It can go either way..
Printable View
It can go either way..
Situation seems quite simple to me. Disregarding any issues about the foundation of each state - all past history now - the current generation are only carping on about it due to prejudices handed down by their forefathers. This is a conflict between, broadly speaking, a positive organisation, and a negative one. One seeks to maintain it's own state, even willing to concede territory in order to promote peace. The other dedicated to the destruction of this state.
Just because one side is weaker, doesn't preclude it's ability to be an aggressor. Kind of like short people.
Thinking back in history (I am an historian after all). There are a couple of instances where a powerful nation successfully dealt with insurgency, and generated lasting peace (for at least a couple of generations). You aren't going to like the methods though. First example: France, or rather, Gaul. Caesar 'pacified' Gaul Roman style - lots of killing, cutting off of hands etc. and then encouraging assimiliation with Roman culture. The result? A province that was peaceful, contributed to Roman society, culture and government for several hundred years. Second example, India. After the mutiny, we were brutal. Granted, the Indians later had a revolution - a couple of hundred years later, but in a civilised manner - peacefully and progressing into the largest democracy in the world.
Now, I'm not saying that the Israelis should lay waste to all and sundry; but then, nor should they roll over and take it.
So, quite clearly, my opinion lies in supporting the Israeli state - quite possibly influenced by my exasperation with what seems to be a vast horde of nihilists hiding behind a book.
Yep - emotional appeal.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
Which one? It will help you understand what I was actually saying.Quote:
Weren't you?
Exactly the way it is defined in Websters.Quote:
How do you define manufacture?
So showing you that there was trades, no trades, and concession releases seem to fall out the window because you wish to maintain the illusion and baised that states there is never a release of prisoners without a trade.Quote:
What I stated is only about the captives' trades. You started "quibbling" and getting us far from the point.
Does someone have a problem reviewing information outside of their own paridiagms(SP)?
So I am indeed correct your orginial statement about the the West fighting only for cash was indeed false. To remind us both of your statementQuote:
No error was mine. IN the original definition I gave to it, I said "terrorizing organisations", and I don't think that applies to any resistance.
Those in Europe fought mainly for cash! The resistance organisations fight for freedom?
GoodQuote:
I just did.
Emotional appeal is its own refutation.Quote:
I'm not claiming that I do not agree to this description of my arguments, I simply don't agree.
France supplied the Technology and even some of the scientists and material in developing Israel's nuclear generators. Israel developed their own nuclear weapons from this start. Most likely with the knowledge that one has been developed before enabled them to speed up their own ability to make nuclear weapons. The United States failed to make any waves about Israel's possible development of nuclear weapons when the US first learned of the violations by Israel back in the 1960s and into the 1970's. This is all contained in the FAS document and yes even the quote alreadly provided in this thread.Quote:
Through what I read, I found nothing. Though, I know that a whole lot of Arabic countries requested the Israel be enforced concerning it's violation of the agreement. Some 3-4 years ago.
It is already part of a larger war, the war on terrorism. No sizzle out in sight.Quote:
Originally Posted by cunobelinus
You might want to look at a more recent example closer to home, Northern Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody Else
The main Palestinian terror groups are secular. The only book they're hding behind is the latest A-Z of Israel/Palestine (latest because of the constant creep of Israeli settlements).Quote:
Now, I'm not saying that the Israelis should lay waste to all and sundry; but then, nor should they roll over and take it.
So, quite clearly, my opinion lies in supporting the Israeli state - quite possibly influenced by my exasperation with what seems to be a vast horde of nihilists hiding behind a book.
It's funny how people talk of kidnapping Israeli soldiers as an act of war, but they ignore the main cause of war through history, land disputes. We fought a war against Argentina when they claimed a piece of British land as their own. IIRC we weren't the aggressors.
Not quite the same. We didn't say, for example, raze entire towns and enslave all the women and children having executed all the men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
A limited approach does not work. Kind of like wind on a fire - a strong wind on a weak flame blows it out. But blow too softly, or too late, and embers will become a fire, a fire will become a firestorm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Here I'll admit, I was being rather general - and openly admitting a slight prejudice - I don't know - there's three major conflicts going on at the moment, all with a common factor.
Yes, human greed is the most common cause for aggression - in all walks of life. But religion is, for some, a very convenient excuse.
Not quite the same. We didn't say, for example, raze entire towns and enslave all the women and children having executed all the men.
Not during the recent episode , but they certainly did previously . Though of course they didn't kill all the men , they would just decide what proportion of a towns male inhabitants would be executed .
Now what is the name of the island where they shipped people off to work the plantations ?
Also you might want to rethink your comments about India , they are contrary to fact , or do you find the slaughter of millions and still ongoing killing a civilised peaceful manner .
(I am an historian after all)
Really ????? perhaps you should study a little harder .
You can start by finding out which proportions of male inhabitants of which towns/cities were chosen to be executed ,then which was the last town to be razed (which isn't that long ago actually ) . Then can you find the name of the carribean island the Irish were sent to .
History is fun isn't it , its good to learn .:2thumbsup:
Ancient historian. The Irish, quite frankly, are of little interest to me. If you want examples in the Roman empire or Empire, do ask. As a taster, the Nervii in Gaul, (and to prove that the area can live peacefully) Jerusalem after Titus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Thats OK Somebody, just thought I would point out that you were not using very good examples with Ireland and India .
So now then , the Romans , whatever happened to them ?
I wonder if in a few millenia historians will be looking at the wall to in the Middle east that is supposed to keep the barbarians at bay and saying "what a wonderful feat of engineering" ?~;)
The Romans had an empire that lasted 500 years (Augustus onwards). Or, if you want, there were people who called themselves Roman for 2000 years (Founding of Rome to the fall of Constantinople).
They are the basis of our legal system. Their military organisational and training techniques provide inspiration centuries after their demise.
I just hope in a few millenia historians have a wall to look at, because the way things seem to be going at the moment, they'll have a the relics of a novel form of glass production to look at.
Just wondering Somebody , since you refer to peace after Titus , you know kill them enslave them and destroy the area .
How is it that they came back on a far wider scale and depopulated large parts of the roman empire by slaughtering roman citizens , didn't they get the message ?
And they rose up again after that didn't they .
Some people never learn do they .
Apparently they are back again now and none too happy at the moment as it happens.
Funny thing that genocide isn't it , you have to do it right and make sure you get all of them . If not then you are only building problems for the future .
I just hope in a few millenia historians have a wall to look at, because the way things seem to be going at the moment, they'll have a the relics of a novel form of glass production to look at.
Hopefully saner heads will prevail .
Gotta love the good old pax Romana.
N.B. Up until Constantine, religion was not generally an issue under Roman rule (Except the druids... nasty seditious human-sacrificing people that they were. The human sacrifice was distasteful - but their propensity for spreading dissent was the main reason the Romans went to such lengths to crush them)
Also, try as I might, I can't think of any occasion when Judean Zeolots embarked on an empire-wide slaughter of Roman citizens... I will give you that there were 2 more revolts after Titus (well, one set of riots and a major revolt). '580,000 Jews (mass civilian casualties), 50 fortified towns and 985 villages razed.' in Bar Kokhba’s revolt, According to Cassius Dio via Wikipedia. They were not exterminated, but nor were they let off lightly. I don't see any mention of a Jewish revolt after that...
Basically, what I'm saying, is that people are thick. And sometimes, something heavy is required to hammer the message home. But as long as they feel that they can act with impunity, people will. Why co-operate when you don't have to? Much like training an animal, people as a whole need to be forced to behave in a certain way before they do so voluntarily.
Gods I despise the human race.
Also, try as I might, I can't think of any occasion when Judean Zeolots embarked on an empire-wide slaughter of Roman citizens...
I didn't say empire wide , it just reached from modern Iraq all the way across to modern Libya , oh and a little hop across the sea to Cyprus .
See .....wider-scale .
It was the second one not the Star one .
Precisely. Northern Ireland shows that defeating insurgencies (and the Provisional IRA were among the best) is possible without using extreme brutality. It takes a lot of patience and tolerance (and money), but it's possible. In the long run, it's probably cheaper than the half and half solution favoured by moralists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody Else
A poor analogy, you might as well use a direct description. As Mao Zedong and other experts on the matter have recognised, an insurgency lives among its people. People are drawn to the idea of the insurgency. Therefore defeating the insurgency involves either extinguishing the idea or the people who are drawn to it. Extinguishing the people means depopulating the danger area, either killing, moving or otherwise suppressing the relevant part of the population - genocide or the threat of is good if you choose this option. Extinguishing the idea means either suppressing the idea, feasible before modern communications but not now, or providing an alternative, which is what the British did in Northern Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody Else
You can even mix and match to your taste, as they are not mutually exclusive, although one does tend to act against the other. However, forever threatening the population while not giving them any realistic alternative definitely doesn't work.
The basic cause of the Israel-Palestine conflict is the non-existence of a viable Palestine, and the unlife of Palestinians. The British solved Northern Ireland by integrating the population into the British mainstream, thereby making insurgency much less attractive, giving the insurgents a realistic political alternative to violence, and accepting the moral contradictions of a war in name and peace in reality.Quote:
Here I'll admit, I was being rather general - and openly admitting a slight prejudice - I don't know - there's three major conflicts going on at the moment, all with a common factor.
Yes, human greed is the most common cause for aggression - in all walks of life. But religion is, for some, a very convenient excuse.
FWIW, Sinn Fein still aims to drive the British out of the island of Ireland, but now do so via exclusively political means, and they are more concerned with other matters now they are in government in many councils across Northern Ireland. If the Israelis were smart and less concerned with macho posturing, they would seek to rehabilitate Hamas in this manner. History shows the Israelis, like their American sponsors, to be too bound by moral opposites to do anything of the sort.
The non-life of the Palestinians. As I said earlier, the current generation is not one that was around when there was a state of Palestine. They should move on.
And if this seems cavalier, and that the virtue of having ancestors that once lived in a place entails a right to live there regardless of later claims grants the Palestinians the right to live there. Well, then. Sorry, but the Israelis got there first. Up until 1900 years ago or so. When they were ejected by the superpower of the time, as the Palestinians were ejected by the superpower of their time. But then, following that logic, the USA should be evacuated by all but the native americans. The Scots should go back to Ireland. Non-aboriginals should leave Australia. Etc. etc.
This is a farcical assumption.
Fact is, Israel is a sovereign state, currently extant, recognised as such by the rest of the world. Therefore it has every right to defend itself against attacks upon it's sovereignity - whether they be forceful or more insidious.
Hezbollah et al strike me as something akin to the petulant little child lashing out in a temper tantrum because it doesn't get it's way.
Anyway - we seemed to be getting a little off topic somewhere along the line.
