View Full Version : What Am I Missing? - Israel and Hamas (Palestinians)
One side allows Arabs to live in peace and practice their religion unmolested. One side wants to murder the Jews, destroy Israel and the United States.
One side has a democratically elected government, the other side has elected a terrorist organization whose stated goal is to destroy Israel and kill the Jews.
One felt our sorrow and showed sympathy., the other side side cheered on 9/11
One side gets rocketed daily and is condemned when it defends itself, the other side gets a free pass to murder Jews.
What do I have wrong here?
Sharpienads
10-18-2011, 21:36
One side allows Arabs to live in peace and practice their religion unmolested. One side wants to murder the Jews, destroy Israel and the United States.
One side has a democratically elected government, the other side has elected a terrorist organization whose stated goal is to destroy Israel and kill the Jews.
One side cheered on 9/11, the other side felt our sorrow and showed sympathy.
One side gets rocketed daily and is condemned when it defends itself, the other side gets a free pass to murder Jews.
What do I have wrong here?
Sounds like you got it pretty much covered to me.
Mick-Boy
10-18-2011, 21:39
Most of it. Or rather you're cherry picking the best and worst interpretations respectively.
It's bright and early in my AO and I've got work to do. I'll get back to this tonight but I'll leave you with a couple of questions; Are you supporting America's interest or Israel's? Are those the same things or different? Can their interests be opposed to each other?
Just food for thought. I'll give you a better response when I make it back tonight.
mcantar18c
10-18-2011, 21:40
Sounds like you got it pretty much covered to me.
Me too.
As I see it, one side is rightfully living on their land (as given to them in the Bible and by the UN), and the other side is butthurt about it.
Byte Stryke
10-18-2011, 21:40
you got it all figured out there Robert.
Not sure why you haven't been appointed to the peace talks.
[Eek3]
The Israelis aren't exactly the pure white knights you describe them as. They have been bulldozing Palestinian neighborhoods and arresting anybody too slow to get away. They've apparently got enough Palestinians locked away to trade over a thousand of them for a single captured Israeli.
But the rest of it seems accurate.
Most of it. Or rather you're cherry picking the best and worst interpretations respectively.
It's bright and early in my AO and I've got work to do. I'll get back to this tonight but I'll leave you with a couple of questions; Are you supporting America's interest or Israel's? Are those the same things or different? Can their interests be opposed to each other?
Just food for thought. I'll give you a better response when I make it back tonight.
I look forward to your responses and I'll give some thought overnight to your questions too. Thank you.
you got it all figured out there Robert.
Not sure why you haven't been appointed to the peace talks.
[Eek3]
I'm certain I'm going to learn something. It won't matter if I like it or not, the facts are the facts.
The Israelis aren't exactly the pure white knights you describe them as. They have been bulldozing Palestinian neighborhoods and arresting anybody too slow to get away. They've apparently got enough Palestinians locked away to trade over a thousand of them for a single captured Israeli.
But the rest of it seems accurate.
I'm sure the Israelis have a somewhat muddy past just like these United States.
Bulldozing, depends on where it is I suppose and whether or not terrorist attacks were planned and carried out from those neighborhoods.
Let's see who a few of the released Palestinians were shall we.
Those being freed include the founders of Hamas’s armed wing and militants who kidnapped and killed Israeli soldiers and civilians. A mastermind of the 2001 bombing of a Jerusalem pizzeria that killed 15 will walk out of prison, as will a woman who used the Internet to lure a lovesick Israeli teenager to a Palestinian city and had him murdered. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/world/middleeast/israel-releases-names-of-477-prisoners-to-be-freed-in-trade.html
I'm thinking the Israelis are going to have to endure some more murders at the hands of these upstanding human beings.
Sharpienads
10-18-2011, 21:54
I don't think anybody is going to tell you that Israel is the pure white knight, but the difference is Israel can get along with others. It's the others that want to see Israel removed. I'm sure Israel has done some pretty harsh, violent, whatever things, but if it came down to my survival, I would do the same thing.
mcantar18c
10-18-2011, 22:30
Zionist terror organizations forced England's hand and helped bring about their independence soon after WW2.
You make it sound like a bad thing...
DeusExMachina
10-18-2011, 22:43
Zionist terror organizations forced England's hand and helped bring about their independence soon after WW2.
One man's terrorist, another's freedom fighter.
Sharpienads
10-18-2011, 22:48
One man's terrorist, another's freedom fighter.
I hate it when people say this.
sneakerd
10-18-2011, 22:54
Deus has now crossed the line. There is no statement, no argument that can counter or soften those words. End of the line as far as I'm concerned with regards to DeusLaMachina.
DeusExMachina
10-18-2011, 22:55
Deus has now crossed the line. There is no statement, no argument that can counter or soften those words. End of the line as far as I'm concerned with regards to DeusLaMachina.
Excuse me? Please, tell me what you THINK I said. I love it when people try to tell me what I think!
Are you a member of Hamas or something?
And I really want to know what "end of the line" means to you.
I hate it when people say this.
Why? Because it's true? It's all about perspective.
One side allows Arabs to live in peace and practice their religion unmolested. One side wants to murder the Jews, destroy Israel and the United States.
One side has a democratically elected government, the other side has elected a terrorist organization whose stated goal is to destroy Israel and kill the Jews.
One side cheered on 9/11, the other side felt our sorrow and showed sympathy.
One side gets rocketed daily and is condemned when it defends itself, the other side gets a free pass to murder Jews.
What do I have wrong here?
Your third sentence should be switched to keep the presentation consistent. ;)
Sharpienads
10-18-2011, 23:00
Why? Because it's true? It's all about perspective.
Because I don't accept that premise that perspective dictates what is right or wrong, good or evil, moral or immoral.
sneakerd
10-18-2011, 23:02
Post #13. My last words to this member. For what little it's worth.
Sharpienads
10-18-2011, 23:04
Your third sentence should be switched to keep the presentation consistent. ;)
Well played, Sir. Good thing he didn't end a sentence with a preposition.
mcantar18c
10-18-2011, 23:07
Because I don't accept that premise that perspective dictates what is right or wrong, good or evil, moral or immoral.
This.
Right and wrong is not about how you see things.
I doubt Achmed thinks he's doing anything wrong when he blows up a crowded marketplace or shoots up a Church or Synagogue. That doesn't make his actions right.
You could call a relative of mine killing a diplomat for the sake of establishing a country as bad, or an act of terrorism. That doesn't make it wrong.
Well played, Sir. Good thing he didn't end a sentence with a preposition.
Well he's not from Palestine.
Sharpienads
10-18-2011, 23:16
Well he's not from Palestine.
Oh, I get it now. I thought you were commenting on how the third sentence was in past tense while the rest were in present tense. I guess I still haven't gotten over your post asking us to proofread the sentence.
DeusExMachina
10-18-2011, 23:24
Because I don't accept that premise that perspective dictates what is right or wrong, good or evil, moral or immoral.
You believe the world is black and white? That's extremely naive.
Post #13. My last words to this member. For what little it's worth.
Are you butt hurt from the OWS thread(s)? Am I not entitled to my opinion?
I guarantee you are completely misunderstanding what I said, without even bothering to ask. Do you often just "write people off" like that? That's extremely...sad.
I think they all want to blow each other up. Their fighting has been going on for thousands of years, we are not going to stop it, even the great obama tried to put his foot in it and everybody is up in arms with what he says.
That is why I flip off the people with the coexist stickers. their ideological thinking, that some words and a stupid ass bumper sticker are going to change entire cultures thinking is absolutely asinine. So I give them the bird with a smile to see if they can even "coexist" with me
Sharpienads
10-18-2011, 23:40
You believe the world is black and white? That's extremely naive.
I don't think rejecting perpesctive as the basis for right and wrong makes me believe the world is black and white. I also don't believe it makes me naive.
If you believe perspective determines right and wrong, than you don't really believe in anything and have no principles or morals to stand on. I believe there are universal truths or natural laws. Murder is wrong would be one of these. If you can justify murder based on perspective, what are you doing on a pro-gun website?
DeusExMachina
10-19-2011, 00:01
I don't think rejecting perpesctive as the basis for right and wrong makes me believe the world is black and white. I also don't believe it makes me naive.
If you believe perspective determines right and wrong, than you don't really believe in anything and have no principles or morals to stand on. I believe there are universal truths or natural laws. Murder is wrong would be one of these. If you can justify murder based on perspective, what are you doing on a pro-gun website?
But isn't murder right or wrong based on perspective?
It's OK to kill enemies, but its not OK to kill innocents. Isn't that perspective?
You're saying you're rejecting perspective, so you are saying you embrace universal beliefs of right and wrong, or good and evil.
You do understand that al Qaeda believes what they are doing is right, don't you? They're not terrorists to be 'evil' because they want to be 'evil'. It's perspective.
If you can justify murder based on perspective, what are you doing on a pro-gun website?
Have you ever read Unintended Consequences?
there is a lot of antisemitism that is prevalent at the occupy wal street protests, that has been edited out by the media.
because a lot of the people who are there are very liberal. and generally liberal people are pro palestine rather than israel.
both sides have done good and bad things, but if I had to pick one I'd pick israel.
oh, and what deusex said is absolutely true.
if the revolutionary war had been lost the founding fathers would have been hung as traitors.
if you disagree, then say you disagree. don't have a damn tantrum about it.
Sharpienads
10-19-2011, 00:30
But isn't murder right or wrong based on perspective?
