a history of outright dishonesty on the part of the media, particularly when it comes to Israel.

The past track records of these agencies lead me to question whether they are even telling the truth, even the photos might not be genuine.

Having been to the Middle east, and knowing what Isreal is like, you'll have to forgive me for telling you the reports are generally accurate, unless I'm too a biased reporter with an agenda?

EnderWiggin
01-28-2009, 10:34 PM
Having been to the Middle east, and knowing what Isreal is like, you'll have to forgive me for telling you the reports are generally accurate, unless I'm too a biased reporter with an agenda?

You're part of the LF staff, which has an obvious liberal bias, thus invalidating all of your statements re:israel.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
01-28-2009, 10:37 PM
Having been to the Middle east, and knowing what Isreal is like, you'll have to forgive me for telling you the reports are generally accurate, unless I'm too a biased reporter with an agenda?

Were you in Israel, the Palestinian territories, or one of the Arab Countries?

You're part of the LF staff, which has an obvious liberal bias, thus invalidating all of your statements re:israel.

Kindly stop trying to portray me as a partisan hack, I'm curious about his knowledge of the area, cause I have some knowledge of my own and so I'd like to compare notes.

jonathan7
01-28-2009, 10:39 PM
You're part of the LF staff, which has an obvious liberal bias, thus invalidating all of your statements re:israel.

_EW_

Interesting, I'm not entirely sure of the political break-down of LF staff. However I can say that while I'm British, many of my closest friends are American Republicans, so does this mitigate my baisedness?

Were you in Israel, the Palestinian territories, or one of the Arab Countries?

You'll have to forgive me for being coy, but why do you presume it hasn't been all three?

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-28-2009, 10:40 PM
The past track records of these agencies lead me to question whether they are even telling the truth, even the photos might not be genuine.what about former israeli soldiers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37MFa7ZKQWo

are they genuine



also this video is awesome http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

<snipped flamebait>

GarfieldJL
01-28-2009, 10:48 PM
Interesting, I'm not entirely sure of the political break-down of LF staff. However I can say that while I'm British, many of my closest friends are American Republicans, so does this mitigate my baisedness?

I sincerely doubt most of the Lucasforums staff, are Republicans.



You'll have to forgive me for being coy, but why do you presume it hasn't been all three?

Cause I have friends that live in Israel, I've studied the topic, and the statements that have been made about Israel deliberately targeting civilians makes literally no sense from a tactical and strategic standpoint.

There is no motive for the Israeli Government or Military to do so, in fact they have every motive to bend over backwards to try to avoid hitting civilians.
If Israel were out to wipe out the civilian populace they could have done so at any time.
The fact you've left out the fact that organizations like Hamas deliberately uses children as human shields.
Hardship from a blockade can cause people to turn on Hamas, but deliberately killing civilians can cause them to throw more support to Hamas, fact is if it were any other country doing these military ops, the civilian casualties would be 10x to 20x higher.


@jmac7142
You do realize that just about anyone can get in a phony uniform or claim they were something that they are not.


Examples:
There was a woman at least one news network claiming that she committed attrocities in Iraq. Rush Lindbaugh managed to prove she'd never even been to Iraq, and the Democrats were irate over it.

Also CBS is the same news organization that got in trouble for using forged documentation that was so blatently phony, I could immediately tell it was phony. (Fact that it was in a font that didn't exist at the time the memo was supposedly written is kinda a dead giveaway).

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-28-2009, 10:52 PM
The fact you've left out the fact that organizations like Hamas deliberately uses children as human shields.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A woah hey look at that it's the interview with a representative of the ISRAELI human rights group b'tselem saying the idf does that that i posted like 2 pages ago hmm

EnderWiggin
01-28-2009, 10:53 PM
Interesting, I'm not entirely sure of the political break-down of LF staff. However I can say that while I'm British, many of my closest friends are American Republicans, so does this mitigate my baisedness?



I was being glib Jon :D

I sincerely doubt most of the Lucasforums staff, are Republicans.

At least read what he writes; he said his friends were American Republicans. He said he didn't know the breakdown of the staff.



Cause I have friends that live in Israel, I've studied the topic, and the statements that have been made about Israel deliberately targeting civilians makes literally no sense from a tactical and strategic standpoint.
*blah*


Irrelevant to why J7 wouldn't have been to all three places. Good deflection.

_EW_

The Doctor
01-28-2009, 10:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A woah hey look at that it's the interview with a representative of the ISRAELI human rights group b'tselem saying the idf does that that i posted like 2 pages ago hmm

Clearly, that translator is part of a left-wing conspiracy dedicated to ruining the good name of Israel. Gawd, you new here or something? :xp:

mimartin
01-28-2009, 10:55 PM
Let us keep the staff out of this. Republican, Democrat, liberal or conservative does not matter all the staff members, except me, are unpaid volunteers and are doing their best to be fair and impartial. If you want to continue with staff bias take it to PM.

GarfieldJL
01-28-2009, 10:57 PM
Clearly, that translator is part of a left-wing conspiracy dedicated to ruining the good name of Israel. Gawd, you new here or something? :xp:

Check the source of the video, which calls the entire video into question.

The Doctor
01-28-2009, 10:59 PM
Check the source of the video, which calls the entire video into question.

:rolleyes:

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-28-2009, 11:00 PM
Check the source of the video, which calls the entire video into question.alright what about these israeli soldiers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0

or the cbs (liberal anti-semite bias, i know) one that shows israeli soldiers in a civilian home

EnderWiggin
01-28-2009, 11:00 PM
Let us keep the staff out of this. Republican, Democrat, liberal or conservative does not matter all the staff members, except me, are unpaid volunteers and are doing their best to be fair and impartial. If you want to take the staff bias up further take it to PM.


I apologize, it was an off-color joke.

_EW_

jonathan7
01-28-2009, 11:03 PM
Cause I have friends that live in Israel, I've studied the topic, and the statements that have been made about Israel deliberately targeting civilians makes literally no sense from a tactical and strategic standpoint.

Firsrly I have friends who are Israeli and Palestinian that live in Israel/Palestine, and they are Jewish, Muslim and Christian. I've studied the topic, thanks, and at least I know this; “One definition of insanity is to believe that you can keep doing what you’ve been doing and get different results” – Einstein. The Israelis and Palestinians have been trying the same crap for the past 70 years, and got no-where, you'll have to forgive me for thinking anyone that thinks continuing on the same path is foolish to say the least.

Frankly your so biased your attributing things to me I NEVER said, and miracles of miracles, you've actually managed to piss me off. Please link me to any post when I claimed it was Israeli policy to deliberately targeted civilians? Infact you may find I generally posted that both sides are in the wrong, but your so biased, you actually think Israel walks on water.

There is no motive for the Israeli Government or Military to do so, in fact they have every motive to bend over backwards to try to avoid hitting civilians.

That's nice I'm sure that's a real comfort to the parents who have dead Children, and I'm sure they won't allow there other children to turn into terrorists, why is it people like you don't understand that smacking things with a hammer doesn't fix things?

If Israel were out to wipe out the civilian populace they could have done so at any time.

When did I ever say Israel was out to wipe out the civilian populace, don't tell me what I think, especially when I don't think that.

The fact you've left out the fact that organizations like Hamas deliberately uses children as human shields.

Israel, you know could like, shock horror, not shoot?


Hardship from a blockade can cause people to turn on Hamas, but deliberately killing civilians can cause them to throw more support to Hamas, fact is if it were any other country doing these military ops, the civilian casualties would be 10x to 20x higher.


Fact is that's an a fact you can't possibly substantiate.

So you know my Isreali Jewish friends, correctly think that the current 'war' or whatever you want to call it, will only make things worse, and they are very critical of Israli foreign policy, but I suppose that means they are anti-Semitic? I suppose you would like to tell my Palestinian friends who had that big concrete wall go straight through their farming land, that the Isreali government is really nice? Have a nice day sir, because you were just pawned.

Upon my request - mimartin reviewed my post, and removed a little bit as j7 is not a happy bunny at having positions not his own associated with him!

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-28-2009, 11:05 PM
hang on garfield what about this one where they shoot a nobel prize winner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnu5qPXEmkc&feature=related

EnderWiggin
01-28-2009, 11:07 PM
So you know my Isreali Jewish friends, correctly think that the current 'war' or whatever you want to call it, will only make things worse, and they are very critical of Israli foreign policy, but I suppose that means they are anti-Semitic?

Those darn anti-semitic jews :)

_EW_

GarfieldJL
01-28-2009, 11:11 PM
alright what about these israeli soldiers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0

or the cbs (liberal anti-semite bias, i know) one that shows israeli soldiers in a civilian home

Because we don't know the context of what was going on if it is even genuine which I sincerely doubt.

Oh and there is the fact that you remember the cease fire Israel supposedly violated first, it turns out Hamas was firing rockets during the cease fire.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni described the rocket fire as "intolerable" and called for action. Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit was even more direct. "We have to act in Gaza, and instead of defending, we have to attack," he said. "I want people to be building shelters in Gaza, not in Israel." (The Israeli government will reportedly spend $170 million on building bomb shelters for homes within a 4-km range of Gaza.) Comments from Livni and her allies reflect the tough election challenge they face against the more hawkish former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israeli security sources tell TIME that Israel remains unlikely to invade Gaza as long as none of the rockets fired from there inflicts mass casualties. "All it would take for the entire equation to change is for one of those rockets to hit a school or a bus," said one security official, who asked to remain anonymous. "That would force Israel to mount a massive response." Notwithstanding the escalation in rhetoric by its leaders, Israel's Cabinet last Wednesday decided against changing the army's standing orders to respect the truce.

