View Full Version : Speaking of Israel...
Greyblades
07-27-2014, 07:48
Problem is he has point.
Does he? Because some of our ancestors were dicks and could be considered responsible for giving jews a bad attitude we can't judge them for not learning from assholery and start to imitate us at our ancestor's most asshole-ish? Even though nearly all of us living now are exempt of the previously mentioned dickery purely because we learned not to be such assholes?
Hilarious.
Could you expand on this?
a completely inoffensive name
07-27-2014, 08:47
Could you expand on this?
Yeah, it was humorously wrong, so I found it hilarious. Ok, but in seriousness we didn't teach anything and it's not our fault they "listened". They picked what they wanted to follow, it was never forced. If Israeli's wanted to, they could have abandoned the idea of Israel when it became apparent it would only create lots of violence. But they didn't. They could have set an example as a multicultural state in the same vein that Europe has been attempting for the last 40 years but they didn't.
It's all a big joke. We agree with this philosophy and we have taken it to such extremes that we slaughter Palestinians and evict them from their homes. But the burden is on the West because it is "their" philosophy and "their" teachings. What does that even mean? Did the West invent forced migrations? Pretty sure that's been around for quite some time in human history.
Hooahguy
07-27-2014, 13:16
I think it should be less "this is your fault" and more "why are you surprised?" than anything else. I mean Jews have been expelled from countries around the world for centuries when they werent wanted, so I suppose it makes sense that Israel learned how to effectively deal with "undesirables" from past experience. Problem is, the world changed and the "undesirables" fought back.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
07-27-2014, 14:24
I think it should be less "this is your fault" and more "why are you surprised?" than anything else. I mean Jews have been expelled from countries around the world for centuries when they werent wanted, so I suppose it makes sense that Israel learned how to effectively deal with "undesirables" from past experience. Problem is, the world changed and the "undesirables" fought back.
That argument is the root of all modern anti-Semitism though.
Bear in mind, the people who allowed Israel to be founded were Christians, the people in the West now think like Christians even if they are not. Christian thought says that it is better to die than to do evil, and that you turn the other cheek when someone hurts you.
Jewish though demands and eye for an eye - one straw poll I saw on Youtube had a lot of Israeli Jews saying "yes, they believed in vengeance". You'd never get anyone in Western Europe or the US saying "yes, let's take revenge on those people."
So, when this argument is put forward - I've seen it before - it basically tells the Christianised populations in Europe etc. that the Jews are not actually "like us" and that they are not forgiving, that they will take the worst possible lesson from a bad situation.
That argument makes Jewish though repulsive - it feeds straight back into the traditional "Christ killer" slander.
I think one can have that thought without wanting to get rid of jews.
Even the "christ killer" argument is silly because if you care a lot about christ, you should know that he wouldn't want you to avenge him.
Nonetheless I find it strange how so many Christians support jews per default even though the jews reject Jesus as the messiah. Does that mean if I convert from Christianity to judaism I still go to heaven but can follow completely different rules?
Tellos Athenaios
07-27-2014, 17:16
You'd never get anyone in Western Europe or the US saying "yes, let's take revenge on those people."
A certain former president and a certain serving president of two terms in recent memory are not feeling very appreciated today.
Arguably, the drone strike program is straight out of Israel's "vengeance is a dish best served by missile" book.
Hooahguy
07-27-2014, 17:24
Bear in mind, the people who allowed Israel to be founded were Christians, the people in the West now think like Christians even if they are not. Christian thought says that it is better to die than to do evil, and that you turn the other cheek when someone hurts you.
Jewish though demands and eye for an eye - one straw poll I saw on Youtube had a lot of Israeli Jews saying "yes, they believed in vengeance". You'd never get anyone in Western Europe or the US saying "yes, let's take revenge on those people."
Its one thing to say that Christian theory detests violence, but then you look at the Spanish Inquisition, the thousands of religious pogroms incited by how the Jews killed Jesus and other things like that, and finally the Holocaust where most Christian leaders stayed silent as millions were murdered, and you wonder why Jews as a people tend not to trust other people who arent within the fold? Undoubtedly Christian-Jewish relations have improved over the past 70 years but the distrust will always be there. Is that a fault in the way that the Jewish community thinks? Absolutely. But is that kind of distrust expected? Absolutely.
And I think you overestimate the way that other people in the West thinks when it comes to vengeance. Just look at post 9/11, everyone was clamoring for vengeance and Im sure there are examples of that in Europe as well.
So, when this argument is put forward - I've seen it before - it basically tells the Christianised populations in Europe etc. that the Jews are not actually "like us" and that they are not forgiving, that they will take the worst possible lesson from a bad situation.
The problem is that the way Israel is reacting is how Europe would react to things like this before the whole human rights idea took hold. Judaism as a culture is very big on memory, and has many prayers and songs how through the generations "they" tried to kill the Jews but we survived. So its a very "survivor" mentality which feeds into this idea that now that Jews finally have a state to call their own, they will fight tooth and nail to keep it safe from all threats, and right now the biggest threat are the Palestinians. So what do they do? They take the lessons that were learned from centuries of persecution and apply it to that threat.
Nonetheless I find it strange how so many Christians support jews per default even though the jews reject Jesus as the messiah. Does that mean if I convert from Christianity to judaism I still go to heaven but can follow completely different rules?
From my understanding its from the thought that if all Jews go back to Israel it will trigger the messiah coming or something along those lines.
Rhyfelwyr
07-27-2014, 18:19
From my understanding its from the thought that if all Jews go back to Israel it will trigger the messiah coming or something along those lines.
Yeah its kind of funny, you have these Christians pushing the Zionist agenda so that their messiah will come back, but then you have the ultra-religious Jews opposing it because they believe their messiah has got to come before they can return in the first place.
It is only American-type Evangelicals that believe that sort of stuff by the way, the historic position within mainstream Christianity never advocated such thought. This is because these (largely) American 'dispensationalists' believe that God has continually dealt with humanity through various separate 'dispensations' of his grace, and so the promises given to the church are separate and co-exist with the promises given to the Israelites. The traditional view on the other hand known as 'covenant theology', is that that Jesus himself, and by consequence the church, are actually the fulfilment of the promises given to the Israelites, rather than a something separate in their own right.
This is why dispensationalists are eagerly awaiting for a literal third temple to be built to make sacrifices (in accordance with prophecy), while adherents of covenant theology believe that Jesus himself was that third temple and the last ultimate sacrifice (thus fulfilling the prophecy). I would say the latter view makes more sense in light of John 2: 19-21:
"Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body."
Anyway, these differences are why dispensationalists believe the Jews must return to their land and build their temple, but all that is irrelevant to those who believe in covenant theology. Sometimes people try to play the anti-semitism card against covenant theology beliefs and slander it as 'replacement theology', as if the church replaces Israel. But this is a misrepresentation because they would believe that the church is the fulfilment of the promises to Israel, not a replacement. And in fact the truth is that covenant theology offers the Jews a higher standing in Bible prophecy, since they believe that the prophetic in-bringing of the Jews prior to the apocalypse is not a physical in-bringing into an area of land, but a spiritual in-bringing into the church that will see them gain an everlasting inheritance. This is why, admist the apocalypticism of the British Civil War, Oliver Cromwell re-invited Jews into Britain to be part of his 'godly republic', after they had been expelled hundreds of years previously.
Now, it is partially because of the misrepresentations of covenant theology that the Israeli government was enraged at a report by the Church of Scotland (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/israel-blasts-kirk-amid-allegations-of-anti-semitism-1-2925446) on the promised land issue. I say partially because frankly solid theology wasn't at the heart of that report, the Church of Scotland has been infested with liberals including those of the unquestioning 'free Palestine' mentality who thought they would go a little beyond the bounds of theology and include a wee critique of Israeli government policy. But theological misunderstandings were still partly to blame.
Not sure why I ended up writing all that, hopefully it will maybe give a broader understanding of the Christian position on the issue.
The average age of Gazans is 17. It's one of the youngest populations in the world. Quarter of a million are under 10.
Respected British news anchor makes a plea for the children of Gaza. Well worth 3 minutes of your time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACgwr2Nj_GQ&sns=em
The average age of Gazans is 17. It's one of the youngest populations in the world. Quarter of a million are under 10.
So what, is it Israel's fault that they drop one every 9 months, they breed like rabbits over there. Get less kids, less get killed by being used as human shields.
Seamus Fermanagh
07-27-2014, 20:48
So what, is it Israel's fault that they drop one every 9 months, they breed like rabbits over there. Get less kids, less get killed by being used as human shields.
Where to begin with this one....hmmmm.....nope, not worth it.
Papewaio
07-28-2014, 02:08
Problem is he has point.
Historic timeline as a problem though.
Israel was forming before WWII.
Whilst the Holocaust was happening British controlled Palestine was being destabilized by Zionists who were already doing all the following:
"You taught us to pick up guns, you taught us to slaughter and persecute and ethnically cleanse, you taught us that the only way to protect ourselves was to stop preaching peace and patience because that leads to our graves. We learned "
Hooahguy
07-28-2014, 03:17
Historic timeline as a problem though.
Israel was forming before WWII.
Whilst the Holocaust was happening British controlled Palestine was being destabilized by Zionists who were already doing all the following:
"You taught us to pick up guns, you taught us to slaughter and persecute and ethnically cleanse, you taught us that the only way to protect ourselves was to stop preaching peace and patience because that leads to our graves. We learned "
True, but what kicked off modern Zionism was the Dreyfus Affair which was just another big incident of antisemitism.
Point Im trying to make here is that Jews have been underfoot for centuries, and when they finally have someone else underfoot are we really so surprised that they exercise that power?
Montmorency
07-28-2014, 03:19
That quote, though, seemed more like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Elr5K2Vuo
Which instantly confirms ACIN's attitude.
Where to begin with this one....hmmmm.....nope, not worth it.
Oh noes disaproval is mine. If it wouldn't be for the billions of aid they would starve to death instead of being collateral damage. They are the victims of the war Hamas wages on Israel, not the victims of Israel's retaliations. At least it's quiker. Hamas needs dead kids more than a junkie needs crack and they make damn sure that as many as possible get killed.
Pallywood.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
07-28-2014, 12:15
Its one thing to say that Christian theory detests violence, but then you look at the Spanish Inquisition, the thousands of religious pogroms incited by how the Jews killed Jesus and other things like that, and finally the Holocaust where most Christian leaders stayed silent as millions were murdered, and you wonder why Jews as a people tend not to trust other people who arent within the fold?
OK - I'll get right to it.
The Inquisition was a phenomenon of the Renaissance - aimed at building a new Spanish nations it targeted all non-Catholics. This obviously fell heavily upon the Jewish populations, but it also fell heavily upon the Muslim population, which was probably larger, and targeted even those suspected of deviancy - i.e. not being Roman Catholic. Not to belittle the fact that the Jews were expelled, but it was not a movement targeting Jews specifically.
Thousands of religious Pogroms? Unlikely, dozens yes, hundreds possibly, but not thousands. That is a gross exaggeration. Looking through Wikipedia, there are perhaps 100 pages on instances of anti-Jewish pogroms, and some of those (like the 1907 Romanian Peasants' Revolt) were not about Jews, but they were targeted as part of the wealthy merchant class. As far as I know, the only pogroms that targeted Jews specifically as "Christ Killers" were the ones associated with the Crusades - carried out by people that everybody considered unhinged fanatics, including the Church, the Emperor and most normal people.
And then we come to the Holocaust, which targeted Jews first, and then anyone else who the Nazi's considered a threat - and which the Roman Catholic Church (largest denomination in the area affected) vocally opposed while it was possible and continued to actively frustrate throughout the 1940's, leading to the death of some of its clergy.
Undoubtedly Christian-Jewish relations have improved over the past 70 years but the distrust will always be there. Is that a fault in the way that the Jewish community thinks? Absolutely. But is that kind of distrust expected? Absolutely.
To listen to you, I'd say they haven't improved at all. If Jews are constalty expecting another Pogrom, which is what this comes down to, and they don't trust the people they live next door to then the situation is exactly the same as for the last 1,000 years.
Contrast with Western discourse that talks about "Judeo-Christian" rather than "Abrahamic" religion.
And I think you overestimate the way that other people in the West thinks when it comes to vengeance. Just look at post 9/11, everyone was clamoring for vengeance and Im sure there are examples of that in Europe as well.
Clamouring for just retribution, which is practically the same but psychologically different. Sure people demand "justice" and they mean vengeance, but you'll rarely hear them say "we want revenge for those killings."
The problem is that the way Israel is reacting is how Europe would react to things like this before the whole human rights idea took hold. Judaism as a culture is very big on memory, and has many prayers and songs how through the generations "they" tried to kill the Jews but we survived. So its a very "survivor" mentality which feeds into this idea that now that Jews finally have a state to call their own, they will fight tooth and nail to keep it safe from all threats, and right now the biggest threat are the Palestinians. So what do they do? They take the lessons that were learned from centuries of persecution and apply it to that threat.
so Jews don't believe in Human Rights?
Can we try that again, please?
From my understanding its from the thought that if all Jews go back to Israel it will trigger the messiah coming or something along those lines.
Basically - it's the most toxic of alliances.
Seamus Fermanagh
07-28-2014, 14:41
Oh noes disaproval is mine. If it wouldn't be for the billions of aid they would starve to death instead of being collateral damage. They are the victims of the war Hamas wages on Israel, not the victims of Israel's retaliations. At least it's quiker. Hamas needs dead kids more than a junkie needs crack and they make damn sure that as many as possible get killed.
Pallywood.
This post, though many will still disagree disagree with your point, at least makes a more understandable assertion of Hamas' responsibility in these non-combatant deaths; nor are you the first to suggest that their leadership is benefiting from these deaths and is encouraging their occurrence to continue to garner sympathy.
The post I derided had none of this content, but was the usual "those dirty X, all they do is fornicate and make more of themselves" racist claptrap.
I have been told about this, but I haven't been able to find anything conclusive through google searching, but in short:
Apparently, Hamas were planning a massive assault on Israel, by dressing up as IDF forces and springing out the ground like hobbits to carry out assaults and raids.
These offensive tunnels were built during the 'diplomatic' period of Hamas and the formation of the unity government.
These tunnels cost half-million each (21 in number). The amount of tunnels altogether are in their hundreds, with many built under schools, hospitals, refugee camps, to hide rockets and other military equipment.
Sources:
Al-monitor (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/07/israel-idf-tunnels-gaza-underground-network-failure-welfare.html#) and Haartz (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.606510).
The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/23/gaza-conflict-hamas-rockets-tunnels-israel) and NYtimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-conflict.html)mention the tunnels but not any plans.
The amount of corruption and the amount of aid-money being ill-spent is terrible. Imagine if all this money was invested in Welfare of the population and diplomatic solutions with israel, instead of being used to buy bombs and rockets.
The post I derided had none of this content, but was the usual "those dirty X, all they do is fornicate and make more of themselves" racist claptrap.
I bring it upon myself by wording things undimomaticaly.
The average age of Gazans is 17. It's one of the youngest populations in the world. Quarter of a million are under 10.
Respected British news anchor makes a plea for the children of Gaza. Well worth 3 minutes of your time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACgwr2Nj_GQ&sns=em
This guy knows nothing.
But seriously, if the demographics are accurate the next generation of Gazans will be a serious problem for the Israelis.
Hooahguy
07-28-2014, 20:31
OK - I'll get right to it.
The Inquisition was a phenomenon of the Renaissance - aimed at building a new Spanish nations it targeted all non-Catholics. This obviously fell heavily upon the Jewish populations, but it also fell heavily upon the Muslim population, which was probably larger, and targeted even those suspected of deviancy - i.e. not being Roman Catholic. Not to belittle the fact that the Jews were expelled, but it was not a movement targeting Jews specifically.
Thousands of religious Pogroms? Unlikely, dozens yes, hundreds possibly, but not thousands. That is a gross exaggeration. Looking through Wikipedia, there are perhaps 100 pages on instances of anti-Jewish pogroms, and some of those (like the 1907 Romanian Peasants' Revolt) were not about Jews, but they were targeted as part of the wealthy merchant class. As far as I know, the only pogroms that targeted Jews specifically as "Christ Killers" were the ones associated with the Crusades - carried out by people that everybody considered unhinged fanatics, including the Church, the Emperor and most normal people.
And then we come to the Holocaust, which targeted Jews first, and then anyone else who the Nazi's considered a threat - and which the Roman Catholic Church (largest denomination in the area affected) vocally opposed while it was possible and continued to actively frustrate throughout the 1940's, leading to the death of some of its clergy.
Fair enough. Admittedly Im kind of shaky on my medieval history but regardless of the facts this is how its perceived in the most of Jewish community.
To listen to you, I'd say they haven't improved at all. If Jews are constalty expecting another Pogrom, which is what this comes down to, and they don't trust the people they live next door to then the situation is exactly the same as for the last 1,000 years.
Contrast with Western discourse that talks about "Judeo-Christian" rather than "Abrahamic" religion.
Improved in the sense that it went from pogroms being an eventuality to a "maybe in the far off future" but even then its not really mainstream thinking. Its really only the radicals who think that a single brick thrown through a Jewish storefront window is the next Kristallnacht.
Clamouring for just retribution, which is practically the same but psychologically different. Sure people demand "justice" and they mean vengeance, but you'll rarely hear them say "we want revenge for those killings."
Maybe we were hearing different things then.
so Jews don't believe in Human Rights?