There is a state of Palestine. This state is guaranteed by the UN, and is even recognised by Israel. It held free elections recently, and in a surprise result (not least to the victors) elected a Hamas government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody Else
Palestine also claims that right, but do not have the military or diplomatic muscle to back it up. The UN defined the borders of Israel and Palestine, but war has eaten into that. The PLO recognised that fact, and renegotiated the borders. Israel continues to eat into Palestinian territory by building new settlements and thus bringing more Palestinian territory under Israeli authority, but the west does not regard this as an act of war. More recently, Israel has built a wall which crosses and encloses land that even Israel recognises as Palestinian, but once again the west does not regard this as an act of war. Thatcher sent an expedition to the Falklands when the Argies tried something similar.Quote:
And if this seems cavalier, and that the virtue of having ancestors that once lived in a place entails a right to live there regardless of later claims grants the Palestinians the right to live there. Well, then. Sorry, but the Israelis got there first. Up until 1900 years ago or so. When they were ejected by the superpower of the time, as the Palestinians were ejected by the superpower of their time. But then, following that logic, the USA should be evacuated by all but the native americans. The Scots should go back to Ireland. Non-aboriginals should leave Australia. Etc. etc.
This is a farcical assumption.
Fact is, Israel is a sovereign state, currently extant, recognised as such by the rest of the world. Therefore it has every right to defend itself against attacks upon it's sovereignity - whether they be forceful or more insidious.
Hezbollah and other anti-Israel groups gain support from the sore that is Israel-Palestine. When talking about the middle east, the Palestinian problem is always on-topic. It is such an obvious injustice, the flourescent pink elephant in the middle of the room, that all Muslims have to do is point and all our illusions of an ethical foreign policy is gone. Whatever their underlying reasons for doing so (and we don't know what they are), they weren't slow to link their cause to that of the Palestinians.Quote:
Hezbollah et al strike me as something akin to the petulant little child lashing out in a temper tantrum because it doesn't get it's way.
Anyway - we seemed to be getting a little off topic somewhere along the line.
Personally I don't care for any of those in the region. It would be better if the EU sealed off the region, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and other relevant countries. No travel, no trade, no aid. Ban travel to those areas. If anyone goes there via other countries, bar them from returning to the EU. If anyone manages to return to the EU after having been to those areas, revoke their EU citizenship and deport them. If these middle easterners don't want to listen to us, there is no reason to continue to belabour them with our opinions. And if they insist on continuing this war, then they should at least keep us out of it. And if they want to contribute to this war, then we don't want them here causing trouble. Let them do whatever they want, it's none of our business. And we should do our utmost to keep it from being our business, until they tire of fighting. If they want our advice again there is always the UN in New York. Until then, good bye and good riddance to these troublemakers.
It would please me greatly to seal them all off in some room somewhere to sort it out on their own. However, they happen to be sitting on one of the most interesting pieces of land in the world. (And I'm pretty thankful I managed to visit between intifadahs).
As for Israel continuing to encroach on Palestinian land, one of the first acts of the current head of state was to withdraw from perceived Palestinian territory - of course, this cannot be done immediately - people cannot be moved like cattle - regardless of the past. The wall was built in order to regulate the movement of possible bombers. Do you know what it's like to live in a city where people actually jump if a car backfires? Talks never managed to stop them coming across, strikes didn't, what will?
Anyway. Regardless. What's Hezbollah's involvement pray tell? Are they a concerned third party? In which case why not act through the Lebanese government, of which they are a part, in order to put pressure on the Israelis to concede. Instead, they resort to all they understand. And kidnap. And bomb. Those aren't the acts of an organisation I can imagine anyone wanting anything to deal with.
Then wait until it's peaceful again before visiting. One of the London bombers (the ringleader) was radicalised by a trip there, and I'm not inclined to look kindly on others who want to make that trip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody Else
They withdrew from Gaza, but they're still on the West Bank. One solution I came up with after discussion on another forum was for the wall to be demolished, the settlers to remain, but for any settlers remaining on what is internationally recognised as Palestinian soil to cease being Israeli but to assume Palestinian citizenship with all its attendant rights and responsibilities, including paying taxes to the PA.Quote:
As for Israel continuing to encroach on Palestinian land, one of the first acts of the current head of state was to withdraw from perceived Palestinian territory - of course, this cannot be done immediately - people cannot be moved like cattle - regardless of the past. The wall was built in order to regulate the movement of possible bombers.
Israel has no legal authority over the West Bank, however you wish to argue it. These lands are internationally recognised as Palestinian. If the settlers want to claim right of habitation, then they must also accept the authority of the legal owner of that land, which is the Palestinian state. If they do not accept that authority, then they are by definition squatters. If they wish to contest that authority with force, then the are by definition invaders, and the Palestinians would be within their rights to ask the UNSC to help them eject them from their land (as happened with Kuwait in 1990).
Read this op-ed from the Hamas PM, and see how it differs from the popular (western) view of Hamas.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071001108.html
I grew up with the threat of IRA bombs constantly in the background. I'm a regular tube user along the lines and stations that were bombed last July (both the successful and unsuccessful attempts). I'm still slightly edgy around dark skinned people carrying backpacks on trains, especially when approaching Liverpool Street. Does that count?Quote:
Do you know what it's like to live in a city where people actually jump if a car backfires?
The period when Arafat and Rabin were engaged in productive talks was the most peaceful in the past couple of decades, according to Israeli accounts.Quote:
Talks never managed to stop them coming across, strikes didn't, what will?
One could say the same about the IRA when they bombed Canary Wharf in their last spectacular. Did the British government send in the Harriers? Even better, they sent in Scotland Yard and activated their intelligence network. Even after Omagh we didn't respond with geometrically reciprocal violence, but treated it as a crime to be investigated by the police. Wouldn't you say the UK-IRA relationship is currently healthier than the Israel-Palestine relationship?Quote:
Anyway. Regardless. What's Hezbollah's involvement pray tell? Are they a concerned third party? In which case why not act through the Lebanese government, of which they are a part, in order to put pressure on the Israelis to concede. Instead, they resort to all they understand. And kidnap. And bomb. Those aren't the acts of an organisation I can imagine anyone wanting anything to deal with.
Hmm... a solution I've considered in the past would be to declare the area a state solely governed by the UN - governed not by Israelis for the Jews, or Palestine for the Muslims, or... um... Outremer for the Christians - but by mankind for mankind. The same to apply to any other parts of the world where people can't seem to get their heads together. And before ya know it, we'll finally have that one-world government I've been hoping for.
But hey. Humanity is too petty to think that way.
And the difference between the IRA and these Islamic organisations is a case of scale. Whereas one has reasonable demands that can be negotiated with; The other is comprised of absolutists. The IRA's aim, I don't believe, was the annhilation of Great Britain - therefore an agreement could be reached. But how can one negotiate with someone who wants you dissolved?
Also, it's still terrible, but an attack every few days at the height of the troubles... compared to multiple daily attacks at the height of the intifadahs... Not quite the same now is it? As for the tube. Well, I'll admit, I try to avoid it myself. People stink. But you'll forgive me for being a little callous about a mere 52 deaths - when compared to this. Make no mistake, I judge 7/7 to be a terrible incident, but for that one incident (ignoring the damp squib a couple of weeks later) to be on an equal footing with what happens elsewhere? That's just a little to self-concerned.
I guess you haven't read Haniyeh's op-ed then, where he talks about 1948 issues and the need to address them using internationally accepted norms. Were you also aware that Hamas were discussing the idea of recognising the states of Israel and Palestine along 1967 lines? Fatah and Hamas prisoners came up with the idea, President Abbas threatened to call a referendum on it if Hamas did not support it, and Hamas eventually gave in (Haniyeh was supposedly part of the group that favoured it from the start). So get this clear: Hamas gave up the idea of dissolving Israel. If you've read the op-ed, you'll see that even now he talks of Israel and Palestine having equal rights as states. That's more of a concession than the IRA ever formally gave us before their disbandment last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody Else
As opposed to your good self in the north where Muslim-committed massacres are two-a-penny.Quote:
Also, it's still terrible, but an attack every few days at the height of the troubles... compared to multiple daily attacks at the height of the intifadahs... Not quite the same now is it? As for the tube. Well, I'll admit, I try to avoid it myself. People stink. But you'll forgive me for being a little callous about a mere 52 deaths - when compared to this. Make no mistake, I judge 7/7 to be a terrible incident, but for that one incident (ignoring the damp squib a couple of weeks later) to be on an equal footing with what happens elsewhere? That's just a little to self-concerned.
If you want to talk about body counts, note that the number of Palestinians killed by the IDF amount to at least 5 times the number of Israelis killed by Hamas and other terrorist groups. That's ignoring deaths due to deprivation caused by destruction of civil infrastructure. In the latest incidents, 16 Israelis have been killed so far (note the precise number), while 200-odd Palestinians have been killed (note the rough number, blurred by the scale). Typically if Israeli death totals are counted in 2 figures, Palestinian death totals in the same period are counted in 3 figures.
Question is... why are you focussing so much on Hamas? I thought we were talking about Hezbollah... After all, the subject of this thread is the bombing of Lebanon.
If experiencing the actual events we're talking about were a requirement for comment on this board, there would be very little said, nay? After all, I'm sure if there were explosives going off willy nilly around me, the last thing I'd be doing is typing away here. As I said, lets try and be objective here - no need to be personal, hmm? (Also, the local neds around here are more than enough to put the wind up anyone...)Quote:
As opposed to your good self in the north where Muslim-committed massacres are two-a-penny.
Comparing apples and oranges - so, are we to compare the IRA to the IDF then? I was comparing the IRA to Hamas et al. Why not mention the Black and Tans etc.? Or do they not quite present quite the right image? Also, whereas the UK was in a position to dominate Ireland as a whole, Israel may be able to do so to Palestine, but that's not all it's up against - and as this is the case, there is the continued belief that Israel can be brought to heel by force.
So. Can we get back to the issue at hand?
The issue at hand is Israel bombing southern Lebanon, making the people there hate Israel even more. Meanwhile, Hezbollah are firing Katjuschas into Haifa and it´s sourroundings, making the Israelis want their heads even more.
So in the end we have two selfish factions dragging some civilians into their war and I´d say both are pretty wrong.
What I found interesting though, warching the news on TV last night, was that factory owners in southern Lebanon are often required to pay Hezbollah which is why Israel also bombs their factories.
Also Israel refuses to stop attacks so that embassies can fly foreigners out, which sounds like they really don´t care about the lives of innocents who have nothing to do with the matter. Someone needs to slap those jewish extremists for their attitude.
are we to compare the IRA to the IDF then?
Well the IDF grew out of the IRA , but you are talking about the other IDF aren't you . well the IDF also grew out of a terrorist organisation , so the IDF is like the IDF .:juggle2:
The IRA blew up a lighthouse , the IDF blew up a lighthouse .:idea2: no not that IDF the other one .:laugh4:
You mention the Tans (btw they were the last to raze a town) , they were government forces just like the IDF , government forces can commit terrorism (as yesterdays submission to the UN about some earlier bombings in Lebanon seem to show , though of course maybe the confessions are the result of torture that isn't really torture) .
Also, whereas the UK was in a position to dominate Ireland as a whole, Israel may be able to do so to Palestine
Though eventually the cost becomes too great for too little return so they withdraw .