Despite Israeli concerns that allowing more than 250 mortar shells and rockets to be fired at Israel without a massive response weakens the nation's deterrent capacity, a number of factors restrain it from invading Gaza. A full-blown ground operation would result in dozens of Israeli military casualties in what would be a house-to-house infantry operation. Such an operation would also jeopardize prospects for negotiating the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit. And it would almost certainly inflict scores of Palestinian civilian casualties, which would fuel support for Hamas and further undermine the already weak President Mahmoud Abbas, whom Israel has been trying to bolster. -- TIME (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1866466,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-world-related)

That's a liberal source contradicting multiple liberal sources. It also confirms that Israel has no interest in killing civilians.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-28-2009, 11:14 PM
yes why on earth would israeli foreign minister tzipi livni say hamas fired rockets and mortars into israel that is quite a question garfield.

hey what about israel firing into gaza during the ceasefire they declared then launching an air strike

GarfieldJL
01-28-2009, 11:19 PM
yes why on earth would israeli foreign minister tzipi livni say hamas fired rockets and mortars into israel that is quite a question garfield.

hey what about israel firing into gaza during the ceasefire they declared then launching an air strike

Oh I don't know maybe because it was TRUE?

Seriously, the BBC has a pretty bad track record.

I didn't source the blog I found the link to the article on, but they were saying that the BBC deliberately cut the Israeli they were interviewing off to make it sound like no rockets had been fired by Hamas.

Astor
01-29-2009, 03:26 AM
Oh I don't know maybe because it was TRUE?

Seriously, the BBC has a pretty bad track record.

So? It's made it's share of mistakes, but i'd trust the BBC over Israeli goverment reports (seeing as they were the only one who could report on the conflict, as every other news company was banned from reporting - strange if Israel has nothing to hide), or any Murdoch owned news source.

And you're seriously saying that NewsNight would stage a video? Please.

I didn't source the blog I found the link to the article on, but they were saying that the BBC deliberately cut the Israeli they were interviewing off to make it sound like no rockets had been fired by Hamas.

Must be true, then.

EDIT: I thought this was about the conflict between Israel/Palestine, not the bias of various media reporting it. Surely that discussion would be better served in the Media Bias thread?

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-29-2009, 05:51 AM
So? It's made it's share of mistakes, but i'd trust the BBC over Israeli goverment reports (seeing as they were the only one who could report on the conflict, as every other news company was banned from reporting - strange if Israel has nothing to hide), or any Murdoch owned news source.

And you're seriously saying that NewsNight would stage a video? Please.



Must be true, then.

EDIT: I thought this was about the conflict between Israel/Palestine, not the bias of various media reporting it. Surely that discussion would be better served in the Media Bias thread?no

Seeing as the "liberal and conservative" offenders post often and can never get a topic going farther than "well, your source sucks!", I see no reason to try to debate with any of you anymore.

how can you ignore the bias garfield has brought to our attention and backed up with facts from reliable sources just because a few thousand people are being starved, abused, and murdered

GarfieldJL
01-29-2009, 10:13 AM
So? It's made it's share of mistakes, but i'd trust the BBC over Israeli goverment reports (seeing as they were the only one who could report on the conflict, as every other news company was banned from reporting - strange if Israel has nothing to hide), or any Murdoch owned news source.

Well here's the thing, they either did it deliberately or they were utterly incompetitent. The BBC has a pretty poor record concerning credibility when it comes to Israel.


And you're seriously saying that NewsNight would stage a video? Please.


I'm not saying they staged it by themselves, but they certainly participated in the staging.



EDIT: I thought this was about the conflict between Israel/Palestine, not the bias of various media reporting it. Surely that discussion would be better served in the Media Bias thread?

In this case, the media is relevant because it calls into question the credibility of the reports as to what is going on.

The BBC: Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais, from Saudi Arabia, who opened London's biggest mosque last Friday, is a respected leader who works for "community cohesion" and "building communities."

Not mentioned on the BBC: Some of the views of Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais. In his own words: In the name of Allah, the Jews must be "annihilated." They are "the scum of the human race, the rats of the world... the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs."

The BBC's Charter and its Producers Guidelines state: "Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All programs and services should be open minded, fair and show a respect for truth... [BBC reports should] contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world...." -- National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gross200406181018.asp)

This is from one conservative source, but the implications are pretty profound. The BBC even had the gall to bash President Reagan in his obituary, and you're telling me they are a credible source?

Last week, for example, almost every other news organization in the world (including those in the former Communist states) began their obituaries of Ronald Reagan by saying that many (including Mikhail Gorbachev) credit Reagan with helping to bring about the end of the Cold War. But the BBC online obituary ("World Edition," Sunday, June 6, 2004, titled "Reagan's mixed White House legacy, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/213195.stm)" and running to almost 1,000 words — that's a full four pages if you print it out from the BBC website) didn't even mention the Cold War, let alone Reagan's calls to "tear down" the Berlin Wall.

Instead the BBC reminded us that Reagan was "a B movie actor," and stated that as president his "foreign policy was criticised for being in disarray." Accompanying photos were not of Reagan meeting Gorbachev, but of Oliver North, and of the invasion of Grenada ("a clumsy sham," according to the BBC text).

Even during his funeral last Friday, BBC World Service Radio began its bulletin by first referring to Reagan as a film actor before mentioning that he was president. -- National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gross200406181018.asp)

Then we have:

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/2006_Dishonest_Reporter_of_the_Year_Award.asp

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/05/29/media-ran-story-israel-troops-shooting-boy-ignore-evidence-israel-inn

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/10/01/media-aired-dubious-anti-israel-video-not-even-handed-expose-palest-0

Btw, the two Newsbusters articles have a few other sources that they reference, one of which has to do with the journalist that a person here said wasn't credible, however if he isn't credible why did he win a challenge in court?

Jae Onasi
01-29-2009, 10:24 AM
Those darn anti-semitic jews :)

_EW_

Note to everyone: Please be exceedingly careful about jokes like this--I know this is a joke, but it can come across as a very racist comment if you're not careful about how you word and present it. We will err on the safe side and delete comments like this if we're not 100% sure it's supposed to be a joke.

EnderWiggin
01-29-2009, 10:25 AM
the journalist that a person here said wasn't credible, however if he isn't credible why did he win a challenge in court?
Logical fallacy. Just because he won one challenge in court (allegedly, since no one else knows what the hell you're talking about) doesn't mean that he's credible. He's got a long record of incredibility, and one court appearance doesn't negate that.

Also, if you could respond to J7 instead of completely ignoring him that'd be nice.
It's quite rude of you to insult him and then not respond to his post afterward, especially because he's a staff member.

The fact you've left out the fact

Saying the word "fact" over and over doesn't make your points true.

_EW_

EDIT:: Apologies, Jae. I was trying to use humor to lighten the mood a bit - didn't work out too well it seems. I do have Jewish friends (and one from Israel) - I'm really not an anti-semite.

GarfieldJL
01-29-2009, 10:47 AM
Also, if you could respond to J7 instead of completely ignoring him that'd be nice.
It's quite rude of you to insult him and then not respond to his post afterward, especially because he's a staff member.

Well to be honest I didn't see jonathan's post.

Firsrly I have friends who are Israeli and Palestinian that live in Israel/Palestine, and they are Jewish, Muslim and Christian. I've studied the topic, thanks, and at least I know this; “One definition of insanity is to believe that you can keep doing what you’ve been doing and get different results” – Einstein. The Israelis and Palestinians have been trying the same crap for the past 70 years, and got no-where, you'll have to forgive me for thinking anyone that thinks continuing on the same path is foolish to say the least.

And I'm going to point out that it takes two to make peace, only one to start a war.


Frankly your so biased your attributing things to me I NEVER said, and miracles of miracles, you've actually managed to piss me off. Please link me to any post when I claimed it was Israeli policy to deliberately targeted civilians? Infact you may find I generally posted that both sides are in the wrong, but your so biased, you actually think Israel walks on water.

Who said I was talking about you specifically, but the fact is that I was led to believe you didn't have friends there because I didn't see you point out the fact the reason why there were so many civilian deaths was because Hamas likes to use children as human shields, I believe Jae was the one that pointed that tidbit out.



That's nice I'm sure that's a real comfort to the parents who have dead Children, and I'm sure they won't allow there other children to turn into terrorists, why is it people like you don't understand that smacking things with a hammer doesn't fix things?

Sometimes it actually does, remember it takes two to make peace. You saying the Israelis should just let Hamas fire rockets into Israel and do nothing? Seriously, Hamas isn't interested in peace, all they want is time to rearm and start this all over again.



When did I ever say Israel was out to wipe out the civilian populace, don't tell me what I think, especially when I don't think that.

You've made it sound like they are deliberately targeting civilians, when if it were your own country in a similar situation the civilian deaths would be 20 to 30x higher.



Israel, you know could like, shock horror, not shoot?


When you're fighting with fanatics that think they get 50 beautiful virgins to do with as they like for killing infidels when they die, shock and horror isn't going to do much.



Fact is that's an a fact you can't possibly substantiate.