It's OK to kill enemies, but its not OK to kill innocents. Isn't that perspective?
You're saying you're rejecting perspective, so you are saying you embrace universal beliefs of right and wrong, or good and evil.
You do understand that al Qaeda believes what they are doing is right, don't you? They're not terrorists to be 'evil' because they want to be 'evil'. It's perspective.
There is a difference between murder and killing. Killing an enemy in time of war who would otherwise kill you is not murder, killing an innocent person regardless of circumstances is murder. To some extent I guess you could say that the above example relies on perspective, but the perspective should be a function of what is right or wrong determined by natural law, not the other way around.
Al Qaeda can believe whatever they want to believe, but that doesn't make it right just because they believe it. If right and wrong are determined by perspective, than anything can be justified.
Sharpienads
10-19-2011, 00:32
I should have said "to purposefully kill an innocent person regardless of circumstances in murder".
DeusExMachina
10-19-2011, 00:34
there is a lot of antisemitism that is prevalent at the occupy wal street protests, that has been edited out by the media.
because a lot of the people who are there are very liberal. and generally liberal people are pro palestine rather than israel.
both sides have done good and bad things, but if I had to pick one I'd pick israel.
oh, and what deusex said is absolutely true.
if the revolutionary war had been lost the founding fathers would have been hung as traitors.
if you disagree, then say you disagree. don't have a damn tantrum about it.
Thank you. If the word terrorist had been invented, you bet your ass the British would have called the founding fathers terrorists.
History is written by the victors. That's another statement some people might have issue with.
There is a difference between murder and killing. Killing an enemy in time of war who would otherwise kill you is not murder, killing an innocent person regardless of circumstances is murder. To some extent I guess you could say that the above example relies on perspective, but the perspective should be a function of what is right or wrong determined by natural law, not the other way around.
Al Qaeda can believe whatever they want to believe, but that doesn't make it right just because they believe it. If right and wrong are determined by perspective, than anything can be justified.
So murder is bad, but killing is good?
To the guy you're killing, you're murdering him. Saying his perspective isn't valid sounds kind of evil and selfish. As if you're the only person in the universe.
Because they believe it makes it right to them. Thus, perspective.
And yes, anything can be justified. Usually the justification comes from 1) the winner, or 2) the one who's the most convincing.
Sharpienads
10-19-2011, 00:35
Have you ever read Unintended Consequences?
No.
DeusExMachina
10-19-2011, 00:38
I should have said "to purposefully kill an innocent person regardless of circumstances in murder".
Well, now we're getting into legal definitions which isn't really going to go anywhere. I get what you're saying, but sadly the world isn't so simple.
Sometimes, I consider what if real life was like a comic book or a movie. Where some person or group are evil because they want to be evil, and do evil things. It would make things a lot easier. I feel like this ended after WW2, but then I think it's only because we are taught our perspective and don't know the Axis' perspective on things. Concentration camps and mass-murdering certainly make it easier to pick out the bad guy, but what about Japan? Sure, they attacked us, but were they truly evil? I'm just rambling..something something up too late trying to fix my phone something.
Sharpienads
10-19-2011, 00:44
So murder is bad, but killing is good?
To the guy you're killing, you're murdering him. Saying his perspective isn't valid sounds kind of evil and selfish. As if you're the only person in the universe.
Because they believe it makes it right to them. Thus, perspective.
And yes, anything can be justified. Usually the justification comes from 1) the winner, or 2) the one who's the most convincing.
Ok, let's try this. Explain to me a situation in which raping a woman is not wrong.
DeusExMachina
10-19-2011, 00:49
Ok, let's try this. Explain to me a situation in which raping a woman is not wrong.
To me? No, never. It is always wrong. Well, unless it's her fantasy but I guess that's not really rape. [LOL]
To some guy in Africa, who wants his tribe's legacy to continue on? Absolutely right to him. But you could argue he doesn't have a concept of "right" and "wrong", or rather, his concepts of right and wrong are totally different to ours.
No.
Well, I'd like to hear your perspective on the book. Run out and get a copy (it's out of print), read it, and let me know what you think. I'll check back this time tomorrow.
Seriously though, if you come across a copy, I have an electronic copy I'll email to you, I'd like to know what you think about it.
Sharpienads
10-19-2011, 00:55
To me? No, never. It is always wrong. Well, unless it's her fantasy but I guess that's not really rape. [LOL]
To some guy in Africa, who wants his tribe's legacy to continue on? Absolutely right to him. But you could argue he doesn't have a concept of "right" and "wrong", or rather, his concepts of right and wrong are totally different to ours.
Well it would seem we're at an impasse here. I believe that rape is wrong no matter who you are or where you're at. While you might not agree with it, you believe that it can be justified.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Sharpienads
10-19-2011, 00:57
Well, I'd like to hear your perspective on the book. Run out and get a copy (it's out of print), read it, and let me know what you think. I'll check back this time tomorrow.
Seriously though, if you come across a copy, I have an electronic copy I'll email to you, I'd like to know what you think about it.
Ok I'll check it out. I have a couple of classes that I'll be finished with next week and will start reading it after they're finished.
DeusExMachina
10-19-2011, 00:58
Well it would seem we're at an impasse here. I believe that rape is wrong no matter who you are or where you're at. While you might not agree with it, you believe that it can be justified.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
To be clear, I'm not saying I can justify it, I'm just saying that it can be justified by someone.
Sharpienads
10-19-2011, 01:01
To be clear, I'm not saying I can justify it, I'm just saying that it can be justified by someone.
Yeah I got it. Now about those pre-teen transgenders....
Just joking, we've been unnaturally civil with each I don't want it to change. [Tooth]
DeusExMachina
10-19-2011, 01:08
[Stooge]
Yeah I got it. Now about those pre-teen transgenders....
Just joking, we've been unnaturally civil with each I don't want it to change. [Tooth]
Now we must kungfu fight!!
CMP_5.56
10-19-2011, 01:47
During the revolutionary war the colonials that fought against the crown were labeled terrorists. Because our militia used guerilla warfare tactics. Ambushes, the killing of officers first in battle. For that, the crown called us terrorists. The difference is the targeting of military targets and not the targeting of non combatants. To compare the guerilla fighting tactics of our militia to the tactics of hamas, al qeda, or their like is not only ignorant, but disrespectful.
The line between freedom fighter and terrorist is pretty easy to see. Perspective has little to do with it. Just because they believe killing innocents is justified, doesn't make it so. And to stand behind their actions and say "but they think its okay, so it is perspective", shows a lack of morals and and a spine.
mcantar18c
10-19-2011, 02:01
Ok, let's try this. Explain to me a situation in which raping a woman is not wrong.
Its not rape if they don't say "no."
http://sqlchicken.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/quagmire-3865.jpg
Byte Stryke
10-19-2011, 06:29
there is a lot of antisemitism that is prevalent at the occupy wal street protests, that has been edited out by the media.
because a lot of the people who are there are very liberal. and generally liberal people are pro palestine rather than israel.
both sides have done good and bad things, but if I had to pick one I'd pick israel.
oh, and what deusex said is absolutely true.
if the revolutionary war had been lost the founding fathers would have been hung as traitors.
if you disagree, then say you disagree. don't have a damn tantrum about it.
Absolute win
I love how some get in a tizzy about how horrible it was that the Romans and everyone picked on and almost exterminated the Jews...
aww...
But when it comes to the Native Americans, "Tough (doo-doo), we kicked your ass, deal with it."
[Eek3]
history is always written by the victors.
Our forefathers , in the eyes of the British, were terrorists.
and that Gentlemen, is the sad fact.
Byte Stryke
10-19-2011, 06:42
During the revolutionary war the colonials that fought against the crown were labeled terrorists. Because our militia used guerilla warfare tactics. Ambushes, the killing of officers first in battle. For that, the crown called us terrorists. The difference is the targeting of military targets and not the targeting of non combatants. To compare the guerilla fighting tactics of our militia to the tactics of hamas, al qeda, or their like is not only ignorant, but disrespectful.
The line between freedom fighter and terrorist is pretty easy to see. Perspective has little to do with it. Just because they believe killing innocents is justified, doesn't make it so. And to stand behind their actions and say "but they think its okay, so it is perspective", shows a lack of morals and and a spine.
So EXACTLY what is the difference between a Terrorist and a freedom fighter, if not perspective?
Lemme guess, Is it that they are fighting against what they believe is destroying their way of life or liberties? Religious Ideology?
Is it that a freedom Fighter will stay in their own country to fight?
Funny how when the USSR invaded Afghanistan and when the CIA helped the Mujaheddin repel in foreign invaders they were called..........
sorry? Couldn't hear you?
Perspective... at THAT time, they were fighting for what WE wanted....
(This is in no way an endorsement for acts of violence or war against the United States, interests thereof, nor should be taken as such. All statements made are to illustrate the concept of perspective as it relates to historical confrontation. Just so no one gets their feelings hurt.:))
Your third sentence should be switched to keep the presentation consistent. ;)
Fixed ;)
Bailey Guns
10-19-2011, 06:57
I completely disagree with any attempt to portray British sentiments toward the Colonial fighters as terrorists. At least in the same sense as we use the word today.
Traitors or rebels is far more accurate. Were there incidents where the Colonials targeted non-combatants? Yeah, I think so.
But to say they used the same tactics as what we refer to as terrorists today shows a complete misunderstanding of either history, the English language or both.
On almost any occasion when the Colonial fighters engaged against inappropriate targets they were rebuffed, sometimes severely, by the leadership at the time.