Can we try that again, please?
In the sense that perceived threats do not deserve human rights like the rest of us? I think its a worrying trend in how some people think.
Hooahguy
07-30-2014, 22:45
Israeli Official To Obama: ‘Leave Us Alone’ (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/29/israeli-official-to-obama-leave-us-alone/)
Ok that's cool, we will just take back our $3 billion a year in military aid. Have fun with paying for that Iron Dome (which we helped develop/fund) without that money!
Pannonian
07-30-2014, 22:57
Israeli Official To Obama: ‘Leave Us Alone’ (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/29/israeli-official-to-obama-leave-us-alone/)
Ok that's cool, we will just take back our $3 billion a year in military aid. Have fun with paying for that Iron Dome (which we helped develop/fund) without that money!
Can't they build it themselves from the schematics that they've stolen from you?
Hooahguy
07-30-2014, 23:24
I thought China stole the schematics from Israel?
Sarmatian
07-30-2014, 23:29
Israeli Official To Obama: ‘Leave Us Alone’ (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/29/israeli-official-to-obama-leave-us-alone/)
That doesn't mean leave us alone leave us alone. There is leave is alone plain and simple, and leave us alone after the money.
It's all in the nuances.
Pannonian
07-30-2014, 23:31
I thought China stole the schematics from Israel?
Couldn't they steal it directly from the US, instead of having to wait until Israel got their hands on it first?
Strike For The South
07-31-2014, 18:38
This has simply become an excuse to satisfy bloodlust
It's a good thing Israel got all those HAMAS fighters in that un sanctioned hospital and school.
That doesn't mean leave us alone leave us alone. There is leave is alone plain and simple, and leave us alone after the money.
It's all in the nuances.
It's not the money really. Our financial and military assistance to Israel, that's merely the icing on the cake. Israel's greatest benefit from this relationship is total immunity from UN resolutions. We veto anything and everything even remotely threatening, allowing Israel to wipe its ass with world's opinion.
Now the real question is what we are getting in return for being saddled with such a hefty political liability. That's what Israel is to us: a political liability.
Anyway, as for the crisis at hand, the simplest way to solve it would be to allow Egypt to take over Gaza. Have their tanks roll in and establish a pre-1967 situation. If they don't wanna do it, pay them to do it. Bam: problem solved.
Kadagar_AV
07-31-2014, 20:49
And here silly old me thought it was conflicts like this that the UN was supposed to handle.
Make a clear border for both sides. The border would be protected with state-of-the-art UN soldiers, well equipped and trained to deal fairly with the situation.
I think that's the only viable solution. An alternative would of course be to use nukes to make that whole area a gigantic parking lot...
Oh well, nothing will happen as long as the US stay a Jew lackey.
Hooahguy
07-31-2014, 21:12
Ha, that will never happen even if the US dumps Israel as an ally. That would just make Israel more entrenched.
Either way, both sides are teaching their kids to hate the other side so nope this conflict can only end in eventual slaughter.
Kadagar_AV
07-31-2014, 22:17
Ha, that will never happen even if the US dumps Israel as an ally. That would just make Israel more entrenched.
Either way, both sides are teaching their kids to hate the other side so nope this conflict can only end in eventual slaughter.
That's why we need the blue helmets...
It's hard to convince your kid that that guy - who is ready to sacrifice his life for international justice - is a tangible target.
My point even shorter would be:
Israel and Palestine are like two children quarrelling, and it's time for a grown up to step in between them.
Hooahguy
07-31-2014, 22:28
I think its pretty easy. I know this from personal experience because in 2007, about a year after the 2nd Lebanon war, I toured the Lebanon-Israeli border and we saw some of the UN peacekeepers and our guide told us how the UN was basically protecting Hezbollah so they can rearm for the next fight. Now I know that they weren't, but 15 year old me soaked up every word that guide told us about how the UN was just covering for the terrorists.
Its too late for an "adult" to step in, the kids aren't ten years old anymore.
HoreTore
07-31-2014, 22:40
I think its pretty easy. I know this from personal experience because in 2007, about a year after the 2nd Lebanon war, I toured the Lebanon-Israeli border and we saw some of the UN peacekeepers and our guide told us how the UN was basically protecting Hezbollah so they can rearm for the next fight. Now I know that they weren't, but 15 year old me soaked up every word that guide told us about how the UN was just covering for the terrorists.
Its too late for an "adult" to step in, the kids aren't ten years old anymore.
Neutrals are well known bastards (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8ws_APXilE).
Kadagar_AV
07-31-2014, 22:43
I think its pretty easy. I know this from personal experience because in 2007, about a year after the 2nd Lebanon war, I toured the Lebanon-Israeli border and we saw some of the UN peacekeepers and our guide told us how the UN was basically protecting Hezbollah so they can rearm for the next fight. Now I know that they weren't, but 15 year old me soaked up every word that guide told us about how the UN was just covering for the terrorists.
Its too late for an "adult" to step in, the kids aren't ten years old anymore.
Well... I don't agree.
The UN isn't doing any full intervention, so what people would think might (would) change.
There will always be idiots, but remember that UN warfare is part "nation and education" building. You know, kind of like the US only that they actually mean it.
A full on western assault would cripple their resistance...
Now, I am not talking about weaponized assault, mind you.
I talk about politicians from all over the world having their public say, I talk about comedians world wide making up jokes about it, I talk about controlling their economy, I talk about.... The list goes on, but you get my point.
The UN military guys arent' the REAL show when it comes to the UN, it's the full on cultural assault that matters.
Again: sure there will be idiots... But right now they dwell in a society where they can play their idiocies... Whereas if the UN intervened for real, these same idiots would suddenly have a LOAD of other voices making themselves heard..
And people are not complete idiots, eventually they will listen. Specifically if helped by schools promoting critical thinking, HEY, something else the UN does.
Hooahguy
07-31-2014, 23:18
So by "western assault" you mean what basically amounts to a gag order when it comes to Israel being lifted, and a control of their economy? I understand the lifting of the gag order, but the economy part? Im not seeing where that fits in, and I fail to see how even removing the gag order would help. If anything it would make Israel more entrenched.
Kadagar_AV
07-31-2014, 23:33
So by "western assault" you mean what basically amounts to a gag order when it comes to Israel being lifted, and a control of their economy? I understand the lifting of the gag order, but the economy part? Im not seeing where that fits in, and I fail to see how even removing the gag order would help. If anything it would make Israel more entrenched.
* Lifting the international gag order would be first priority for any kind of civilized advancement, of course.
* The economy part is actually the very main thingy here... Do you think Israel would function for long if the west refused to trade with them, or if the west withdrew their aid?
Israel only functions BECAUSE the west *cough* USA *cough* allows it.
"Entrenched" is BS...
Israel is a small island in a very big sea of "Let's get rid of Israel". Cut off from western aid they would NEVER last for long.
Oh, and it's not even like China or Russia would HELP them, like they do with nations messing with USA.
Strike For The South
07-31-2014, 23:59
Israel is a small island in a very big sea of "Let's get rid of Israel". Cut off from western aid they would NEVER last for long.
Israel would kill 100x the people they are now if they were backed into a corner like that. Modern Arab armed forces are piss poor, especially when compared to the Israelis. Not to mention the chemical, biological, and nuclear plans they have if the shit hits the fan.
Kadagar_AV
08-01-2014, 00:05
Israel would kill 100x the people they are now if they were backed into a corner like that. Modern Arab armed forces are piss poor, especially when compared to the Israelis. Not to mention the chemical, biological, and nuclear plans they have if the shit hits the fan. - edited
Last I checked you needed money to make war.
Also, as a more current note you also need the western worlds acceptance to wage war. I'm not kidding, 2014 you need the moral high ground to be able to function. Remove that, and any western nation is at a stand still.
If the Israelis started to attack UN troops the **** would hit the fan, to say the least.
BTW, seriously SFTS. Stop attacking the person, and start attacking the argument. Saying my posts = mental illness and that I am deluded not only paint you in a bad view, but the board at large (as you are senior member).
I personally don't feel negative about your explicit language. But, mind you, I have started to use that to measure just how drunk you are when you post.
Strike For The South
08-01-2014, 01:57
Cutting Israel off from the world is what the hard line Zionists want. It would be a boon for the cause. The fact you think UN peacekeepers can do anything is insane.
Srebrenica
Somalia
DRC
ETC.
Those blue helmets stopped the baddies then
Seamus Fermanagh
08-01-2014, 02:13
Cutting Israel off from the world is what the hard line Zionists want. It would be a boon for the cause. The fact you think UN peacekeepers can do anything is insane.
Srebrenica
Somalia
DRC
ETC.
Those blue helmets stopped the baddies then
A lot depends on which militaries are staffing the blue-beanie mission in question. UN efforts at establishing security zones have had mixed results -- notable successes along with failures wherein they have turned predatory towards their protectees.
Sarmatian
08-01-2014, 08:43
Cutting Israel off from the world is what the hard line Zionists want. It would be a boon for the cause. The fact you think UN peacekeepers can do anything is insane.
Srebrenica
Somalia
DRC
ETC.
Those blue helmets stopped the baddies then
Blue helmets are not enough - they need to have really big blue guns and blue tanks and blue airplanes and blue gunships, so that everyone think twice before messing with them.
Sending them in armed with pocket knives and moral superiority doesn't work.
Just do nothing. The second Hamas is gone there will come something worse. At least you can talk with Hamas (yeah I am inconsistant here considering earlier posts, I know and acknowledge that, but it isn't about me is it). Anything should be done to end this in a reasonable way, it's getting somewhat insane. Doing nothing looks best, more will die of course.
Edit, well that was short, more rockets ad hominem after 72 very short hours that lasted only 4. Whoever is in control there is not interested peace, or interested in a homeland for the Palestinians.
Thesis, Hamas can't afford to have peace because they will become the victim of much much worse radicals. Hamas is a really ugly thing, but less ugly than much uglier groups.
Crazy as it may sound, maybe Hamas is exactly who everyone should treat as a valiable partner for a talk. The alternative is probably much more horrible. That Arab-spring the left cheered on is the new Heart of Darkness. Nice to see a Dutch muslim posing before a gate with heads spiked on in it. Cutting of a head, gently pulling the ear upward for the cut, almost seemed intimate, how sick is that.
Sarmatian
08-01-2014, 10:22
Just do nothing. The second Hamas is gone there will come something worse. At least you can talk with Hamas (yeah I am inconsistant here considering earlier posts, I know and acknowledge that, but it isn't about me is it). Anything should be done to end this in a reasonable way, it's getting somewhat insane. Doing nothing looks best, more will die of course.
Edit, well that was short, more rockets ad hominem after 72 very short hours that lasted only 4. Whoever is in control there is not interested peace, or interested in a homeland for the Palestinians.
Thesis, Hamas can't afford to have peace because they will become the victim of much much worse radicals. Hamas is a really ugly thing, but less ugly than much uglier groups.
Crazy as it may sound, maybe Hamas is exactly who everyone should treat as a valiable partner for a talk. The alternative is much more horrible.
Have you tried considering that Palestinians don't have a hive mind and that just maybe some individuals have ideas of their own? Just food for thoughts.
Have you tried considering that Palestinians don't have a hive mind and that just maybe some individuals have ideas of their own? Just food for thoughts.
Ffs I know Palistinians that live here, had a barbecue with them yesterday, did you? If you assume that I am that stupid it says more about you than it says about me. Guess who they dislike more, the Israeli's or these religious nutjobs who shoot people at weddings because they play music, there is only one answer to that, the right one.
Sarmatian
08-01-2014, 10:45
[QUOTE=Fragony;2053605773]Ffs I know Palistinians that live here, had a barbecue with them yesterday, did you? If you assume that I am that stupid it says more about you than it says about me. Guess who they dislike more, the Israeli's or these religious nutjobs who shoot people at weddings because they play music, there is only one answer to that, the right one.[/QUOTE
Your posts imply something else.
A makeshift rocket or two doesn't mean that Palestinians at large, or even Hamas, want war. It means there are few nutjobs with a few makeshift rockets on there hands.
[QUOTE=Fragony;2053605773] Your posts imply something else.
Oh really, what you make of them is not my concern. I am perfectly harmless. Just outspoken.
Hooahguy
08-01-2014, 15:11
Apparently the ceasefire ended because Hamas kidnapped a soldier or something. Hamas is claiming he was taken just before the ceasefire began, but who really knows.
Apparently the ceasefire ended because neither side wants it.
FTFY
Kralizec
08-01-2014, 16:22
Have you tried considering that Palestinians don't have a hive mind and that just maybe some individuals have ideas of their own? Just food for thoughts.
He's not wrong, though. Hamas is not the most radical Palestinian movement, not by a long shot. Any sort of peace agreement or even a cease fire must avoid the possibility that Hamas will lose face, otherwise:
- there's a good chance that Gaza will disintegrate into civil war
- armed splinter groups, more radical than Hamas, will ignore the agreement and start firing rockets at Israel on their own accord
Apparently the ceasefire ended because Hamas kidnapped a soldier or something. Hamas is claiming he was taken just before the ceasefire began, but who really knows.
Yes, apparently Israel is strangely upset that in an armed conflict it's military personnel may be at risk.
He's not wrong, though. Hamas is not the most radical Palestinian movement, not by a long shot. Any sort of peace agreement or even a cease fire must avoid the possibility that Hamas will lose face, otherwise:
- there's a good chance that Gaza will disintegrate into civil war
- armed splinter groups, more radical than Hamas, will ignore the agreement and start firing rockets at Israel on their own accord
I'm not convinced that either side is truly in control of what happens in their name.
Israel cancelling the ceasefire because one of the soldiers it sent in to kill civilians is kidnapped. No further comment needed.
Anyone posted up the idf soldier's social media comment about his great success in killing kids?
Pannonian
08-03-2014, 12:00
Israel cancelling the ceasefire because one of the soldiers it sent in to kill civilians is kidnapped. No further comment needed.
Anyone posted up the idf soldier's social media comment about his great success in killing kids?
Why don't you?
Rhyfelwyr
08-03-2014, 12:14
A handful of town councils in Britain have taken to flying Palestine flags to "raise awareness" about the situation in Gaza. It is not surprising to see it in Muslim areas like Bradford or Tower Hamlets, but strangely it has also happened at my local council building...
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/palestine-flag-flies-over-scots-3940647
The immigrant community here is tiny, I suspect it is because our council is run by Republicans such as this guy (https://www.facebook.com/jim.bollan). Note how he supports Irish football teams, his favourite bands include Irish rebel music, and his only inspirational figures given is Karl Marx. Yeah, guys like that are my democratic representatives, LOL!
Anyway, to bring it back to topic, this should not be allowed, councils should not be picking sides in foreign conflicts like this, especially when there is no clear cut 'good guy' to side with. I doubt we have much of a Jewish community but this sort of things may well be offensive to them. Apparently a British-Jewish organisation has already voiced their concerns about it. Certainly, I don't think it is a good idea when the conflict has caused a huge surge in antisemitic attacks in Britain (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/01/sharp-rise-uk-antisemitic-attacks-gaza-conflict). The council should be backing peace not picking sides.
Pannonian
08-03-2014, 12:44
A handful of town councils in Britain have taken to flying Palestine flags to "raise awareness" about the situation in Gaza. It is not surprising to see it in Muslim areas like Bradford or Tower Hamlets, but strangely it has also happened at my local council building...
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/palestine-flag-flies-over-scots-3940647
The immigrant community here is tiny, I suspect it is because our council is run by Republicans such as this guy (https://www.facebook.com/jim.bollan). Note how he supports Irish football teams, his favourite bands include Irish rebel music, and his only inspirational figures given is Karl Marx. Yeah, guys like that are my democratic representatives, LOL!
Anyway, to bring it back to topic, this should not be allowed, councils should not be picking sides in foreign conflicts like this, especially when there is no clear cut 'good guy' to side with. I doubt we have much of a Jewish community but this sort of things may well be offensive to them. Apparently a British-Jewish organisation has already voiced their concerns about it. Certainly, I don't think it is a good idea when the conflict has caused a huge surge in antisemitic attacks in Britain (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/01/sharp-rise-uk-antisemitic-attacks-gaza-conflict). The council should be backing peace not picking sides.
I'd support any council that said "To hell with them both".
I'd support any council that said "To hell with them both".
What about this?
https://i.imgur.com/TcYvhua.jpg
What about this?
It's missing a unicorn.
HoreTore
08-03-2014, 18:41
A handful of town councils in Britain have taken to flying Palestine flags to "raise awareness" about the situation in Gaza. It is not surprising to see it in Muslim areas like Bradford or Tower Hamlets, but strangely it has also happened at my local council building...
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/palestine-flag-flies-over-scots-3940647
The immigrant community here is tiny, I suspect it is because our council is run by Republicans such as this guy (https://www.facebook.com/jim.bollan). Note how he supports Irish football teams, his favourite bands include Irish rebel music, and his only inspirational figures given is Karl Marx. Yeah, guys like that are my democratic representatives, LOL!
Anyway, to bring it back to topic, this should not be allowed, councils should not be picking sides in foreign conflicts like this, especially when there is no clear cut 'good guy' to side with. I doubt we have much of a Jewish community but this sort of things may well be offensive to them. Apparently a British-Jewish organisation has already voiced their concerns about it. Certainly, I don't think it is a good idea when the conflict has caused a huge surge in antisemitic attacks in Britain (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/01/sharp-rise-uk-antisemitic-attacks-gaza-conflict). The council should be backing peace not picking sides.