So you know my Isreali Jewish friends, correctly think that the current 'war' or whatever you want to call it, will only make things worse, and they are very critical of Israli foreign policy, but I suppose that means they are anti-Semitic? I suppose you would like to tell my Palestinian friends who had that big concrete wall go straight through their farming land, that the Isreali government is really nice? Have a nice day sir, because you were just pawned.

I don't think the Israeli Government is made up of saints, but overall the Palestinians, or at least those with power are probably more to blame than the Israelis. The simple reason as to why the wall went up was to keep people from sneaking in with bombs strapped to their chests. Is it a perfect solution, not really, but it cuts down on civilian deaths from lunatics. I'm really sorry your friends have a wall going through their farmland, but that's the nature of the situation.

I don't know the thought processes of your friends, so I'm not going to comment on that.

EnderWiggin
01-29-2009, 12:23 PM
And I'm going to point out that it takes two to make peace, only one to start a war.

Good point. Israel's the one that broke the ceasefire.


Seriously, Hamas isn't interested in peace, all they want is time to rearm and start this all over again.


Again, who is the one who keeps attacking Gaza?

When you're fighting with fanatics that think they get 50 beautiful virgins to do with as they like for killing infidels when they die, shock and horror isn't going to do much.

Believe it's 72 virgins, first of all.

Please read what Jon writes! He said they could NOT SHOOT.

I'm really sorry your friends have a wall going through their farmland, but that's the nature of the situation.

Only because Israel makes it that way.

_EW_

Adavardes
01-29-2009, 12:40 PM
Believe it's 72 virgins, first of all.

Actually, they think there may have been a mis-translation on that, and it's actually referring to 72 beans.

And I'm going to point out that it takes two to make peace, only one to start a war.

Maybe we should inform Israel of that, because it seems they have no intention to stop bombing Hamas citizens, and anyone who gets in their way of the total and complete genocide, even the UN. And yeah, I'm not going to stop seeing that as truth just because you say that every source in opposition to your own has no credibility. I just don't believe that, period, and nobody else here does either, so stop saying it, because you can't prove it, and really haven't even tried.

jonathan7
01-29-2009, 12:53 PM
Well to be honest I didn't see jonathan's post.

And I'm going to point out that it takes two to make peace, only one to start a war.

The fact you say this clearly shows you have never been to Israel otherwise you would know that Israel has its fair share of Jewish religious fundamentalists. Your whole post also conveniently ignores the fact that Palestinians were forcefully ejected from their lands at the foundation of the modern Israeli state.

Who said I was talking about you specifically, but the fact is that I was led to believe you didn't have friends there because I didn't see you point out the fact the reason why there were so many civilian deaths was because Hamas likes to use children as human shields, I believe Jae was the one that pointed that tidbit out.

Your entire post is one bad supposition after another about exactly what I know about the Middle East, which is for the record probably the largest knowledge base on the subject in the whole forums. Fact is neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's want peace, they hate each other after years of fighting, it's an ugly situation; and requires a higher degree of thought than what caused the problem in the first place; i.e. Shooting people and forcing them off their land (clarification, this swings both ways, and the news always conveniently ignores the Jews and Palestinians who happily live side by side in quite a few places in Israel). Or perhaps I'm still biased?

Sometimes it actually does, remember it takes two to make peace. You saying the Israelis should just let Hamas fire rockets into Israel and do nothing? Seriously, Hamas isn't interested in peace, all they want is time to rearm and start this all over again.

Jesus was right two-thousand years ago when he said turn the other cheek, responding violence for violence just escalates a situation, but its clear you think someone how smacking someone back will actually achieve something other than starting a fight. If a small aggressive child smacked you, what would you do? Smack him back?

If I was in charge of Israel, I would a'la Robin Hood give to the poor, building up a people instead of blowing them up is likely to stop a new generation of terrorists, after all its a lot harder to hate people who are building you hospitals, giving you jobs etc - this of course takes time, patience, and sacrifice, but in the long term that would solve the problem a lot more effectively than blowing up lots of buildings in Gaza.

You've made it sound like they are deliberately targeting civilians, when if it were your own country in a similar situation the civilian deaths would be 20 to 30x higher.

Your talking to a Brit, ever heard of Northern Ireland?? See we managed to bring peace there after centuries of conflict, and guess what the responses and casualties were never anything like Israel's.

When you're fighting with fanatics that think they get 50 beautiful virgins to do with as they like for killing infidels when they die, shock and horror isn't going to do much.

This statement means I know you clearly don't know nearly as much about the subject as you think you do, as you don't even know the number of virgins they are promised. Tell me, have you actually ever met a Palestinian?

I don't think the Israeli Government is made up of saints

Really? All your other posts in this thread, say otherwise.

but overall the Palestinians, or at least those with power are probably more to blame than the Israelis.

Who started the fight 70 years ago? Are you telling me if the Aborigines invaded the United States, push you out of your home, that you would be happy about it? Or that you wouldn't want "your" land back?

The simple reason as to why the wall went up was to keep people from sneaking in with bombs strapped to their chests. Is it a perfect solution, not really, but it cuts down on civilian deaths from lunatics. I'm really sorry your friends have a wall going through their farmland, but that's the nature of the situation.

So why didn't Israel build the wall on their border instead of annexing a whole load of land? You don't win hearts and minds with such behaviour, you just create more terrorists.

I don't know the thought processes of your friends, so I'm not going to comment on that.

I know they thought processes, they know that it's going to take a change of direction of both Israel and Palestine for peace. They know that Israeli foreign policy is clandestine and creates more problems than it solves.

An article many of you may find interesting; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article5415342.ece

EnderWiggin
01-29-2009, 01:31 PM
*for brevity*

Brilliant post, Jonathan.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
01-29-2009, 03:07 PM
The fact you say this clearly shows you have never been to Israel otherwise you would know that Israel has its fair share of Jewish religious fundamentalists. Your whole post also conveniently ignores the fact that Palestinians were forcefully ejected from their lands at the foundation of the modern Israeli state.

Study your history, you'll find that it was Great Britain's land, the UN and UK were effectively shamed into the creation of Israel, I quite frankly don't even blame the Israelis for wanting to get out of Europe.

Are there fundamentalists that are Jewish, yes, but we're not currently talking about them are we. Furthermore, if we keep going on and on about whose dad did what to your dad or grandfather, all that is going to happen is more hate.



Your entire post is one bad supposition after another about exactly what I know about the Middle East, which is for the record probably the largest knowledge base on the subject in the whole forums. Fact is neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's want peace, they hate each other after years of fighting, it's an ugly situation; and requires a higher degree of thought than what caused the problem in the first place; i.e. Shooting people and forcing them off their land (clarification, this swings both ways, and the news always conveniently ignores the Jews and Palestinians who happily live side by side in quite a few places in Israel). Or perhaps I'm still biased?

Oh you mean like that kid that was supposedly shot by Israelis in 2000, that was the incident that ended up in a courtroom. Furthermore, if there can't be peace between Palestinians and Israelis, why is the West Bank being left alone, and why is Fatah not making any attacks on Israel.

Your supposition is in error bigtime because:

Israel has made peace with Jordan.
Israel has made peace with Egypt.
Israel is on good terms with Turkey.


Israel was enemies with Jordan and Egypt yet they have made peace. Israel has a record of being willing to sit down and try to work things out peacefully, Hamas' wants the total destruction of Israel.


Jesus was right two-thousand years ago when he said turn the other cheek, responding violence for violence just escalates a situation, but its clear you think someone how smacking someone back will actually achieve something other than starting a fight. If a small aggressive child smacked you, what would you do? Smack him back?

Jesus did not mean for you to sit back and let people try their best to annihilate you. If a child hit me, would I hit them back would really depend on a number of factors, a small child I certainly wouldn't. A teenager, whom could actually potentially cause me physical harm, I would fight back.

Your comparison though is like comparing apples to oranges, they are two different things, and Hamas is not a group of children it is a group made up of homicidal maniacs.


If I was in charge of Israel, I would a'la Robin Hood give to the poor, building up a people instead of blowing them up is likely to stop a new generation of terrorists, after all its a lot harder to hate people who are building you hospitals, giving you jobs etc - this of course takes time, patience, and sacrifice, but in the long term that would solve the problem a lot more effectively than blowing up lots of buildings in Gaza.

jonathan, you need to have the situation relatively stable first, not having people doing their best to kill you. Personally, if I could and could get the parents of kids permission and ensure the kids don't have bombs strapped to them, I would have the Palestinian kids have classes in Israel until their new schools are built.



Your talking to a Brit, ever heard of Northern Ireland?? See we managed to bring peace there after centuries of conflict, and guess what the responses and casualties were never anything like Israel's.

Again you're comparing apples and oranges. Hamas is not Northern Ireland, they don't believe they get 50 beautiful virgins to serve them if they die killing infidels. You had a group of people with a religious dispute and wanting independence, but they weren't as fanatical as what Hamas is.



This statement means I know you clearly don't know nearly as much about the subject as you think you do, as you don't even know the number of virgins they are promised. Tell me, have you actually ever met a Palestinian?

So you do admit the virgins thing is there, I've actually had to read an English translation of the Quran (sp?) for a Medieval History course, I just can't remember the number (I thought it was 50 but the point is that it is there). Furthermore having met a single individual from a group of people doesn't make you an expert.




Who started the fight 70 years ago? Are you telling me if the Aborigines invaded the United States, push you out of your home, that you would be happy about it? Or that you wouldn't want "your" land back?

Wouldn't happen and no I wouldn't be happy, yes I'd want it back, but there are lines I will not cross.