As an example here's an excerpt from a recent Ann Coulter (http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-10-05.html) column (she explains it clearly and accurately) where she outlines some of the differences between the OWS nutjobs and true patriots. It applies to this as well:
(Paul) Revere made sure to replace a broken lock on one of the ships and severely punished a participant who stole some of the tea for his private use. Samuel Adams defended the raid by saying that all other methods of recourse -- say, voting -- were unavailable.
Our revolution -- the only revolution that led to greater freedom since at least 1688 -- was not the act of a mob.
As specific and limited as it was, however, even the Boston Tea Party was too mob-like to spark anything other than retaliatory British measures. Indeed, it set back the cause of American independence by dispiriting both American and British supporters, such as Edmund Burke.
George Washington disapproved of the destruction of the tea. Benjamin Franklin demanded that the India Tea Co. be reimbursed for it. Considered an embarrassment by many of our founding fathers, the Boston Tea Party was not celebrated for another 50 years.
It would be three long years after the Boston Tea Party when our founding fathers engaged in their truly revolutionary act: The signing of the Declaration of Independence.Modern-day terrorists (especially those of the radical Islamist persuasion) are not at all like our Founding Fathers.
Byte Stryke
10-19-2011, 07:04
I completely disagree with any attempt to portray British sentiments toward the Colonial fighters as terrorists. At least in the same sense as we use the word today.
Traitors or rebels is far more accurate. Were there incidents where the Colonials targeted non-combatants? Yeah, I think so.
But to say they used the same tactics as what we refer to as terrorists today shows a complete misunderstanding of either history, the English language or both.
On almost any occasion when the Colonial fighters engaged against inappropriate targets they were rebuffed, sometimes severely, by the leadership at the time.
As an example here's an excerpt from a recent Ann Coulter (http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-10-05.html) column (she explains it clearly and accurately) where she outlines some of the differences between the OWS nutjobs and true patriots. It applies to this as well:Modern-day terrorists (especially those of the radical Islamist persuasion) are not at all like our Founding Fathers.
a fine a narrow view of some very select events...
and what of the raids on England itself??
Bailey Guns
10-19-2011, 07:16
Well it wasn't meant to be a dissertation on the entire revolution. Of course it was based on a particular event.
That doesn't change the fact that you can't compare modern day terrorists (again...as we use the word) to the Colonial fighters in any sort of rational way.
Byte Stryke
10-19-2011, 07:21
Well it wasn't meant to be a dissertation on the entire revolution. Of course it was based on a particular event.
That doesn't change the fact that you can't compare modern day terrorists (again...as we use the word) to the Colonial fighters in any sort of rational way.
it is a bit like comparing apples to pears...
given the differences in time and culture they simply labeled our forefathers as Heretics, Traitors and Pirates. Society hadn't really coined the term "terrorist" yet.
We broke from the church of England, we dared raise arms against the King and we were setting fire and pillaging his majesties cities in the "homeland."
Just saying, there are some parallels.
Mick-Boy
10-19-2011, 07:32
Jeeze you guys don't really pick a topic and stick with it do you. [ROFL1]
At the risk of bringing this thread back on track let me see if I can address some of the relevant points. I don't have a real deep understanding of the issues but I worked out of the US Consulate in Jerusalem for about two years (07-09) so I like to think I grasped a little.
Roberth - You asked what you were missing on the Israel/Palestine issue. My short answer would be historical knowledge. I don't mean that to be offensive so I apologize if that's how it comes off. Most Americans have a very poor understanding of how the middle east became what it is today. (Hint - blame the British and French)
I don't want to get down the historical road too far but I'll hit some of the high points so we're all on the same page.
The idea of a Jewish State wasn't officially presented by anyone who governed the area until the British Foreign Secretary wrote the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Two years after the British officially supported an independent Arab state in the region (That support helped to spur the Arab Revolt portrayed in Lawrence of Arabia). The British policy going into WW2 was outlined in the MacDonald White Paper which called for self rule in the region based on population percentages (at the time Jews comprised about 30% of the population of Palestine).
After the War in 48 Israel ended up with 50% more territory than was agreed upon in UN resolution 181 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm). As a result of the war there were some 600,000 Palestinian refugees. Israel says all these people left on their own. However there is documentation from the Jewish Agency to support the claim that it was policy to expel Arabs from their land post-war. Like most highly emotional issues I'd look for the truth somewhere in the middle. I won't go into the treatment these people received (and continue to receive) from their Arab "brothers" in the surrounding Countries. The Palestinians were/are nothing but political leverage to them.
The end state is a subjected people, looked down on by their "allies" and having no real political recourse.
I asked earlier whether you are supporting the US or Israel. The reason I asked is because the US policy is to support the establishment of an independent Palestinian State. We work toward that end. We train, equip and arm the Palestinian National Security Forces. We pour money into the Palestinian infrastructure. We host and mediate talks between the two parties with that as the goal.
Think Israel is a solid ally? Look up the USS Liberty. Think only Palestinians murder civilians? Look up Baruch Goldstein.
Nothing is as black and white as we would like it.
Jeeze you guys don't really pick a topic and stick with it do you. [ROFL1]
Guilty as charged. [Tooth]
At the risk of bringing this thread back on track let me see if I can address some of the relevant points. I don't have a real deep understanding of the issues but I worked out of the US Consulate in Jerusalem for about two years (07-09) so I like to think I grasped a little.
Roberth - You asked what you were missing on the Israel/Palestine issue. My short answer would be historical knowledge. I don't mean that to be offensive so I apologize if that's how it comes off. Most Americans have a very poor understanding of how the middle east became what it is today. (Hint - blame the British and French)
I don't want to get down the historical road too far but I'll hit some of the high points so we're all on the same page.
The idea of a Jewish State wasn't officially presented by anyone who governed the area until the British Foreign Secretary wrote the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Two years after the British officially supported an independent Arab state in the region (That support helped to spur the Arab Revolt portrayed in Lawrence of Arabia). The British policy going into WW2 was outlined in the MacDonald White Paper which called for self rule in the region based on population percentages (at the time Jews comprised about 30% of the population of Palestine).
After the War in 48 Israel ended up with 50% more territory than was agreed upon in UN resolution 181 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm). As a result of the war there were some 600,000 Palestinian refugees. Israel says all these people left on their own. However there is documentation from the Jewish Agency to support the claim that it was policy to expel Arabs from their land post-war. Like most highly emotional issues I'd look for the truth somewhere in the middle. I won't go into the treatment these people received (and continue to receive) from their Arab "brothers" in the surrounding Countries. The Palestinians were/are nothing but political leverage to them.
The end state is a subjected people, looked down on by their "allies" and having no real political recourse.
I don't know all the history, I do know the British had a hand in the formation of a Jewish state.
I asked earlier whether you are supporting the US or Israel. The reason I asked is because the US policy is to support the establishment of an independent Palestinian State. We work toward that end. We train, equip and arm the Palestinian National Security Forces. We pour money into the Palestinian infrastructure. We host and mediate talks between the two parties with that as the goal.
The United States needs to pick a side, warts and all, and support that side exclusively. I'd prefer that choice be Israel for a number of reasons, mostly that little freedom thing.
Think Israel is a solid ally? Look up the USS Liberty. Think only Palestinians murder civilians? Look up Baruch Goldstein..
I'm looking this up now. Thanks. I know a little about the Liberty already.
Nothing is as black and white as we would like it.
I think the contrasts are more distinct than some would have us believe.
Thank you. If the word terrorist had been invented, you bet your ass the British would have called the founding fathers terrorists.
History is written by the victors. That's another statement some people might have issue with.
So murder is bad, but killing is good?
To the guy you're killing, you're murdering him. Saying his perspective isn't valid sounds kind of evil and selfish. As if you're the only person in the universe.
Because they believe it makes it right to them. Thus, perspective.
And yes, anything can be justified. Usually the justification comes from 1) the winner, or 2) the one who's the most convincing.
I had to skip a lot because this just got to me... Killing someone in war or conflict or even self-defense (which really sums up war because you kill them before they kill you) is just because both parties know what they're getting into. Murder is taking someone's life who poses no threat to your existence and is not justified, regardless of your point of view.
Perspective and winning is all bunk. The perspective of the world is that killing innocents to gain ground on a political means is wrong. That's what terrorists do, the very definition includes to "incite terror." What the founding fathers of America were doing could never, and will never be classified as terrorist- they never killed innocent civilians to gain some psychological advantage over their enemies. They were fighting an illegal occupation of land that they wanted for their own. Britain wouldn't have that, so they were labeled "traitors." Jesus, if you people owned a damn dictionary you'd know the difference between "traitors to the crown" and "terrorists." It is bold faced ignorance to use that "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter." That's flat out, inexcusable stupidity- and no Deus, I'm not calling you stupid, I'm accusing you of spewing stupidity out of your suck hole. A freedom fighter is someone against dictatorship or tyranny, a terrorist is someone who uses acts of violence to incite and inspire terror to achieve a political goal. You can't dispute this, this is not only the definition I learned in my Counter-Terrorism training, it's also what the UN and various other organizations have agreed is a good description of a very troubling word in our common use today. To say that AQ, Hamas, PLO, and other "enemies of various states" are not terrorists when they clearly kill innocent civilians on scales that far exceed accidental or "collateral damage" by the US military, you basically should just check yourself into a home for the mentally challenged because you have a sick twisted view on the world. No person has the right to kill an innocent person for no justified reason- that is murder. No matter what perspective you have, unless you truly are one of these depraved individuals who actually think you're in the right (and you probably cried when OBL was killed- read: NOT MURDERED but justifiably killed), a terrorist is not a good thing to be, regardless of the cause behind it, and I'm pretty sure there is a special spot in whatever punishing afterlife (Hell?) just for terrorists.