Yeah, political councils acting all political-like, what gives?
Seamus Fermanagh
08-03-2014, 19:56
Israel cancelling the ceasefire because one of the soldiers it sent in to kill civilians is kidnapped. No further comment needed.
Anyone posted up the idf soldier's social media comment about his great success in killing kids?
Idaho:
While I am more than willing to ding Israeli leadership for being cavalier about "collateral damage" (which the numbers make readily demonstrable) it is another thing entirely to imply that they have a policy directive for killing civilians.
Are they collecting ears or paying bounties now? Perhaps the time-honored process of scalping for proof is being used....
If you are that adamantly certain that it is not hard-hearted negligence but active pogromatic policy, why aren't you wearing a keffiyeh as part of the "Legion of Lawrence" and working to rid the world of Zionist evil?
Seamus Fermanagh
08-03-2014, 19:57
What about this?
https://i.imgur.com/TcYvhua.jpg
A beautiful image....but only the two hands depicted can make it happen. External efforts are past pointless and approaching farce.
Kadagar_AV
08-03-2014, 22:53
It's missing a unicorn.
And I think everyone should get a unicorn for free...
I respect your solution, but the odds of it happening in this century is extremely bad, to say the least.
GEEZ, at least source me when using my exact witticism in the exact same thread... :rolleyes:
Another 7 hour ceasefire for humanitarian reasons rejected by Hamas, way to go
The abduction of a soldier was a bullshit-reason from Israel of course, won't argue otherwise
Ironside
08-04-2014, 08:28
A beautiful image....but only the two hands depicted can make it happen. External efforts are past pointless and approaching farce.
True, but dropping the Israeli carte blanche would probably help Israel to go back to the negiation in good faith. The West Bank staying quiet will, according to current Israeli policies be rewarded by expanded settlements.
Be a good or bad Palestinian, current Israeli goverment will still treat you as dirt.
How would they treat the Israeli's if they wouldn't be treated like dirt. Maybe that is just what they simply are.
If they are not, who's to blame really, Israel or the continious attempts of their goverments to not come to a solution.
Pannonian
08-04-2014, 11:11
How would they treat the Israeli's if they wouldn't be treated like dirt. Maybe that is just what they simply are.
If they are not, who's to blame really, Israel or the continious attempts of their goverments to not come to a solution.
As far as international law goes, taking over the territory of another people has always been regarded as a casus belli, and iusta causa for the people being encroached on to take whatever measures they wish against the invader. This has been the case for as far back as there has been an understanding of conflict, and even further, if we look at the behaviour of animals, such as the experiment with sticklebacks which showed that an animal in its own territory will feel more confident about a contest, while an animal in another's territory will feel less confident. Even if you, and you do, regard the Palestinians as a people with no right to exist, the Israeli state has agreements with the Palestinian state that recognise each other, or at least with the rump state that's in control of the West Bank. And yet Israel continues to snip away at the West Bank. In that area at least, there is no question about who is right and who is wrong. Israel is an invader.
I'd like you to come up with an argument that shows that Israel is in the right for building settlements in the West Bank that are not subject to the Palestinian authorities.
Casus Belli means a justified war, as far as I can see, it seems to be a completily justified war.
Pannonian
08-04-2014, 13:40
Casus Belli means a justified war, as far as I can see, it seems to be a completily justified war.
So would the West Bank Palestinians be completely justified in taking any measures possible to expel the Israelis from the Palestinian West Bank as defined in agreements between the Palestinian state and the Israeli state?
So would the West Bank Palestinians be completely justified in taking any measures possible to expel the Israelis from the Palestinian West Bank as defined in agreements between the Palestinian state and the Israeli state?
It alll started in 1948, I am of the 1977 variety. Palestian state, sure why not. i look forward to admiring everything they build there. But there isn't any sign of anything at all there is there.
Pannonian
08-04-2014, 14:03
It alll started in 1948, I am of the 1977 variety. Palestian state, sure why not. i look forward to admiring everything they build there. But there isn't any sign of anything at all there is there.
If your beef is with what the Palestinians have failed to build there, you can back your Israeli friends to stay on the West Bank. All they need to do is follow Palestinian laws and pay all the fees, rents and taxes that are due to the Palestinian authorities, and they'll be allowed to stay there for as long as the Palestinian authorities allow them to. And if they want an irrevocable right to stay there, they can take up Palestinian citizenship as well. What's your view on this, other than another snide attempt to dodge the question?
If your beef is with what the Palestinians have failed to build there, you can back your Israeli friends to stay on the West Bank. All they need to do is follow Palestinian laws and pay all the fees, rents and taxes that are due to the Palestinian authorities, and they'll be allowed to stay there for as long as the Palestinian authorities allow them to. And if they want an irrevocable right to stay there, they can take up Palestinian citizenship as well. What's your view on this, other than another snide attempt to dodge the question?
There is only one question, do they want a state. Any pragmatism would say no, because that state would become a target itself by more radical groups. We have seen the same happining between Fatah and Hamas, and who can really tell it's Hamas firing rockets or a a group that's absolutily not interested in peace like Islamic Jihad, also active there.
Edit, I got no pro-isreali friends or rightwing friens in general by the way. All my friends are either leftist, or absolutily apolitical. Yes that causes conversations. I think they are idiots. Still love them.
A beautiful image....but only the two hands depicted can make it happen. External efforts are past pointless and approaching farce.
It requires two visionary leaders to be able to pull it off. A proper and equal peace would benefit both Israel and Palestine.
Did you know that Israel imports people from the Philippines to work in their fields, etc, to replace the jobs the Palestinians did? If there was a proper peace, the Palestinians could end up taking that work again and Israel could lift the embargo's, allowing free and prosperous trade to flow into Palestine, which could allow the nation to build itself up and end up forming a mutual partnership of good will.
I would love such a solution to come about, but it feels that sometimes the conflict will only be 'ended' if one side wins, hence my other solution of trying to do the best for the Palestinian people as the 'losers'.
Pannonian
08-04-2014, 17:10
It requires two visionary leaders to be able to pull it off. A proper and equal peace would benefit both Israel and Palestine.
Did you know that Israel imports people from the Philippines to work in their fields, etc, to replace the jobs the Palestinians did? If there was a proper peace, the Palestinians could end up taking that work again and Israel could lift the embargo's, allowing free and prosperous trade to flow into Palestine, which could allow the nation to build itself up and end up forming a mutual partnership of good will.
I would love such a solution to come about, but it feels that sometimes the conflict will only be 'ended' if one side wins, hence my other solution of trying to do the best for the Palestinian people as the 'losers'.
Filipinos don't belong there, and can be legally kicked off as soon as they outlive their usefulness. Palestinians are different, and Israel has obligations whatever status they eventually settle on, whether they're citizens of a Palestinian state, refugees of a Palestinian state, citizens of an Israeli state, guests of an Israeli state, or whatever. Hence you get attempts of people like Frag to deny them any kind of status, relieving Israel of all responsibility and making them a legal anomaly simply for being. According to those arguments, Palestinians have no legal right to exist.
Filipinos don't belong there, and can be legally kicked off as soon as they outlive their usefulness. Palestinians are different, and Israel has obligations whatever status they eventually settle on, whether they're citizens of a Palestinian state, refugees of a Palestinian state, citizens of an Israeli state, guests of an Israeli state, or whatever. Hence you get attempts of people like Frag to deny them any kind of status, relieving Israel of all responsibility and making them a legal anomaly simply for being. According to those arguments, Palestinians have no legal right to exist.
Don't put words in my my mouth, I am ok with a state for them, so is Israel. You should have a chat with so e friends who are from there, they can explain very well what Hamas really is and how their life is under their rule. I condemn a vicious regime, nothing else.
Rhyfelwyr
08-04-2014, 18:37
Some rough figures:
Israel's total population is 8.1 million, with 6.1 million Jews and 2.0 million Arabs.
The West Bank's population is 2.6 million, with 2.3 million Arabs and 0.3 million Jews.
Gaza's population is 1.7 million of entirely Arabs.
Now, if we consider what would happen if Israel were to integrate either or both the Palestinian territories, giving full rights as Israeli citizens to their inhabitants (probably the only viable/palatable situation should integration be agreed upon), we would get the following figures:
Option 1. Annexation of both Palestinian territories - the Israeli state would have a population of 12.4 million, of which 6.4 million would be Jews and 6.0 million would be Arabs. Such a precarious Jewish minority would never work and would be seen as a threat to the nature of Israel as a Jewish homeland. I can not see this working in anywhere near the foreseeable future.
Option 2. Annexation of the West Bank only - the Israeli state would have a population of 10.7 million, of which 6.4 million would be Jews and 4.3 million would be Arabs. I think this solution poses the same problem as above, as although the Jewish majority would be somewhat less fragile, alarm bells would be ringing given the population explosion see in the Arab population. This would make the Jewish population too nervy. Plus, Gaza would never, IMO, survive as an independent state. The only path it could take would be annexation by Egypt, and given the relationship between Hamas and Egypt's current rulership, I don't think that would create a healthier situation than the present. Annexation of just the West Bank seems the worst of all option, IMO.
Option 3. Annexation of Gaza only - the Israeli state would have a population of 9.8 million, of which 6.1 million would be Jews and 3.7 million would be Arabs. I can just about (barely) see this allowing for Israel to exist as a Jewish state with a Jewish majority that will appease its Jewish population. A further option would be to negotiate the removal of Israeli settlements in the West Bank in return for East Jerusalem being annexed along with Gaza, with a population transfer between West Bank settlers and the Arabs of East Jerusalem. This would bring 0.3 million Jews back to Israel, and transfer the 0.25 million Arabs of East Jerusalem to the autonomous West Bank area. This would give Israel a secure capital city, and rounding up, the Israeli state would have a population of 9.9 million, of which 6.4 million would be Jews, and 3.5 million would be Arabs. As well as securing a more acceptable (or rather, for us, workable) Jewish majority than with Option 2, this leaves a more viable state than Gaza, in the form of the West Bank. The West Bank could stand far better on its own that Gaza, but if it was to be integrated into a neighbouring country, it also has better option. Unlike Egypt, Jordan is essentially a Palestinian state, and many Jordanians are very sympathetic to Fatah.
Some things to mull over there. And I'm not double-checking those figures, btw!.
Keep it as it is, shoot back if shoot upon, otherwise let leave the palies be. No more settlement though. Learn how to build appartment buildings if it get too crowdy, and point a finger at hardcore jews and laugh at them really hard before ignoring them.
Alas, problem solved
Some things to mull over there. And I'm not double-checking those figures, btw!.
You didn't include the Palestinian refugees in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. It is one of those 'hot points' as part of the Palestinian demands is to allow them all to return. These are also mistreated in their respective countries as well and denied citizenship.
Papewaio
08-04-2014, 23:05
It alll started in 1948, I am of the 1977 variety. Palestian state, sure why not. i look forward to admiring everything they build there. But there isn't any sign of anything at all there is there.
Modem Israel formed in 1948 but it did not start in 1948. You have to go back decades and the interesting thing is the methods that the founders used to create such a state.
Take a guess who wrote this:
"I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain—especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state. ... If external necessity should after all compel us to assume this burden, let us bear it with tact and patience." -Wiki
Kralizec
08-05-2014, 00:09
Keep it as it is, shoot back if shoot upon, otherwise let leave the palies be. No more settlement though. Learn how to build appartment buildings if it get too crowdy, and point a finger at hardcore jews and laugh at them really hard before ignoring them.
Alas, problem solved
That's basicly the entire plan of the Likud party. Actually, only the "keep it as it is, shoot back" part. And sadly, it looks like they'll be in power for quite a while.
The great paradox is that the majority of Israelites have an unfavourable opinion of settlers and support, in theory, and independent Palestinian state. But the settlers are such a powerful minority in Israel that mainstream politicians don't dare to cross them. I refuse to buy products made by Israeli settlements on the west bank, and I encourage others to do the same. In other words, I boycott them. If I had said that in Israel, I would be prosecuted.
The Lidud party's charter explicitly rules out the possiblity of an independent Palestinian state. They act as if they're open to the possibility nowadays, but in fact Netanyahu hasn't made the slightest effort to make that happen. Construction of new settlements happens almost without interruption. If the Palestinians do something remotely annoying (like getting member status in the UN assembly - something that logically comes with self determination) settlements are errected at an increased rate. Knowing full well that in Israel, there will never be enough political will to dismantle them all.
You didn't include the Palestinian refugees in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. It is one of those 'hot points' as part of the Palestinian demands is to allow them all to return. These are also mistreated in their respective countries as well and denied citizenship.
Consider this though. For every Palestinian that ran to those Arab states in 1948 there was a Jew who left those same Arab states and came to Israel. As far as Israel is concerned a population exchange happened.
Ironside
08-05-2014, 09:23
That's basicly the entire plan of the Likud party. Actually, only the "keep it as it is, shoot back" part. And sadly, it looks like they'll be in power for quite a while.
Add, "find an excuse to provoke enough to start the shooting."
Netanyahu's "Hamas totally did it, even if all signs points otherwise, but won't be public until they leak" is sort of hard to explain otherwise.
Add, "find an excuse to provoke enough to start the shooting."
Netanyahu's "Hamas totally did it, even if all signs points otherwise, but won't be public until they leak" is sort of hard to explain otherwise.
That is nonsense imho, Hamas is like the annoying schoolkid that keeps pinching you in the arm untill you hit him, than he runs of crying and hides under the teachers skirt. Israel should hit back much harder when endlessly being attacked. Just because they have the better weapons doesn't mean it isn't justified. As we say here, if you burn your ass you will just have to sit on the blisters.
Kadagar_AV
08-05-2014, 12:11
Ex-Israeli soldiers speaks out (http://www.digital-resistance.com/insight/ex-israeli-soldier-speaks-out-shocking-truth-about-israel/)
Effin horrible nation, imho.
Pannonian
08-05-2014, 14:17
1. There is a heavy indoctrination in Israel, from an early age in schools, which uses the holocaust to create paranoia and fear against ‘the enemy’
2. Israeli soldiers are trained intensively for a war, whilst their actual military duties are to subdue and control Palestinians
I don't know about the rest of it, but from what I can see, Israelis and Palestinians do seem rather similar to Spartans and Messenians. A lot of fuss about militarising a whole society for war readiness, but all of it is spent keeping down an underclass at home. Does Israel send any peacekeeping forces abroad?
Dispicable things certainly happen, won't argue with that. But if you put everything on a more bigger scale, considering everything that happened since it became an independ state. We all know what happened. The whole Arab world turned on the. They did it again in 1968(?) and they get attacked on daily bases even in peace time. Hamas fires rockets to diberatily kill civilians, they may suck at it but they try. Not that Israel is a saint, no denying that they deeply wrong the Palestinians when it comes to certain thing. But my moral principle remains, one side wants the other dead. How do you treat someone who really wants you dead?
Kadagar_AV
08-05-2014, 14:58
Dispicable things certainly happen, won't argue with that. But if you put everything on a more bigger scale, considering everything that happened since it became an independ state. We all know what happened. The whole Arab world turned on the. They did it again in 1968(?) and they get attacked on daily bases even in peace time. Hamas fires rockets to diberatily kill civilians, they may suck at it but they try. Not that Israel is a saint, no denying that they deeply wrong the Palestinians when it comes to certain thing. But my moral principle remains, one side wants the other dead. How do you treat someone who really wants you dead?
Both sides wants the other gone, Arabs are just less tech and have shorter time spans on their plans.
Both sides wants the other gone, Arabs are just less tech and have shorter time spans on their plans.
Plenty of Arabs live in Israel, whole neighbourhoods in Tev Aviv. Without denying that Israel is perhaps a tad too brutal I don't see them as the agressor. Let's put it this way, if the Israeli wanted the Arabs dead, they would be by now. If the military balance would have been different, Hamas having a great advantage, how much of the same courtisy would you expect Israeli's get. Their (hamas) charters are pretty clear on what they want. They are also a terror for their own people, apolitical palestinians are terrified of them.
Edit, just for musings sake, who are to judge them for holding on on some territories, they gave back a lot, AFTER being attacked by just about everyone in the region. It doesn't excuse the settlement policies but they earned that land imho.
Look at us Europeans https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WFYKrNptzXw
A lot of critisism is just unfair and hypocrite.
What about this?
https://i.imgur.com/TcYvhua.jpg
You'll want the Israeli hand to be 4 times the size, and covered in armour.
Pfffft Israel warns the Pallies if an attack is comming, Hamas makes sure that everybody stays at home so as many civilians as possible get killed. Goes like this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C2vMAF9Kt18
The younger the better.
That is what it looks like. The second a call is made, flyers are dropped, or a tud lands, your neighbourhood is surrounded and people aren't allowed to leave by Hamas order troops. Hamas needs dead civilians. Israel may have a bigger army but they don't have the almost undying support of western media.
You don't have to take my word for that.
Ironside
08-06-2014, 10:32
That is nonsense imho, Hamas is like the annoying schoolkid that keeps pinching you in the arm untill you hit him, than he runs of crying and hides under the teachers skirt. Israel should hit back much harder when endlessly being attacked. Just because they have the better weapons doesn't mean it isn't justified. As we say here, if you burn your ass you will just have to sit on the blisters.