So why didn't Israel build the wall on their border instead of annexing a whole load of land? You don't win hearts and minds with such behaviour, you just create more terrorists.

And what of the suicide bombers which is the reason for the construction of the wall in the first place.



An article many of you may find interesting; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article5415342.ece

I see your article and I'm going raise you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow%27s_Pioneers

Furthermore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict

Using children in such a manner is inexcusable, you complain about the Israelis being concerned about Palestinian kids, well wouldn't you if Hamas for instance has a habit of strapping bombs to kids and have them blow themselves up or the bomb is triggered remotely. Now as far as I know Fatah has stopped this practice, but Hamas continues to use children in such a manner.

jrrtoken
01-29-2009, 03:47 PM
]Your supposition is in error bigtime because:

Israel has made peace with Jordan.
Israel has made peace with Egypt.
Israel is on good terms with Turkey.
Ha. It's more or less a shotgun peace, really.
Jesus did not mean for you to sit back and let people try their best to annihilate you. If a child hit me, would I hit them back would really depend on a number of factors, a small child I certainly wouldn't. A teenager, whom could actually potentially cause me physical harm, I would fight back.Jesus also said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”, which essentially means if someone tries to hurt you, don't bomb their land into a crater.Your comparison though is like comparing apples to oranges, they are two different things, and Hamas is not a group of children it is a group made up of homicidal maniacs.Who have been made homicidal by years of oppression from Israel.Again you're comparing apples and oranges. Hamas is not Northern Ireland, they don't believe they get 50 beautiful virgins to serve them if they die killing infidels. You had a group of people with a religious dispute and wanting independence, but they weren't as fanatical as what Hamas is.It's 47, dammit. Get it right.
So you do admit the virgins thing is there, I've actually had to read an English translation of the Quran (sp?) for a Medieval History course, I just can't remember the number (I thought it was 50 but the point is that it is there). Furthermore having met a single individual from a group of people doesn't make you an expert.Personally, I like the allotment of virgins in paradise, and who wouldn't? o_Q

GarfieldJL
01-29-2009, 04:08 PM
Ha. It's more or less a shotgun peace, really.

No, Egypt actually got back control of the Suez Canal when they signed the treaty with them.


Jesus also said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”, which essentially means if someone tries to hurt you, don't bomb their land into a crater.

If Israel had been out to do that, they would be using dumb munitions like unguided bombs.


Who have been made homicidal by years of oppression from Israel.

It wasn't just Israel, you have to blame the neighbors of Israel, it wasn't until 1967 that Israel took the West Bank from Jordan. Furthermore, the "oppression" as you call it is because they don't want some guy walking into a crowded market and blowing themselves up.



It's 47, dammit. Get it right.

I don't really care, the number isn't important.


Personally, I like the allotment of virgins in paradise, and who wouldn't? o_Q

And that is why this isn't a similar situation to Northern Ireland, this is fanaticism where they are out to totally annihilate the other side. Fatah isn't this way anymore, and that's one of the reasons why there is largely peace between Israel and the West Bank, but Hamas is and you can't reason with someone that wants you, your family, and all of your people dead.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-29-2009, 05:35 PM
If Israel had been out to do that, they would be using dumb munitions like unguided bombs.do artillery shells and flechettes count

http://livewire.amnesty.org/2009/01/27/a-bloodstained-wall-full-of-flechettes/?lang=en

mur'phon
01-29-2009, 05:53 PM
Furthermore, the "oppression" as you call it is because they don't want some guy walking into a crowded market and blowing themselves up.

Interesting fact: it's far easier to get poor, uneducated, jobless people to blow themselves up than employed people.
Now, please tell me how making a checkpoint hell which mean that getting to work a few kilometers away can take 5 hours each way, Strangling trade by banning the import of even mundane things like cement and steel, and setting up a wall through many peoples homes/farmland is going to protect Israel against suicide bombers. You want palestinians to stop blaming Israel for, well, pretty much everything? Then don't create a nation of poor, jobless, people living off aid. Instead, try to veawe it into the Israeli economy, it should be proffitable enough for both sides, and heck, it might one day see the country united one day.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-29-2009, 06:05 PM
yes but you are european and therefore anti-american and an anti-semite so your opinion cannot be trusted >:|

GarfieldJL
01-29-2009, 07:09 PM
Interesting fact: it's far easier to get poor, uneducated, jobless people to blow themselves up than employed people.
Now, please tell me how making a checkpoint hell which mean that getting to work a few kilometers away can take 5 hours each way, Strangling trade by banning the import of even mundane things like cement and steel, and setting up a wall through many peoples homes/farmland is going to protect Israel against suicide bombers. You want palestinians to stop blaming Israel for, well, pretty much everything? Then don't create a nation of poor, jobless, people living off aid. Instead, try to veawe it into the Israeli economy, it should be proffitable enough for both sides, and heck, it might one day see the country united one day.

The problem is largely in Gaza Strip, which is being ran by fanatical lunatics, West Bank is largely quiet, least there haven't been any incidents in the news.

The problem here is Hamas is trying to smuggle more rockets and missiles in. Even in with "aid" packages.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-29-2009, 09:19 PM
The problem is largely in Gaza Strip, which is being ran by fanatical lunatics, West Bank is largely quiet, least there haven't been any incidents in the news.

The problem here is Hamas is trying to smuggle more rockets and missiles in. Even in with "aid" packages.

do artillery shells and flechettes count

http://livewire.amnesty.org/2009/01/27/a-bloodstained-wall-full-of-flechettes/?lang=en

garfield i'm no munitions expert like yourself so i'd really appreciate an answer to whether or not artillery shells that explode and send 4 cm flechettes flying in random directions are considered smart munitions or not

GarfieldJL
01-30-2009, 11:33 AM
garfield i'm no munitions expert like yourself so i'd really appreciate an answer to whether or not artillery shells that explode and send 4 cm flechettes flying in random directions are considered smart munitions or not

Artillery shells in and of themselves are not accurate, but they are a lot easier to predict where they land because they tend to be fired from something that is not moving or at most moving extremely slowly compared to an aircraft. It isn't 100% accurate by a longshot, but again projectile weapons have been around for a lot longer than bombs being dropped from planes.


I'm not exactly a munitions expert, but I'm familiar with a lot of the variables. Assuming someone didn't get their math wrong (which has happened), or another variable (like a gust of wind) you can predict with relative certainty where a shell will land.

If you're referring to the 2006 incident where Israel is accused of a shell killing members of a Palestinian Family, what happened in that incident is still in dispute. As to whether it was an Israeli shell, or if the Israeli shell hit hidden munitions and it was the munitions that caused the death and injuries.

Anyways, CBS over the past week has proven that it has absolutely no credibility when it comes to Israel. Human Rights Watch has a similar problem, as does Amnesty International.


As a detailed NGO Monitor study has shown, between 2001 and 2004, during the height of the terror attacks against Israel, HRW focused one-third of its entire Middle East effort on condemnations directed at Israel. This went far beyond legitimate criticism, and suggested an obsession. Far more pages, reports, press conferences, letters, films, and photography-exhibits sponsored by HRW were devoted to allegations against Israel than to the slaughter taking place in Sudan, or the Palestinian terror campaign. Roth and other HRW officials adopted the false characterization of an “all powerful and aggressive Israel” in contrast to “Palestinian victimization.” In the process, human-rights norms were reduced to instruments used to promote personal ideologies and entirely subjective perceptions of power.

The most infuriating instance of HRW’s bias came in 2004, when Roth went to the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem to promote “Razing Rafah,” a one sided denunciation of Israeli policy. Its contents were based primarily on unsubstantiated reports of Palestinians, selected journalists, and so-called experts on tunneling. (The IDF actions were in response to the smuggling of weapons and explosives through tunnels under the border with Egypt.)

Apart from the tendentious reporting, the extensive use of loaded terms, such as “war crimes,” “violation of international law,” etc.—used far more often in HRW reports on Israel than in reports on all other Middle East states—fed anti-Israel divestment and boycott campaigns. HRW officials participated actively and directly in demonstrations to promote the Caterpillar boycott, and in pressing the U.N. resolutions referring Israel’s security barrier to the misnamed International Court of Justice. -- National Review (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzdkNDA3NTY4ZmMwMzFmNWYwYTBkMWU4MzFiMTMxNGM=)

The problem with the idea that Isreal is out to kill civilians, is that they have no motive to do so.

jrrtoken
01-30-2009, 01:56 PM
Artillery shells in and of themselves are not accurate, but they are a lot easier to predict where they land because they tend to be fired from something that is not moving or at most moving extremely slowly compared to an aircraft. It isn't 100% accurate by a longshot, but again projectile weapons have been around for a lot longer than bombs being dropped from planes.Yes, but flechettes are dropped in clusters by artillery shells, therefore, it creates a spread-fire effect, thus, accuracy isn't too important.
I'm not exactly a munitions expert, but I'm familiar with a lot of the variables. Assuming someone didn't get their math wrong (which has happened), or another variable (like a gust of wind) you can predict with relative certainty where a shell will land.Do you know the purpose of flechettes? They're designed to rip people apart, by air-bursting thousands of daggers packed into a shell, raining down upon people, instantly going through their body, ripping them to shreds. Blood splatters on the walls, giving off a more menacing psychological effect. The use of flechettes in warfare is absolutely despicable, much like the use of cluster bombs or napalm.
Anyways, CBS over the past week has proven that it has absolutely no credibility when it comes to Israel. Human Rights Watch has a similar problem, as does Amnesty International.Cause they're liberal, right?