Now, got that off my chest, Israel is right, the violent aspect to the Palestinian movement is wrong- sure it's black and white, but really in the big picture here that's really all the matters, the gray area is just background noise.
Mick-Boy
10-19-2011, 09:52
The United States needs to pick a side, warts and all, and support that side exclusively. I'd prefer that choice be Israel for a number of reasons, mostly that little freedom thing.
Freedom for who?
Pick a side based on whose interests? If we're talking about ours (and ours are the ones I care about) then the US has well over a quarter of a million of it's citizens deployed to countries in the muslim world. A significant percentage or our oil comes from arab countries. What does Israel bring to the table for us?
Again though, things just aren't as simple as "pick a side and support it exclusively". The United States has vested national interest in promoting peace in the middle east. The only real way that's going to happen is a two state solution. So pick a side just isn't going to cut it.
I just read about Baruch Goldstein and his massacre and his actions aren't something I can advocate.
The argument for moral equivalency between what Baruch did and what the Palestinians have done is lost in the overwhelming number of bad acts by the Palestinians. Baruch's action is negated by the Sbarro restaurant bombing by if you want to do comparisons.
Another list of released Palestinians for Shalit swap.
Among the Palestinian prisoners to be released (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/10/2011101682534333257.html) are many who have been convicted for plotting suicide bombings inside restaurants and buses as well as shooting attacks that killed many Israelis.
One prominent name is Ahlam Tamimi, who worked as a reporter with a local television station before joining Hamas, the Palestinian faction which rules the Gaza Strip.
She received 16 life sentences for helping choose places for suicide attacks and was accused of taking bombers to some of the locations, including a Jerusalem pizzeria in 2001, where 15 people were killed.
Also to be released is Mohammed al-Sharatha, a leader of the Hamas special elite fighting unit "101" which kidnapped two Israeli soldiers in 1989. The two were killed. Al-Sharatha was arrested in 1989 and sentenced to three life terms and a separate 30-year-term.
Nasser Iteima, who was behind the bombing of a Netanya hotel in 2002 that killed 30 people and wounded 140, will be released.
As will be Walid Anjes, who was jailed for orchestrating a bombing at the Moment cafe in Jerusalem that killed 11 people and maimed dozens that same year.
Mick-Boy
10-19-2011, 10:03
Mick-Boy
Would like to hear your explanation of what went down on the USS Liberty. Did a paper on this years ago...never got a real answer. Mistaken attack? Making a point with us? Most of the government crap is still classified- won't ever find out what really happened.
One event doesn't mean Israel isn't an ally. How many times has America dropped the ball on her allies? Start counting. Diplomacy and profit from conflict go hand in hand. If our betters can make a buck selling a bullet, they will do it.
It was the largest single loss to the US intelligence community in history. Based on the interviews conducted with the survivors I don't believe that it was an accident. I don't know why exactly Israel would choose to attack a US flagged ship. I do believe that it was politically expedient for both the US and Israel to chose to ignore the whole thing.
Israel looks out for Israel. There's no reason the US shouldn't be doing the same. Basing our foreign policy on what benefits another nation is foolish in the extreme.
Freedom for who?.
LOL, you think Arab countries provide the same freedoms as Israel. Now who needs to do some research.
Pick a side based on whose interests? If we're talking about ours (and ours are the ones I care about) then the US has well over a quarter of a million of it's citizens deployed to countries in the muslim world. A significant percentage or our oil comes from arab countries. What does Israel bring to the table for us?
Again though, things just aren't as simple as "pick a side and support it exclusively". The United States has vested national interest in promoting peace in the middle east. The only real way that's going to happen is a two state solution. So pick a side just isn't going to cut it.
We aren't talking about the other Arab countries, we're talking about the Palestinians.
Exports from Israel to U.S. With a population of 7.1 million, Israel exported US$20.8 billion worth of merchandise to the United States in 2007, an 8.6% increase from 2006 and up by 63% in 4 years. The following product categories represent about 77% of Israeli exports to America.
Gem diamonds … US$9.5 billion – up 10.5% from 2006 (45.6% of Israel-to-U.S. exports)
Dental, medical and pharmaceutical preparations … $2.7 billion – up 3.5% (12.9%)
Telecommunications equipment … $746.8 million – up 17.6% (3.6%)
Complete civilian aircraft … $685.9 million – up 41.6% (3.3%)
Other hospital, medical and scientific equipment … $655 million – up 12.6% (3.1%)
Electric apparatus and parts … $385.6 billion – up 11.3% (1.9%)
Civilian aircraft engines … $370.5 million – up 52.6% (1.8%)
Measuring, testing and control instruments … $337.1 million – down 9.8% (1.6%)
Other military equipment … $271.3 million – up 223.2% (1.3%)
Computer accessories, peripherals and parts … $254.6 billion – up 36.5% (1.2%).http://daniel-workman.suite101.com/top-israeli-imports-exports-a59994
Palestinian Exporting to the United States
Palestinian exports are low compared to imports; however, the numbers have been increasing gradually in the recent years. According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) total exports from Palestine in the year 1996 reached $339.5 million and the number has increased gradually to reach $513 million in the year 2007, with the exception of the year 2000, where exports reached $400.8 million. The products recording the most exporting rates include; non-metallic mineral manufactures, furniture, footwear, iron and steel, medicinal and pharmaceutical products, and cork and wood products (excluding furniture) with combined exports that reach $242 million in the year 2007 (47% of total exports in that year).
Exporting to the United States is very low compared to exporting to other countries in the world, as total exports to the United States throughout the years 1996-2007 reached the total of $14.5 million (less than 1% of total exports in those years) according to PCBS, showing gradual increase in recent years. The year 2005 has seen the highest export numbers to the United States with $4.2 million of exported products.
http://www.pal-am.com/etemplate.php?id=201
Mick-Boy
10-19-2011, 10:18
The argument for moral equivalency between what Baruch did and what the Palestinians have done is lost in the overwhelming number of bad acts by the Palestinians. Baruch's action is negated by the Sbarro restaurant bombing by if you want to do comparisons.
Dude, I'm not talking about moral equivalency here. We're not weighing act against act. We can play that game all day long but I promise it won't go anywhere. We can each google atrocities+Israeli/Palestinian and start posting things. Bottom line is that neither side is blameless in this. Israel was founded by organizations designated as terrorists.
Whole sale support of Israel at the expense of our own national interests doesn't make sense.
Mick-Boy
10-19-2011, 10:20
LOL, you think Arab countries provide the same freedoms as Israel. Now who needs to do some research.
Do you think Arabs in Israel enjoy what you or I would call freedom?
Dude, I'm not talking about moral equivalency here. We're not weighing act against act. We can play that game all day long but I promise it won't go anywhere. We can each google atrocities+Israeli/Palestinian and start posting things.
We're going to disagree on whether or not you're playing moral equivalency games.
My point is that whole sale support of Israel at the expense of our own national interests doesn't make sense.
I would agree with that, except when it comes to the Palestinians.
Do you think Arabs in Israel enjoy what you or I would call freedom?
I don't know, I haven't been to Israel.
I did find this.
http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/arabsinisrael/index.htm
Mick-Boy
10-19-2011, 10:34
We're going to disagree on whether or not you're playing moral equivalency games.
Fair enough.
I would agree with that, except when it comes to the Palestinians.
Why are they an exception?
You said earlier that we're talking about Palestinians not the rest of the Arab world. Unfortunately none of this happens in a vacuum. Our dealings with China have an affect on our dealings with India. Our dealings with Palestine have an affect on our dealings with the rest of the Arab world whether we like it or not.
I like how no one addressed what I said... must have been pretty true stuff.
The entire Palestine vs Israel match is pretty old and tired. Israel is very accepting to a peaceful solution, but it just seems too many factions aligned with Palestine are hell bent on destroying the Jews entirely. I side with Israel, I have friends who live there, were born there, and currently serve in their armed forces.
Mick-Boy
10-19-2011, 10:57
OK Ronin. It's off on a tangent but I'm feeling ornery tonight so I'll play.
Of course it's about perspective. My side is right theirs is wrong. It helps us justify the terrible things we do.
Perspective and winning is all bunk. The perspective of the world is that killing innocents to gain ground on a political means is wrong. That's what terrorists do, the very definition includes to "incite terror." What the founding fathers of America were doing could never, and will never be classified as terrorist- they never killed innocent civilians to gain some psychological advantage over their enemies.
So where would Dresden or Hiroshima fit into that thought process?
They were fighting an illegal occupation of land that they wanted for their own.
Kind of like the Palestinians no? ;)
A freedom fighter is someone against dictatorship or tyranny, a terrorist is someone who uses acts of violence to incite and inspire terror to achieve a political goal. You can't dispute this, this is not only the definition I learned in my Counter-Terrorism training, it's also what the UN and various other organizations have agreed is a good description of a very troubling word in our common use today. To say that AQ, Hamas, PLO, and other "enemies of various states" are not terrorists when they clearly kill innocent civilians on scales that far exceed accidental or "collateral damage" by the US military, you basically should just check yourself into a home for the mentally challenged because you have a sick twisted view on the world. No person has the right to kill an innocent person for no justified reason- that is murder. No matter what perspective you have, unless you truly are one of these depraved individuals who actually think you're in the right (and you probably cried when OBL was killed- read: NOT MURDERED but justifiably killed), a terrorist is not a good thing to be, regardless of the cause behind it, and I'm pretty sure there is a special spot in whatever punishing afterlife (Hell?) just for terrorists.