That "nonsense" got more or less confirmed by the Israelis (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/hamas-didnt-kidnap-the-israeli-teens-after-all.html). The prime suspects are a bunch of hardcore militant terrorist fanatics that's a huge pain in the ass for Hamas, but powerful enough to not get denounced. They're also based in Hebron on the West bank, not Gaza. (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/qawasmeh-clan-hebron-hamas-leadership-mahmoud-abbas.html#)
In other news, if the radicalisation of Israel continues, this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Feiglin) will be the next prime minister from Likud and he is currently the deputy speaker of Knesset.
He wrote his solution to the current situation. (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15326)
Ultimatum – One warning from the Prime Minister of Israel to the enemy population, in which he announces that Israel is about to attack military targets in their area and urges those who are not involved and do not wish to be harmed to leave immediately. Sinai is not far from Gaza and they can leave. This will be the limit of Israel’s humanitarian efforts. Hamas may unconditionally surrender and prevent the attack.
Attack – Attack the entire ‘target bank’ throughout Gaza with the IDF’s maximum force (and not a tiny fraction of it) with all the conventional means at its disposal. All the military and infrastructural targets will be attacked with no consideration for ‘human shields’ or ‘environmental damage’. It is enough that we are hitting exact targets and that we gave them advance warning.
Siege – Parallel to the above, a total siege on Gaza. Nothing will enter the area. Israel, however, will allow exit from Gaza. (Civilians may go to Sinai, fighters may surrender to IDF forces).
Defense – Any place from which Israel or Israel’s forces were attacked will be immediately attacked with full force and no consideration for ‘human shields’ or ‘environmental damage’.
Conquer – After the IDF completes the "softening" of the targets with its fire-power, the IDF will conquer the entire Gaza, using all the means necessary to minimize any harm to our soldiers, with no other considerations.
Elimination- The GSS and IDF will thoroughly eliminate all armed enemies from Gaza. The enemy population that is innocent of wrong-doing and separated itself from the armed terrorists will be treated in accordance with international law and will be allowed to leave. Israel will generously aid those who wish to leave.
Sovereignty – Gaza is part of our Land and we will remain there forever. Liberation of parts of our land forever is the only thing that justifies endangering our soldiers in battle to capture land. Subsequent to the elimination of terror from Gaza, it will become part of sovereign Israel and will be populated by Jews. This will also serve to ease the housing crisis in Israel. The coastal train line will be extended, as soon as possible, to reach the entire length of Gaza.
According to polls, most of the Arabs in Gaza wish to leave. Those who were not involved in anti-Israel activity will be offered a generous international emigration package. Those who choose to remain will receive permanent resident status. After a number of years of living in Israel and becoming accustomed to it, contingent on appropriate legislation in the Knesset and the authorization of the Minister of Interior, those who personally accept upon themselves Israel’s rule, substance and way of life of the Jewish State in its Land, will be offered Israeli citizenship.
Care to guess where any strategical errors will show up in his planning if implemeted? Not counting that it is ethnic cleansing already.
West-Bank is PLO territory, not Hamas. I would love to see a lot of you explain your views to my mate Mo, I think he's going to get a bit angry at you if you effortlessly can recite just about everything flying around about hamas-controlled territory. He's big.
Hamas is horrible, they terrorise everybody, not just the Israeli's. People are absolutily terrified of them. He hates the Israeli's as well mind you. Can hardly blame him for that. But he is absolutily more scared of Hamas.
You probably mean Islamic Jihad, more radical than Hamas, will crash your wedding if you play music. Don't know anything about them. Except that Hamas is scared of them as well.
Pfffft Israel warns the Pallies if an attack is comming, Hamas makes sure that everybody stays at home so as many civilians as possible get killed. Goes like this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C2vMAF9Kt18
The younger the better.
That is what it looks like. The second a call is made, flyers are dropped, or a tud lands, your neighbourhood is surrounded and people aren't allowed to leave by Hamas order troops. Hamas needs dead civilians. Israel may have a bigger army but they don't have the almost undying support of western media.
You don't have to take my word for that.
Well, I don't think Hamas has a lot of friends here anyway.
As for the warnings, isn't it kind of logical that Hamas are warned as well and can get out of the area?
Why do they warn people and then bomb the area anyway? Are they aiming for ammunition depots or just randomly destroying peoples' houses?
Well, I don't think Hamas has a lot of friends here anyway.
As for the warnings, isn't it kind of logical that Hamas are warned as well and can get out of the area?
Why do they warn people and then bomb the area anyway? Are they aiming for ammunition depots or just randomly destroying peoples' houses?
How could I know, never been there myself, can only say what I heard. But people are warned before an attack, they get an empty shell or flyers or a call, which means get the hell out of here. By the time they have gotten te hell out they are not allowed to leave the territory, and not because of Israel.
Disclaimer, I got this from people I know that are from there. A phonecall is always scary because you know that you may have the need to flee and fast.
Little sour addition, did the Dutch get the same courtisy when Rotterdam was absolutily destroyed? Other times I know, but still a complete city destroyed without any warning.it took Germany half an hour to kill 30.000 Dutchies probably, and a million starved later, not that it matters anymore but I like perspective in my morality and it'sa bit lost by people who critisize Israel. It's just not fair.
Food for thought, the UN condemned an attack on a school that was completily destroyed, there were 3000 hiding there, 10 casualties total. How would you you suggest you can organise that?
Yes, they only kill the weak, old people and people who can't run away fast enough. That is really heartwarming.
But if they target only military installations, why do they warn people? Doesn't that mean they warn the militants occupying the military installation? If they warn civilians in a civilian house, why are they bombing a civilian house again?
Yes, they only kill the weak, old people and people who can't run away fast enough. That is really heartwarming.
But if they target only military installations, why do they warn people? Doesn't that mean they warn the militants occupying the military installation? If they warn civilians in a civilian house, why are they bombing a civilian house again?
Because rockets are purposily shot from high density or schools,hosptals etc. Camera's love it.
Because rockets are purposily shot from high density or schools,hosptals etc. Camera's love it.
So they warn the people firing the rockets so that they can escape in time?
Kralizec
08-06-2014, 13:59
West-Bank is PLO territory, not Hamas.
That was the point. This military operation started on the premise that Hamas was responsible for the abduction of three Israelis on the west bank. It now looks like Hamas had very little, or nothing, to do with it.
So they warn the people firing the rockets so that they can escape in time?
Basicly yes
Seamus Fermanagh
08-06-2014, 15:16
That was the point. This military operation started on the premise that Hamas was responsible for the abduction of three Israelis on the west bank. It now looks like Hamas had very little, or nothing, to do with it.
I've been watching a lot of re-broadcast episodes of "criminal minds" -- a fictionalized version of our FBI serial killer hunter teams.
It struck me that a serial killer could have a grand old time in that region of the world -- hunting humans without ever worrying about getting caught since it could always be made to look like one splinter group or another did the killings. Then you get to watch a show after you've done your own killing.
How much violent crime over there is solved and how much is labeled "terrorism" and used as an excuse....even when it was just simple crime?
*Those who were not involved in anti-Israel activity will be offered a generous international emigration package. Those who choose to remain will receive permanent resident status. After a number of years of living in Israel and becoming accustomed to it, contingent on appropriate legislation in the Knesset and the authorization of the Minister of Interior, those who personally accept upon themselves Israel’s rule, substance and way of life of the Jewish State in its Land, will be offered Israeli citizenship..
That point is close to what I suggested but I feel their version of 'generous' and my version of 'generous' are radically different. Plus my humanitarian efforts go far beyond simple packages too.
Well that was fast, they actually managed to not shoot rockets for 24 hours. But sudden jihad syndrome is just too strong again, they couldn't control it once again. The need to kill them wherever they find them is too strong for people of the religion of peace.
Alahu Akhbar
HoreTore
08-08-2014, 12:10
I've been watching a lot of re-broadcast episodes of "criminal minds" -- a fictionalized version of our FBI serial killer hunter teams.
It struck me that a serial killer could have a grand old time in that region of the world -- hunting humans without ever worrying about getting caught since it could always be made to look like one splinter group or another did the killings. Then you get to watch a show after you've done your own killing.
How much violent crime over there is solved and how much is labeled "terrorism" and used as an excuse....even when it was just simple crime?
This is a common theme in any warzone.
On the flipside, in the event that you do get caught, you will probably be shot immediately as an enemy combatant.
Also, criminal minds is a god-awful show. Stop watching it.
HoreTore
08-08-2014, 12:12
Well that was fast, they actually managed to not shoot rockets for 24 hours. But sudden jihad syndrome is just too strong again, they couldn't control it once again. The need to kill them wherever they find them is too strong for people of the religion of peace.
Alahu Akhbar
Kill? How many have they killed, exactly?
Kill? How many have they killed, exactly?
For a lack of trying or for not being very good at it? Doesn't change the simple fact that one side wants the other dead, and that they will never stop trying. It's in their charters and their holy book. They must kill them wherever they find them. There isn't anything Arabs are good at so they are also bad at killing
Rough estimation that was made, without the dome 30.000 Israeli casualties. I wonder what would be on the counter if it wasn't for the wall and checkpoints.
HoreTore
08-08-2014, 13:18
For a lack of trying or for not being very good at it? Doesn't change the simple fact that one side wants the other dead, and that they will never stop trying. It's in their charters and their holy book. They must kill them wherever they find them. There isn't anything Arabs are good at so they are also bad at killing
Rough estimation that was made, without the dome 30.000 Israeli casualties. I wonder what would be on the counter if it wasn't for the wall and checkpoints.
Doesn't change the fact that they do not kill very much.
Also, that "estimation" is retarded; rockets flew into Israel long before they created the dome(it was a reaction), and it was nowhere near 30.000. Try 30. To back up how retarded your claimed estimation is, have a look at the stats for the Iron Dome (http://www.janes.com/article/40943/idf-releases-iron-dome-interception-rate). Around a third of the missiles get intercepted. So, they kill 3 people with 1000 rockets, and somehow they will manage to kill 29.997 with another 500 missiles?
Lrn2math.
EDIT: And if you want examples of a holy book telling people to kill them all, have a look at the Israeli religious right.
I didn't make the estimation, just post that was made. But there is an absolute certainty of the amount of jewish Israeli's that would get killed if Hamas got their way, all.
HoreTore
08-08-2014, 13:45
I didn't make the estimation, just post that was made.
...And you repeated it without thinking it through and noticing how utterly retarded that estimation is.
If we take the current death toll and estimate that the missiles intercepted by the Iron Dome will kill 10 times more than the ones who get through, we end up at roughly 3 million rockets required to kill those 30.000 Israelis. Have fun.
But there is an absolute certainty of the amount of jewish Israeli's that would get killed if Hamas got their way, all.
Ditto for the Israeli religious right. (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15326)
Ditto for the Israeli religious right. (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15326)
I suppose he also appreciates the way "we" cleaned the Warsaw ghetto, effective and goal-driven, just how he likes it.
I suppose he also appreciates the way "we" cleaned the Warsaw ghetto, effective and goal-driven, just how he likes it.
Did I squeeze the allready painfull ball, sorry I would have gone for the other one if I knew, that stuff hurts.
Israel wants peace, Hamas wants war. Doesn't get any simpler. Must kinda hurt if your superior religion fails again again and again, even if 5 countries attack at once. Arabs and pride you see, bit humiliating to be beaten over and over again by 'apes and pigs'.
Allahuh not by far
What you describe is more the ISIS way, you know arab spring and all that, that stuff gutmensch doesn't want to be bothered anymore because they lost interest after being proved wrong as usual.
Pannonian
08-08-2014, 15:03
I suppose he also appreciates the way "we" cleaned the Warsaw ghetto, effective and goal-driven, just how he likes it.
His strategy for Gaza is a mixture of our Boer concentration strategy and your Madagascar strategy. Concentrate the civilians in a defined area so everyone outside that area can be assumed to be a combatant, then deport them to somewhere else.
Looking at his wiki entry, I see this gem of a quote: "(Jonathan) Pollard is a Jew who saved the Israelis from American treachery."
I'm also happy to see that this gentleman is banned from entering the UK.
Pannonian
08-08-2014, 15:06
Did I squeeze the allready painfull ball, sorry I would have gone for the other one if I knew, that stuff hurts.
Israel wants peace, Hamas wants war. Doesn't get any simpler. Must kinda hurt if your superior religion fails again again and again, even if 5 countries attack at once. Arabs and pride you see, bit humiliating to be beaten over and over again by 'apes and pigs'.
Allahuh not by far
What you describe is more the ISIS way, you know arab spring and all that, that stuff gutmensch doesn't want to be bothered anymore because they lost interest after being proved wrong as usual.
Do you know anything about this guy Feiglin that they're talking about? Do you know that his definition of peace is the conquest of Gaza and deportation of its current inhabitants so they can be replaced by Israelis?
Did I squeeze the allready painfull ball, sorry I would have gone for the other one if I knew, that stuff hurts.
Israel wants peace, Hamas wants war. Doesn't get any simpler. Must kinda hurt if your superior religion fails again again and again, even if 5 countries attack at once. Arabs and pride you see, bit humiliating to be beaten over and over again by 'apes and pigs'.
Allahuh not by far
What you describe is more the ISIS way, you know arab spring and all that, that stuff gutmensch doesn't want to be bothered anymore because they lost interest after being proved wrong as usual.
It would help if you actually read what you comment on.
And I'm aware that my comparison is not even an 80% fit, doesn't change the fact that proposing to just shoot the human shields is not nice and comes rather close.
I have no idea what you mean with the ISIS comparison, where was Gutmensch proven wrong when he said the American invasion would fail?
What are the other 20% for in case it's 80. Going to be a hard equation to make if you want to accuse me of backing ethnic cleaning like was done in Warshaw against the jews and compare that to what Israel does to the Palestinians. Bit of a difference between collateral and intentional damage. One of the parties has absolutily no problem with the latter. Looks so nice on tv, journalists gob it up faster than my two new kittens a can of tuna.
HoreTore
08-08-2014, 15:58
What are the other 20% for in case it's 80. Going to be a hard equation to make if you want to accuse me of backing ethnic cleaning like was done in Warshaw against the jews and compare that to what Israel does to the Palestinians. Bit of a difference between collateral and intentional damage. One of the parties has absolutily no difference with the latter.
That would be Moshe Feiglin, then. As Husar said, it would help a lot if you actually read the stuff you're replying to.
Feiglin is advocating clearing the Gaza strip of Arabs and repopulating the area with Jews. He defines all inhabitants on Gaza as enemy soldiers, and sees no reason not to kill them all. His logic is that since they voted in Hamas, everyone is a target. Hilariously, by that token there is no need at all to distinguish between Israeli citizens and Israeli soldiers.
There is no doubt that Hamas is a loony bunch of genocidal maniacs. There is no doubt that the Israeli right is a loony bunch of genocidal maniacs.
Why you choose to focus on one of those and ignore the other, is curious.
Finally, Hamas launches their missiles knowing they will not kill anyone. IDF launches their missiles knowing they will kill someone.
I have no idea what you mean with the ISIS comparison, where was Gutmensch proven wrong when he said the American invasion would fail?
Conformational Bias using a strawman.
That would be Moshe Feiglin, then. As Husar said, it would help a lot if you actually read the stuff you're replying to.
Feiglin is advocating clearing the Gaza strip of Arabs and repopulating the area with Jews. He defines all inhabitants on Gaza as enemy soldiers, and sees no reason not to kill them all. His logic is that since they voted in Hamas, everyone is a target. Hilariously, by that token there is no need at all to distinguish between Israeli citizens and Israeli soldiers.
There is no doubt that Hamas is a loony bunch of genocidal maniacs. There is no doubt that the Israeli right is a loony bunch of genocidal maniacs.
Why you choose to focus on one of those and ignore the other, is curious.
Finally, Hamas launches their missiles knowing they will not kill anyone. IDF launches their missiles knowing they will kill someone.
Yeah, and Hamas makes sure people get killed, that's why they launch them from area's where people are going to get killed, the more the better. Their greatest allies are sure to be there with a camara for juicy shots. In the meantime ISIS murdered more people in a few days than got killed since Israel's founding. But that isn't all that interesting, because not Israel. How people explain that for themselves I don't understand but I am not good at leftist logic, just don't see it.
And sure there are Israeli idiots. They aren't all that liked but that is changing really fast, the violence bred a bit of a new generation.
Pannonian
08-08-2014, 16:29
Yeah, and Hamas makes sure people get killed, that's why they launch them from area's where people are going to get killed, the more the better. Their greatest allies are sure to be there with a camara for juicy shots. In the meantime ISIS murdered more people in a few days than got killed since Israel's founding. But that isn't all that interesting, because not Israel. How people explain that for themselves I don't understand but I am not good at leftist logic, just don't see it.
And sure there are Israeli idiots. They aren't all that liked but that is changing really fast, the violence bred a bit of a new generation.
"They aren't all that liked"? Are you aware that Feiglin is essentially #2 in the ruling party there?
"They aren't all that liked"? Are you aware that Feiglin is essentially #2 in the ruling party there?
Yeah there are nutjobs yeah. Wonder what drove them nuts. No I don't really. They alreadry were, but becomming an increasingly good proposel for those that really don't want to have to do anything with them. Who's fault is that really.
i know knothing of Feiglin by the way, never heard of them
Pannonian
08-08-2014, 17:00
Yeah there are nutjobs yeah. Wonder what drove them nuts. No I don't really. They alreadry were, but becomming an increasingly good proposel for those that really don't want to have to do anything with them. Who's fault is that really.
i know knothing of Feiglin by the way, never heard of them
If you know nothing of Feiglin, why didn't you read up on him before responding to those who were commenting on him? Is it your habit to assume that anyone who hates Palestinians must therefore be a good person?