Astor
01-30-2009, 02:01 PM
Do you know the purpose of flechettes? They're designed to rip people apart, by air-bursting thousands of daggers packed into a shell, raining down upon people, instantly going through their body, ripping them to shreds. Blood splatters on the walls, giving off a more menacing psychological effect. The use of flechettes in warfare is absolutely despicable, much like the use of cluster bombs or napalm.

It's ok, though, 'cause they're killing the godless enemies of God's Chosen, whose sworn mission is the destruction of Israel.

It may be deplorable, but Israel already feels it can flout common sense and International Law, so I don't think they care at this point.

EnderWiggin
01-30-2009, 02:20 PM
Assuming someone didn't get their math wrong (which has happened), or another variable (like a gust of wind) you can predict with relative certainty where a shell will land.

Good point, especially because variables like wind are so rare.

_EW_

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-30-2009, 04:21 PM
Artillery shells in and of themselves are not accurate, but they are a lot easier to predict where they land because they tend to be fired from something that is not moving or at most moving extremely slowly compared to an aircraft. It isn't 100% accurate by a longshot, but again projectile weapons have been around for a lot longer than bombs being dropped from planes.


I'm not exactly a munitions expert, but I'm familiar with a lot of the variables. Assuming someone didn't get their math wrong (which has happened), or another variable (like a gust of wind) you can predict with relative certainty where a shell will land.

If you're referring to the 2006 incident where Israel is accused of a shell killing members of a Palestinian Family, what happened in that incident is still in dispute. As to whether it was an Israeli shell, or if the Israeli shell hit hidden munitions and it was the munitions that caused the death and injuries.

Anyways, CBS over the past week has proven that it has absolutely no credibility when it comes to Israel. Human Rights Watch has a similar problem, as does Amnesty International.


-- National Review (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzdkNDA3NTY4ZmMwMzFmNWYwYTBkMWU4MzFiMTMxNGM=)

The problem with the idea that Isreal is out to kill civilians, is that they have no motive to do so.that's one of the most pathetic articles i've ever read. he cites not only an organization that he is the editor of, but an organization that explicitly states that its sole purpose is to criticize ngos who criticize israel and is run by current or former israeli officials.

sorry, but israel's human rights violations are corroborated by both israeli and non-israeli sources.

and you never addressed the fact that israel is using flechette shells, which because of their very nature are fired by those who don't care who they kill.

GarfieldJL
01-30-2009, 05:44 PM
that's one of the most pathetic articles i've ever read. he cites not only an organization that he is the editor of, but an organization that explicitly states that its sole purpose is to criticize ngos who criticize israel and is run by current or former israeli officials.

Yeah, and a conservative source pointed out for full disclosure his ties to the issue... Something I rarely see liberal sources do, or they mislabel them.


sorry, but israel's human rights violations are corroborated by both israeli and non-israeli sources.

Many of those "abuses" stem from the fact that they have to worry about people walking in with bombs strapped to them to blow themselves up. Seriously anyone that tries to use a child as a weapon of war deserves no respect.


and you never addressed the fact that israel is using flechette shells, which because of their very nature are fired by those who don't care who they kill.


What type of flechett weapon are we referring to, because some of these weapons are designed to be used in situations to try to minimize explosive damage. I'm going to go out on a limb here and point out that we are probably not getting the entire story here.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/cbu-107.htm

jrrtoken
01-30-2009, 05:49 PM
What type of flechett weapon are we referring to, because some of these weapons are designed to be used in situations to try to minimize explosive damage. I'm going to go out on a limb here and point out that we are probably not getting the entire story here.This, a 4cm flechette, packed into 120mm shells:
http://livewire.amnesty.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/gaza-fletchette.jpg

Either way, it does not what size or type of flechette it is, flechettes are flechettes; they're all made for one purpose, to kill as many people as possible in a certain area.

GarfieldJL
01-30-2009, 06:04 PM
This, a 4cm flechette, packed into 120mm shells:
http://livewire.amnesty.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/gaza-fletchette.jpg

Either way, it does not what size or type of flechette it is, flechettes are flechettes; they're all made for one purpose, to kill as many people as possible in a certain area.

So is an explosive device, it's a weapon of war, depending on how it is used, it can cause less death and destruction, than a traditional bomb from an airplane, which could cause buildings to collapse fires to break out, etc.

jrrtoken
01-30-2009, 06:12 PM
So is an explosive device, it's a weapon of war, depending on how it is used, it can cause less death and destruction, than a traditional bomb from an airplane, which could cause buildings to collapse fires to break out, etc.Yes, but bombs are often designed to destroy structures, which is something darts can't do. Small, pointy objects are more of less suited to puncture gelatinous, flesh-like material. Like humans.

And thanks for propping up another strawman and ignoring my point entirely.

GarfieldJL
01-30-2009, 06:22 PM
Yes, but bombs are often designed to destroy structures, which is something darts can't do. Small, pointy objects are more of less suited to puncture gelatinous, flesh-like material. Like humans.

And thanks for propping up another strawman and ignoring my point entirely.

If you'd pay attention you'd realize that I didn't ignore your point, I countered it and you just made my point.

A flechette is not designed to cause explosive damage, that means if you have a shell fired into an interior location the walls of the building can protect people outside the building from injury, building collapse, etc. thus minimizing collateral damage.

jrrtoken
01-30-2009, 06:31 PM
If you'd pay attention you'd realize that I didn't ignore your point, I countered it and you just made my point.

A flechette is not designed to cause explosive damage, that means if you have a shell fired into an interior location the walls of the building can protect people outside the building from injury, building collapse, etc. thus minimizing collateral damage.WHAT??? Flechettes still cause an extreme amount of damage by going through peoples bodies, causing them to bleed to death. I don't care if it's not explosive, it's still a weapon, and an extremely inhumane one, to boot. Trying to brush it off as "non-explosive" doesn't mean anything, as it's still designed to KILL people.

Dammit, I need a drink. Where's my whiskey?

EnderWiggin
01-30-2009, 06:39 PM
Yeah, and a conservative source pointed out for full disclosure his ties to the issue... Something I rarely see liberal sources do, or they mislabel them.

The honesty doesn't negate the bias.

What type of flechett weapon are we referring to, because some of these weapons are designed to be used in situations to try to minimize explosive damage. I'm going to go out on a limb here and point out that we are probably not getting the entire story here.

*limb breaks, garfy falls to alligators*

If you'd pay attention you'd realize that I didn't ignore your point, I countered it and you just made my point.


No, you countered a point that doesn't really exist, thus the accurate labeling of 'strawman.'

_EW_

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-30-2009, 06:51 PM
Many of those "abuses" stem from the fact that they have to worry about people walking in with bombs strapped to them to blow themselves up. Seriously anyone that tries to use a child as a weapon of war deserves no respect.

http://i44.tinypic.com/il8tqu.jpg

sounds good to me. how about we start applying that policy to both sides of the conflict?

GarfieldJL
01-30-2009, 06:54 PM
WHAT??? Flechettes still cause an extreme amount of damage by going through peoples bodies, causing them to bleed to death. I don't care if it's not explosive, it's still a weapon, and an extremely inhumane one, to boot. Trying to brush it off as "non-explosive" doesn't mean anything, as it's still designed to KILL people.

So does any weapon that fires projectiles at high speeds, seriously you're all upset about Israel when they use a weapon that happens to be lethal, yet you're not upset when the Palestinians blow themselves up with bombs packed with nails, ball bearings whatever. At least with the Israelis the civilian deaths caused by their side is an accident.


Dammit, I need a drink. Where's my whiskey?

Okay...


The honesty doesn't negate the bias.

But the honesty also gives them more credibility than a source that has a stake in the situation and does its best to hide that fact.

Seriously, it's a weapon, that can kill people, seriously folks it's a war people die in war, unless you're saying that the Palestinians can use whatever and Israel must use Nerf weapons...

jrrtoken
01-30-2009, 06:58 PM
So does any weapon that fires projectiles at high speeds, seriously you're all upset about Israel when they use a weapon that happens to be lethal, yet you're not upset when the Palestinians blow themselves up with bombs packed with nails, ball bearings whatever. At least with the Israelis the civilian deaths caused by their side is an accident.So it's perfectly okay for Israel to stoop to Hamas' level and use deadly weapons against civilians? But I though Israel was the good guys...
Seriously, it's a weapon, that can kill people, seriously folks it's a war people die in war, unless you're saying that the Palestinians can use whatever and Israel must use Nerf weapons...You're insisting that the Israelis can fight fire with fire, countering terrorism with total war. That makes the IDF look just as bad as Hamas.

GarfieldJL
01-30-2009, 07:02 PM
So it's perfectly okay for Israel to stoop to Hamas' level and use deadly weapons against civilians? But I though Israel was the good guys...

It's called where you're shooting, the Israelis are using weapons to hit weapons depots, and valid targets. They are not trying to hit civilians.


You're insisting that the Israelis can fight fire with fire, countering terrorism with total war. That makes the IDF look just as bad as Hamas.

How would you like 3,000+ rockets fired into your country? At least Israel does its best to avoid hitting civilians, Hamas tries to target civilians deliberately.

Or are you denying now that they hide their weapons in schools, and other locations, and are you also now denying that they try to indoctrinate children so that they can use them as walking bombs.