I'm not saying you're wrong here. I agree with most of what you said. But if you don't think that members of AQ, Hamas, and the PLO truly believe that they're fighting against tyranny you don't understand the enemy. (NOTE: The PLO has not been designated as a terrorist org but the US or Israel since 1991)
Now, got that off my chest, Israel is right, the violent aspect to the Palestinian movement is wrong- sure it's black and white, but really in the big picture here that's really all the matters, the gray area is just background noise.
The big picture from where I'm sitting is that US interests are all that matter. Everything else should just be means to an end.
To me? No, never. It is always wrong. Well, unless it's her fantasy but I guess that's not really rape. [LOL]
To some guy in Africa, who wants his tribe's legacy to continue on? Absolutely right to him. But you could argue he doesn't have a concept of "right" and "wrong", or rather, his concepts of right and wrong are totally different to ours.
Are you justifying the actions of the guy in Africa, or just explaining how someone else may have a different perspective?
There are some very few universal moral truths, and in my mind they all spring from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule. Outside of self defense or clearly defined war (which is the same thing), it's wrong to murder. In my mind, that includes murder as punishment.
Doing violence to another person against their will is wrong universally. I can imagine someone would believe otherwise, and would act according to their belief -- but I'd never say that justifies it, and I would use all available force to stop it.
H.
"Tonight" Mick? You must be on my shift...or on the other side of the world.
Mick-Boy
10-19-2011, 11:03
The entire Palestine vs Israel match is pretty old and tired.
How true.
Israel is very accepting to a peaceful solution, but it just seems too many factions aligned with Palestine are hell bent on destroying the Jews entirely.
Correction. Israel SAYS they would be accepting to a peaceful solution. However their actions don't bear that out.
The extreme factions on both sides are an issue and will likely always be an issue (it's hard to argue with someone when "god says" they're right) but they don't come close to the "big issue".
There are really three "big" issues preventing a sustainable peace between Israel and Palestine.
1. Jerusalem
2. Settlers in the West Bank
3. The right of return for Palestinian refugees.
To speak intelligently about these issues will require getting into a bit of history so bare with me.
JERUSALEM-Under UN resolution 181 (Nov 29, 1947) Jerusalem was supposed to be directly administered by the UN. The British (being the governing power) were responsible to implement the plan. The fear of backlash to British interests from the Arab World caused them to resign their mandate over Palestine and withdraw. Jordan (then called Trans-Jordan) took the opportunity to cross the Jordan river and invade what was supposed to be the "Arab State". They took the West Bank and Jerusalem in Heavy fighting with the Haganah. By the time an armistice was reached in 1949 the city was divided in two. West Jerusalem was controlled by the Israelis. East Jerusalem by Trans-Jordan. It remained that way until the 1967 war (also called the Six-Day War). On June 7 Mordechi Gur's 55th Paratrooper entered and held the Old City of Jerusalem. From that point on the city has been controlled and administered by the Israelis (with the exception of the Temple Mount, where the al-Aqsa Mosque (Dome of the Rock) is controlled by a muslim waqf). In 1980 Israel passed a law (The Jerusalem Law) declaring Jerusalem "Whole and united" as the capital of Israel. The UN Security Counsel passed a vote (14-0 with the US abstaining) immediately afterwards for the Israelis to withdraw the Law. The Palestinians have also declared that the capital of the Palestinian State is to be in East Jerusalem. That was the major stumbling block between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat at the 2000 Camp David Summit.
Israel has alternately offered and refused to give over control of East Jerusalem depending on the Prime Minister. Any time the topic of dividing Israel comes up it's met with fierce opposition from both Right-wing Orthodox Jews and Christian-Zionists One more issue of late is the fact that Israel is even now building more apartment blocks for Israelis in East Jerusalem despite Prime Minister Olmert saying at the Annapolis conference (Nov '07) that Israel would cease all settlement activity in the West Bank (Israel's position is that East Jerusalem is not part of the West Bank). The Palestinian position was stated By Arafat at the 2000 Camp David Summit "the Arab leader who would surrender Jerusalem is not born yet".
SETTLEMENTS-Search "Israeli Settlement" and do some reading. This issue has a possible solution that has been proposed and accepted by both sides a couple of times. Basically the Israeli Government will assess the area the settlements occupy (approx. 5% of the West Bank) and give an equal amount of land to the Palestinian Government. The Israeli far right wing sees this as unacceptable and has gone so far as to claim all the land to the Jordan River. Some Palestinian's oppose this because they feel it legitimizes Israelis "stealing" their land.
RIGHT OF RETURN-At this point there are something on the order of 4 million Palestinian "refugees" outside the borders of Israel and Palestine. These are people or the children/grandchildren of people who left their homes in what is now the State of Israel and the Palestinian Territory. The Palestinian people claim they have the right to return to their original land or homes based on UN General Assembly Resolution 3236. The Israelis adamantly refuse and see this as tantamount to national suicide. The Israelis argue that Israel was created as a Democratic Jewish State and allowing the right of return would change the demographic so drastically that the population would be over 40% Arab. Thus destroying any identity of a Jewish State. The proposed solution is to offer displaced Palestinians the right to return to what will likely become the Palestinian State or offer them compensation.
Obviously there are many more, smaller issues in addition to these three. The whole process is complicated by Hard-liners on both sides who refuse to compromise what they see as their "god given" right to the land. I could link a half dozen recent articles showing the actions of both sides undercutting the peace process but if you read the Jerusalem Post (www.jpost.com) and the news put out by the Palestinian Media Center (www.palestine-pmc.com) even for a short time you can see some shining examples for yourself.
Mick-Boy
10-19-2011, 11:05
"Tonight" Mick? You must be on my shift...or on the other side of the world.
Other side of the world. Colorado is only my home about half the year. The rest of the time it's whatever garden spot the DOD needs me in. Currently that's Afghanistan. It's where the party is. [Beer]
OK Ronin. It's off on a tangent but I'm feeling ornery tonight so I'll play.
Of course it's about perspective. My side is right theirs is wrong. It helps us justify the terrible things we do.
Wrong is wrong no matter what side it's on- what the Clinton admin did with the Rwanda situation was wrong- so we're not 100% innocent.
So where would Dresden or Hiroshima fit into that thought process?
Different time, and believe it or not (you probably won't) Hiroshima saved many more lives than it took, on both sides... inevitably we would have invaded the Japanese mainland and that would have been much worse.
Kind of like the Palestinians no? ;)
No, since Israel was Jewish sovereign territory long before it was occupied by the Palestinians (see: Roman history). And the UN declared that land theirs after WWII after how many years of them waiting for their homeland to be returned? Many Jewish (and Christian) holy sites in modern day Israel out dates Islam.
I'm not saying you're wrong here. I agree with most of what you said. But if you don't think that members of AQ, Hamas, and the PLO truly believe that they're fighting against tyranny you don't understand the enemy. (NOTE: The PLO has not been designated as a terrorist org but the US or Israel since 1991)
Big difference between tyranny and them just pissed because the rightful owners got their land back.
The big picture from where I'm sitting is that US interests are all that matter. Everything else should just be means to an end.
You do realize that US interests include global cooperation and alliances right? Otherwise I do truly think you need to go back and re-take some US and World History. Being an isolationist country would probably be the worst thing we could do right now, or ever.
The United States needs to pick a side, warts and all, and support that side exclusively.
Why should this be true? The concept of "A Side" is inaccurate, it makes the wild assumption that the millions of residents in these places are the same, want the same, act the same. It might be more fair to say that we want to be on the side of the millions of people who live there, minus the idiots who keep killing people.
There are plenty of Palestinians who just want to raise their kids. The workers that build these Israeli settlements out on the tops of mountains are mostly Palestinians trying to do well by their family.
And then there are groups of determined and funded people who want to do things like capture a soldier and hold him for five years, returning him gaunt and in exchange for 1,000 convicted felons.
It's the wide range of attitudes and actions that you just can't paint the entire thing in black and white.
A former coworker and programmer friend lives in Tel Aviv. He's an American who married an Israeli. Ever since then, I put this show on my DVR www.linktv.org/mosaic (http://www.linktv.org/mosaic), it shows Israeli local news in English, since he said that's what he watches. His Hebrew has gotten pretty fluent, but he says it's "relaxing" to listen in english without having to kind of process a foreign language. It also shows Al Jazeera, Doha, Saudi Arabia, and Qatari news in English. It's strange to hear English being translated to Arabaic, back into English.
www.linktv.org/mosaic (http://www.linktv.org/mosaic)
Watch the video at about 8:00 minutes in is the Israeli local news
H.
Mick-Boy
10-19-2011, 11:29
Different time, and believe it or not (you probably won't) Hiroshima saved many more lives than it took, on both sides... inevitably we would have invaded the Japanese mainland and that would have been much worse.
Thanks for the shot across the bow. I appreciate the education on WW2 history too. I wonder what the Japanese perspective would have been...
Your statement was "The perspective of the world is that killing innocents to gain ground on a political means is wrong." Are we now qualifying that with "unless it probably save more lives than we take"?