Now it could be done , if you either exterminate the local population , or treat them so well that the vast(almost total) majority are really happy to be under your rule .
But in the case of Israel it has shown that it is woefully inadequate when it comes to treating people equally (even its own citizens of the Jewish faith who are the wrong sort of Jews , let alone its bedouin /christian /muslim population) . If you don't treat people equally then they are not going to be relly happy , they are going to be angry and an angry population tends to lead to a litlebit of a problem .
So. Can we get back to the issue at hand?
You summed it up earlier didnt you ?
Gods I despise the human race.
Humans eh , silly creatures .:shrug:
Hamas currently represents Palestine as their freely elected government. As I've explained before, Israel is a convenient excuse for any Muslim (not Islamic, their aims have little to do with religion) terrorist groups. The west talks about Israel's right to self-defence, they point to Palestine and hey presto, instant support for violent action. The west tries to marginalise the terrorists, they point to Palestine and hey presto, instant support for their continued relevance. The west creates a democratic state in Iraq, they point to Palestine and hey presto, instant support for anti-Israeli rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody Else
Converse to neocon claims, all solutions to middle eastern problems run through Israel-Palestine, not vice versa. For a lasting solution to any of the other problems, you have to take away their most ready excuse and justification, the injustice of Palestine. You can see this even in far away Iraq, where any politician wishing to gain or retain power has to be strongly anti-Israel. How much more so for neighbouring Lebanon.
You asked me if I knew what it's like to live in a city where people flinch when a car backfires, so I told you I live in a city where people are at least apprehensive whenever they get on a train. You told me I was self-absorbed and the 52 Londoners dead did not compare with the hundreds of Israeli dead in the intifadas, so I told you the Palestinian death toll which was far worse.Quote:
If experiencing the actual events we're talking about were a requirement for comment on this board, there would be very little said, nay? After all, I'm sure if there were explosives going off willy nilly around me, the last thing I'd be doing is typing away here. As I said, lets try and be objective here - no need to be personal, hmm? (Also, the local neds around here are more than enough to put the wind up anyone...)
If you think this is getting personal, don't go there in the first place.
Don't polarise the various sides and expect us to swallow it. And if you want to assign historical roles to the various sides, feel free. Just don't expect us to swallow that either. The IDF are the IDF. Hamas are Hamas. Hezbollah are Hezbollah. Where comparisons can be made, they can only be made in terms of generalisations, not specific point-by-point analogies. If you find it difficult to find the right metaphor to describe your point, make it in plain language instead.Quote:
Comparing apples and oranges - so, are we to compare the IRA to the IDF then? I was comparing the IRA to Hamas et al. Why not mention the Black and Tans etc.? Or do they not quite present quite the right image? Also, whereas the UK was in a position to dominate Ireland as a whole, Israel may be able to do so to Palestine, but that's not all it's up against - and as this is the case, there is the continued belief that Israel can be brought to heel by force.
So. Can we get back to the issue at hand?
Memorable quotes by Tony Banks, former London MP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDe...37&SESSION=682
Early Day Motion 1255, 21st May 2004
That this House is appalled, but barely surprised, at the revelations in M15 files regarding the bizarre and inhumane proposals to use pigeons as flying bombs; recognises the important and live-saving role of carrier pigeons in two world wars and wonders at the lack of gratitude towards these gentle creatures; and believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...975281,00.html
Asked to comment on football hooliganism abroad after allegations of police brutality, he once said: “Personally I wish the police had truncheoned the English fans to death, but I can’t really say that on the record.”
I miss Banksy, the archetypal Londoner.
Ok ok. I give up. Lets abolish Israel. Lets leave the various Muslim sects another chunk of territory to fight over.
I'm bored of this now. I've got some babies to eat.
You can use your blanket "emotional appeal" anytime, but it sure is incorrect.Quote:
Yep - emotional appeal.
Then you're wrong!! They might have the same rocket designs, I don't care (And don't know), but they surely did assemble them..Quote:
Exactly the way it is defined in Websters.
Did I say I do? (I might have known "false" info about this aspect, but still, one captives release in 60 years is no where near efficient to show a good sign).Quote:
So showing you that there was trades, no trades, and concession releases seem to fall out the window because you wish to maintain the illusion and baised that states there is never a release of prisoners without a trade.
I don't think so.Quote:
Does someone have a problem reviewing information outside of their own paridiagms(SP)?
Read the word slowly: "I don't agree".Quote:
Emotional appeal is its own refutation.
Thanks for prooving my point, and supporting it. ~;)Quote:
France supplied the Technology and even some of the scientists and material in developing Israel's nuclear generators. Israel developed their own nuclear weapons from this start. Most likely with the knowledge that one has been developed before enabled them to speed up their own ability to make nuclear weapons. The United States failed to make any waves about Israel's possible development of nuclear weapons when the US first learned of the violations by Israel back in the 1960s and into the 1970's. This is all contained in the FAS document and yes even the quote alreadly provided in this thread.
Are you stating that most of what you have written is not emotional appeal. Emotional appeal is its own refuationQuote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
Same design normally indicates something, like a transfer of technology and knowledge.Quote:
Then you're wrong!! They might have the same rocket designs, I don't care (And don't know), but they surely did assemble them..
Assemble is not the only meaning of manufacture either, assembly is a step in then manufacturing process. The making of the compentents is also a part in the manafacturing process. You are doing one of two things confusing the Manufacturing process with the definition of Manufacture, or worse yet you are attempting to use a different meaning of manafacture then the rest of the world. Here It seems you might need some help from Websters with the definition.
and the verb form of the wordQuote:
Originally Posted by websters
If Hezabollah has a faclitity that can manufacture rocket engines for the type of missiles going to Haifa, in Lebanon then the arguements being used by Israel for going into Lebanon begin to make more sense.Quote:
Main Entry: 2manufacture
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -tured; man·u·fac·tur·ing /-'fak-ch&-ri[ng], -'fak-shri[ng]/
transitive verb
1 : to make into a product suitable for use
2 a : to make from raw materials by hand or by machinery b : to produce according to an organized plan and with division of labor c : PREFABRICATE <a manufactured home>
3 : INVENT, FABRICATE <known to manufacture evidence>
4 : to produce as if by manufacturing : CREATE <writers who manufacture stories for television>
intransitive verb : to engage in manufacture
- man·u·fac·tur·abil·i·ty /-"fak-ch&-r&-'bi-l&-tE, -"fak-shr&-'bi-/ noun
- man·u·fac·tur·able /-'fak-ch&-r&-b&l, -'fak-shr&-b&l/ adjective
- manufacturing noun
Is your assertion here is that Hezabollah has the material and facialities to machine a more complex missile system then the previous system? Now remember that the rocket that hit the ship is now being thought to be a guided missile. This type of missile requires even more precise machining and has a more complex assemply process. Which is the more likely explaination for these two weapon systems. That Iran is manufacturing the components and shipping them to Hezabollah for assembly. Or Hezabollah is manufacturing the weapons on their own from Iranian designs?
One answer almost gives a justification to Israel for invading and destroying parts of Lebanon because of Hezabollah's attack.
The other explanation is that Hezabollah is in over its head and Iran decided to give them some means to strike back at Israel.
Now I lean toward the second statement. Since I lean toward the arguement that Hezabollah decided that it wanted to gain some of its repatuation (SP) back since a group in Palenstine decided to kidnap an Israeli soldier.
Here is where your emotional appeal arguement was most telling. You stated that they have never conducted a release without a trade. Evidence indicates that this is wrong. This retort is only a quibble, your initial premise was indeed incorrect.Quote:
Did I say I do? (I might have known "false" info about this aspect, but still, one captives release in 60 years is no where near efficient to show a good sign).
Your comments in this thread refutes this statement.Quote:
I don't think so.
Reading slowly - reading fast does not change the fact that emotional appeal is its own refuation.Quote:
Read the word slowly: "I don't agree".
[/quote]Quote:
Thanks for prooving my point, and supporting it. ~;)
Your orginial premise was that it was the UK - this was incorrect.
If you believe this proves your point was proven by my statement - your again mistaken, you clearly indicated that you found nothing. So your points have consistently been shown to be false concerning this particlur area. Was this because you did not actually read the information, or more was it because you could not see the information because it countered your own baised view.
Arab countries protesting against Israeli development of nuclear weapons 3 to 4 years ago, happens to fall in line with to little way to late. They should of been protesting about it in the 1950 and 1960s, however most were still focusing on the destruction of Israel versus what Israel was doing.
Now to having proven that the United States chose to ignore Israel development of Nuclear Weapons - something that I have stated before your attempt here or the previous post. So basically x-danger you failed to read the comments from FAS, nor does it seem you paid attention to what I stated, since both FAS and myself have clearly stated that postion. However once again thanks to demonstrating that emotional appeal arguements are their own refutation.
Yes I am.Quote:
Are you stating that most of what you have written is not emotional appeal. Emotional appeal is its own refuation
I know what manufacturing means, and I meant what I said in it's full meaning. It seems you have troubles getting it.. You're even writing it wrong..Quote:
Assemble is not the only meaning of manufacture either, assembly is a step in then manufacturing process. The making of the compentents is also a part in the manafacturing process. You are doing one of two things confusing the Manufacturing process with the definition of Manufacture, or worse yet you are attempting to use a different meaning of manafacture then the rest of the world. Here It seems you might need some help from Websters with the definition.
You don't justify something after you do it.. Like, Jordan attacks Israel (Let's say in the 70s), and is able to conquer it. It finds that it has Nuclear materials, so it justifies it's attack with that.. That's wrong!Quote:
If Hezabollah has a faclitity that can manufacture rocket engines for the type of missiles going to Haifa, in Lebanon then the arguements being used by Israel for going into Lebanon begin to make more sense.
I already stood corrected.. Move on and stop the repetitivity.Quote:
Here is where your emotional appeal arguement was most telling. You stated that they have never conducted a release without a trade. Evidence indicates that this is wrong. This retort is only a quibble, your initial premise was indeed incorrect.
In your opinion.Quote:
Your comments in this thread refutes this statement.
It maybe, but that is irrelevant.Quote:
Reading slowly - reading fast does not change the fact that emotional appeal is its own refuation.
My point that Israel got help from a European country.. Got it? I wasn't sure if it was France or the UK, but you proved it was France, and that still doesn't oppose my sentence saying "from europe", but it surely does oppose mine saying from the UK, which is why I stand corrected on that one.Quote:
If you believe this proves your point was proven by my statement - your again mistaken, you clearly indicated that you found nothing. So your points have consistently been shown to be false concerning this particlur area. Was this because you did not actually read the information, or more was it because you could not see the information because it countered your own baised view.
Arab countries protesting against Israeli development of nuclear weapons 3 to 4 years ago, happens to fall in line with to little way to late. They should of been protesting about it in the 1950 and 1960s, however most were still focusing on the destruction of Israel versus what Israel was doing.