Seriously, because there is a very clear difference here, and you just condemn Israel for a kid accidentally getting injured or killed, yet I have yet to see any condemnation here of Hamas using children as walking bombs! (With Jae being an exception)

That's why Hamas is evil, because they use children in such a manner.

jrrtoken
01-30-2009, 07:08 PM
It's called where you're shooting, the Israelis are using weapons to hit weapons depots, and valid targets. They are not trying to hit civilians.Then why is the IDF using flechettes in a heavily populated area, a weapon designed to kill as many as possible in a wide area?
How would you like 3,000+ rockets fired into your country? At least Israel does its best to avoid hitting civilians, Hamas tries to target civilians deliberately.See above.
Or are you denying now that they hide their weapons in schools, and other locations, and are you also now denying that they try to indoctrinate children so that they can use them as walking bombs.Why do you think they hide the weapons in a school, or a hospital? They know that the IDF will target them, and the IDF knows that they are populated with civilians. Hamas does this to further their cause, by showing the world that Israel will target and kill children to eradicate the enemy. Your statement completely demolishes your point.

Might I also add that you've repeated this argument countless times in this thread, and people have presented you with proof that undermines your reasoning.

GarfieldJL
01-30-2009, 07:10 PM
If it wasn't for the IDF, Saddam would have had Nuclear Weapons, Israel is the country that derailed his nuke program.

Israel has managed to make peace with a few of its neighbors, Hamas calls for their annihilation, there isn't a moral equivalency here. Israel has shown that it can make peace through nonviolent means, Hamas wants to annihilate every Israeli down to the last baby.

Why do you think they hide the weapons in a school, or a hospital? They know that the IDF will target them, and the IDF knows that they are populated with civilians. Hamas does this to further their cause, by showing the world that Israel will target and kill children to eradicate the enemy. Your statement completely demolishes your point.


And if they don't those weapons will be used against Israeli civilians.

Astor
01-30-2009, 07:20 PM
If it wasn't for the IDF, Saddam would have had Nuclear Weapons, Israel is the country that derailed his nuke program.

Of course, 'cause Israel was the only country in the world who could stop him. :rolleyes:

Israel has managed to make peace with a few of its neighbors, Hamas' militant wing calls for their annihilation, there isn't a moral equivalency here. Israel has shown that it can make peace through nonviolent means, Hamas wants to annihilate every Israeli down to the last baby.

Emphasis mine.

jrrtoken
01-30-2009, 07:22 PM
If it wasn't for the IDF, Saddam would have had Nuclear Weapons, Israel is the country that derailed his nuke program.Thanks for bringing up something that isn't even related to the subject.
Israel has managed to make peace with a few of its neighbors, Hamas calls for their annihilation, there isn't a moral equivalency here. Israel has shown that it can make peace through nonviolent means, Hamas wants to annihilate every Israeli down to the last baby.Just stop... please just stop.

jonathan7
01-30-2009, 07:42 PM
Study your history, you'll find that it was Great Britain's land, the UN and UK were effectively shamed into the creation of Israel, I quite frankly don't even blame the Israelis for wanting to get out of Europe.

Shamed, shamed? You do realise Britain did take in loads of Jews, like I dunno, Albert Einstein, and stopped the Holocaust. Why isn't the States in the shamed section? And how is the UN in that, when it didn't even exsist until after the events of the Holocaust?

Are there fundamentalists that are Jewish, yes, but we're not currently talking about them are we.

You just display here no knowledge of Israeli politics.

Furthermore, if we keep going on and on about whose dad did what to your dad or grandfather, all that is going to happen is more hate.

So the Holocaust isn't relevant? Please make your mind up, on the one hand you bring up WW2, but then don't want Israel's history to be brought up?

Oh you mean like that kid that was supposedly shot by Israelis in 2000, that was the incident that ended up in a courtroom.

What are you on about, and what relevance does it have to the discussion, stop throwing up smoke screens.

Furthermore, if there can't be peace between Palestinians and Israelis, why is the West Bank being left alone, and why is Fatah not making any attacks on Israel.

*smacks head* (my own before anyone takes that the wrong way) I'd hardly call the situation there peace, but clearly your more of an expert than me, having been there.

Your supposition is in error bigtime because:

Israel has made peace with Jordan.
Israel has made peace with Egypt.
Israel is on good terms with Turkey.


If they are at peace why is it you can't get into Jordan or Egypt if you have an Israeli stamp in your passport?

Israel was enemies with Jordan and Egypt yet they have made peace.

This is pertinant to the discussion how? I wasn't under the impression that Israel had kicked either of their peoples off their land.

Israel has a record of being willing to sit down and try to work things out peacefully, Hamas' wants the total destruction of Israel.

Neither Israel or Hamas will compromise, which is what is needed for a settlement.

Jesus did not mean for you to sit back and let people try their best to annihilate you. If a child hit me, would I hit them back would really depend on a number of factors, a small child I certainly wouldn't. A teenager, whom could actually potentially cause me physical harm, I would fight back.

Have you actually read the Bible? Jesus let the Romans kill him, I'd say that was sitting back and letting people annihilate you.

Your comparison though is like comparing apples to oranges, they are two different things, and Hamas is not a group of children it is a group made up of homicidal maniacs.

Clearly analogies are pointless, but I'll offer a small defence of mine, the Palestinians, maybe able to hurt Israel but they can't do anything major to her.

jonathan, you need to have the situation relatively stable first

Blowing people up rarely does anything to stabilize a situation.

not having people doing their best to kill you. Personally, if I could and could get the parents of kids permission and ensure the kids don't have bombs strapped to them, I would have the Palestinian kids have classes in Israel until their new schools are built.

No arguments there.

Again you're comparing apples and oranges. Hamas is not Northern Ireland, they don't believe they get 50 beautiful virgins to serve them if they die killing infidels. You had a group of people with a religious dispute and wanting independence, but they weren't as fanatical as what Hamas is.

I love how you are conveniently ignoring how firing rockets and targetting civilians is the same in both instances. Suicide bombings are just an added complication; I would think however both groups were seemingly determined.

So you do admit the virgins thing is there, I've actually had to read an English translation of the Quran (sp?) for a Medieval History course, I just can't remember the number (I thought it was 50 but the point is that it is there). Furthermore having met a single individual from a group of people doesn't make you an expert.

I've read the entire Qu'ran thanks, and I don't recall ever denying the number of virgins, I've also had conversations with Islamists extremists (these things happen when you travel as much as I do, and to be fair the guys were very hospitable), were I defended America despite them having guns, so don't even begin to attempt to talk to me on this subject.

Wouldn't happen and no I wouldn't be happy, yes I'd want it back, but there are lines I will not cross.

Yeah right, all your arguments previously say otherwise.

And what of the suicide bombers which is the reason for the construction of the wall in the first place.

If Israel wanted to build a wall on her borders I would of had no complaints... They didn't however do that, they just created even more people who wanted to blow themselves up.

I see your article and I'm going raise you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow%27s_Pioneers

Furthermore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict

You are just so plain biased it doesn't matter what is said you can't see anything that goes against what you think.

Using children in such a manner is inexcusable

NO-ONE IN THREAD IS DISAGREEING WITH YOU, GET THAT INTO YOUR HEAD

you complain about the Israelis being concerned about Palestinian kids, well wouldn't you if Hamas for instance has a habit of strapping bombs to kids and have them blow themselves up or the bomb is triggered remotely. Now as far as I know Fatah has stopped this practice, but Hamas continues to use children in such a manner.

Why is it so hard for you realise I don't agree with Hamas or support them in anyway? Why can't you comprehend that I don't agree with Hamas, but Israel's actions aren't going to solve anything FACT - I'd bring the Einstein quote up again, but there's little point, you show your colours by trying to argue against it.

Play nice please, you know the rules better than me. - mimartin

Sorry, won't happen again - j7

GarfieldJL
01-31-2009, 05:05 PM
Shamed, shamed? You do realise Britain did take in loads of Jews, like I dunno, Albert Einstein, and stopped the Holocaust. Why isn't the States in the shamed section? And how is the UN in that, when it didn't even exsist until after the events of the Holocaust?

Look up who were members of the United Nations when it was first formed, and just who started the fight when Israel first became a country.


You just display here no knowledge of Israeli politics.

I probably know a bit more than you think.



So the Holocaust isn't relevant? Please make your mind up, on the one hand you bring up WW2, but then don't want Israel's history to be brought up?

No, the Holocaust is relevant for two reasons, and I never said history wasn't relevant, but the anti-Israeli propaganda is nothing more than garbage.
Reasons the Holocaust is relevant:

Why do you think the Israeli people didn't want to be in Europe?
They are very protective because they were nearly annihilated, and for them it's never again.




What are you on about, and what relevance does it have to the discussion, stop throwing up smoke screens.

Okay why don't you look up the story: "The boy who cried Wolf" that is a perfect example of why my pointing out a problem in news coverage is relevant.


*smacks head* (my own before anyone takes that the wrong way) I'd hardly call the situation there peace, but clearly your more of an expert than me, having been there.

While I realize it's still rather bumpy over there, the fact is that there haven't been any serious incidents concerning the West Bank that has made it on the news lately.



If they are at peace why is it you can't get into Jordan or Egypt if you have an Israeli stamp in your passport?

I'm going to have to look that statement up, because I'm not sure that is accurate, however peace doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get together for a luncheon. There is still a lot of wounds that are healing, the point is though that they are not shooting at each other, and are able to talk things through rather than shooting at each other.