HoreTore
08-08-2014, 17:05
Yeah there are nutjobs yeah. Wonder what drove them nuts. No I don't really. They alreadry were, but becomming an increasingly good proposel for those that really don't want to have to do anything with them. Who's fault is that really.
i know knothing of Feiglin by the way, never heard of them
Funny how you do not extend the same kind of goodwill towards the Palestinians that you do towards the Israeli's. You excuse Israeli nutjobs, while you denounce all palestinians because of their nutjobs.
As for the suggestion that "the left" only cares about Israel; when was the last time you went to a free west-Sahara rally? I've been to several, and I see plenty of my fellow lefties there. I see basically noone from the right there. Ditto for Sri Lanka, the Congo, Sudan, Kurdistan, etc. Tibet is an exception, maybe because of evil commies.
It really is one of the worst "arguments" of all. It fails on every level.
HoreTore
08-08-2014, 17:05
If you know nothing of Feiglin, why didn't you read up on him before responding to those who were commenting on him? Is it your habit to assume that anyone who hates Palestinians must therefore be a good person?
It's a lot easier to have strong opinions if you don't have any knowledge.
Pannonian
08-08-2014, 17:15
It's a lot easier to have strong opinions if you don't have any knowledge.
For Frag's information, Feiglin thinks Christians are even worse than Muslims.
Funny how you do not extend the same kind of goodwill towards the Palestinians that you do towards the Israeli's. You excuse Israeli nutjobs, while you denounce all palestinians because of their nutjobs.
As for the suggestion that "the left" only cares about Israel; when was the last time you went to a free west-Sahara rally? I've been to several, and I see plenty of my fellow lefties there. I see basically noone from the right there. Ditto for Sri Lanka, the Congo, Sudan, Kurdistan, etc. Tibet is an exception, maybe because of evil commies.
It really is one of the worst "arguments" of all. It fails on every level.
I don't denounce them, I just put the blame somewhere else without excusing Israel from being somewhat harsh.
Guess where, I probably don't have to say it here you know me well enough
For Frag's information, Feiglin thinks Christians are even worse than Muslims.
So what he is right I grew up in the bible belt, I would have loved a wall and checkpoints at the time
HoreTore
08-08-2014, 17:36
I don't denounce them, I just put the blame somewhere else without excusing Israel from being somewhat harsh.
Guess where, I probably don't have to say it here you know me well enough
....which is exactly my point, you excuse one bunch of loonies who are doing exactly the same as the ones you hate.
All without even knowing who or what they are. Ignorance certainly is bliss.
Blinded by hatred.
....which is exactly my point, you excuse one bunch of loonies who are doing exactly the same as the ones you hate.
All without even knowing who or what they are. Ignorance certainly is bliss.
Blinded by hatred.
I know a few really, I would love to see how you explain yourself to them. You know nothing.
HoreTore
08-08-2014, 18:05
I know a few really, I would love to see how you explain yourself to them. You know nothing.
Haha, you claimed just a few posts ago that you had no idea who Moshe Feiglin is.
And I'm the one who knows nothing.... :dizzy2:
Further, I am quite puzzled by what exactly I am supposed to explain to "them".
Ja'chyra
08-08-2014, 20:24
This is a standard Israeli trick. They attack, kill hundreds, offer a "ceasefire" which has some totally unacceptable conditions - then make a big fuss when this ceasefire is rejected.
Hundreds of Palestinians dead after collective punishment attacks from state of the art military. Zero Israeli dead after random crude rocket attacks from fringe group. This is not an even fight.
Seriously? Why would you enter a fair fight when the very existence of the nation people have bled and died for is at risk?
While I don't advocate the bombing of civilians I do defend their right to defend themselves from the thousands of rockets fired their way. Oh, and before we criticize too much, how many civvies dies in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Pannonian
08-08-2014, 20:52
Seriously? Why would you enter a fair fight when the very existence of the nation people have bled and died for is at risk?
While I don't advocate the bombing of civilians I do defend their right to defend themselves from the thousands of rockets fired their way. Oh, and before we criticize too much, how many civvies dies in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Erm, the existence of Israel isn't at risk. Nothing the Palestinians can do can put the existence of Israel at risk, except maybe pushing for a one state solution and then breeding like rabbits. Individual Israelis may be at risk, but not the Israeli nation. When those bombers blew up 3 tube trains and a bus in 2005, commuters were at risk, but not the British nation, nor even the city of London. I took the tube to St John's Wood for the Lord's Test a few days after that, and I never felt threatened.
HoreTore
08-08-2014, 21:12
how many civvies dies in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Way too many, which is why I have opposed those wars from the very beginning.
NATO is critized every single day. Don't act like we live in a fantasy world where Israel is demonized and NATO glorified.
Papewaio
08-08-2014, 21:21
How many have died to terrorism? Can anyone even quote he worst attack in Israel/Palistine
How many as collatoral damage?
I've said it before, there are much worse things then terrorism and police states is one of them.
Look at the amount of people who disappeared in the South American dictatorships, Apartheid South Africa and a quasi occupied Palistine.
Pannonian
08-08-2014, 21:28
Also, for a bona fide threat to the existence of a nation, see one suggested strategy for Gaza. Conquer with the army, expel its current inhabitants, replace with Israelis, and incorporate the territory into Israel. Now that is a bona fide threat to a nation, as opposed to individual members or clusters of people in that nation. And that suggestion was made by the presumed deputy to Israel's current ruling party (he was the only challenger to Netanyahu as Likud leader to get a significant number of votes). And should he ever lead an Israeli government, he'd be in a position to make that suggestion a reality, unlike the pipedreams of any Palestinian leaders.
Other wonderful suggestions of Mr. Feiglin: an upper house that would be open only to Jews. Even the ultra-conservative Wellington forced the King to open up the franchise and government to faiths other than the dominant one, way back in the early 19th century. Also, cut military expenditure (by 30% according to Mr. Feiglin's wonderful calculations) by abandoning non-lethal weaponry like rubber bullets against protestors (read: Palestinians), and use live ammunition instead. The presumed implication is that this will reduce their population as well.
Kralizec
08-08-2014, 21:45
Seriously? Why would you enter a fair fight when the very existence of the nation people have bled and died for is at risk?
While I don't advocate the bombing of civilians I do defend their right to defend themselves from the thousands of rockets fired their way. Oh, and before we criticize too much, how many civvies dies in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Most of the civilian casualties Afghanistan and in Iraq died at the hands of the insurgents, so you'll have to take that into account first. Honestly, I have no idea if the armed forces of other countries are more effective at preventing civilian deaths.
---
I think that some people in this thread treat the Gazan rockets too lightly. It's not about the raw casualty numbers they generate (allthough it would have been a lot higher without the Iron Dome) but the fact that they disrupt the daily life of thousands of Israelis. Fortunately for them, the Israeli are well prepared in both seeking shelter and treating their wounded.
That said, from a cost/benefit point of view, the rockets are a laughably ineffective weapon, as are the tunnels that they dig. You could easily compare them with the V-2 missiles that Nazi Germany used (comparing the weapons and their deployment - not the guys using them). They were horribly expensive and didn't accomplish anything, except disrupting the lives of civilians in and around London and making a slight dent in morale.
Pelting Israel with mortars and rockets, and occasionally killing two or three people with a tunnel that costs $500.000 before it's taken down, is completely irrational. It can only be explained by the fact that Hamas has absolutely no other way to fight Israel. Some people say that the Gazans feel compelled to fight Israel because they're islamists. I think the far, far more important reason is that the Palestinians are an opressed people. And they have no "civilized" means to fight back.
Israel's use of force does seem, at first sight, excessive to me this time. But ultimately I don't question their right to respond with military force to terrorist attacks, even if it does result in civilian casualties. They're forced to defend themselves. My problem is that they're to a large degree responsible for this situation in which they're forced to defend themselves. People who lay the blame entirely on Hamas should take into account that Fatah has been extremely cooperative with Israel in the last decade and it has gotten them nowhere, meanwhile Israel continues to colonize the west bank.
Papewaio
08-08-2014, 22:13
I think we should stop calling it colonizing which assumes that the invader also takes care of the locals see British Empire.
Settling also assumes that the land is part of Israel and not in a neighboring state.
I'm not sure what to call it but in light of Ukraine I would rename the settlers micro-annexation if trying to be PC. Outright invasion is what it actually is. So does a people have the right to spontaneously defend itself to a country invading its land?
Surely the Palestinians have as much right to eject invaders as Israel does.
Pannonian
08-08-2014, 22:19
I think we should stop calling it colonizing which assumes that the invader also takes care of the locals see British Empire.
Settling also assumes that the land is part of Israel and not in a neighboring state.
I'm not sure what to call it but in light of Ukraine I would rename the settlers micro-annexation if trying to be PC. Outright invasion is what it actually is. So does a people have the right to spontaneously defend itself to a country invading its land?
Surely the Palestinians have as much right to eject invaders as Israel does.
It's Old Testament-style conquest. Take over an area using force, expel or exterminate the current population, destroy their culture, and replace with one's own people and culture. See the Canaanites for an example of how to deal with an existing settlement.
Ja'chyra
08-08-2014, 22:29
Erm, the existence of Israel isn't at risk. Nothing the Palestinians can do can put the existence of Israel at risk, except maybe pushing for a one state solution and then breeding like rabbits. Individual Israelis may be at risk, but not the Israeli nation. When those bombers blew up 3 tube trains and a bus in 2005, commuters were at risk, but not the British nation, nor even the city of London. I took the tube to St John's Wood for the Lord's Test a few days after that, and I never felt threatened.
Their nation is at risk because to show any weakness would be to see itself wiped out from it's neighbours, Israel is in the unenviable position of having to be strong at all times and that may influence the severity of it's reprisals. Not saying it's right just it's something to be considered.
Way too many, which is why I have opposed those wars from the very beginning.
NATO is critized every single day. Don't act like we live in a fantasy world where Israel is demonized and NATO glorified.
Still reading your own obscure meanings into other peoples posts I see
Pannonian
08-08-2014, 22:38
Their nation is at risk because to show any weakness would be to see itself wiped out from it's neighbours, Israel is in the unenviable position of having to be strong at all times and that may influence the severity of it's reprisals. Not saying it's right just it's something to be considered.
So what do you think of Moshe Feiglin's proposal for what to do with Gaza? Does that count as a threat to a nation's existence in your eyes? Or doesn't it count because it's Israel doing the threatening and Arabs being threatened? Let me remind you of his proposal.
1. Conquer Gaza using the IDF.
2. Expel all current inhabitants.
3. Level the place.
4. Rebuild and repopulate with Israelis.
5. Incorporate Gaza into a larger Israel.
Let me also remind you that Feiglin, in his last challenge against Netanyahu for leadership of the Likud party (and thus the Israeli government) was the only challenger to receive significant numbers of votes, effectively making him the no.2 in that party.
Papewaio
08-08-2014, 23:01
It's Old Testament-style conquest. Take over an area using force, expel or exterminate the current population, destroy their culture, and replace with one's own people and culture. See the Canaanites for an example of how to deal with an existing settlement.
The original Israelis are probably descendents of Canaanites.
HoreTore
08-09-2014, 01:16
Still reading your own obscure meanings into other peoples posts I see
I may be reading too much into things, but it's definitely not obscure. In all honesty, it's a rare day when a new opinion comes around in an Israeli/Palestine-debate. It's usually just page after page of the same ol' talking points. Then we move to a different site and have the exact same debate all over again. Not saying that isn't fun or worthwhile...
Anyway, I took your comment to refer to a supposed unfair treatment of Israel. The argument goes that we ignore the evils done by, for example, NATO, while Israel is demonized for doing the same. If this is not the argument you were trying to make, could you care to elaborate on your point?
LittleGrizzly
08-09-2014, 02:58
Wouldn't the defending yourself argument go back to the very beginning of the conflict?
After all a few years into any conflict the argument can be made that the aggressor is defending himself against the defenders counter attacks...
Papewaio
08-09-2014, 04:04
How far back should we go?
LittleGrizzly
08-09-2014, 05:20
Well, hasn't the violence pretty much existed between the two sides since the mass Jewish immigration and the founding of Israel... always thought of that as the firing of the first shot myself. Although there have been quiet periods and noisy ones the situation has pretty much existed since then...
Haha, you claimed just a few posts ago that you had no idea who Moshe Feiglin is.
And I'm the one who knows nothing.... :dizzy2:
Further, I am quite puzzled by what exactly I am supposed to explain to "them".
Them are my Palestinian buddies who actually know how life is in Gaza and what scumbags really Hamas are.
Yeah, I have Palestinian friends, they hate Israel but hate Hamas more, confusing isn't it.
HoreTore
08-09-2014, 10:41
Them are my Palestinian buddies who actually know how life is in Gaza and what scumbags really Hamas are.
Yeah, I have Palestinian friends, they hate Israel but hate Hamas more, confusing isn't it.
Why would that be confusing...?
And what I was wondering was what I was supposed to explain.
And honestly, given the number of palestinian refugees, do you believe you're the only one who knows a palestinian...?
I believe I have precious little company when it comes to that yes.
Palestine supporters are lefties without a cause mostly. Bored rich kids.
HoreTore
08-09-2014, 11:04
I believe I have precious little company when it comes to that yes.
Palestine supporters are lefties without a cause mostly. Bored rich kids.
Radical leftie organizations always contain Palestinians. And Colombians. An Iranian or two. Maybe a Cuban. PLO are commies, remember?
I've been a part of several such organizations.
Anyway, what am I supposed to explain?
Everything you say for starters, I strongly doubt you will be able to expand on it, they will be pretty angry at that point.
HoreTore
08-09-2014, 11:23
Everything you say for starters, I strongly doubt you will be able to expand on it, they will be pretty angry at that point.
....And just what am I saying?
....And just what am I saying?
More what you are doing, always trying to relevate. Not that that isn't a bad thing per sé, but I wouldn't expect any patience for it from people who lived under Hamas rule. The best that can happen is that they say that you don't know what you are talking about. Hamas is just a sick organisation. You can also say something by saying by ommision. Not directly at you but speaking in ommisions is what is just about the rule with people who will always solemny declare that they condemn all violence. They never actually do it though. That Hamas is a bigger terror to the Palestinians doesn't matter, light another pipe. Hamas breaks another peace treaty, absolute silence. Israel strikes back, nothing that could comfort their sorrow, including demonstrations of muslims and gutmensch(who condemn all violence, what a joke) and attacks on jews living in Europe by imported people with culture. Nothing to see here, move along.
HoreTore
08-09-2014, 11:48
Nothing at all of any value, just vague insinuations of something or other.
I am not surprised, nor impressed.
Papewaio
08-09-2014, 11:55
Them are my Palestinian buddies who actually know how life is in Gaza and what scumbags really Hamas are.
Yeah, I have Palestinian friends, they hate Israel but hate Hamas more, confusing isn't it.
Most people are nice, some are nicer then others. Most governments suck, some much worse then others.
So not really surprising that Palestinians don't like Hamas. Problem is it isn't a stable democracy, it hasn't had time to mature to such and it isn't in the interests of the hardliner politicians on either side for that to happen.
Nothing at all of any value, just vague insinuations of something or other.
I am not surprised, nor impressed.
Absolutily an insinuation, you can probably read between the lines what the insinuation is, but it's not directly at you personally.
HoreTore
08-09-2014, 12:00
Absolutily an insinuation, you can probably read between the lines what the insinuation is, but it's not directly at you personally.
I can, and it's utterly worthless and misguided.
Pannonian
08-09-2014, 12:13
How far back should we go?
For the current cycle, I'd put it down to an Israeli act, namely the assassination of Rabin. That was the best chance since the formation of Israel of getting a peace that was broadly acceptable to both sides, with a realistic chance of it bedding into a lasting political reality. It went with Rabin.
I can, and it's utterly worthless and misguided.
Is it, ISIS kills more on a good day.
My theory, leftists just can't cope with the fact that Israel has build a succesfull country for themselves, while all muslim countries are still a mess despite all the money and aid they get. That's one annoying itch on your back just where you just can't scratch if you are so very very convinced all cultures are equal an valuable, and an enrichment for our own. Well they aren't (says me). That realisation is now past the point of redicule because these gutmensch are now at the point of silence.
My theory, leftists just can't cope with the fact that Israel has build a successful country for themselves...
Does this apply to me? Just curious.
Pannonian
08-09-2014, 16:21
Is it, ISIS kills more on a good day.
My theory, leftists just can't cope with the fact that Israel has build a succesfull country for themselves, while all muslim countries are still a mess despite all the money and aid they get. That's one annoying itch on your back just where you just can't scratch if you are so very very convinced all cultures are equal an valuable, and an enrichment for our own. Well they aren't (says me). That realisation is now past the point of redicule because these gutmensch are now at the point of silence.
I'm starting to get the impression that there's a Fragpost generator there somewhere, where you click a button and it throws a number of terms together with some connective grammar, and spits out a post that hangs together grammatically, but has little else. The number of arguments that are mutually contradictory in the above post just beggars belief.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-09-2014, 21:45
It's just that Frags is drunk.
Read him across a thread and you can see the rants start to coalesce into a semi-coherent gestalt post.
Pannonian
08-09-2014, 22:41
It's just that Frags is drunk.