Now to having proven that the United States chose to ignore Israel development of Nuclear Weapons - something that I have stated before your attempt here or the previous post. So basically x-danger you failed to read the comments from FAS, nor does it seem you paid attention to what I stated, since both FAS and myself have clearly stated that postion. However once again thanks to demonstrating that emotional appeal arguements are their own refutation.
Now let's clear some points:
1) Do you support Israel's attack on Lebanon? Knowing that the attack hasn't killed less than 10 Hezbullah men, and all others are civilians?
2) Do you justify Israel's attack on Lebanon? By the terms that Hezbullah had captured 2 soldiers, don' you justify his attack on Israel, knowing that Israel holds hundreds more than that?
3) Do you neglect the fact that Israel has the ability to target only military targets, but still fire rockets on two cars evacuating from a town they ordered to be evacuated, knowing that those cars were filled with women and children?
I haven't taken the time to read the entirety of this thread, and doubt I will, I only came to leave my opinion on the issue.
Regardless of what camp you sit in, I can offer only my opinion as, what I perceive to be, a clear thinking, logical individual.
This is an ongoing situation that has existed since the end of the second world war, everybody knows this is nothing new.
Israel is acting in what it believes to be its best interest as a nation. The Islamic community around it is acting in what it believes to be its best interest as a people. But here's where the problem is.
The Israeli people have commodities and a lifestyle that significantly surpasses their islamic neighbors. Islamic countries are, almost by entirety, third world, underdeveloped, dirt poor nations whose only illusion from the squalor of daily life is their religion. Turkey and Kuwait seem to be exempt from this situation due to significant westernization of their people. So..
What happens when you place the unquestioning faith of desperate, miserable people in the hands of religious figures who control all the wealth and political clout of their region because their people hand everything they own to their religion in hopes of achieving something better in life?
You get religious figures who take advantage of their followers faith in their religion to distract them from the misery of daily life by pointing their disgust and indignation towards the most obvious enemy, the people who are not your own, who occupy a place your religion says is yours.
This is what happens...it's that simple.
I'm not pledging my support to either side, so long as this conflict is kept amongst themselves.
I see only two possible solutions to the problem.
1 - The current leaders of their religion and political strength must be systematically and immediately removed, only those who would prove to be logical, peaceful, optimistic and generous individuals should be allowed to run a house of worship. Any man who claims to be a man of God but would urge war and death on another people, is, by all major religious faiths, not a man of god, but rather a man of evil. Islam may be the head of the middle-eastern world, but the imams are the neck, and they can turn the head any way they please. It is unforetunate that they turn it to hate and bloodshed. That..and the simple fact that a couple of radical, clearly absurd practices must be put to an end by these religious leaders (like the practice of gashing ones head open or flogging oneself with chains on the day of Ashura).
2 - This war must be fought, one camp or the other must be eradicated entirely.
I see no other possible ends to a situation that has already exhausted all other options.
That set-up alarms me. Like Foxnews' "Fair and balanced", and BNP introductions of "I'm not a racist but..", these disclaimers tend to precede main bodies that are the opposite of what they claim to be. Still, let's see how this one goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
So Israel is entirely innocent of all guilt whatever it has done or will ever do in the future, Muslims are subhumans who don't deserve to interact with us, their leaders should be taken out, and there should be a total and exterminatory war to settle the differences between the civilisations once and for all. Fair enough. To think that I feared you were another racist bigot from your intro, I'm glad I was mistaken. Your analysis was indeed that of a clear thinking, logical individual.Quote:
This is an ongoing situation that has existed since the end of the second world war, everybody knows this is nothing new.
Israel is acting in what it believes to be its best interest as a nation. The Islamic community around it is acting in what it believes to be its best interest as a people. But here's where the problem is.
The Israeli people have commodities and a lifestyle that significantly surpasses their islamic neighbors. Islamic countries are, almost by entirety, third world, underdeveloped, dirt poor nations whose only illusion from the squalor of daily life is their religion. Turkey and Kuwait seem to be exempt from this situation due to significant westernization of their people. So..
What happens when you place the unquestioning faith of desperate, miserable people in the hands of religious figures who control all the wealth and political clout of their region because their people hand everything they own to their religion in hopes of achieving something better in life?
You get religious figures who take advantage of their followers faith in their religion to distract them from the misery of daily life by pointing their disgust and indignation towards the most obvious enemy, the people who are not your own, who occupy a place your religion says is yours.
This is what happens...it's that simple.
I'm not pledging my support to either side, so long as this conflict is kept amongst themselves.
I see only two possible solutions to the problem.
1 - The current leaders of their religion and political strength must be systematically and immediately removed, only those who would prove to be logical, peaceful, optimistic and generous individuals should be allowed to run a house of worship. Any man who claims to be a man of God but would urge war and death on another people, is, by all major religious faiths, not a man of god, but rather a man of evil. Islam may be the head of the middle-eastern world, but the imams are the neck, and they can turn the head any way they please. It is unforetunate that they turn it to hate and bloodshed. That..and the simple fact that a couple of radical, clearly absurd practices must be put to an end by these religious leaders (like the practice of gashing ones head open or flogging oneself with chains on the day of Ashura).
2 - This war must be fought, one camp or the other must be eradicated entirely.
I see no other possible ends to a situation that has already exhausted all other options.
Well if thats how you feel, then please explain to an uninformed person how the Islamic community can so full heartedly support people who don't have their best interests in mind?
Enemy of my enemy...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
In short, all I pretty much said was that I feel in order to secure peace in the middle east those with power and influence need to be replaced with more peaceful, diplomatic individuals.
Pannonian took this thirty steps further and turned me into a racist, but he's entitled to his opinion.
It's just beyond my understanding how reasonable people can follow ideas that will clearly do nothing but bring them more suffering. It's like some inborn masochistic ideal.
Yes indeed emotional appeal is its own refutation....Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
Ah it seems that individual getting it wrong is yourself - again emotional appeal is its own refutation. What part of the manufacturing process would you liked explained to you.... It seems once again when the definition does not agree with your statements you begin to quibble, I find it rather amusing.Quote:
I know what manufacturing means, and I meant what I said in it's full meaning. It seems you have troubles getting it.. You're even writing it wrong..
So in essence you must agree Hezabollah is wrong in its attack of Israeli soldiers in Israel and its kidnapping of two soldiers? You don't justify something after you do it....Quote:
You don't justify something after you do it.. Like, Jordan attacks Israel (Let's say in the 70s), and is able to conquer it. It finds that it has Nuclear materials, so it justifies it's attack with that.. That's wrong!
You don't want it repeated don't quibble.Quote:
I already stood corrected.. Move on and stop the repetitivity.
Again your comments in this thread refute the statement that this was referenced to....Quote:
In your opinion.
SO you do agree that using emotional appeal is its own refutation, and that would make most of your arguement irrelevant.Quote:
It maybe, but that is irrelevant.
your are quibbling over your own failure, I find that rather amusing.Quote:
My point that Israel got help from a European country.. Got it?
So once again your orginal premise on blaming it on the UK was demonstrated to be false. Again it proves emotional appeal is its own refutation.Quote:
I wasn't sure if it was France or the UK, but you proved it was France, and that still doesn't oppose my sentence saying "from europe", but it surely does oppose mine saying from the UK, which is why I stand corrected on that one.
Oh I have been really clear on this issue if you have been paying attention.Quote:
Now let's clear some points:
The answer is clearly indicated in this thread and at least one other. My discussion is directed at Hezbollah and my disgust with their actions, which happens to coincide with my disgust with Israeli actions. Hezbollah in this action is just as wrong as Israel, the innocent in this is the Lebanese citizens who are caught in the crossfire between the two.Quote:
1) Do you support Israel's attack on Lebanon? Knowing that the attack hasn't killed less than 10 Hezbullah men, and all others are civilians?
So are your defending Hezbollah's act of aggression to iniate an act of war against the state of Israel? Care x-danger your walking a very fine line in attempting to get someone to state an opinion that is not their's.Quote:
2) Do you justify Israel's attack on Lebanon? By the terms that Hezbullah had captured 2 soldiers, don' you justify his attack on Israel, knowing that Israel holds hundreds more than that?
I don't justify Israel's action - nor will I accept a justification for Hezbollah's actions. Hezbollah decided to start a fight, Israel decided to play along. Both are equally wrong in the escalation of the conflict.
Do you neglect the fact that Hezbollah has been firing rockets on civilian targets for many months now? Do you deny the fact that a missile strike on civilian targets was done concurrent with the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers as a diversion?Quote:
3) Do you neglect the fact that Israel has the ability to target only military targets, but still fire rockets on two cars evacuating from a town they ordered to be evacuated, knowing that those cars were filled with women and children?
Do I neglect the fact that Israel has killed civilians? I haven't seen myself write any such statements.
Your attempts at emotional appeal are once again transparent. And you are your own arguements refutation with such attempts.
Should always be carefully checked out. After all it might be a good idea at that point to make friends with your enemy and both gang up on your enemies enemy instead of just allying with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Yes I am "stating that most of what you have written is not emotional appeal". (Just to quote what I agreede upon).Quote:
Yes indeed emotional appeal is its own refutation....
The definition you posted does agree to me. May you be so humble and give us the parts that contrary me?Quote:
Ah it seems that individual getting it wrong is yourself - again emotional appeal is its own refutation. What part of the manufacturing process would you liked explained to you.... It seems once again when the definition does not agree with your statements you begin to quibble, I find it rather amusing.
I think that attack was already justified. Israel has captives and won't let them go. Point.Quote:
So in essence you must agree Hezabollah is wrong in its attack of Israeli soldiers in Israel and its kidnapping of two soldiers? You don't justify something after you do it....
But I don't agree that most of my argument is.Quote:
SO you do agree that using emotional appeal is its own refutation, and that would make most of your arguement irrelevant.
Says you, the most quibbling argumentive person I've ever met?Quote:
your are quibbling over your own failure, I find that rather amusing.
How does it do so.. (Boring really.. You just say the magical word: "Emotional appeal as it's own refutation". I even doubt you know it's meaning now..)Quote:
So once again your orginal premise on blaming it on the UK was demonstrated to be false. Again it proves emotional appeal is its own refutation.
Can you give some YES or NO answers, please?
What do you feel about Israel keeping captives then? Also disgust?Quote:
The answer is clearly indicated in this thread and at least one other. My discussion is directed at Hezbollah and my disgust with their actions, which happens to coincide with my disgust with Israeli actions. Hezbollah in this action is just as wrong as Israel, the innocent in this is the Lebanese citizens who are caught in the crossfire between the two.
I don't justify Israel's action - nor will I accept a justification for Hezbullah's actions. Hezbullah decided to free some captives, Israel decided to retaltiate and kill as many civilians as they could, destroying all the infsastructure they can. Both are wrong equally in the escalation of the conflict.Quote:
I don't justify Israel's action - nor will I accept a justification for Hezbollah's actions. Hezbollah decided to start a fight, Israel decided to play along. Both are equally wrong in the escalation of the conflict.