This is pertinant to the discussion how? I wasn't under the impression that Israel had kicked either of their peoples off their land.

Technically Israel did in the Six Day war, Egypt got back most of the land that Israel took (which most of it was Egyptian land to begin with, exception of Gaza strip which Israel kept), they refused to return the West Bank to the control of Jordan (which they had taken from the Palestinians). The point is both countries made peace with Israel.

The point is Israel has talked with and made peace with countries in the past, so they have shown they are willing to use diplomacy. Hamas is calling for the total annihilation of every Israeli down to the last child. You can't negotiate with someone whom is bent on your total annihilation.


Neither Israel or Hamas will compromise, which is what is needed for a settlement.

And why should Israel believe anything Hamas says, they are a group that has publicly called for their total annihilation. Remember Hitler called for the total annihilation of the Jewish People.


Have you actually read the Bible? Jesus let the Romans kill him, I'd say that was sitting back and letting people annihilate you.

If you continue to read the scripture you'd see Jesus also rose from the dead.


Clearly analogies are pointless, but I'll offer a small defence of mine, the Palestinians, maybe able to hurt Israel but they can't do anything major to her.

3000+ rockets isn't potentially dangerous, the fact there haven't been as many casualties as there could be is a miracle.


Blowing people up rarely does anything to stabilize a situation.

Which is why Israel has been trying to be ass accurate as possible.



No arguments there.


Well glad we agree on something.



I love how you are conveniently ignoring how firing rockets and targetting civilians is the same in both instances. Suicide bombings are just an added complication; I would think however both groups were seemingly determined.


No one side is targetting civilians and hiding behind civilians, the other is trying to hit the people responsible while trying to minimize civilian casualties. There isn't a moral equivalency here.


I've read the entire Qu'ran thanks, and I don't recall ever denying the number of virgins, I've also had conversations with Islamists extremists (these things happen when you travel as much as I do, and to be fair the guys were very hospitable), were I defended America despite them having guns, so don't even begin to attempt to talk to me on this subject.

I'm thinking your opinion of extremism and mine are different, I don't care about the people that just say things, I care about the ones strapping bombs to their chests and blowing themselves up. I am concerned about the extremism taught in mosques.

And seriously, don't try to pull that don't talk to me on that subject cause you're an expert garbage again, I know quite a bit more about this than you realize.



If Israel wanted to build a wall on her borders I would of had no complaints... They didn't however do that, they just created even more people who wanted to blow themselves up.

Do you even know the variables that go into building structures, and do you know why the wall was built in the first place.

The fault lays with the radicals, if there weren't suicide bombings Israel wouldn't be building the wall, and they have a tendency to not want to have to fight on their soil, because at that point they have nowhere to fall back, no early warning.



NO-ONE IN THREAD IS DISAGREEING WITH YOU, GET THAT INTO YOUR HEAD

Really? I've seen people condemn Israel, but only Jae, myself and maybe another conservative that entered the fray condemn Hamas. The things you condemn Israel for only happens because Hamas hides behind civilians and fires weapons while hiding behind civilians.



Why is it so hard for you realise I don't agree with Hamas or support them in anyway? Why can't you comprehend that I don't agree with Hamas, but Israel's actions aren't going to solve anything FACT - I'd bring the Einstein quote up again, but there's little point, you show your colours by trying to argue against it.

Well the reason I don't believe it is because of your statements, you have yet to acknowledge that most of the civilian casualties are due to Hamas hiding behind Civilians deliberately. You've been acting like Israel has been targetting civilians for fun!
Play nice please. -mimartin

Adavardes
01-31-2009, 05:27 PM
Really? I've seen people condemn Israel, but only Jae, myself and maybe another conservative that entered the fray condemn Hamas. The things you condemn Israel for only happens because Hamas hides behind civilians and fires weapons while hiding behind civilians.

I find it funny how you always name Jae as your support, but in reality, she's not at all. Insofar as I've been lead to believe, Jae and I agree on a fundamental truth of Israel/Palestine. That both are at fault for this war. Israel for using overkill and attempting to wipe out Hamas, and Hamas for continuing to perpetuate the hate that Israel has shown them. They're both acting like spoiled children, and both of them are equally at fault.

I'll even quote Jae, if that's what it takes to get it through to you.

mimartin
01-31-2009, 05:44 PM
I believe there is some confusion here on the difference between feeling sympathy for the Palestinian people and supporting Hamas.

EnderWiggin
01-31-2009, 06:45 PM
Really? I've seen people condemn Israel, but only Jae, myself and maybe another conservative that entered the fray condemn Hamas.


We all condemn Hamas, but we don't condemn the Palestinians, whereas you do both.

_EW_

mur'phon
01-31-2009, 07:19 PM
The point is Israel has talked with and made peace with countries in the past, so they have shown they are willing to use diplomacy. Hamas is calling for the total annihilation of every Israeli down to the last child. You can't negotiate with someone whom is bent on your total annihilation.


PLO (now: Fatah) had pretty much the same stance on Israel(and they didn't have a much diferent view on the Palestinians), yet they negotiated, which, in the end, seems to have achieved at least something. Hamas might well give up their stance if they are offered something in return. Right now, people are trying to make peace betwen Palestinie and Israel while ignoring the elected palestinian leaders(Hamas), which seems unlikely to bring any lasting deal.

While I realize it's still rather bumpy over there, the fact is that there haven't been any serious incidents concerning the West Bank that has made it on the news lately.

Define serious incidents, people are still stuck in checkpoint hell, still have an almost impossible time getting construction permits, and still have to deal with settlers in their concreete forts.

And why should Israel believe anything Hamas says, they are a group that has publicly called for their total annihilation.

Because if they don't do their part in a deal, Israel will take revenge. The same reason why Israel might stick to a deal, though Hamas can't do as much damage. That, and if Hamas or Israel ever agrees to a deal, I'd asume it was mutually benefical, and so neither Hamas or Israel have much incentive to break it.

3000+ rockets isn't potentially dangerous, the fact there haven't been as many casualties as there could be is a miracle.

Not really, a quassam rocket is possibly the simplest, least powerfull, and least acurate rocket in existence. Sometimes, they even miss the town they are targetet at. Add the fact that Israel have an early warning system for rockets, and there is little surprise that the casualties are so low. I'm with J7 on this one, the damage caused is negible when you look at the damage caused to Palestine.

I care about the ones strapping bombs to their chests and blowing themselves up. I am concerned about the extremism taught in mosques.

How about those who erect ilegal settlements, "encourage" arabs to emigrate, use their positions in the state to make life dificult for arabs, and supports parties who support anexation of palestinian territories?

The fault lays with the radicals, if there weren't suicide bombings Israel wouldn't be building the wall, and they have a tendency to not want to have to fight on their soil, because at that point they have nowhere to fall back, no early warning.

Yet the wall is built on palestinian land, cutting towns in two, and leaving people separated from their work, becomming part of checkpoint hell. It also leave large areas around the wall a no-go zone, meaning even more land is lost. Do I blame the radicals for the wall? Yes, but mainly those on the Israeli side.

jonathan7
02-01-2009, 11:16 AM
Garfield, so you don't attempt to infuriate me further be assuming anything of what I think, here's is exactly what I think. I think Hamas is wrong to bomb Israel, I think Hamas is wrong to target civilians. What I do know is Hamas will consider it a victory if it can still fire rockets at Israel; which they will be able to do unless the Israelis decide to kill everyone in Gaza.

As such Israel's military action is futile, as it cannot stop Hamas firing rockets into Israel, and furthermore because of the collateral damage it will create future generations of terrorists. As such a different way to stop the rockets being fired must be sort.

Now, compromise is the watch word here, because neither the Israeli's nor the Palestinians are going to get what they want. Israel has provoked the Palestinians by settling in lands they said were for the Palestinians, the really sad things, is often those settlements tend to be where Israelis and Palestinians live side by side.

But the extremist elements on both sides don't want that. The Israeli hard liners want all of Israel for themselves; and they are a significant vioce in Israeli politics, while the Palestinian hard-liners want to kill all the Israeli's - these two groups cause the majority of the problems. And given both are fundementalists, I find it hard to see how peace will ever come about, but yours and Israel's current policy will do nothing but breed future generations of terrorists.

Furthermore, I fail to see how you think it will achieve anything else. Finally if you want to know why I get so irritated on this subject is because it is *MY* friends, who get blown up (both Jewish and Israeli, and indeed one of my friends parents has been killed in the conflict (Israeli for the record). Neither is it your friends, who have a very sick child, who has to receive very expensive medical treatment because the Israel's refuse to let them into Israel for hospital treatment, so they rely on my parents to pay for their medicine (and it's transport to them).

Look up who were members of the United Nations when it was first formed, and just who started the fight when Israel first became a country.

I fail to see how an organisation that was formed after WW2 could possibly be shamed by the Holocaust which seems to be your intimation. So you'll have to explain that to me. Furthermore it's a shame the UN plans for Jerusalem to be an international city didn't pan out - who's fault was that?

No, the Holocaust is relevant for two reasons, and I never said history wasn't relevant, but the anti-Israeli propaganda is nothing more than garbage.
Reasons the Holocaust is relevant:

GarfieldJL, do you even know what happened at the formation of the Israeli state? Unless your going to tell me every history book I've ever read (including Israeli ones) is incorrect, the formation of Israel is not a nice affair. You told me that was irrelevant, as it happened to 'Fathers and Grandfathers' (which is more relevant than the Holocaust, seeing as it wasn't the Palestinians who tried to exterminate the Jews).