Let's have a little intellectual honesty here.
No, since Israel was Jewish sovereign territory long before it was occupied by the Palestinians (see: Roman history). And the UN declared that land theirs after WWII after how many years of them waiting for their homeland to be returned? Many Jewish (and Christian) holy sites in modern day Israel out dates Islam.
How far back do we get to go? Re-drawing maps will be fun once we start looking at who used to be somewhere.
Go back and READ UN resolution 181 (I linked to it on pg 6) before you try to tell anyone what the UN did or didn't say.
Big difference between tyranny and them just pissed because the rightful owners got their land back.
Who are we talking about? Are we back to Israel/Palestine or is this a terrorism in general kind of discussion?
You do realize that US interests include global cooperation and alliances right? Otherwise I do truly think you need to go back and re-take some US and World History. Being an isolationist country would probably be the worst thing we could do right now, or ever.
BINGO. The US also has alliances with Arab countries and we require their cooperation to maintain the status quo. Isolating ourselves from them over Israel would not be in our interests.
Zundfolge
10-19-2011, 11:36
Lots of interesting info here
O7ByJb7QQ9U
Thanks for the shot across the bow. I appreciate the education on WW2 history too. I wonder what the Japanese perspective would have been...
Your statement was "The perspective of the world is that killing innocents to gain ground on a political means is wrong." Are we now qualifying that with "unless it probably save more lives than we take"?
Well the Japanese perspective really doesn't matter because I'm sure they'd say it wasn't right, but would see the reason in the end if they actually thought about it. It ended a war that could have gone on for many more years, so anyone's logical perspective would be that it did more harm than good. It's a shame that innocents had to die, but if you look at the actual facts Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to the Japanese war machine in the same regard that Henry Ford was to the auto industry... doing what we did, innocent casualties aside (although the entire country was being groomed to kill as many American invaders as possible if we entered the mainland) would have brought the Japanese war industry to it's knees, so the target wasn't civilians, it was both their military industry and their psyche which worked pretty well because they signed an unconditional surrender- then we went in and rebuilt their nation! How's that for integrity?
Who are we talking about? Are we back to Israel/Palestine or is this a terrorism in general kind of discussion?
I was speaking on Israel/Palestine, since you know, Jewish and Christian holy sites in the region are, as I said, older than Islam as a belief, not just the Islamic holy sites.
BINGO. The US also has alliances with Arab countries and we require their cooperation to maintain the status quo. Isolating ourselves from them over Israel would not be in our interests.
I never said we didn't have Arab allies- in fact, we've been friends with the Kingdom of Saud since the early 1930s. The bare bone facts are, terrorism and freedom fighting (and American Revolutionary Patriotism) are separate things. I saw in another post you're in Afghanistan, so you of all people know who the real enemy is, and you know it's wrong to say that terrorists have any "just" means to achieving their unjust ends.
CMP_5.56
10-19-2011, 12:25
So EXACTLY what is the difference between a Terrorist and a freedom fighter, if not perspective?
Lemme guess, Is it that they are fighting against what they believe is destroying their way of life or liberties? Religious Ideology?
Is it that a freedom Fighter will stay in their own country to fight?
Funny how when the USSR invaded Afghanistan and when the CIA helped the Mujaheddin repel in foreign invaders they were called..........
sorry? Couldn't hear you?
Perspective... at THAT time, they were fighting for what WE wanted....
(This is in no way an endorsement for acts of violence or war against the United States, interests thereof, nor should be taken as such. All statements made are to illustrate the concept of perspective as it relates to historical confrontation. Just so no one gets their feelings hurt.:))
I see the line between terrorist and freedom fighter as the ability to wage ear against yoyr enemy without purposely targeting civilians.
I do not think the world is black and white, there are many shades of grey, but targeting civilians in my eyes is what makes a terrorist. There will always be collateral damage in large scale wars, the determining factor is what the intended target was.
When you look at the actions of these organizations around the world, one thing always comes inyo play. They are always places where a large amount of civilians gather.
Defending your country, or the base right of everyone to be free by means of guerilla tactics is not the same as targeting civilians to try and kill as many of them as you can.
Mick-Boy
10-19-2011, 12:30
Well the Japanese perspective really doesn't matter because I'm sure they'd say it wasn't right, but would see the reason in the end if they actually thought about it. It ended a war that could have gone on for many more years, so anyone's logical perspective would be that it did more harm than good. It's a shame that innocents had to die, but if you look at the actual facts Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to the Japanese war machine in the same regard that Henry Ford was to the auto industry... doing what we did, innocent casualties aside (although the entire country was being groomed to kill as many American invaders as possible if we entered the mainland) would have brought the Japanese war industry to it's knees, so the target wasn't civilians, it was both their military industry and their psyche which worked pretty well because they signed an unconditional surrender- then we went in and rebuilt their nation! How's that for integrity?
The Japanese perspective doesn't matter? Interesting. Is that because we were saving American (and Japanese lives) and we won?
How does Dresden fit in here?
I was speaking on Israel/Palestine, since you know, Jewish and Christian holy sites in the region are, as I said, older than Islam as a belief, not just the Islamic holy sites.
Ah. You threw me when you included AQ since they have nothing to do with Israel/Palestine. So your perspective is that having an older claim gives the right to take and hold land?
I never said we didn't have Arab allies- in fact, we've been friends with the Kingdom of Saud since the early 1930s. The bare bone facts are, terrorism and freedom fighting (and American Revolutionary Patriotism) are separate things.
Again, this depends on your perspective. Would you consider the Haganah to be a terrorist organization? What about the Lehi or the Irgun?
I'd be willing to be Israelis consider them freedom fighters but their tactics sure sound like tactics of a terrorist organization.
I saw in another post you're in Afghanistan, so you of all people know who the real enemy is, and you know it's wrong to say that terrorists have any "just" means to achieving their unjust ends.
I see we're back to a general discussion of terrorism now. OK.
On the contrary. I would say that most terrorists are using unjust means to achieve what they view as just ends.
Underestimating these people's belief in the inherent righteousness of their cause is a very, very foolish mistake.
To quote a man I like to read;
"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself."
Understanding perspective is key. Failure to do so is ignorant and dangerous when lives are on the line.
Mick-Boy
10-19-2011, 12:32
Lots of interesting info here
It's a bit one sided but it's also pretty accurate historically. Not a bad overview if you take it with a grain of salt.
bameverden
10-19-2011, 12:38
Look at Israels past....they always win. They are the chosen people...I'd want them on my side.
Mick-Boy
10-19-2011, 12:40
Look at Israels past....they always win. They are the chosen people...I'd want them on my side.
Always? You must not be looking as far back as Ronin. [ROFL1]
CMP_5.56
10-19-2011, 13:00
Look at Israels past....they always win. They are the chosen people...I'd want them on my side.
There is a lot of truth to this statement. When an entire race of people beleive they can not be defeated, they won't be. I don't agree with the tactics of either side, and I dont support this conflict in anyway. I dont care if we work with both aides, but we better be aware of how things may go if we ever turn our back on Israel.
Always? You must not be looking as far back as Ronin. [ROFL1]
Egypt, Rome, Byzantine, and Persian... all pushed the Jews out, however, they came back. The Israelites are like the Rocky Balboa of the world, you can beat them down, but they'll get right back up.
DeusExMachina
10-19-2011, 14:33
Terrorism, by definition, is an act against non-combatants. Never heard of Washington or and other patriot blowing up Torries to cause terror or fear. Lexington and Concord were Minutemen vs. Redcoats, Cowpens- ditto, Bunker Hill- same thing.
What Zionist groups did to help gain independence were terrorist acts. Israelis have never denied what they did. Zionist terrorists targeted everyone- Brits, Arabs, Jews, and the UN. Even Einstein spoke out against these acts. I can see how when one is forced to the brink of extinction...you gotta do what you gotta do. Example- a woman going to the gas chamber attacked a German officer, got his pistol, and shot him dead. She murdered the Kunt German plain and simple but she did it for a purpose. This incident really happened...think it was Auschwitz. Jews were pushed to their limit. In no way have the Palestinians been treated in a similar fashion. Seizing land, bulldozing homes is a bit different than extermination camps. Their own brother Muslims don't give a rats ass about them.
The term was invented during the Frog Revolution- when they whacked 100,000 of their own citizens- referred to State organized terror.
Where did you get that definition? The definition of terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. Nothing about "innocents", which again, is an ambiguous term. The non-combatants of Iraq and Afghanistan could be describe as innocent, but I digress.
Where did you get that definition? The definition of terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. Nothing about "innocents", which again, is an ambiguous term. The non-combatants of Iraq and Afghanistan could be describe as innocent, but I digress.
Repetition in progress... standby for redundancy to occur:
Intended target, key word here, stay with me, I'm about to use "big words." Terrorists spout "Death to all infidels regardless of if they are actually picking up arms to fight us." The Pentagon passes down "Kill every last one of those terrorist scum, but do your damnedest to not let any civilian casualties occur." 'Course I'm paraphrasing here, but they don't care if they're killing US troops or just plain old John Q. American Public, 9/11 proved that pretty obvious. We're not carpet bombing all of Baghdad, launching raids into neighborhoods killing anything that isn't in US uniform. ROE, our mission, and goals for the wars we fight differ greatly from what terrorists believe, and if it really takes for me to sit here and spell it out for you then please cease and desist now, because it's honestly just making me think you're really dumb, or really uneducated in current affairs. Ok, so I didn't use "big words" I decided to speak in layman's terms.
mevshooter
10-19-2011, 16:38
This actually isn't meant to deviate from the original topic, but friends of mine who are close to Israeli/Palestinian types laugh their butts off at how accurate (albeit overblown) the dynamics in You Don't Mess With The Zohan are in regards to cultural interactions amongst these people groups.