I can see Hezbullah did fire hordes of rockets onto Israeli colonies, but only after Israel decided not to negotiate.. The "diversion attack" you pretend to have been (Which I really have seen no channel around here mention a THING about it), if has happened it hasn't killed anyone anyway. (By your sayings). So, how are they both at same fault?!
Yes, I neglect it because I'm unaware of it. AFAIK, Hezbullah hasn't been firing missiles on civilian areas for months. Maybe you should revise your sources..Quote:
Do you neglect the fact that Hezbollah has been firing rockets on civilian targets for many months now?
Well, every news channel hasn't mentioned a thing about it. So, I dont believe it, but still don't deny it.Quote:
Do you deny the fact that a missile strike on civilian targets was done concurrent with the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers as a diversion?
Does your clear-thinking and logic extend beyond bigotry on one side? Put another way, what if you replace the Isalmic references with Orthodox Jewish ones in the above solution? Since the Israeli government is largely held to ransom by these guys who religiously believe Israel should stretch to the Euphrates, perhaps they are causing some dissension in the region too? By the way, did you know that many devoted Catholics practice mortification of the flesh, including self-flagellation? Are they up next? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
Of course, because genocide has always been a popular and effective method of bringing peace. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
Perhaps, Israel and the international community should have covertly assisted the Lebanese government to root out Hezbollah.
Hezbollah has its own mini-Lebanon through its infratructure funded by Iran wth healthcare and welfare services, why wouldn't a poor Shi'ite not support Hezbollah under such circumstances. If Lebanon was able to create some sort of infrastructure like that, Shi'ites would not have to depend on the Hezbollah.
Man, i feel so sorry for Lebanon, it use to be such a nice place :embarassed:
Paris of the East, fare thee well....
Nice turn. While (to be fair) I don't think the chap's original point was intended as a racist assessment so much as a condemnation of radicalism coupled with an attempt to paint this conflict as a "Haves" v "Have nots" struggle; examining an argument by reversing the actors in their roles can be useful in determining, however, if the argument is implicitly racist or otherwise biased.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Sadly, genocide -- at least in the loose sense of that term -- has been a popular and all too frequently effective historical choice. Witness Rome's treatment of Carthage or Numantia, the exploitation of the Caribee amerinds, the shunting aside of the native populations of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, Stalin's forced collectivization of the Russian and Ukrainian peasantry, the Irish starvation of 1847.....your "rolleyes" smilie would be more accurately replaced by one shedding tears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
The ignorance in the backroom is astounding, if anything it would be nice if people learned how to truly read and interpret before they jumped to unfounded, incorrect and irrational conclusions about others.
I am well aware of specific practices among Opus Dei, but it's clear that having a conversation free from unnecessary emotional outbursts isn't a possibility in the backroom. I have more productive things to do..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Thank you Seamus, that was the kind of intelligent, well thought interpretation of the post I had been expecting. Instead I got flamed.
It is a condemnation of radicalism, I don't agree with the practices of Ashura, I don't agree with Opus Dei's practices of self-flaggelation and the bindings, I don't agree with anybody who feels that through the murder and injury of others will they ever ascend to a higher plane of holy existance.
And I feel, also, that while the influence of orthodox rabbi's among Israel's government is also detrimental to the entire situation, I don't feel that it's as blatantly destructive, it's more like a hurdle or a minor hindrance. I don't see rabbis pledging in the streets that all jews should cross the border and bomb palestinians, that does not happen. They may have an unforetunate role in the situation, but they're not professing a radical, violent outburst that does nothing more than fuel the fire of an already intense blaze. Israel's new Prime Minister may be taking some hardline tactics towards the situation, but the radical islamists have been hardlining Israel for decades, and it may appear to him that this is now the only way to really strike back. Diplomacy has failed countless times, Israel is working on pulling out of Gaza and West Bank and STILL Hamas and Hezbollah launched an attack, how is that supposed to be interpreted? The arab world...has declared the peace process 'dead'.
I am no racist, though you may feel so or paint me so, I'm simply saying what I see.
Well, then it wouldn't be the Backroom then, would it? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
Seriously, I am sad you thought my reply ignorant. I was trying to challenge your argument by placing it in a different context. I was not implying you were bigoted, but that one might do well to consider the effect of religious bigots on both sides of the disaster.
It's not just Opus Dei, but many normal people, both lay and religious - Muslims fast at Ramadan, Catholics at Lent, for example. The point I was making is that mortification of the flesh and symbolic self-punishment are integral to many religions - why does the practice amongst Muslims single them out as dangerous fanatics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
You are, of course, absolutely right Seamus. The rolling eyes smiley did not get across the real emotion I wished to express, which was a sense of despair that a well-educated person of the 21st century would still advocate this as a solution. However, like you, I have toyed with the notion of a 'plague on both your houses' as the only way out of the circle of violence - for which I am not proud, but I understand Lucjan's frustrations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The problem for this argument of course, is where do they stop? For each side: Eradicate every last Israeli, or every last Jew? Eradicate every last Palestinian, or Lebanese, or Arab, or Muslim? What level of killing will stop the sons and daughters of the dead continuing the battle?
Then once again you are using a false premise...Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
If you believe assemble is the main definition of manufacture you have a problem understanding the definition. Try again.Quote:
The definition you posted does agree to me. May you be so humble and give us the parts that contrary me?
Hmm not a valid point in the way you think it is. The attack by Hezbollah on Israel justifies Israel's actions using the logic that you are using in claiming Hezbollah's attack is justified. So in essence you also agree that Israel is justified in attacking back.Quote:
I think that attack was already justified. Israel has captives and won't let them go. Point.
Then your comment was irrevelant.Quote:
But I don't agree that most of my argument is.
Incorrect - pointing out the quibbling nature of your arguement is not quibbling. Pointing out the errors in your emotional appeal positions is not quibbling. Now argumentive might be a proper description, however most of what you have attempted in your position deserve a counter. How many times now have your positions been shown to be incorrect?Quote:
Says you, the most quibbling argumentive person I've ever met?
Go back and figure out how many times your emotional appeal arguements have been shown to be incorrect - that will give you a hint.Quote:
How does it do so.. (Boring really.. You just say the magical word: "Emotional appeal as it's own refutation". I even doubt you know it's meaning now..)
Why should I?Quote:
Can you give some YES or NO answers, please?
If the captives are caught performing criminal acts then they should be in prison. If they are being held as a form of hostages then Israel is wrong.Quote:
What do you feel about Israel keeping captives then? Also disgust?
Nice try but you failed terribily. Your commnt here shows that you are attempting to justify Hezbollah's actions. The comment in blue that is. Hezbollah did not decide to attempt to free some captives - Hezbollah decided to attack Israeli soldiers and civilians to kill and capture some soldiers to attempt to negotate an exchange. Hezbollah's actions are just as disgusting as Israels. The degree of damage is more for Israel but the nature of both is the same.Quote:
I don't justify Israel's action - nor will I accept a justification for Hezbullah's actions. Hezbullah decided to free some captives, Israel decided to retaltiate and kill as many civilians as they could, destroying all the infsastructure they can. Both are wrong equally in the escalation of the conflict.
The diversion attack was covered in both Arab and western news sources, so no pretending by myself, but we can see where your emotional appeal is once again its own refutation.Quote:
I can see Hezbullah did fire hordes of rockets onto Israeli colonies, but only after Israel decided not to negotiate.. The "diversion attack" you pretend to have been (Which I really have seen no channel around here mention a THING about it), if has happened it hasn't killed anyone anyway. (By your sayings). So, how are they both at same fault?!
Both are at fault because both decided to use violence. Not a hard concept to understand now is it?
Maybe you should review yours, there are not as many as I alluded to with the emotion appeal - but there have been a few scattered occurances. To claim Hezbollah is not hitting civilians is false, to claim Hezbollah has not targeted purely civilian targets is again false. Has Hezbollah primarily attempted to hit military targets is what one should ask themselves. The answer one finds will often surprise both sides. A hint: It is not as much as Israel claims, nor is it as little as Hezbollah states either.Quote:
Yes, I neglect it because I'm unaware of it. AFAIK, Hezbullah hasn't been firing missiles on civilian areas for months. Maybe you should revise your sources..
Several from 2005 and into 2006.
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/se..._2122580.shtml
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...&x_article=899
An interesting blog - but one must take any blog with a grain of salt. However at least this one lists most of its sources. Scroll to the bottom of the page - it mentions several rocket attacks by Hezbollah before the July violence
http://vitalperspective.typepad.com/...lah/index.html
Now there is some question about the civilian targeting by Hezbollah - since Israel is guilty of placing military outposts within civilian communities. With the accuracy of the Hezbollah rockets being what it is - civilians are always going to get hit - and most likely will be the primary effect regardless of Hezbollah's real intention.
Now I wonder if your are beginning to see the self refutation in the emotional appeal arguement?
So unless a pro-Hezbollah site states that Hezbollah launced a diversionary attack at civilian targets it can not be true? Hmm and who used the term propaganda in another thread first?Quote:
Well, every news channel hasn't mentioned a thing about it. So, I dont believe it, but still don't deny it.
I don't see rabbis pledging in the streets that all jews should cross the border and bomb palestinians, that does not happen.
Well you should look a little harder Lucjan as it does happen , there are some very crazy rabbis out there , perhaps they should be exterminated along with all the crazy Imams .
Aseemble is a part of it. And as long as Hezbullah did the assemble, no one else could've manufactured.Quote:
If you believe assemble is the main definition of manufacture you have a problem understanding the definition. Try again.
It's attack is justified. BUT, not with all this damage and civilian deaths. Hezbullah's attack was justified (IMO) because he wanted to free captives, and to do that he captived some soldiers. Now for Israel to free captives, it can free some of the already captured, that is to solve the whole matter. Or, attack Lebanon, captive some "soldiers" (Hezbullah men in this way), and then call for a trade. NOT rampage through the country killing everyone no matter what he/she thinks..Quote:
Hmm not a valid point in the way you think it is. The attack by Hezbollah on Israel justifies Israel's actions using the logic that you are using in claiming Hezbollah's attack is justified. So in essence you also agree that Israel is justified in attacking back.
If my answer to your question is irrelevant, then maybe your question is so?Quote:
Then your comment was irrevelant.
Pointing out my so-called 'quibbles' is quibbling, avoiding questions and minapulating words is quibbling.Quote:
Incorrect - pointing out the quibbling nature of your arguement is not quibbling. Pointing out the errors in your emotional appeal positions is not quibbling. Now argumentive might be a proper description, however most of what you have attempted in your position deserve a counter. How many times now have your positions been shown to be incorrect?
Let's see:Quote:
Go back and figure out how many times your emotional appeal arguements have been shown to be incorrect - that will give you a hint.
I said Israel never freed captives without a trade, and I was wrong there. That is one. The others? (If you're going to say the UK/France thingy, I think you're wrong. Because mainly, I said Europe, you asked who specifacily, and I said maybe the UK).
You on the other hand, has called Hezbullah a Palestinian group, which makes for one for you, too.
To clear your stance.Quote:
Why should I?