Read him across a thread and you can see the rants start to coalesce into a semi-coherent gestalt post.
If by gestalt you mean that anything that is wrong with the world is labelled as "left", and ergo everything that is right is "right", then you've got it. Never mind that socialistic organisation and all the other stuff associated with the European left was what made Israel a relatively successful nation, with communal effort and all that. Frag prefers to look at the racialistic elements of modern Israel as the right way to go, with all the success Israel has had as the natural consequence of that. In Frag's mind, their racialism is what made Israel the most successful country in the middle east. Not their socialism.
Does this apply to me? Just curious.
No, I don't see you having a fixation on Israel, but many leftists (don't know where you stand) do. The whole middle-east is burning but Israel is all they are interested in. I would say that ISIS is a whole lot more worthy of talking about as the middle-east is the new Heart of Darkness by now.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-09-2014, 23:26
If by gestalt you mean that anything that is wrong with the world is labelled as "left", and ergo everything that is right is "right", then you've got it. ....
With that kind of simplification going, he is ready for a career in US politics!
Not for us your silly European nuance crap. Black or White, Red or Blue, Right or not USA...yeeeeeee-****in'-HA!!!!!!!
HoreTore
08-10-2014, 02:59
Is it, ISIS kills more on a good day.
Are you under the impression that I am more opposed to Israel than I am to ISIL---?
If so, why?
Are you under the impression that I am more opposed to Israel than I am to ISIL---?
If so, why?
Already said it wasn't directed at you. But the people who are the most vocal about Israel usually completily ignore other conflicts. You won't see them demonstrating for anything else. Media as well, every fart of Israel gets attention, but much worse things happen.
Already said it wasn't directed at you. But the people who are the most vocal about Israel usually completily ignore other conflicts. You won't see them demonstrating for anything else.
This raises an interesting question: Why do you stalk these people?
This raises an interesting question: Why do you stalk these people?
Don't have to these demonstrations get plenty of coverage (the swastika's were cut out, but admittingly they could be put in a context) Yesterday Kurds protestet in The Hague, One Dutchman of the socialist party attended. Today there is another (pro-pali)demonstration in Utrecht, the greens will attend, the socialist party, and some other organisationnd no doubt a lot of gutmenschen and bored rich kids.
HoreTore
08-10-2014, 11:49
Already said it wasn't directed at you. But the people who are the most vocal about Israel usually completily ignore other conflicts. You won't see them demonstrating for anything else. Media as well, every fart of Israel gets attention, but much worse things happen.
That is utter rubbish you only believe because you are ignorant. YOU have never protested against anyone else. Other people do. Most conflict zones around the world have demonstrations arranged. The people who attend a "Free West-Sahara"-rally are mostly the same people you will see at a "Save Gaza"-type rally.
That is utter rubbish you only believe because you are ignorant. YOU have never protested against anyone else. Other people do. Most conflict zones around the world have demonstrations arranged. The people who attend a "Free West-Sahara"-rally are mostly the same people you will see at a "Save Gaza"-type rally.
Kidding me, most of these protesters have never heard of the saharan west. Bit like in that movie 'the village' those we don't talk about.
HoreTore
08-10-2014, 15:11
Kidding me, most of these protesters have never heard of the saharan west. Bit like in that movie 'the village' those we don't talk about.
You have no knowledge of what you're talking about, so no wonder your conclusions are completely wrong.
Remember that "Boytcott Israel"-flag at Utøya you brought up a long time ago? It was made out to be 'proof' in the crazisphere that leftie organizations only care about Israel.... Except that earlier that day, they held their traditional lecture on the West-Sahara issue. A traditional lecture, held every year since the 70's. About a decade before they added a debate on Israel to the program.
Walk into any leftie building, and you'll find plenty of posters calling for the liberation of obscure territories you've probably never heard of. You'll also find plenty of annoying people ready to pester you endlessly about why their pet conflict is a special snowflake which everyone must focus on every second of the day.
The idea that the left only care about Israel is, quite frankly, retarded. But since you have no knowledge aside from parroting the talking points of clueless right-wing demagogues, I can see why you have the idea.
Pannonian
08-10-2014, 15:33
You have no knowledge of what you're talking about, so no wonder your conclusions are completely wrong.
Remember that "Boytcott Israel"-flag at Utøya you brought up a long time ago? It was made out to be 'proof' in the crazisphere that leftie organizations only care about Israel.... Except that earlier that day, they held their traditional lecture on the West-Sahara issue. A traditional lecture, held every year since the 70's. About a decade before they added a debate on Israel to the program.
Walk into any leftie building, and you'll find plenty of posters calling for the liberation of obscure territories you've probably never heard of. You'll also find plenty of annoying people ready to pester you endlessly about why their pet conflict is a special snowflake which everyone must focus on every second of the day.
The idea that the left only care about Israel is, quite frankly, retarded. But since you have no knowledge aside from parroting the talking points of clueless right-wing demagogues, I can see why you have the idea.
If Frag wants to isolate Israel as a success story in the hellhole that is the middle east, he should note that it's the traditional European lefty causes, Israel's greater liberalism and greater socialism, that has brought it its success. It's the religious and racialist tendencies, both traditional tendencies of the European right, that make it distinctly different from "the west" (as we now know it) and drift it closer to the rest of the middle east. If all the liberals and socialists leave Israel, and I'd imagine they'd be welcome anywhere in the west, there would be little to distinguish Israel from the other middle eastern countries, except for a better military.
I can show you the picture of your president (not sure he is) being cozy with the PLO right now right there, on Utoyah
HoreTore
08-10-2014, 15:49
I can show you the picture of your president (not sure he is) being cozy with the PLO right now right there, on Utoyah
Our president, Olemmic Thommessen, represents the conservative party. They hold their summer camp at Hove, which is a part of Tromøya, an island outside Arendal at the far south of Norway.
Curiously enough, that's also where the Norwegian Communist Party holds their summer camp.
Not going to rip up open wounds, too early for that. I got the pics but not going to be at the wrong side of the argument right now
HoreTore
08-10-2014, 20:41
Not going to rip up open wounds, too early for that. I got the pics but not going to be at the wrong side of the argument right now
How on earth is a picture of Jonas Gahr Støre shaking hands with a PLO-leader going to "rip up open wounds"...?
Do you really think it's something that is kept secret...?
How on earth is a picture of Jonas Gahr Støre shaking hands with a PLO-leader going to "rip up open wounds"...?
Do you really think it's something that is kept secret...?
Well these camps on that island where that massacre took place was kinda creepy. And that is all I want to say about it.
HoreTore
08-10-2014, 21:54
Well these camps on that island where that massacre took place was kinda creepy. And that is all I want to say about it.
The Utøya camp won't stop because of what happened in 2011. That would be silly. Things at Utøya are back to normal, with things going on like they always have. Except for a ceremony on the 22nd, nothing has changed.
Papewaio
08-11-2014, 03:58
The Utøya camp won't stop because of what happened in 2011. That would be silly. Things at Utøya are back to normal, with things going on like they always have. Except for a ceremony on the 22nd, nothing has changed.
Because the best way to deal with terrorism is not to be terrorized and hence stiff upper lip and keep moving forward. Sure put in remembrances and worthwhile security measures. But otherwise pursue happiness and don't let the terrorists dictate your lifestyle.
The Utøya camp won't stop because of what happened in 2011. That would be silly. Things at Utøya are back to normal, with things going on like they always have. Except for a ceremony on the 22nd, nothing has changed.
Was kinda hinting at the group activities here, the people who visited. What happened in 2011 isn't creepy it's horrifying.
Full stop now
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-11-2014, 12:41
Well these camps on that island where that massacre took place was kinda creepy. And that is all I want to say about it.
They do look a bit like Soviet "summer camps", but then I spent my summers learning how to kill people with machine guns - which is much more "creepy" in retrospect.
The Utøya camp won't stop because of what happened in 2011. That would be silly. Things at Utøya are back to normal, with things going on like they always have. Except for a ceremony on the 22nd, nothing has changed.
Personally - I would tear the camp down and leave it fallow for a century - much better than the daft plan to cut a hole in a cliff.
HoreTore
08-11-2014, 17:22
Because the best way to deal with terrorism is not to be terrorized and hence stiff upper lip and keep moving forward. Sure put in remembrances and worthwhile security measures. But otherwise pursue happiness and don't let the terrorists dictate your lifestyle.
Indeed.
Was kinda hinting at the group activities here, the people who visited. What happened in 2011 isn't creepy it's horrifying.
Full stop now
The group activities are the same now as they were before. As they should be. Political debates, lectures, playtime and invited guests.
They do look a bit like Soviet "summer camps", but then I spent my summers learning how to kill people with machine guns - which is much more "creepy" in retrospect.
It's a lot less creepy than you think it is, and that may be because you'v never attended one. Basically it's a week's gathering with the people you work with on a daily basis the rest of the year.
Do not forget that the majority of the attendants are active politicians, several of them elected members of local governments. It's not a random bunch of kids who gets indoctrinated, it's a teambuilding excercise for young professionals.
Personally - I would tear the camp down and leave it fallow for a century - much better than the daft plan to cut a hole in a cliff.
The hole is actually not on the island, it's on the mainland. Further, it is the express wish of the survivors to continue the camp as normal. It would be a lot dafter to disregard the opinions of the survivors IMO.
They do look a bit like Soviet "summer camps", but then I spent my summers learning how to kill people with machine guns - which is much more "creepy" in retrospect.
Fair enough I guess.
And again the ceasefire is broken by the Palestinians. Just like every other time. A ceasefire is nothing more than just enough time to get more rockets.
And again the ceasefire is broken by the Palestinians. Just like every other time. A ceasefire is nothing more than just enough time to get more rockets.
Hey I can make this post again. Once again the need to kill was too strong, ceasefire once again broken by people with culture.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-20-2014, 14:19
They are both conflict-soaked cultures. When personal identity is defined, in part, by your being an enemy of "those people," it is difficult to parse the particulars and generate meaningful agreements.
Papewaio
08-21-2014, 08:55
Hey I can make this post again. Once again the need to kill was too strong, ceasefire once again broken by people with culture.
Fragony do the Jewish people not have culture?
Name the largest terrorist attack in Israel/Palestine.
Fragony do the Jewish people not have culture?
Name the largest terrorist attack in Israel/Palestine.
Worst is probably the schoolbus
But again 200 missiles fired yesterday
Pannonian
08-21-2014, 10:11
Worst is probably the schoolbus
But again 200 missiles fired yesterday
91 people were killed in the biggest terrorist attack in Israel/Palestine.
91 people were killed in the biggest terrorist attack in Israel/Palestine.
Could be, but attacking a schoolbus is sooooo cynical
Pannonian
08-21-2014, 13:58
Could be, but attacking a schoolbus is sooooo cynical
And there is that redefinition of boundaries to excuse one side and make one side look bad and the other good. BTW Frag, what do you think Israel will look like if all the leftists, ie. liberals and socialists, moved out of there?
And there is that redefinition of boundaries to excuse one side and make one side look bad and the other good. BTW Frag, what do you think Israel will look like if all the leftists, ie. liberals and socialists, moved out of there?
That is a completily valid point of course, but also something that can easily waved for being an distraction of what is really going on. Hamas does not want peace, how many peace-have been broken by now? 10 or so.
Pannonian
08-21-2014, 16:13
That is a completily valid point of course, but also something that can easily waved for being an distraction of what is really going on. Hamas does not want peace, how many peace-have been broken by now? 10 or so.
And where's the evidence that Israel wants peace? Neither side wants peace. Both sides are as bad as each other, and if I had my way, anyone who goes anywhere near that region gets disowned by their native country, whether they be Muslim, Jewish, or Martian. But you're the one who keeps excusing Israel.
And where's the evidence that Israel wants peace?
At least 10 offered cease-fires being broken is kinda an indication on who does what
Pannonian
08-21-2014, 17:31
At least 10 offered cease-fires being broken is kinda an indication on who does what
And the landgrab in the West Bank? AFAIK territorial disputes is the most common, and usually considered the most deserving, cause of war in history, with the people whose land is being taken considered to have an automatic right to expel the invader by whatever means possible. What is your opinion of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank? What are the rights of the West Bank Palestinian authorities wrt these settlements in your view?
And the landgrab in the West Bank? AFAIK territorial disputes is the most common, and usually considered the most deserving, cause of war in history, with the people whose land is being taken considered to have an automatic right to expel the invader by whatever means possible. What is your opinion of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank? What are the rights of the West Bank Palestinian authorities wrt these settlements in your view?
Settlements should stop I'd say but the west bank isn't Gaza. Both are Israeli territory in my opinion but that's just my opinion, was taken in a war they never started.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 18:04
Settlements should stop I'd say but the west bank isn't Gaza. Both are Israeli territory in my opinion but that's just my opinion, was taken in a war they never started.
You are correct that Gaza is not the west bank.
The West Bank has kept at peace with Israel for years.
Gaza has been at war with Israel several times in the last years.
The results?
Tons of settlements in the West Bank.
No settlements in Gaza.
An interesting way of rewarding peace.
Kralizec
08-21-2014, 18:09
Both are Israeli territory in my opinion but that's just my opinion, was taken in a war they never started.
If we were talking about Israel in general that would be debatable. Gaza and the West bank, however, were grabbed in the six-day war which opened with an Israeli first strike.
You are correct that Gaza is not the west bank.
The West Bank has kept at peace with Israel for years.
Gaza has been at war with Israel several times in the last years.
The results?
Tons of settlements in the West Bank.
No settlements in Gaza.
An interesting way of rewarding peace.
I know it's unfair. But lets be honest the majority isn't even from there, mostly refugees from the civil war in Libanon. Not building settlements would be a courtisy I would apreciate.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 18:12
But lets be honest the majority isn't even from there
I fully agree that the vast majority of the settlers are not from there.
If we were talking about Israel in general that would be debatable. Gaza and the West bank, however, were grabbed in the six-day war which opened with an Israeli first strike.
I didn't know that, but it's hard to consider something a first strike when war has been declared.
I fully agree that the vast majority of the settlers are not from there.
So what. It's perfectly possible to have an opinion on Hamas without even thinking about the settlements. I don't like that either but worse things happen, not something I can get all that upset about when you think of what IS and Boko Haram are doing, why are we so upset about such a tiny conflict? And why is it so much more important?
Kralizec
08-21-2014, 18:36
So what. It's perfectly possible to have an opinion on Hamas without even thinking about the settlements. I don't like that either but worse things happen, not something I can get all that upset about when you think of what IS and Boko Haram are doing, why are we so upset about such a tiny conflict? And why is it so much more important?
ISIS has its own thread, you don't have to bring it up all the time. Boko Haram possibly deserves its own thread, but what's there to say about them? They're bad?
ISIS has its own thread, you don't have to bring it up all the time. Boko Haram possibly deserves its own thread, but what's there to say about them? They're bad?
Do I bring up Isis all the time, really. Try finding it. Within context.
Kralizec
08-21-2014, 18:58
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?147601-Speaking-of-Israel&p=2053610515&highlight=#post2053610515
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?147601-Speaking-of-Israel&p=2053607569&highlight=#post2053607569
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?147601-Speaking-of-Israel&p=2053607483&highlight=#post2053607483
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?147601-Speaking-of-Israel&p=2053607241&highlight=#post2053607241
Summary: you think we should all stop criticizing Israel because we never talk about ISIS, which is worse.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?147601-Speaking-of-Israel&p=2053610515&highlight=#post2053610515
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?147601-Speaking-of-Israel&p=2053607569&highlight=#post2053607569
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?147601-Speaking-of-Israel&p=2053607483&highlight=#post2053607483
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?147601-Speaking-of-Israel&p=2053607241&highlight=#post2053607241
Summary: you think we should all stop criticizing Israel because we never talk about ISIS, which is worse.
Yeas I said all that and it's exactly how I feel about it. I will going to be hypocrite about something else, this one is taken.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 19:03
Yeas I said all that and it's exactly how I feel about it. I will going to be hypocrite about something else, this one is taken.
North Korea is worse than ISIS.
Following your logic, you should shut up about ISIS and make a thread on Dearest Leader.
North Korea is worse than ISIS.
Following your logic, you should shut up about ISIS and make a thread on Dearest Leader.
The misery that North-Korea is is well known. Less known is how big the support for IS is within our borders. You are absolutily correct that these 74% don't mean anything. But the support or at least sympathising seems high, rather dubious facebook and twitter accounts get a lot of love.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 19:45
But the support or at least sympathising seems high, rather dubious facebook and twitter accounts get a lot of love.
I have noted a high rate of outrageous facebook statements from muslim youth. Generalizing this and thinking it represents anything but an insignificant minority is quite dangerous, however.
If we generalized the abundance of insane statements on facebook and twitter from the native populations, you'd think we were all living in a weird libertarian version of the third reich where women are confined to the kitchen. Take the Neo-nazis. They're extremely few, but you can find plenty of them in any comments section.
The crazies are loud and active. They dominate the intertubes, but they do not dominate real life. Fortunately.
I have noted a high rate of outrageous facebook statements from muslim youth. Generalizing this and thinking it represents anything but an insignificant minority is quite dangerous, however.
If we generalized the abundance of insane statements on facebook and twitter from the native populations, you'd think we were all living in a weird libertarian version of the third reich where women are confined to the kitchen. Take the Neo-nazis. They're extremely few, but you can find plenty of them in any comments section.