This actually isn't meant to deviate from the original topic, but friends of mine who are close to Israeli/Palestinian types laugh their butts off at how accurate (albeit overblown) the dynamics in You Don't Mess With The Zohan are in regards to cultural interactions amongst these people groups.
that was a great movie! [ROFL1]
that was a great movie! [ROFL1]
Disco Disco....
Mick-Boy
10-19-2011, 21:29
Repetition in progress... standby for redundancy to occur:
Intended target, key word here, stay with me, I'm about to use "big words." Terrorists spout "Death to all infidels regardless of if they are actually picking up arms to fight us." The Pentagon passes down "Kill every last one of those terrorist scum, but do your damnedest to not let any civilian casualties occur." 'Course I'm paraphrasing here, but they don't care if they're killing US troops or just plain old John Q. American Public, 9/11 proved that pretty obvious. We're not carpet bombing all of Baghdad, launching raids into neighborhoods killing anything that isn't in US uniform. ROE, our mission, and goals for the wars we fight differ greatly from what terrorists believe, and if it really takes for me to sit here and spell it out for you then please cease and desist now, because it's honestly just making me think you're really dumb, or really uneducated in current affairs. Ok, so I didn't use "big words" I decided to speak in layman's terms.
Ronin you have a very narrow understanding of terrorism. Do you think the FARC or the IRA sits around saying death to the infidels?
Terrorism is a tactic usually used by a group when they don't feel they have the political means or military might to achieve their goals. If you don't believe that from their perspective their goals are just then perhaps you're the one who should cease and desist now.
I said earlier I was looking for a little intellectual honesty. Let's try to at least be consistent here. You still haven't answered my post on pg 8. I'm looking forward to your thoughts.
Mick-Boy
10-19-2011, 21:33
OK so here's a question. Let's play to the assumption that it is black and white.
What should Israel do? How do they ensure their own peace and prosperity?
Ronin, have you read Unintended Consequences?
If you believe that someday you will stand before a power who will judge you according to your actions, then there is absolute right and wrong that will be dictated by whoever judges you. If you don't believe that then do whatever you want. Use whatever philosophy or intellectual reasoning that will justify yourself. I would say the latter view is prevalent in humans based upon their actions.
I personally believe I will stand in judgement. And it has been a safe guide to me, making my life better. My personal belief is that it doesn't matter what perspective you have, or what is written in the history books. It doesn't matter what popular opinion says happened. Right and wrong are absolutes. Nobody rapes, kills without cause, or steals and remains innocent. Regardless of perspective. They may escape punishment in this life, may have books written in their honor, and enjoy honor from like minded people but they will be judged according to their deeds.
How's that for an extremely narrow and naive view. Works for me. If you violate the natural laws set before us and don't find a way to reconcile with the power that will judge you, you deserve to burn in hell. And I'd hate to find out what it would take for people like Hitler, Manson, Stalin ect. to find forgiveness.
(puts soapbox away)
Ronin, have you read Unintended Consequences?
No, can't say I have... I'm currently reading that criticism of the drug war book by the former Sheriff of San Miguel County (Telluride)... Should I add it to the next book in line?
CMP_5.56
10-20-2011, 02:24
Ronin you have a very narrow understanding of terrorism. Do you think the FARC or the IRA sits around saying death to the infidels?
Terrorism is a tactic usually used by a group when they don't feel they have the political means or military might to achieve their goals. If you don't believe that from their perspective their goals are just then perhaps you're the one who should cease and desist now.
I said earlier I was looking for a little intellectual honesty. Let's try to at least be consistent here. You still haven't answered my post on pg 8. I'm looking forward to your thoughts.
Before you call the IRA terrorists, i suggest you read The History Of The IRA. I personally don't consider the IRA terrorists.
Mick-Boy
10-20-2011, 03:13
Before you call the IRA terrorists, i suggest you read The History Of The IRA. I personally don't consider the IRA terrorists.
And again we come back to perspective. Ask a member of the RUC and I'm certain they'll describe the IRA as terrorists. Ask someone from Dublin and you'll likely get a different answer. The British Government has them listed as a proscribed organization in their anti-terror acts (2000?). They call themselves freedom fighters. Perspective.
Edited to add- Are you talking about Coogan's "The IRA: A History"? Because I've read it.
Why are they an exception?
snip
The United States should have ceased all contact when the Palestinians elected Hamas as their leadership.
Why should this be true? The concept of "A Side" is inaccurate, it makes the wild assumption that the millions of residents in these places are the same, want the same, act the same. It might be more fair to say that we want to be on the side of the millions of people who live there, minus the idiots who keep killing people.
There are plenty of Palestinians who just want to raise their kids. The workers that build these Israeli settlements out on the tops of mountains are mostly Palestinians trying to do well by their family.
And then there are groups of determined and funded people who want to do things like capture a soldier and hold him for five years, returning him gaunt and in exchange for 1,000 convicted felons.
It's the wide range of attitudes and actions that you just can't paint the entire thing in black and white.
A former coworker and programmer friend lives in Tel Aviv. He's an American who married an Israeli. Ever since then, I put this show on my DVR www.linktv.org/mosaic (http://www.linktv.org/mosaic), it shows Israeli local news in English, since he said that's what he watches. His Hebrew has gotten pretty fluent, but he says it's "relaxing" to listen in english without having to kind of process a foreign language. It also shows Al Jazeera, Doha, Saudi Arabia, and Qatari news in English. It's strange to hear English being translated to Arabaic, back into English.
www.linktv.org/mosaic (http://www.linktv.org/mosaic)
Watch the video at about 8:00 minutes in is the Israeli local news
H.
I like black and white, that's why. The Palestinians don't deserve recognition because they elected Hamas, a known terrorist organization to lead their government.
The United States is being played for suckers by the rest of the Arab world.
Thank you for the linktv link.
I love how the Palestinians want their countrymen who murdered Israelis released. It is OK to murder Israelis but if Israel lifts a finger to try and convict murderers or to defend itself, well we just can't have that.
OK so here's a question. Let's play to the assumption that it is black and white.
What should Israel do? How do they ensure their own peace and prosperity?
d*mn i wish i could type better but ill give it a shot
if not give back some of the land that was taken at least have an open agriculture program using those lands in question
try some real peace talks without the preconceived notion of failure
i bet if they just started there things would start progressing .
the real problem with that part of the world is it considered holy land by d*mn near everyone so they all feel as if they are chosen and have the right to inflict not only political but religious views . you can never have peace when everyone feels that they are right and has god on there side.
Mick- after spending 7 months at the US Army Intelligence School, and continuous counter-terror training throughout my tenure as an S2 ANCOIC I think my knowledge of all kinds of terrorists is pretty wide. It's not focused simply on ME terrorists, but also extreme right and left wing domestic terrorists (like PETA!) and many many others from around the globe. I personally, as an American of Irish heritage (and Scottish too) do not believe that the PIRA/IRA/RIRIA/etc. ARE NOT (typo- my bad) terrorists organizations. They responded to a threat and do not specifically target civilians. Granted the law of unintended consequences comes to play in their bombings in London, Belfast and other areas of the region. Need I mention the Scottish revolution, Bloody Sunday, and the peak of the Troubles? Personally, and this is simply my educated opinion on the matter, the IRA and different factions therein, are not in the wrong in opposing the last of the British empire's outstretched dominance.
Mick-Boy
10-20-2011, 11:25
I can see my request for a little intellectual honesty didn't didn't take.
You rock on in your black and white world. Continue making judgements of millions of people based on your opinions and issuing blanket statements on America's foreign policy when you clearly have very little understanding of the issues involved. Whoever trained you has failed on an epic level.
I can see my request for a little intellectual honesty didn't didn't take.
You rock on in your black and white world. Continue making judgements of millions of people based on your opinions and issuing blanket statements on America's foreign policy when you clearly have very little understanding of the issues involved. Whoever trained you has failed on an epic level.
while simplistic i was being honest , although id never call my self an intellectual[Tooth]
Mick-Boy
10-20-2011, 11:51
while simplistic i was being honest , although id never call my self an intellectual[Tooth]
Sorry Alex, that wasn't directed at you. I think you're off to a good start. I hit on the big three issues at the bottom of page 7. Until some progress is made on those issues they're going nowhere. That can't happen until both sides are willing to give a little. "God gave it to us" just isn't going to cut it with 7.8 million believers on one side and 6 million believers on the other side.
I can see my request for a little intellectual honesty didn't didn't take.
You rock on in your black and white world. Continue making judgements of millions of people based on your opinions and issuing blanket statements on America's foreign policy when you clearly have very little understanding of the issues involved. Whoever trained you has failed on an epic level.
In the words of Jack Ryan (from Clear and Present Danger): "Not black and white, right and wrong!"
Israel, for the most part, =Good!
Palestine, while mostly not bad people, still those support bombing innocent people= BAD...
I'd think whoever trained me probably knew more about what they were talking about than most- considering one of whom used to be the 5th highest ranking civilian from the DoD to brief the president (which probably fell on deaf ears because it was during Clinton's reign of stupidity on foreign policy).