Wrong.. Then the wrong base is flowing out of..?Quote:
If the captives are caught performing criminal acts then they should be in prison. If they are being held as a form of hostages then Israel is wrong.
Since when the death and capture of less than 10 soldiers is as disgusting as destroying a whole country?Quote:
Nice try but you failed terribily. Your commnt here shows that you are attempting to justify Hezbollah's actions. The comment in blue that is. Hezbollah did not decide to attempt to free some captives - Hezbollah decided to attack Israeli soldiers and civilians to kill and capture some soldiers to attempt to negotate an exchange. Hezbollah's actions are just as disgusting as Israels. The degree of damage is more for Israel but the nature of both is the same.
I said 100 times I hadn't heared about it on the TV.. And blame me not, am not very good at gathering news on the net 0-iQuote:
The diversion attack was covered in both Arab and western news sources, so no pretending by myself, but we can see where your emotional appeal is once again its own refutation.
Your original statement implied a usual, better said, continous missile attacks.. Note though, some of those links say that no missiles have been launched after 2000, and the one that does, shows that less than 10 of those were Katyoshas..Quote:
Maybe you should review yours, there are not as many as I alluded to with the emotion appeal - but there have been a few scattered occurances. To claim Hezbollah is not hitting civilians is false, to claim Hezbollah has not targeted purely civilian targets is again false. Has Hezbollah primarily attempted to hit military targets is what one should ask themselves. The answer one finds will often surprise both sides. A hint: It is not as much as Israel claims, nor is it as little as Hezbollah states either.
So you suggest Hezbullah should just sit and take the hits?Quote:
Now there is some question about the civilian targeting by Hezbollah - since Israel is guilty of placing military outposts within civilian communities. With the accuracy of the Hezbollah rockets being what it is - civilians are always going to get hit - and most likely will be the primary effect regardless of Hezbollah's real intention.
So you state all arabian channels are pro-Hezbullah?Quote:
So unless a pro-Hezbollah site states that Hezbollah launced a diversionary attack at civilian targets it can not be true? Hmm and who used the term propaganda in another thread first?
There was a Bar Kochba thread a while ago celebrating onesuch which got locked very quickly indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
IIRC, there were several problems with that thread that had nothing to do with the politics of the rabbi in question. For one, the thread was started in the Frontroom, and the kings of Peace and Love were not amused. After several comments along the lines of "may he burn in hell", it was closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Every religion has it's wacko fringe, some just get more air-time than others.
So what's the worst case senario? Israel AND Hizzibo are terrorists organizations? If that's the case which one would you rather have? Which one is less of a direct threat to you and your family?
Israel is a nuclear power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Every religion has it's wacko fringe, some just get more air-time than others.
Yeah as shown by Lucjan not knowing about them .
You would have thought that with all this alledged apperent anti-Isreal bias in the media you would get a lot more air time for the nuts , but so far since this current upsurge in violence started I have only seen the rabid rabbis come up 3 times , and two of those were in the Israeli press .
And as before this is not correct. If the engine components are made in Iran, but the missile is assembled in Lebanon - the manufacturing process occured where?Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
Quote:
It's attack is justified. BUT, not with all this damage and civilian deaths.
A result of careless war waged by both sides. If your going to claim one side is justified in its attack - then the other side is just as rightous in its attack in response. Hezbullah's attack was justified (IMO) because he wanted to free captives, and to do that he captived some soldiers. Now for Israel to free captives, it can free some of the already captured, that is to solve the whole matter. Or, attack Lebanon, captive some "soldiers" (Hezbullah men in this way), and then call for a trade. NOT rampage through the country killing everyone no matter what he/she thinks..
So Isreal is justified in responding to Hezbollah's attack using the same logic as presented here. You can not have justification of violence both ways.
Remember x-danger I have not justified neither side. I beleive both are wrong, my argument is against your justification of Hezbollah's actions.
Your getting warm....Quote:
If my answer to your question is irrelevant, then maybe your question is so?
Again getting warm - now apply this comment to your emotional appeal postions.Quote:
Pointing out my so-called 'quibbles' is quibbling, avoiding questions and minapulating words is quibbling.
Again getting warm -Quote:
Let's see:
I said Israel never freed captives without a trade, and I was wrong there. That is one. The others? (If you're going to say the UK/France thingy, I think you're wrong. Because mainly, I said Europe, you asked who specifacily, and I said maybe the UK).
Correct - emotional appeal was demonstrated once again to be its own refutation.Quote:
You on the other hand, has called Hezbullah a Palestinian group, which makes for one for you, too.
Haven't you figured it out yet. The Israeli-Palenstine, Israeli-Arab, Israili -Hezbollah are all so confused and convoluted (SP) that there is no clear stance other then to find both sides in the wrong because they all want to destory each other.Quote:
To clear your stance.
Read what is written - the answer is self evident. The base is from what is lawful and what is not lawful. Are you attempting to argue that there is no portion of the palenstine prisoners being held that were caught engaging in criminal activity.Quote:
Wrong.. Then the wrong base is flowing out of..?
Nice try again - but emotional appeal is its own refutation. You should pay better attention to what is written. Here try reading the statement again and pay attention to these two lines.Quote:
Since when the death and capture of less than 10 soldiers is as disgusting as destroying a whole country?
Hezbollah's actions are just as disgusting as Israels. The degree of damage is more for Israel but the nature of both is the same.
Selective input of information is indeed the fault of the person who does not delve into the issue. Again you have demonstrated that emotional appeal is its own refutation. You should read the Thomas Jefferson quote in my signature, it applies to the visual media of today even more so then the written media of Thomas Jefferson's time.Quote:
I said 100 times I hadn't heared about it on the TV.. And blame me not, am not very good at gathering news on the net 0-i
The orginial statement was an emotional appeal, to demonstrate that the type of arguement is its own refutation. It seems that you did not read the paragraph in its entirity.Quote:
Your original statement implied a usual, better said, continous missile attacks.. Note though, some of those links say that no missiles have been launched after 2000, and the one that does, shows that less than 10 of those were Katyoshas..
are you attempting to suggest that Israel should just sit and take the hits?Quote:
So you suggest Hezbullah should just sit and take the hits?
If your not reading the statement in its entirity and jumping to conclusions not there - you will be once again demonstrating that emotional appeal is its own refutation.
Leaping to false conclusions, hiding it behind a question does not change what was written. Read the statement again and place it in the context of your statement in which it was in response to.Quote:
So you state all arabian channels are pro-Hezbullah?
Oh I see, so Europe has to worry about being nuked by Israel. Look at how Iran's proxy, Hezbollah acts and tell me if you want Iran to become a nuclear nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
One of those wouldn't be the fringe group that claimed to have kidnapped a palenstine civilian would it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
An interesting group that seems not have existed until just recently. :wall:
So are you saying that Iran is nothing better than a terrorist cell? So far there is no evidence of Iran supplying terrorists at all, nor a reason to believe that Iran would ever nuke Europe or America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
what kind of evidence are you looking for there have been certain statements made, the last paragraph is one type of evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...11-rferl03.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by globalsecurity source
Now I know verbal statements are not necessarily concrete proof of active support of terrorists, or even supplying terrorists but it does give some background information, and it does provide some evidence of direct support.
How does Iran come into this? Your original conceit was that, in the worst case scenario, if both Israel and Hizzibo (sic) were both terrorist organisations, which one would I rather have, and which would be less of a direct threat to me and my family. I then pointed out that Israel is a nuclear power, and Hezbollah is not. Therefore if both are terrorist organisations, Israel would present an infinitely greater threat to me and my family than the impotent Hezbollah. If you don't like the answer, blame your question, not the replier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Hezbollah and other anti-Israel organisations have actually made direct efforts to avoid targeting Europeans and people from other countries, such as Canada, whom they regard as friends. So when people of our nationalities are killed by one of their bombs, out come the apologies. And a couple of years ago, when a bus predominantly containing Europeans was hijacked, the hijackers apologised and let them go as soon as they could.
In contrast, several UK citizens have been shot by IDF soldiers, and the incidents covered up. Of the two that spring to mind, one was a peace campaigner, whose parents are still trying to get the Israeli government to admit their responsibility for the act. The other was a film director, who was filming a documentary at the time.
http://www.cpj.org/attacks03/mideast03/israel.html
One of those wouldn't be the fringe group that claimed to have kidnapped a palenstine civilian would it?
Nah the two Israeli ones were about a rally/protest and a radio interview, and the British one was about a nice group of brooklyn rabbis visiting the troops at the front to show their support , apperantly the troops were none to enamored by their support , perhaps the soldiers had read some of the writings of the rabbis and their followers on their website/forum where they describe the IDF as weak limp wristed pussies who should get out and hand over their weapons to real Jews .
Its very tempting to provide a link , but I think that would break forum rules ,
So for those that want to search for themselves visit the forum of the NY based terrorist group that is a proscribed organisation in both Israel and the US , Alternatively visit the forum of the banned Israeli party or its terrorist offshoot , you can get lots of crazy people there , and they ain't exactly Muslim .
An interesting group that seems not have existed until just recently.
Which one is that Red ? there have been so many splits these past couple of years its geting hard to keep up with them all . You could say they are just like the Palestinians with their hodge potch of ever changing ,dissapearing renaming and re-emerging groups .
The middle-east , dontyajustluvit:wall: :help: :shrug: :skull: :coffeenews:
They have probably changed their name again but here is the link to the story I was refering to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11749
Quote:
Originally Posted by linked article
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
It's very clear to me that just about every group of people under the sun has a radical. I'm starting to understand though that there are those here who would rather point a finger at somebody else and call them ignorant than actually try to process their remark and offer a non-inflamatory responce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Not in Iran.. Since manufacturing as you mentioned it is from the making of components to their assemble.Quote:
And as before this is not correct. If the engine components are made in Iran, but the missile is assembled in Lebanon - the manufacturing process occured where?
The violence of one justifies the violence of each other, as long as it is all between those two. I'm cool with Israel's retaltiation, but not cool with all this destruction it is making against the parties that didn't attack them.Quote:
So Isreal is justified in responding to Hezbollah's attack using the same logic as presented here. You can not have justification of violence both ways.
You started the game, and I had to play along.Quote:
Again getting warm - now apply this comment to your emotional appeal postions.
Seems a bit unfair..Quote:
Haven't you figured it out yet. The Israeli-Palenstine, Israeli-Arab, Israili -Hezbollah are all so confused and convoluted (SP) that there is no clear stance other then to find both sides in the wrong because they all want to destory each other.
No I'm not, and I haven't.Quote:
Read what is written - the answer is self evident. The base is from what is lawful and what is not lawful. Are you attempting to argue that there is no portion of the palenstine prisoners being held that were caught engaging in criminal activity.
You said "Israeli actions are as disgusting as Hezbullah's".. Then, you say the damage degree is more for Israel.. SO, you think that how much damage does an act result in doesn't link to it's disgust?Quote:
Nice try again - but emotional appeal is its own refutation. You should pay better attention to what is written. Here try reading the statement again and pay attention to these two lines.