Why do you think the Israeli people didn't want to be in Europe?

Have I ever said I didn't understand that the Jews would want their own land after what happened in Europe? But I fail to see how that gives them the right to throw others off their land.

They are very protective because they were nearly annihilated, and for them it's never again.

I fail to see how the Palestinians will ever be able to do what Hitler did, they kill more of themselves than the Israeli's ever do.

Have I ever said I didn't understand that the Jews would want their own land after what happened in Europe?

Okay why don't you look up the story: "The boy who cried Wolf" that is a perfect example of why my pointing out a problem in news coverage is relevant.

Garfield, I don't give a monkeys about News coverage, as I think most people have an agenda here, and I also think most people don't have the first clue about the situation.

While I realize it's still rather bumpy over there, the fact is that there haven't been any serious incidents concerning the West Bank that has made it on the news lately.

I haven't heard anything in the News about North Korea recently, so I suppose that means its all sunny and smiles currently?

I'm going to have to look that statement up, because I'm not sure that is accurate, however peace doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get together for a luncheon. There is still a lot of wounds that are healing, the point is though that they are not shooting at each other, and are able to talk things through rather than shooting at each other.

So you've already decided the answer before looking it up.... You'll review a whole load of sources until you find the one that supports what you think already. And note, most of my thought formation is having travelled a lot, and from personal experience observation, and from cold hard facts. I rarely have ever referenced the news in the majority of my posts.

“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason to act in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”

Technically Israel did in the Six Day war, Egypt got back most of the land that Israel took (which most of it was Egyptian land to begin with, exception of Gaza strip which Israel kept), they refused to return the West Bank to the control of Jordan (which they had taken from the Palestinians). The point is both countries made peace with Israel.

This answers my point how?

The point is Israel has talked with and made peace with countries in the past, so they have shown they are willing to use diplomacy. Hamas is calling for the total annihilation of every Israeli down to the last child. You can't negotiate with someone whom is bent on your total annihilation.

Hamas can't annihilate Israel, regardless of what they say.

And why should Israel believe anything Hamas says, they are a group that has publicly called for their total annihilation.

Well if they can't believe anything Hamas says why would the believe them that they want to annihilate them?

Remember Hitler called for the total annihilation of the Jewish People.

Hitler was in charge of one of the most powerful empires in the world... The Palestinians can't even form a government :|

If you continue to read the scripture you'd see Jesus also rose from the dead.

*Shakes head* I fail to see how this possibly answers my point. Jesus said turn the other cheek, and LET (if you believe the Bible) the Romans and Pharisees kill him. So here's a guy who according to the Bible is the Son of God, and has all power on heaven and earth given to him, and I fail to see at any point did he fight back, when he was being crucified. His resurrection has nothing to do with my point.

3000+ rockets isn't potentially dangerous, the fact there haven't been as many casualties as there could be is a miracle.

No, it has more to do with the fact, a blind old lady with BB-Gun is more accurate than those Missiles.

Which is why Israel has been trying to be ass accurate as possible.

Which I'm sure is of great comfort when you children get blown up.

No one side is targetting civilians and hiding behind civilians, the other is trying to hit the people responsible while trying to minimize civilian casualties. There isn't a moral equivalency here.

If you were trying to minimize casualties you wouldn't shoot a weapon at all.

I'm thinking your opinion of extremism and mine are different, I don't care about the people that just say things, I care about the ones strapping bombs to their chests and blowing themselves up. I am concerned about the extremism taught in mosques.

Garfield, I love how you assume so much, these guys were extremists, and had we not had the connections we do in the area, we would of been in a lot of trouble. And I made everyone considerably nervous by arguing with them.

And seriously, don't try to pull that don't talk to me on that subject cause you're an expert garbage again, I know quite a bit more about this than you realize.

*sigh*

Do you even know the variables that go into building structures, and do you know why the wall was built in the first place.

Yes I know why the wall was built thanks, I fail to see how that effects my friends who are peaceful, and have had their lively hood ruined.

The fault lays with the radicals, if there weren't suicide bombings Israel wouldn't be building the wall, and they have a tendency to not want to have to fight on their soil, because at that point they have nowhere to fall back, no early warning.

I didn't say Israel couldn't build the wall, she should of built it in her lands, I'm not interested in building mechanics beccause commont sense tells me this; the Great Wall of China, built with much less stable and advanced building techniques was built over far less stable terrain than Israel's wall.

Really? I've seen people condemn Israel, but only Jae, myself and maybe another conservative that entered the fray condemn Hamas. The things you condemn Israel for only happens because Hamas hides behind civilians and fires weapons while hiding behind civilians.

I have condemned Hamas, the difference is your so pro-Israel, I'm arguing against your position, which is entirely different to agreeing with Hamas.

Well the reason I don't believe it is because of your statements, you have yet to acknowledge that most of the civilian casualties are due to Hamas hiding behind Civilians deliberately. You've been acting like Israel has been targetting civilians for fun!

When have I acted as if Israel is targeting civilians for fun? What I do know is Israel has killed far more Palestinian Civilians than Hamas has killed Israeli Civilians.

I will end with a website I quoted earlier, its an Israeli Human Rights Watch in Gaza website; http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp - its Israeli and it records the Israeli human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories. Though I suppose it's full of liberal bias, anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic?

EnderWiggin
02-01-2009, 01:04 PM
I haven't heard anything in the News about North Korea recently, so I suppose that means its all sunny and smiles currently?


Don't forget Pakistan.

His resurrection has nothing to do with my point.

Agreed; not only does His Resurrection have nothing to do with J7's point, it doesn't make a point itself. It is, in fact, pointless to this analogy.

No, it has more to do with the fact, a blind old lady with BB-Gun is more accurate than those Missiles.

:D

_EW_

jonathan7
02-01-2009, 06:47 PM
Well, here's a reminder;
Just a reminder:
5. Repeatedly posting the same thing: This refers specifically to repeating the same point over and over in a way that becomes irritating, without an attempt to clarify a point or to contribute to the conversation. This should not be construed to mean that you are required to answer someone else's questions. If it's the same argument and doesn't contribute to the discussion, the post may be edited or deleted, and the poster may receive an infraction.

Per Jae’s reminder the other day and my deletion of someone’s post for this violation, we will be enforcing this rule. I had hoped both incidents made it clear that this rule will be enforced. Continued repeating the same argument will not be tolerated. If someone did not accept the argument the first time, they are not likely to change their minds with it being repeated over and over. Either accept that fact and move on or find different evidence they will accept. However, there is no rule in Kavar or this forum that they have to agree with you.

If you would like to report this rules violation, please include where the argument is repeated from in the remarks.

Furthermore, those from the UK consider it extremely inflammatory that we (previous generations) are some how guilty for the Holocaust.

Web Rider
02-02-2009, 05:05 AM
Furthermore, those from the UK consider it extremely inflammatory that we (previous generations) are some how guilty for the Holocaust.

There's a little blame to all parties involved and their treatment of Germany after WWI.

jonathan7
02-02-2009, 04:53 PM
There's a little blame to all parties involved and their treatment of Germany after WWI.

Agreed, but however harsh the reparations, and while Britain may share some responsibility for not upholding promises to the Palestinians, I find it a considerable stretch that the UK should feel guilty for the Holocaust, or that all the people Israel kill is somehow the fault of the UK. The post offended quite a few from the UK, and as such was removed. Which was more a substantial part a of a post that was deleted.

Web Rider
02-02-2009, 11:31 PM
Agreed, but however harsh the reparations, and while Britain may share some responsibility for not upholding promises to the Palestinians, I find it a considerable stretch that the UK should feel guilty for the Holocaust, or that all the people Israel kill is somehow the fault of the UK.

I agree that the last bit of that is going too far, to be honest I meet far too many Jews who wave the Holocaust in everyone faces to protect themselves from criticism. Not that a lot of people don't do that with something similar, but you rarely hear about the Homosexuals or the cripples or the Romanies justifying or having their actions justified because of the huge numbers of them Hitler killed.

Humanity as a whole, Europeans and their descendants in particular, should collectively feel guilty for the Holocaust, because it means we recognize it was bad and that it should not happen again. It also shows that even if we didn't do it, we understand what motivated it, why it happened, ect...ect...

JediMaster12
02-09-2009, 05:37 PM
Well to add to that, I was talking to a world history teacher at a local high school and he told me something that made quite a bit of sense. He said something along the lines that the worst thing that a country could ever do is nothing, that what makes events so terrible is that good people sit by and let them happen.

I think many people are cupable in this Israeli/Palestinian conflict and not just the principles. Nations with the ability to do something about it don't do anything and more often than not it has to do with political and economic interests. The world is a lousy place at times because we let it. I know this sounds like the rambling of an idealistic fool but when you put aside the party politics and essentially the bull, what this high school teacher told me is essentially right.

In this conflict I don't think there is a "good guys" and "bad guys" here. We have a situation that is a historic perpetuation since the region has been under conflict since biblical times and is only accentuated by "outsiders" perpetuating hegmonic differences among the people. Colonialism is an effective tool at that. Granted that hegemony existed before colonialism arrived, there are records of relative peace in the region.

So this conflict is the product of history but we have let it get to the point that we are willing to sit and let the opponents tear each other apart.