The crazies are loud and active. They dominate the intertubes, but they do not dominate real life. Fortunately.
I am not dumb, I fully understand these 74% don't mean all that much. Cautious though.
Papewaio
08-21-2014, 23:04
I didn't know that, but it's hard to consider something a first strike when war has been declared.
How about before Israel was even declared a state?
The King David Hotel bombing?
The ethnic cleansing of a village?
Fighting the British whilst the British fought the Nazis?
There are things even now with deadlier technology and higher population densities that the ultra nationalists did that make what is happening now look like a sideshow. Not orders of magnitude worse but two or three times more deadly.
Kadagar_AV
08-21-2014, 23:19
Sorry to say Frags, but your arguments come off as rather thin...
You know I am no big fan of Arabic culture, but they most def are not the sole evil working in the region. Both the Jewish and the Arabic cultures are problematic towards each other, on a very much mutual scale.
Sorry to say Frags, but your arguments come off as rather thin...
You know I am no big fan of Arabic culture, but they most def are not the sole evil working in the region. Both the Jewish and the Arabic cultures are problematic towards each other, on a very much mutual scale.
No agreement required. Israel gave back enough land imho. It isn't a war they started themselve. Borders change in wars. It would be nice if the settling stopped but I don't see it as the great unjustice some see it, gambled and lost.
Pannonian
08-22-2014, 07:39
No agreement required. Israel gave back enough land imho. It isn't a war they started themselve. Borders change in wars. It would be nice if the settling stopped but I don't see it as the great unjustice some see it, gambled and lost.
And now there is supposedly peace between Israel and the West Bank authorities, yet Israel continues to take land from the West Bank, which is an act of war. If you want to complain about the Gazans unilaterally making war on Israel, you can also complain about the Israelis unilaterally making war on the West Bank. At least I recognise all sides as being as bad as each other and none of them wanting peace, while you try to paint the Israelis white and peace-loving.
And now there is supposedly peace between Israel and the West Bank authorities, yet Israel continues to take land from the West Bank, which is an act of war. If you want to complain about the Gazans unilaterally making war on Israel, you can also complain about the Israelis unilaterally making war on the West Bank. At least I recognise all sides as being as bad as each other and none of them wanting peace, while you try to paint the Israelis white and peace-loving.
I don't see Israel as peace loving, that would be kinda silly. But judging them for doing what they do is a stretch too far for me. They can't give back the west-bank, that is just as rolling on your back to expose your belly, artillary can hit anything from there. Why give a crap about UN resolutions, they are worth as much as the Nobel peace price. Without excusing Israel I am not going to judge them for being the way they are. I would be much more forgiving I think, but I can't know that really.
rory_20_uk
08-22-2014, 11:13
The two stretches of land were part of Egypt and Jordan, as things currently stand they are not viable entities for bieng states - hell, even Wales doesn't want to go it alone as they prefer to be a remora fish.
Having enclaves that have no hope whatsoever of being self sufficient - even if the blockades were not in place - is not sustainable. Add that to the power plant and water treatment facilities being clear military targets to Israel means things aren't going to improve.
~:smoking:
Pannonian
09-01-2014, 10:21
And now there is supposedly peace between Israel and the West Bank authorities, yet Israel continues to take land from the West Bank, which is an act of war. If you want to complain about the Gazans unilaterally making war on Israel, you can also complain about the Israelis unilaterally making war on the West Bank. At least I recognise all sides as being as bad as each other and none of them wanting peace, while you try to paint the Israelis white and peace-loving.
Israel has announced plans to expropriate 4 sq km of Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29008045
rory_20_uk
09-01-2014, 10:40
Taking more land? How out of character! I hope this doesn't upset the peace process...
I love how all BBC websites end with this annexation is illegal under international law - although Israel disputes this.
Are we to see prisoners locked up in jail for breaking the law - although the criminals dispute the law in question.
~:smoking:
HopAlongBunny
09-12-2014, 21:35
It seems even Israeli's are getting fed up with killing innocent civilians.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/israeli-reservists-condemn-military-methods-20149121625499623.html
It seems even Israeli's are getting fed up with killing innocent civilians.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/israeli-reservists-condemn-military-methods-20149121625499623.html
That's absolutily something, but where did you read the 'killing innocent civilians' part. Article doesn't say that.
HoreTore
09-13-2014, 10:51
That's absolutily something, but where did you read the 'killing innocent civilians' part. Article doesn't say that.
Here:
"There's no distinction between Palestinians who are, and are not, involved in violence, we cannot continue to serve this system in good conscience, denying the rights of millions of people" they wrote.
Here:
I don't read it like that but suit yourself, nothing there about killing, just injustice. Definatily a slap in the face for Israel officials who might want to reconsider some things.
Pannonian
09-13-2014, 13:23
I don't read it like that but suit yourself, nothing there about killing, just injustice. Definatily a slap in the face for Israel officials who might want to reconsider some things.
Also read the bit about operations having nothing to do with security, but are about increasing control of the West Bank. Which claim is backed up by Israel announcing that they'll be building homes in the areas they're annexing. Israel isn't putting a buffer between Israeli citizens and Palestinians, they're taking land from the Palestinians and turning it into Israeli land, which then becomes further justification for more land grabs.
Also read the bit about operations having nothing to do with security, but are about increasing control of the West Bank. Which claim is backed up by Israel announcing that they'll be building homes in the areas they're annexing. Israel isn't putting a buffer between Israeli citizens and Palestinians, they're taking land from the Palestinians and turning it into Israeli land, which then becomes further justification for more land grabs.
Yes and my best guess would be that it's about that, but not about killing innocent civilians. Doing injustice to millions, debatable, probably true.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-13-2014, 13:29
Also read the bit about operations having nothing to do with security, but are about increasing control of the West Bank. Which claim is backed up by Israel announcing that they'll be building homes in the areas they're annexing. Israel isn't putting a buffer between Israeli citizens and Palestinians, they're taking land from the Palestinians and turning it into Israeli land, which then becomes further justification for more land grabs.
We should be thankful that those Israeli settlers in the unauthorized communities don't speak Russian....who knows who would annex whom under such conditions.
Montmorency
09-13-2014, 13:33
We should be thankful that those Israeli settlers in the unauthorized communities don't speak Russian....who knows who would annex whom under such conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language_in_Israel#mediaviewer/File:Optical_cable_manhole_cover_in_English,_Hebrew,_Arabic_and_Russian_in_Tel_Aviv,_Israel.jpg
Though I hear tell that there's some tension between Ukrainian Jews and Russian Jews in Israel currently.
a completely inoffensive name
02-08-2015, 10:52
I absolve myself of any responsibility to care about Israel since it was all the European's fault (in particular the Brits):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wo2TLlMhiw
And yes, I am posting this video simply because I think it will rustle the jimmies of many people here.
Looks pretty good to me.
Why would anyone disagree with this being yet another zone of endless conflict that's caused by the British?
Pannonian
02-08-2015, 15:08
Looks pretty good to me.
Why would anyone disagree with this being yet another zone of endless conflict that's caused by the British?
We threw our crap over a wider area than anyone else in history, so someone somewhere is bound to be spattered by it. Our excuse is that our crap didn't smell quite as bad as that of some others, and in throwing our crap around, we managed to fertilise some roses in the process.
a completely inoffensive name
02-08-2015, 21:40
Looks pretty good to me.
Why would anyone disagree with this being yet another zone of endless conflict that's caused by the British?
Most complaints I have seen about the video are focused more on the later half of the video. You know, people give a "my side is clearly more of a victim than the other so this video is making a false equivalence" kind of argument.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-09-2015, 01:00
We threw our crap over a wider area than anyone else in history, so someone somewhere is bound to be spattered by it. Our excuse is that our crap didn't smell quite as bad as that of some others, and in throwing our crap around, we managed to fertilise some roses in the process.
Actually, that's not too far off as analogies go.
Greyblades
02-09-2015, 04:59
I absolve myself of any responsibility to care about Israel since it was all the European's fault (in particular the Brits):
I'm still trying to get my head around why, after so much grief during our tenure as an empire, any briton thought getting involved in the middle east was a good idea now we no longer were allowed to tax the locals.
Looks pretty good to me.
Why would anyone disagree with this being yet another zone of endless conflict that's caused by the British?
Wasnt it your nation who dragged the Ottomans into a war against the world's largest empire who was looking for an excuse rob the old man of europe's carcass?
Wasnt it your nation who dragged the Ottomans into a war against the world's largest empire who was looking for an excuse rob the old man of europe's carcass?
Maybe, but it was not our fault that the war went the way it did, with Britain on our side, there'd be less unexploded ordinance all over France and Belgium now. Hitler wouldn't have happened either. But Britain always wanted to keep the tension in Europe because it wanted a divided Europe that it could control while it murdered and pillaged in the rest of the world. :no:
Pannonian
02-09-2015, 12:42
Maybe, but it was not our fault that the war went the way it did, with Britain on our side, there'd be less unexploded ordinance all over France and Belgium now. Hitler wouldn't have happened either. But Britain always wanted to keep the tension in Europe because it wanted a divided Europe that it could control while it murdered and pillaged in the rest of the world. :no:
And a sound strategy it was too. It was the whole point of the Seven Years War, which allowed us to deprive France of her empire (and make it ours instead). If it weren't for that traitorous turncoat British officer...
Greyblades
02-09-2015, 13:38
Maybe, but it was not our fault that the war went the way it did, with Britain on our side, there'd be less unexploded ordinance all over France and Belgium now. Hitler wouldn't have happened either. But Britain always wanted to keep the tension in Europe because it wanted a divided Europe that it could control while it murdered and pillaged in the rest of the world. :no:
Bah, if we hadn't kept you fighting eachother you would have ruled the world in our stead, and we all know how badly that went under the spanish let alone the slices of africa we let you have.
We screwed you guys over to protect the world from mainland tyranny.
Except france. They weren't worse than us, it's just funny watching them throw a fit, man did that backfire.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-09-2015, 15:28
And a sound strategy it was too. It was the whole point of the Seven Years War, which allowed us to deprive France of her empire (and make it ours instead). If it weren't for that traitorous turncoat British officer...
British?
Bah, if we hadn't kept you fighting eachother you would have ruled the world in our stead, and we all know how badly that went under the spanish let alone the slices of africa we let you have.
We screwed you guys over to protect the world from mainland tyranny.
According to Wikipedia, the colonial governing was much improved after some atrocities happened and turned into one much improved even in comparison to other nations. How Germany is comparable to the Spanish now is entirely beyond me, there not just mainlanders and islanders in Europe.
And ignoring that, having colonies was a bad idea in the first place, that's why we stayed out of it until the wonderful institution of monarchy gave us an idiot who wanted glory and money for the capitalists who had been begging to be allowed to subdue others for a long time. And who invented capitalism again?
Greyblades
02-09-2015, 17:32
British?
The American Revolution was at first considered the Second English Civil War, the concept that an Anglo-Saxon North American was seperate from an Anglo-Saxon European was an invention that came about at the end of the war. Before then, George Washington was for all intents and purposes British.
According to Wikipedia, the colonial governing was much improved after some atrocities happened and turned into one much improved even in comparison to other nations. How Germany is comparable to the Spanish now is entirely beyond me. I was including the Italian, Portugese, Belgian colonies in my assessment. Had those German colonies been British, the atrocities would not have happened to the extent that they did, if only due to Britain having already reformed in response to it's own set of atrocities in the preceding centuries.
There not just mainlanders and islanders in Europe.Matter of opinion apparantly, though I could not think of a different set of labels to seperate Britain from the rest of the European colonisers.
And ignoring that, having colonies was a bad idea in the first place, that's why we stayed out of it until the wonderful institution of monarchy gave us an idiot who wanted glory and money for the capitalists who had been begging to be allowed to subdue others for a long time. And who invented capitalism again? We also invented the Maxim machine gun, doesnt mean we always obeyed it's mindless chatter any more than we did the capitalists; that you king did, well, buyer beware and all that.
I was including the Italian, Portugese, Belgian colonies in my assessment. Had those German colonies been British, the atrocities would not have happened to the extent that they did, if only due to Britain having already reformed in response to it's own set of atrocities in the preceding centuries.
Reformed? We began this by talking about how Britain ruined the Middle East after WW1...
The idea that everybody should hand over their colonies to Britain and bow in submission because Britain "invented" or "mastered" the submission of large parts of the planet is pretty ludicrous. The idea to focus on our own matters and not get colonies at all was a much better one.
Matter of opinion apparantly, though I could not think of a different set of labels to seperate Britain from the rest of the European colonisers.
It's just more British exceptionalism, or at least it sounds like it is.
We also invented the Maxim machine gun, doesnt mean we always obeyed it's mindless chatter any more than we did the capitalists; that you king did, well, buyer beware and all that.
With that argument you could also sell guns to children...
Seamus Fermanagh
02-09-2015, 23:51
The American Revolution was at first considered the Second English Civil War, the concept that an Anglo-Saxon North American was seperate from an Anglo-Saxon European was an invention that came about at the end of the war. Before then, George Washington was for all intents and purposes British...
George was a Virginian. That made him, by birth, a subject of the crown. As a subject of the crown taking arms against crown authority, there can be no doubt that he was a traitor to that authority.
Even after George gave England the pretext they wanted to move against France's possessions in the New World (quite possibly inadvertently and certainly by fortifying a poorly sited location), nobody would give him a royal commission. After minimizing the debacle that was the Braddock expedition, they still would not give him a royal commission.
In some ways, this is symptomatic of the entire screwed up relationship between England and what became the USofA. Little or no effort was made to allow Americans access to England's institutions despite the fact that the cultural ties between the two groups were closer than any of England's other colonial relationships. The Scots had seats in Parliament and a say in affairs, their fair share of commissioned officers, their share of government job holders -- not so the Americans. Had any real effort along those lines been made in the 1760s, the Revolution would have been stop-punched and the history of the world quite different.
Greyblades
02-10-2015, 00:19
Had any real effort along those lines been made in the 1760s, the Revolution would have been stop-punched and the history of the world quite different.
Yup. Bummer 'aint it?
Reformed? We began this by talking about how Britain ruined the Middle East after WW1...You're the one who said the colonial governing had much improved after atrocity, we had made such improvements before germany was even starting.
The idea that everybody should hand over their colonies to Britain and bow in submission because Britain "invented" or "mastered" the submission of large parts of the planet is pretty ludicrous. The idea to focus on our own matters and not get colonies at all was a much better one.
When did I say you should have handed them over? I said you, Italy and the Belgians shouldn't have tried in the first place and left the area to be colonized by the professionals.
It's just more British exceptionalism, or at least it sounds like it is.You do realize that I was joking when I said "we screwed you guys over to protect the world from mainland tyranny"?
With that argument you could also sell guns to children...Ok... I dont see how you could have gotten that from what I typed, but ok... Look capitalism is like a dog: fun, useful, loyal when you feed it and a menace when left undisciplined. However, it isn't the pet store's fault fido died when you let him chase cars.
You're the one who said the colonial governing had much improved after atrocity, we had made such improvements before germany was even starting.
Obviously not improved enough if you kept ruining countries long after the improvements had been made. I also noted that according to wikipedia, the german reforms improved the german colonial system beyond the ones of other nations at the time.
When did I say you should have handed them over? I said you, Italy and the Belgians shouldn't have tried in the first place and left the area to be colonized by the professionals.
I already covered that. Not only was our improved colonial system better, I also already said that noone should have acquired colonies, not you, not France, not Belgium and not Germany. At least Germany managed to stick to that ideal until the last minute when the Kaiser (not king) unfortunately finally succumbed to British-invented ideals.
You do realize that I was joking when I said "we screwed you guys over to protect the world from mainland tyranny"?
That's inconsequential, I was already not entirely serious with my original statement blaming Britain and yet we're debating it now anyway.
Because even when I'm just joking, you British people cannot just leave a comment that does not praise you as exceptionally good. ~;)
Ok... I dont see how you could have gotten that from what I typed, but ok... Look capitalism is like a dog: fun, useful, loyal when you feed it and a menace when left undisciplined. However, it isn't the pet store's fault fido died when you let him chase cars.
You are aware that your own empire and the atrocities committed by it before any reforms also largely served monetary (capitalist) interests, right? So blaming us for not using capitalism correctly comes right back to you.
And your argument really makes little sense, capitalism is an ideology, you also didn't want the USSR export more communism and hope that people would use it in a good way. Also in this case it's more like the pet store trained fido to be an attack dog, then fido came back and tried to rob the store and now the store complains that fido is so aggressive.
Greyblades
02-11-2015, 02:45
I was lining up a joke that went along the lines of: capitalism is supposed to be used to provide someone to blame the atrocities on, to be able to say "That wasn't us, that was the evil buisnessmen! We had nothing to do with it, Honest!" with a straight face, thus deflecting blame and responsibility while reaping the profits.
I was going to say your failings was actually reforming instead of throwing the colonists under a bus and making a token effort to make things right until everyone forgot about it and you and your capitalist buddies can go on as normal.
Then I found out I am incapable of making something that cynical funny, even in the form of a sardonic faux-endorsment of kicking the can.
Then I started to realize how much of a paralel that supposed joke has with reality.
I am tired of this round.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-11-2015, 03:25
George was a Virginian. That made him, by birth, a subject of the crown. As a subject of the crown taking arms against crown authority, there can be no doubt that he was a traitor to that authority.