After all, when the sun is set and the moon is awake, we can't authenicate any info we get. "War is a trick", "War is a lie".. All these arguments may afterall be built on false info, no matter how many sources you check.. The two who know the most about what's going on are the 2 generals on each side, and each one of those knows the least about the other side anyway..Quote:
Selective input of information is indeed the fault of the person who does not delve into the issue. Again you have demonstrated that emotional appeal is its own refutation. You should read the Thomas Jefferson quote in my signature, it applies to the visual media of today even more so then the written media of Thomas Jefferson's time.
Nah I didn't.Quote:
The orginial statement was an emotional appeal, to demonstrate that the type of arguement is its own refutation. It seems that you did not read the paragraph in its entirity.
To prevent such hits, release the captives. And if not; after taking the hit, the best course of action was to deal a trade.. You pick the one suits you best.Quote:
are you attempting to suggest that Israel should just sit and take the hits?
I said I didn't "hear" the info about the "diversion" attack anywhere on the TV. You accused me of only believing what "pro-Hezbullah" channels say. And since I watch all the arabian channels and believe them, I suppose they are all "pro-Hezbullah".. Where are you trying to get to here?Quote:
Leaping to false conclusions, hiding it behind a question does not change what was written. Read the statement again and place it in the context of your statement in which it was in response to.
One sollution for the best would be to give up all cards.. (Captives from Israel, captives from Lebanon) Both people helping each other in the repairs and opening the borders on each other.. (AI, Muslims are allowed into Al-Quds/Jerusalem, Palestinians get to have some electricity, some peace, some finanace, etc..)
Israel already has what it needs anyway.. Great finance, millitary and geographical position..
You might want to research some - evidence in the intelligence community points to manufacturing of parts by Iran and others. Shipped to Syria and then transported to Lebanon for assembly. This information is available on the web in many forms.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
Then you must also direct that anger at Hezbollah. THe Lebanese are caught in the middle.Quote:
The violence of one justifies the violence of each other, as long as it is all between those two. I'm cool with Israel's retaltiation, but not cool with all this destruction it is making against the parties that didn't attack them.
Actually you started the game with the emotional appeal arguements. Emotional appeal is its own refutation.Quote:
You started the game, and I had to play along.
All one has to do is look at history. Neither side is innocent in wanting the destruction of the other side. Its been the one consistent theme throughout all the conflicts involving Israel and others.Quote:
Seems a bit unfair..
GoodQuote:
No I'm not, and I haven't.
The degree of damage does not influence if I am disgusted more at Hezbollah or Israel. Both are wrong in their actions in my opinion so I am equally disgusted with both.Quote:
You said "Israeli actions are as disgusting as Hezbullah's".. Then, you say the damage degree is more for Israel.. SO, you think that how much damage does an act result in doesn't link to it's disgust?
This view is wrong in my opinion - it does not allow for the and individuals ability to check information by reviewing multiple sources from both sides looking for the facts contained in both, and reach a valid conclusion on what the facts really are. If your only willing to review information from one source, you fall into the trap of being feed information to meet the agenda's or baised views of that source. Multiple sources from different perspectives is the key.Quote:
After all, when the sun is set and the moon is awake, we can't authenicate any info we get. "War is a trick", "War is a lie".. All these arguments may afterall be built on false info, no matter how many sources you check.. The two who know the most about what's going on are the 2 generals on each side, and each one of those knows the least about the other side anyway..
the best course of action would of been for Hezbollah to complie with the United Nations Resolution for disarming the militias and for Lebanon to have attempted to enforce the security zone as stated in that same resolution.Quote:
To prevent such hits, release the captives. And if not; after taking the hit, the best course of action was to deal a trade.. You pick the one suits you best.
This would of insured that Israel would have had to release those captives from Lebanon.
However without Hezbollah disarming and Lebanon providing the required security zone the status of the area has not changed since the initial withdraw of Israel troops from South Lebanon. Hezbollah has not honored the conditions of the United Nations resolution - and neither has Israel. Both are still equally guilty in destroying Lebanon's peace.
Again leaping to false conclusions. Review what was written once again.Quote:
I said I didn't "hear" the info about the "diversion" attack anywhere on the TV. You accused me of only believing what "pro-Hezbullah" channels say. And since I watch all the arabian channels and believe them, I suppose they are all "pro-Hezbullah".. Where are you trying to get to here?
Ask yourself this question. Why should Israel grant open entry to any part of Israel to those who advocate its destruction as a state? Then ask yourself this one, Will the Palenstine people live side by side with the Israeli state?Quote:
One sollution for the best would be to give up all cards.. (Captives from Israel, captives from Lebanon) Both people helping each other in the repairs and opening the borders on each other.. (AI, Muslims are allowed into Al-Quds/Jerusalem, Palestinians get to have some electricity, some peace, some finanace, etc..)
and told over and over again by certain states and groups that until its destroyed there will be no peace. So it seems Israel does not have what it needs. Peace, and security in the knowledge that its neighbors do not want its destructions. Now Israel is not helping itself with this issue either.Quote:
Israel already has what it needs anyway.. Great finance, millitary and geographical position..
I'm starting to understand though that there are those here who would rather point a finger at somebody else and call them ignorant than actually try to process their remark and offer a non-inflamatory responce.
My response was not inflamatory , if you consider being told that you are wrong inflamatory then you are a very very over sensitive creature , which would be a strange trait for someone who appears to advocate genocide as a solution .
In your initial psot you give a nice preamble ....I can offer only my opinion as, what I perceive to be, a clear thinking, logical individual.
....
Yet you go on to show that your opinions in this matter are not logical or clearly thought out , so perhaps it is your perception that is at fault .
When faults in your clear thinking are pointed out you accuse others of ignorance , then go on to show that you are completely ignorant of facts about the issue on which you chose to write about .
edit to add for clarity .....I don't see rabbis pledging in the streets that all jews should cross the border and bomb palestinians, that does not happen.
............It's very clear to me that just about every group of people under the sun has a radical.
So which is it ? do you clearly percieve the contradiction there ?
Redleg , don't you think that groups chosen name is a bit of an insult to the family of the kidnapped soldier , considering the stance they (the family) have taken (despite widespread criticism in Israel) since he was taken .
Oh I think its more then an insult toward the family and the soldier. It also shows how absurd the extremists on both sides have become.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
It also demonstrates why both sides of the conflict have become just as guilty of using senseless violence and provocation to attempt to bring about the destruction of the other side.
Rather pathic of them.
Double Post
I think Hezbullah, Lebanon, Hamas and Palestine all have little trust and faith in Israel.. Any idea why?Quote:
the best course of action would of been for Hezbollah to complie with the United Nations Resolution for disarming the militias and for Lebanon to have attempted to enforce the security zone as stated in that same resolution.
So you feel the same disgust for one who slapped another person, and who killed another person? (Since they both used violence)Quote:
The degree of damage does not influence if I am disgusted more at Hezbollah or Israel. Both are wrong in their actions in my opinion so I am equally disgusted with both.
It is right. As, as long as you're not in the scene, many things can be wrong, understood wrong, interepted wrong, etc..Quote:
This view is wrong in my opinion - it does not allow for the and individuals ability to check information by reviewing multiple sources from both sides looking for the facts contained in both, and reach a valid conclusion on what the facts really are. If your only willing to review information from one source, you fall into the trap of being feed information to meet the agenda's or baised views of that source. Multiple sources from different perspectives is the key.
I did and it matched what I said.Quote:
Again leaping to false conclusions. Review what was written once again.
Answering the first question: There should be only few.. If Israel does all that, people will want peace, and the image of Israel will go a lot better.. Even, if any extermist groups remain on the scene, the Palestinian people would help Israel to remove them..Quote:
Ask yourself this question. Why should Israel grant open entry to any part of Israel to those who advocate its destruction as a state? Then ask yourself this one, Will the Palenstine people live side by side with the Israeli state?
The second one: I can't see why not if access to all lands is given from both sides, and Jerusalem be accesible from Palestinians as well, and at the end, if Israel (And the other countries) helps re-build the huge destruction it has made..
Then I think Israel's politics are stupid, and the acts of a 5 years old are better.. Israel is fighting an ideological war with military arms.. Intelligent? Nah.. If Israel really wants peace, it can as I said dis-arm all the extremist groups of their support by being on the people's good side.Quote:
and told over and over again by certain states and groups that until its destroyed there will be no peace. So it seems Israel does not have what it needs. Peace, and security in the knowledge that its neighbors do not want its destructions. Now Israel is not helping itself with this issue either.
For all except Lebanon - probably for the same reason Israel distrusts them. Hamas,the Palestine Authority, and Hezbollah have demonstrated time and time again that they also can not be trusted.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
Incorrect comparision - since both sides are using the sam type of violence - death.Quote:
So you feel the same disgust for one who slapped another person, and who killed another person? (Since they both used violence)
I have been on the scene of several different violent confrontations - and at the scene your ability to judge information is even more restricted, in fact your statement here applies more to those on the ground then it does to use sitting in the grandstands watching the events unfold.Quote:
It is right. As, as long as you're not in the scene, many things can be wrong, understood wrong, interepted wrong, etc..
Again your not sitting in Palenstine or Lebanon right now - so your ability to gather information is more then that of the person sitting in the middle of the violence.
Then you are stuck in a paridigm of your own making. I can not prevent you from having baised views and seeing what you wish to see, But your statement here indicates that your preception is clouded.Quote:
I did and it matched what I said.
This can not happen while a group in power in Palenstine continues to call for the destruction of the Israeli state. So Israel is in a catch 22 postion - damn if they do and damn if they don't.Quote:
Answering the first question: There should be only few.. If Israel does all that, people will want peace, and the image of Israel will go a lot better.. Even, if any extermist groups remain on the scene, the Palestinian people would help Israel to remove them..
Again review the manifesto of the Palenstine group that is in power in the Palenstine Authority. This group has made some overtures to removing the call for the destruction of the state of Israel from their manifesto - but the recent actions of the violent armed wing of Hammas demonstrate something else entirely. Will the Palenstine people be willing to apologize to Israel for supporting Hamas and other terror groups suicide bombings of innocent children and women? The Palenstine people are not innocent as a group in this conflict either. Then since you want to mention other countries - there are many Arab countries that also should help rebuild the huge destruction that it has helped cause....Quote:
The second one: I can't see why not if access to all lands is given from both sides, and Jerusalem be accesible from Palestinians as well, and at the end, if Israel (And the other countries) helps re-build the huge destruction it has made..
Now this same arguement can be applied to Hezbollah for the destruction it has helped cause in Lebanon by its childish actions.
The exact same thing should be said of Hamas, the PLO, Hezbollah, and every Palenstine extremist group out there.Quote:
Then I think Israel's politics are stupid, and the acts of a 5 years old are better.. Israel is fighting an ideological war with military arms.. Intelligent? Nah.. If Israel really wants peace, it can as I said dis-arm all the extremist groups of their support by being on the people's good side.
Again both sides in this conflict are equally responsible for carrying out the violence and destruction - especially for what is going on in Lebanon right now.
So, killing 1 man is as disgusting as killing 100000000 men?Quote:
Incorrect comparision - since both sides are using the sam type of violence - death.
Stop quibbling and read:Quote:
Then you are stuck in a paridigm of your own making. I can not prevent you from having baised views and seeing what you wish to see, But your statement here indicates that your preception is clouded.
As you can see from above, I was talking about channels, you changed the subject into sites.. ?!Quote:
Quote:
Do you deny the fact that a missile strike on civilian targets was done concurrent with the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers as a diversion?
Quote:
Well, every news channel here hasn't mentioned a thing about it. So, I dont believe it, but still don't deny it.
Quote:
So unless a pro-Hezbollah site states that Hezbollah launced a diversionary attack at civilian targets it can not be true? Hmm and who used the term propaganda in another thread first?
Quote:
So you state all arabian channels are pro-Hezbullah?
Quote:
Leaping to false conclusions, hiding it behind a question does not change what was written. Read the statement again and place it in the context of your statement in which it was in response to.
Quote:
I said I didn't "hear" the info about the "diversion" attack anywhere on the TV. You accused me of only believing what "pro-Hezbullah" channels say. And since I watch all the arabian channels and believe them, I suppose they are all "pro-Hezbullah".. Where are you trying to get to here?
Quote:
Again leaping to false conclusions. Review what was written once again.
Quote:
I did and it matched what I said
Quote:
Then you are stuck in a paridigm of your own making. I can not prevent you from having baised views and seeing what you wish to see, But your statement here indicates that your preception is clouded.
I'm not sure about the second part of your sentence, but I'm sure that Israel can afford to free all the captives.. If anything goes wrong then, it simply can re-capture them.Quote:
For all except Lebanon - probably for the same reason Israel distrusts them. Hamas,the Palestine Authority, and Hezbollah have demonstrated time and time again that they also can not be trusted.
They won't keep on wanting that if Israel gives all that..Quote:
This can not happen while a group in power in Palenstine continues to call for the destruction of the Israeli state. So Israel is in a catch 22 postion - damn if they do and damn if they don't.
Maybe you should ask: "Will the Israeli people be willing to apologize to Palestine for the supprt of the "bomb" bombers Israel has done?"Quote:
Again review the manifesto of the Palenstine group that is in power in the Palenstine Authority. This group has made some overtures to removing the call for the destruction of the state of Israel from their manifesto - but the recent actions of the violent armed wing of Hammas demonstrate something else entirely. Will the Palenstine people be willing to apologize to Israel for supporting Hamas and other terror groups suicide bombings of innocent children and women? The Palenstine people are not innocent as a group in this conflict either. Then since you want to mention other countries - there are many Arab countries that also should help rebuild the huge destruction that it has helped cause....
Here, in that last quote you show contrary to yourself.. You think that both of them are at fault, but you say 1 side should apologize (The weaker one BTW) and the other not?!
I can't udnerstand how would Hamas or Hezbullah do that?!Quote:
The exact same thing should be said of Hamas, the PLO, Hezbollah, and every Palenstine extremist group out there.
The act of violent death is enough rather it be one or 10,000,000. The degree is only in amount, the evil is in the deed.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
Again you need to read - did I state all Arab news sites are pro-Hezbollah? Those are your words not mine. You might want to check out what quibble means. Nice try though...Quote:
Stop quibbling and read:
Channels and news sites are the same in the aspect that it provides news media. If you assumed that they mean different things then what I stated then that is your issue not mine. Again did I state specifically that all arab channells are pro-hezbollah? It seems you are having a problem looking outside of your own baised paridigm.Quote:
As you can see from above, I was talking about channels, you changed the subject into sites.. ?!
So are you now attempting to deny the violence done against Israel by Hamas and Hezabollah.... It seems Hezbollah and Hamas are caught in the same moral and ethical problem that Israel is caught in.Quote:
I'm not sure about the second part of your sentence, but I'm sure that Israel can afford to free all the captives.. If anything goes wrong then, it simply can re-capture them.They won't keep on wanting that if Israel gives all that..
I don't support Israel's actions - so no need for me to ask myself that question. However you continue to attempt to justify the violence of Hamas and Hezbollah.Quote:
Maybe you should ask: "Will the Israeli people be willing to apologize to Palestine for the supprt of the "bomb" bombers Israel has done?"
You failed to understand the statement - you should read it again. Your claim was that Israel should apologize - the converse is that Hamas and Hezbollah has some apologies of their own to state.Quote:
Here, in that last quote you show contrary to yourself.. You think that both of them are at fault, but you say 1 side should apologize (The weaker one BTW) and the other not?!
Then you are not willing to look outside of the paridigm that you have established for the Middle-east as it relates to Israel. And hince that is the crux of your issue. I find fault with both equally because both are doing violence against each other. In fact both Hamas and Hezbollah have political rethoric that calls for the destruction of Israel, and Israel conducts violence against both. Its a vicious little circle continued by both sides equally.Quote:
I can't udnerstand how would Hamas or Hezbullah do that?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I would like to interrupt the dialogue for a moment to express my support and admiration for your concise and eloquent position.
If only the combatants could understand. :bow:
Thanks -Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I didn't state that Israel should apologize, check again.Quote:
You failed to understand the statement - you should read it again. Your claim was that Israel should apologize - the converse is that Hamas and Hezbollah has some apologies of their own to state.
You didn't state so specifically, but saying that I only believe news when they are on pro-Hezbullah channels, and sicne I watch all arabic news channels and believe all what goes in them, you simply say that all the news channels I watch and believe is pro-Hezbullah.Quote:
Channels and news sites are the same in the aspect that it provides news media. If you assumed that they mean different things then what I stated then that is your issue not mine. Again did I state specifically that all arab channells are pro-hezbollah? It seems you are having a problem looking outside of your own baised paridigm.
It is like saying: All what you play is crap, and since I play like all the Unreal Tournament colletction, you're simply saying that all the UT collection is crap.
That's not what the world is based on I see.Quote:
The act of violent death is enough rather it be one or 10,000,000. The degree is only in amount, the evil is in the deed.
I'm willing to, outside the so-called ..Quote:
Then you are not willing to look outside of the paridigm that you have established for the Middle-east as it relates to Israel. And hince that is the crux of your issue. I find fault with both equally because both are doing violence against each other. In fact both Hamas and Hezbollah have political rethoric that calls for the destruction of Israel, and Israel conducts violence against both. Its a vicious little circle continued by both sides equally.
You know how, then tell me please.
Some 420 Lebanese have been killed, of which some 30 weren't civilians. 51 Israelis have died, of which 18 were civilians.
Once more, makes the line between terror and state a little more blurry.
Then I made an incorrect assumption based upon the course of the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
Ah so you attempted to generalize a statement to mean something else. It seem I was guilty of that in the previsous question about apologize, and I am even willing to state so without quibbling my way out of it.Quote:
You didn't state so specifically, but saying that I only believe news when they are on pro-Hezbullah channels, and sicne I watch all arabic news channels and believe all what goes in them, you simply say that all the news channels I watch and believe is pro-Hezbullah.
The generalization of all did you in here. I happen to read a lot of arab english based media - but there is no way I can read them all. Then again there is no way you play all of the characters either now is there....Quote:
It is like saying: All what you play is crap, and since I play like all the Unreal Tournament colletction, you're simply saying that all the UT collection is crap.
Then I would suggest that you go and clean up the dead of your enemy. It changes the world view of death quickly. A suggestion that should be given to all combatants in this conflict. When you as a soldier have to recover the dead women and children of your enemy - it becomes very difficult to see them as less then human.Quote:
That's not what the world is based on I see.
It primarily calls for the willingness to change. In this instance it requires one to activily look for material and information from outside their previous channells, and to give it an honest evaluation.Quote:
I'm willing to, outside the so-called ..
You know how, then tell me please.
Sadly neither Israel, Hezbollah, nor Hamas have demonstrated that willingness to change yet either.
Which is why we are still having this argument.. ~:(
I appriciate your straight forward attidue and will promise to try and pay you back with the same.
Honestly, I'm thinking this "war" is turning out good now.. Israel is learning that she can't just invade a country and expect nothing back..
Yes, a lot of Lebanese are killed, and the country is kinda ruined.. Call me a maniac, but I got used to this bloodshed.. ~:(
No problemQuote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
And what is Hezbollah learning from this particlur episode?Quote:
Honestly, I'm thinking this "war" is turning out good now.. Israel is learning that she can't just invade a country and expect nothing back..
Because if Hezbollah does not learn a painful lesson from this - the violence will only continue.
Hince your porblem and that of those who advocate bloodshed to drive the state of Israel into the sea. It did not work in 1948, and it has not worked in any of the wars since then.Quote:
Yes, a lot of Lebanese are killed, and the country is kinda ruined.. Call me a maniac, but I got used to this bloodshed.. ~:(
What Hezbullah learnt? Nothing.. I guess so, at least.
You think Israel likes invading countries?Quote:
Honestly, I'm thinking this "war" is turning out good now.. Israel is learning that she can't just invade a country and expect nothing back..
Then tell those idiots Hizbollah to stop shelling Israeli territory and kidnapping soldiers then perhaps Israel won't resort to reckless and destructive disproportionate responses.
Its the fault of the Arab states who used the Israeli - Palestinian conflict to boost their own image and popularity in their own states by keeping Palestinian deliberately poor - which became a breeding ground for extremism. If only they followed the example of Jordan - called COMMON SENSE.
I think "Israel loves invading countries" would be a better description.Quote:
You think Israel likes invading countries?
It is funny you use the word "kidnap", they are soldiers, and there wasn't any peace treaty between Hezbullah and Israel (Israeli army did cross the borders ocassionaly, leading into your assumpted "shellings"), I think it should be called capture.Quote:
Then tell those idiots Hizbollah to stop shelling Israeli territory and kidnapping soldiers then perhaps Israel won't resort to reckless and destructive disproportionate responses.
You think the Arabic countries' images are good? You think they are popular amongst their people? Gah.. Think again!Quote:
Its the fault of the Arab states who used the Israeli - Palestinian conflict to boost their own image and popularity in their own states by keeping Palestinian deliberately poor - which became a breeding ground for extremism. If only they followed the example of Jordan - called COMMON SENSE.
Oh well the IDF did another nice one in Qana . A lovely pile of dismembered children to add to the tally .
Still at least they were only in their homes this time and not sheltering in a UN compound , so there is some improvement .
Now the official line is that they work on the assumption that there are no civilians there , after all they did give a warning so anyone left in the village must be a terrorist right .
Yet they also say that they estimate 20% of the population are unable to evacuate (though the UN says up to 46%)
So which is it , 1 in 5 of the population are still there , or none of the population apart from terrorists are still there ?
Or can anyone explain the justification of blowing up an apartment block based on an assumption ?
Birth pangs of a new middle east!!!!!!!Bollox:furious3:
Is it any wonder that the Lebanese government have told Condi to go take a flying **** this morning .