Even after George gave England the pretext they wanted to move against France's possessions in the New World (quite possibly inadvertently and certainly by fortifying a poorly sited location), nobody would give him a royal commission. After minimizing the debacle that was the Braddock expedition, they still would not give him a royal commission.
In some ways, this is symptomatic of the entire screwed up relationship between England and what became the USofA. Little or no effort was made to allow Americans access to England's institutions despite the fact that the cultural ties between the two groups were closer than any of England's other colonial relationships. The Scots had seats in Parliament and a say in affairs, their fair share of commissioned officers, their share of government job holders -- not so the Americans. Had any real effort along those lines been made in the 1760s, the Revolution would have been stop-punched and the history of the world quite different.
A fair assessment, in fact those living in the Colonies were actively prevented from attaining Commissions in the British Army. Had George gone to England and smoozed (which should have been possible after the Braddock Expedition) he might have been able to purchase a captaincy.
When we look at the later handling of Canada and Australia and the infinitely better relationship the UK enjoys with them to this day (contrary to Myth Canada and Australia were not required to entire WWI and they certainly couldn't be expected to enter WWII - but did) we have to conclude that the experience of losing the 13 Colonies had a positive impact on British Colonial policy.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-12-2015, 19:24
I was lining up a joke that went along the lines of: capitalism is supposed to be used to provide someone to blame the atrocities on, to be able to say "That wasn't us, that was the evil buisnessmen! We had nothing to do with it, Honest!" with a straight face, thus deflecting blame and responsibility while reaping the profits.
I was going to say your failings was actually reforming instead of throwing the colonists under a bus and making a token effort to make things right until everyone forgot about it and you and your capitalist buddies can go on as normal.
Then I found out I am incapable of making something that cynical funny, even in the form of a sardonic faux-endorsment of kicking the can.
Then I started to realize how much of a paralel that supposed joke has with reality.
I am tired of this round.
In capitalism, humans exploit other humans. In socialism, it is the other way around.
a completely inoffensive name
02-13-2015, 07:13
British exceptional-ism should have died at the end of the 20th century. Are you people trying to keep the nationalistic tank filled with your cheap victories over latin american countries that can't keep their own currency from devaluing?
Greyblades
02-13-2015, 07:53
American exceptionalism has been running on full blast for 70 years with a nationalistic tank containing only your performance in two world wars (well, 1 and 1/4) a rebellion and a civil war. We had 4 world wars (counting napoleon and 7 year) an empire and several times where we went against the premier powers of the ages and fought them to a standstill. The falklands is not even a blip on the radar compared to the reserves we built up in the last 6 centuries, our nationalistic tank wont be empty any time soon.
We can only hope that such precident will inspire us to live up to the old accomplishments but with a modern standard of morality.
More likely we will continue doing what the rest of the western world is: growing ever more complacent, rotting on our faded laurels and comforting ourselves with tales of past generations as we are soon overtaken by asia and later africa.
rory_20_uk
02-13-2015, 12:59
I disagree.
America managed to massively fill its tank since it manages to see victory in everything and not only did it win WW1 and 2, but the Korean, the Cold and Iraq 1 and 2. Coupled with a child like belief in their own self righteousness it is a potent force.
The British went through this phase and came out of it having effectively lost WW1 and WW2 (Empire, prestige and world position) and declined ever since - with a large part of this by choice.
We also appear to have a fetish of applying the morals of today to the entire Empire and feeling oh so guilty about it all (yeah, India was a thriving democracy that we overturned and we didn't buy the black slaves off other black people and everywhere we left became so much fairer; the vote for men in the UK only arrived c. 1900 and life expectancy in Liverpool in 1880 was 18 years). Yes, Maggie managed to beat off a also ran country but frankly that shows how far we've fallen - getting all pleased we beat Argentina??!?
We're not complacent - we're pathetic.
We're mewing about multiculturalism and how we mustn't stand for anything unless that upsets someone somewhere - often here as we are more than happy for people to relocate and not want to naturalise.
Defence is nasty and best we don't spend money on that. We also managed to get health and safety legislation in to the armed forces. We are affectionately known as the "Borrowers" by the Americans since equipment levels are so pitiful that the troops are all but pitied. We act like someone with no self esteem that if we keep doing everything we're asked to they'll keep on liking us.
Doing business with anyone whose moral code is not as squeaky clean as we, for reasons lost on me, delude ourselves that we have as trade is also nasty - apart from the Financial Sector which we treat like a free trade zone and try not to monitor in the slightest.
We spend money on moving the deck chairs around our failing social welfare system which increases in both cost and %GDP for the last 50 years or so. Politicians of all stripes are so scared of loosing votes that all big decisions are overlooked (e.g. a property tax that increases uncapped as house prices increase or even that perhaps paying for everyone to become a graduate is not as important as paying for people to be able to do something useful) since it seems better to be the leader of a sinking ship than try to fix it.
~:smoking:
rory_20_uk
02-13-2015, 13:04
In capitalism, humans exploit other humans. In socialism, it is the other way around.
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
~:smoking:
Greyblades
02-13-2015, 20:22
Which is why i have said many times that only psychopaths and idiots allows the application of either exclusively.
Also if the result of "national humility" (or whatever you call the opposite of exceptionalism) is the self hatred and despair rory is exhibiting then you'll forgive me if I cling to national pride and to hell with all you who would put us down while hiding behind your own pitiful blood stained legacies. Britain's legacy isn't spotless but it is a damn sight more bearable than that of the US, and if they can find the pride to excell in thiers why the hell cant we?
Which is why i have said many times that only psychopaths and idiots allows the application of either exclusively.
Also if the result of "national humility" (or whatever you call the opposite of exceptionalism) is the self hatred and despair rory is exhibiting then you'll forgive me if I cling to national pride and to hell with all you who would put us down while hiding behind your own pitiful blood stained legacies. Britain's legacy isn't spotless but it is a damn sight more bearable than that of the US, and if they can find the pride to excell in thiers why the hell cant we?
First you say that one does not have to choose exclusively from extremes, then you say that because you do not like one extreme, you choose the other extreme? :dizzy2:
a completely inoffensive name
02-14-2015, 03:14
How is Britain's legacy more bearable than the U.S? More people have directly died from British policies than U.S. policies by an order of magnitude.
Palestine is a war zone due to the British.
Large parts of Africa are a war zone due to the British and the rest is slowly improving due to Chinese investment.
India/Pakistan is an ongoing Cold War due to the British.
You can bring up dismantling slavery peacefully vs the US bloodshed all you want, but its spin at its best, ignorance at its worst. The U.K. industrialized first and it industrialized quick. You no longer needed slavery and thus you could easily eliminate it once you no longer depended on it. The U.S did not reach U.K. levels of industrialization until another 20 years after the Civil War.
Don't get me wrong, I still love you guys more than anyone.
Greyblades
02-14-2015, 06:47
First you say that one does not have to choose exclusively from extremes, then you say that because you do not like one extreme, you choose the other extreme? :dizzy2: The way I see it Socialism and capitalism is a dilemma between two sides where both extremes have thier benefits and deficits for the enactor. Pride and Shame on a national scale however is a choice where only one extreme is primarily beneficial to the enactor (pride) and the other is only beneficial to those on the outside (shame).
Incidentally I never said I wouldn't feel shame for the past, to ignore it all invites forgetting lessons that were learned and repeating the less savory elements. However I reject the implication that the bad of british history outweighs the good, and I will resist to the end and ridicule to hell and back any who would demand that shame define us seemingly because they dont like that I feel pride in a legacy greater than most others; others that themselves inspire greater pride in thier inheritors and endure less ridicule from thier contemporaries despite being morally worse.
How is Britain's legacy more bearable than the U.S? More people have directly died from British policies than U.S. policies by an order of magnitude. More people have also been saved by British medicine and uplifted by British education. Citing numbers of sufferers without accounting for scale difference is disingenuous when our population peaked at 1 Billion 100 years ago and yours is currently peaking at 350 million.
Palestine is a war zone due to the British.I'm sure the Palestinians and Israelies refusing to stop trying to kill eachother once we were no longer able to keep them in check had nothing to do with it's current state. Also, I could have sworn that it was US support that made Israel confident enough to think it could keep getting away with being unreasonably harsh with it's palestinian population
Large parts of Africa are a war zone due to the British and the rest is slowly improving due to Chinese investment. Large parts of Latin america and the middel east are warzones too, worse because you are still making it so whereas we mostly stopped meddeling with our former colonies.
India/Pakistan is an ongoing Cold War due to the British.Their historical animosity and choice to continue such conflict when we left has nothing to do with it as we know. We wanted to leave them a united india, but they insisted and as africa has shown sticking a bunch of hostile neighbours under one flag wouldnt have worked either. The only way a cold war could have been avoided is if we stayed as a common enemy, and after we gutted ourselves fighting the nazis I somehow dont think that would have worked out in anyone's favour.
You can bring up dismantling slavery peacefully vs the US bloodshed all you want, but its spin at its best, ignorance at its worst. The U.K. industrialized first and it industrialized quick. You no longer needed slavery and thus you could easily eliminate it once you no longer depended on it. The U.S did not reach U.K. levels of industrialization until another 20 years after the Civil War. But that's the thing, while the fact that we gave slavery up willingly while you had to bloodily excise it can be excused as a result of economics, what makes your side more morally rehensable is that you had to resort to such extremes and you still failed to finish the job. You ended slavery but the racism stayed hot as ever for 150+ years, with a third of your population is still waiting for the south to rise again the american shame is still being generated by a frankly borderline-retarded political right wing.
As much as we gripe over our government being run by idiots, our national shame is mostly a part of a nebulous past that we can level out with pride, it's in the past and paired with a lot of good so we can deal with it, whereas yours is still perpetuating now and cant be viewed with the dispassion of history. Yet when you try to make the argument for why america is a net benefit to the world (some damn good arguments I've seen that I agree with wholeheartedly) you get less resistance than when I try even though going by the numbers my argument is more compelling.
I suppose the main problem I have with this situation is that our detractors are not our former colonies calling us devils, it's our contemporaries. Either fellow imperialists that screwed the world so hard we were seen as moderates, or relative do nothings who's main contribution to the world beer and cheese and resentment from petty wars and show no sign that they could have done any better in our stead. The only member state of such categories that could even argue to moral superiority is France and they seem to lack a representative on this forum. The sentiment becomes, to mangle G.R.R.Martin: By what right do the wolves judge the Lion
a completely inoffensive name
02-14-2015, 09:13
More people have also been saved by British medicine and uplifted by British education. Citing numbers of sufferers without accounting for scale difference is disingenuous when our population peaked at 1 Billion 100 years ago and yours is currently peaking at 350 million.
How many Indians and Africans got that British medicine and education? Let's not kid ourselves, when you say your population peaked at 1 billion, you mean your population peaked at 50 million white Brits in the isles, Canada, New Zealand and Australia and 950 million conquered indigenous.
I'm sure the Palestinians and Israelies refusing to stop trying to kill eachother once we were no longer able to keep them in check had nothing to do with it's current state. Also, I could have sworn that it was US support that made Israel confident enough to think it could keep getting away with being unreasonably harsh with it's palestinian population
You drew an arbitrary line in the sand and now you want to say that because they think your line was arbitrary and wrong, any conflict is solely on their shoulders. Also shame on the US for picking a side in a conflict.
Large parts of Latin america and the middel east are warzones too, worse because you are still making it so whereas we mostly stopped meddeling with our former colonies.
You only stopped because you lost the political will and the money to do so. Their is no altruism in your withdraw.
Their historical animosity and choice to continue such conflict when we left has nothing to do with it as we know. We wanted to leave them a united india, but they insisted and as africa has shown sticking a bunch of hostile neighbours under one flag wouldnt have worked either. The only way a cold war could have been avoided is if we stayed as a common enemy, and after we gutted ourselves fighting the nazis I somehow dont think that would have worked out in anyone's favour.
Yes, 200 years of British rule did absolutely nothing to exacerbate Hindu-Muslim relations. Because we all know that the British were believers in "equal opportunity" back then. Funny how fast defending colonialism devolves into "it is all the locals fault".
But that's the thing, while the fact that we gave slavery up willingly while you had to bloodily excise it can be excused as a result of economics, what makes your side more morally rehensable is that you had to resort to such extremes and you still failed to finish the job. You ended slavery but the racism stayed hot as ever for 150+ years, with a third of your population is still waiting for the south to rise again the american shame is still being generated by a frankly borderline-retarded political right wing.
So because we did not invent the steam engine first, we are therefore morally reprehensible in pursuing our only method of eliminating slavery....
And speaking of racism persisting, I didn't realize Cecil Rhodes went to Africa on a mission of charity. And I didn't realize the UKIP just wants to help Muslims find the rest of their families by sending them out of the country.
As much as we gripe over our government being run by idiots, our national shame is mostly a part of a nebulous past that we can level out with pride, it's in the past and paired with a lot of good so we can deal with it, whereas yours is still perpetuating now and cant be viewed with the dispassion of history. Yet when you try to make the argument for why america is a net benefit to the world (some damn good arguments I've seen that I agree with wholeheartedly) you get less resistance than when I try even though going by the numbers my argument is more compelling.
Africa is objectively worse off from colonialism. India is a mixed bag at best. I think the aboriginals in Australia and New Zealand would also have a problem with your argument.
I suppose the main problem I have with this situation is that our detractors are not our former colonies calling us devils, it's our contemporaries. Either fellow imperialists that screwed the world so hard we were seen as moderates, or relative do nothings who's main contribution to the world beer and cheese and resentment from petty wars and show no sign that they could have done any better in our stead. The only member state of such categories that could even argue to moral superiority is France and they seem to lack a representative on this forum. The sentiment becomes, to mangle G.R.R.Martin: By what right do the wolves judge the Lion
"You were just as bad as us. Therefore we did nothing wrong."
I find it hilarious that you insist on asserting that all the problems of the colonized world originate in the locals and all the good that occurred came from the British.
I'm not really interested in making a case that the British empire was objectively horrible. I wish to come clean and say that the only reason I am going this path is because I get tired of your US bashing.
Greyblades
02-14-2015, 10:25
How many Indians and Africans got that British medicine and education?.
For a good while, few, however before 1870 all people who werent rich went mostly uneducated, white or otherwise. Same with medicine, if you werent rich you got nothing unless it was serious. It started bad to nonexistant and got better over time in both our contries, Ghandi and many other Indians were educated in London, there were indian MP's in 1890, in the last few decades we were pretty good, especially with the backdrop of post industrial Europe.
Let's not kid ourselves, when you say your population peaked at 1 billion, you mean your population peaked at 50 million white Brits in the isles, Canada, New Zealand and Australia and 950 million conquered indigenous. We're judging ourselves on how we treated the indigenous arent we? How many blacks, latin or native americans got american medicine and education in the 1800's?
You drew an arbitrary line in the sand and now you want to say that because they think your line was arbitrary and wrong, any conflict is solely on their shoulders. Also shame on the US for picking a side in a conflict. Could have sworn it was the united nations that drew the lines. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Committee_on_Palestine) Also, it's not shame on you for joining a war, it's shame for continuing to support them whenever they turned nasty.
You only stopped because you lost the political will and the money to do so. Their is no altruism in your withdraw.
Did I say there was? I'm arguing equivilance to america not superiority, and you have yet to withdraw from yours.
Yes, 200 years of British rule did absolutely nothing to exacerbate Hindu-Muslim relations. Because we all know that the British were believers in "equal opportunity" back then. Funny how fast defending colonialism devolves into "it is all the locals fault".
I never said I was defending colonialism. And if we didnt believe in equal oppertunity half of you were actively hunting it for heresy.
So because we did not invent the steam engine first, we are therefore morally reprehensible in pursuing our only method of eliminating slavery....
No you are morally inferior in this matter for getting your reformer shot and leaving the job half done for 100 years.
And speaking of racism persisting, I didn't realize Cecil Rhodes went to Africa on a mission of charity. And I didn't realize the UKIP just wants to help Muslims find the rest of their families by sending them out of the country.Cecil Rhodes was a product of his time, like Henry Ford and H.P Lovecraft people were fully capable of being dicks. As for Ukip, ours is the reactionary outlier, yours is the (dis)honourable opposition.
Africa is objectively worse off from colonialism. India is a mixed bag at best. I think the aboriginals in Australia and New Zealand would also have a problem with your argument.Quite likely africa and the aboriginals would be better off, though with thier relative lack in technology and education there was basically no chance of them ever reaching the modern age without being conquered and colonised, be it by Europeans, Arabians, Indians, East Asians or even Native American. My argument is that by taking everyone else's performance into account Africa would be(and in some places was) a lot worse if they were under anyone else except maybe you and France.
"You were just as bad as us. Therefore we did nothing wrong."
I find it hilarious that you insist on asserting that all the problems of the colonized world originate in the locals and all the good that occurred came from the British....I have no idea where you got that idea, my message was "we're bad, but the rest of you europeans were especially worse, so shut the hell up."
I'm not really interested in making a case that the British empire was objectively horrible. I wish to come clean and say that the only reason I am going this path is because I get tired of your US bashing.
Well firstly, I cant help but wonder what you were expecting when you waded into a nationalist pissing match with that opener, but did you not even read this bit?:
Yet when you try to make the argument for why america is a net benefit to the world (some damn good arguments I've seen that I agree with wholeheartedly) you get less resistance than when I try even though going by the numbers my argument is more compelling. I dare say nationalistic pride is the only reason I wont admit you're better than us. Well, that and the rotten, festering albertross around your neck you call the republican party.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.