No, can't say I have... I'm currently reading that criticism of the drug war book by the former Sheriff of San Miguel County (Telluride)... Should I add it to the next book in line?
You don't need to add it, I just wonder how you'd feel about the events in the book is all.
spaceCADETzoom
10-21-2011, 16:41
I'm not sure playing up 35F AIT (amounting to a wide knowledge of terrorism) is a display of intellectual honesty. That is, unless we call Bradley Manning an intellectual because of his training.
Rereading this post, I apologize if this was snarky. I just think Mick brought up some very interesting questions that have been sidestepped with a bait and switch on ambiguous qualifications.
I'm still thinking about the Balfour Declaration, all the associated agreements and whether or not is was the right thing to do.
I'm trying to figure out the motivating factors for the British and French, why would they want to do this.
Look at Israels past....they always win. They are the chosen people...I'd want them on my side.
If Jews are gods chosen people are we non-Jews second class people in his eyes?
I don't get the "chosen people" thing.
If Jews are gods chosen people are we non-Jews second class people in his eyes?
I don't get the "chosen people" thing.
The 'chosen people' thing is from the Old Testament and I don't really know what it means, only where it originates. The 'chosen people' thing is no longer relevant after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, all the Gentiles (all men) become 'the chosen' after that event.
Lots of interesting info here
that video is well worth the time it takes to watch.
they don't want to live in peace. they don't want their own country.
they want to exterminate the jews.
mevshooter
10-22-2011, 00:30
The 'chosen people' thing is from the Old Testament and I don't really know what it means, only where it originates. The 'chosen people' thing is no longer relevant after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, all the Gentiles (all men) become 'the chosen' after that event.
But in Revelation, John goes on to talk about that Israel's enemies will attack from the north and God will protect them with fire/brimstone from the sky.
It doesn't become irrelevant, but I agree with you on the point that it is no longer an "exclusive" club. Jesus said in the New Testament that He did not come to UNDO the Old Covenant, but to fulfill it. So it is a matter of both yes and no.
that video is well worth the time it takes to watch.
they don't want to live in peace. they don't want their own country.
they want to exterminate the jews.
And THAT'S the deciding factor for me when considered without my Christian bias towards Israel.
When I remove that aspect of my perspective, I still can't get behind Palestine.
I'm trying to figure out the motivating factors for the British and French, why would they want to do this.
i could go into detail but the short answer is guilt . promises made after ww1 were not held and then after ww2 everyone felt real sh*ty . france then went to war with indochina (vietnam) to help rebuild and the brits tried not to starve as they rebuilt .
the problem is that its not cut and dry or black and white , at this point both sides have committed some many wrongs that making some rights are gonna take a lot of pride swallowing on both sides .
i could go into detail but the short answer is guilt . promises made after ww1 were not held and then after ww2 everyone felt real sh*ty . france then went to war with indochina (vietnam) to help rebuild and the brits tried not to starve as they rebuilt .
the problem is that its not cut and dry or black and white , at this point both sides have committed some many wrongs that making some rights are gonna take a lot of pride swallowing on both sides .
did you watch the video?
israel has offered peace several times now.
Mick-Boy
10-22-2011, 05:37
Historically speaking the sequence of events in the video is pretty accurate but the depiction of the parties involved is extremely one sided (look who made the video and tell me it's not biased...).
If you read what I wrote on pg 7 it'll give you an idea of what the big roadblocks to peace are. BOTH sides have offered peace but not on terms the other side can accept.
Nothing is simple when there are millions of people, religion and extremely emotionally charged issues on both sides.
But in Revelation, John goes on to talk about that Israel's enemies will attack from the north and God will protect them with fire/brimstone from the sky.
It doesn't become irrelevant, but I agree with you on the point that it is no longer an "exclusive" club. Jesus said in the New Testament that He did not come to UNDO the Old Covenant, but to fulfill it. So it is a matter of both yes and no.
You're correct, irrelevant is the wrong. The club becomes inclusive vs exclusive.
And THAT'S the deciding factor for me when considered without my Christian bias towards Israel.
When I remove that aspect of my perspective, I still can't get behind Palestine.
This is a list of rocket attacks by the Palestinians on Israel for 2011. The source is Wikipedia, go figure. I wonder why the US new media failed to report these with all the bluster that an Israeli counterattack gets. Hmmmmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2011
i could go into detail but the short answer is guilt . promises made after ww1 were not held and then after ww2 everyone felt real sh*ty . france then went to war with indochina (vietnam) to help rebuild and the brits tried not to starve as they rebuilt .
the problem is that its not cut and dry or black and white , at this point both sides have committed some many wrongs that making some rights are gonna take a lot of pride swallowing on both sides .
I agree, guilt isn't a reason to do anything. This was also one of the last, arrogant acts of a fading superpower.
This is a list of rocket attacks by the Palestinians on Israel for 2011. The source is Wikipedia, go figure. I wonder why the US new media failed to report these with all the bluster that an Israeli counterattack gets. Hmmmmm.
When qassam rockets do damage it makes international news. They are home made unguided rockets, their lethality is low.
You could ask, "Why does the US news media fail to report..." things like this, as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Fatalities_1948-present
I'm opposed to the concept of a Jewish state, just as I'm opposed to the concept of a Muslim state (Iran, Saudi Arabia et al), and just as I'm opposed to the concept of a Christian state. Any place like that will invariably disenfranchise citizens who do not belong to the same cult.
H.
mevshooter
10-22-2011, 12:19
When qassam rockets do damage it makes international news. They are home made unguided rockets, their lethality is low.
If we follow that line of thinking, then we should ignore every single one of those same type of unguided, low lethality attacks that happens at all of our bases and outposts in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...
Every time I talked to my dad on the phone during his tour of duty, he would say something along the lines of "yeah, 3 rocket attacks yesterday, 2 this morning, about 9 last week..." and so on and so on.
The intent to kill is there. Just because they suck at it, doesn't make it more acceptable. Much the same as just because Israel are awesome at it, doesn't make them any more despicable.
If we follow that line of thinking, then we should ignore every single one of those same type of unguided, low lethality attacks that happens at all of our bases and outposts in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...
Erm, I was just stating what happens, not justifying it or explaining it. However, I would say if a rocket attack doesn't kill anyone, it should be lower on the news totem poll than say, flooding that has displaced ten million people in Thailand.
The intent to kill is there. Just because they suck at it, doesn't make it more acceptable. Much the same as just because Israel are awesome at it, doesn't make them any more despicable.
I re-read what I posted, and still can't find where I said it's acceptable. Stop putting words in my mouth, please.
H.
mevshooter
10-22-2011, 13:30
Erm, I was just stating what happens, not justifying it or explaining it. However, I would say if a rocket attack doesn't kill anyone, it should be lower on the news totem poll than say, flooding that has displaced ten million people in Thailand.
And when ten million people are displaced by flooding in Thailand, that news story typically takes the top spot of the news hour. However, when it is an issue of OUR people being attacked vs. people in other countries going through hard times, OUR people will tend to take the top spot of the news hour, because they are OUR people.
Much like the UK are far more concerned with the people rioting in their streets, than the OWS people over here. As it should be.
I re-read what I posted, and still can't find where I said it's acceptable. Stop putting words in my mouth, please.
H.
I never stated that YOU said it was acceptable.
Its a free exchange of ideas here on the board. I was simply stating MY thoughts on this.
If I would have said "I can't believe you think its acceptable" then yes, by all means, you would have been correct in your statement. However, I did not say that. At all.
sneakerd
10-22-2011, 14:25
This is an old axiom that may or may not have already been repeated here- but for me it says it all- If the "Palestinians" threw all of their weapons into the Mediterranean -there would be immediate peace-. If the Israelis threw all of their weapons into the Mediterranean- the surrounding Arab countries would immediately advance, invade and kill the Jews. To me this is not really arguable, it is obvious.
Mick-Boy
10-22-2011, 22:27
And when ten million people are displaced by flooding in Thailand, that news story typically takes the top spot of the news hour. However, when it is an issue of OUR people being attacked vs. people in other countries going through hard times, OUR people will tend to take the top spot of the news hour, because they are OUR people.
You realize that Israelis are not OUR people don't you? They are citizens of a foreign government.
mevshooter
10-22-2011, 22:32
You realize that Israelis are not OUR people don't you? They are citizens of a foreign government.
We weren't talking about Israel at that point in the exchange Hoosier and I were having.
Of course I know Israel aren't our people. However, they are one of our greatest allies, so they do hold a place of significance greater than other countries.
[quote=Sharpienads;447137]Sounds like you got it pretty much covered to me.[/quote
Upsetting but true.
Mick-Boy
10-22-2011, 22:46
We weren't talking about Israel at that point in the exchange Hoosier and I were having.
I guess I missed that based on the context.
The Israelis are a (persecuted) people looking for a home for a Long time. the Palestinians are the people that home was taken from. As much as we like to discount these facts, there are still Palestinians alive that remember this. There are still "refugees" in Lebanon from the formation of Israel (and the instant war that ensued).
The whole situation could at this point be solved by the formation of the nation of palestine. Not Solved as in dogs & cats living together & singing kumbuyah but the end of the low grade war that has been going on for 40+ years. The palestinians in the west bank & gaza are not a part of any country (actually gaza should be part of Egypt but thats just my opinion). They have no passports, they are stuck. They do not vote in Israel, or anywhere else that has international standing. Solid internationally recognize borders of any type at this point would help. We're watching the fallout from a new nation being carved out of the old British empire. It hasnt exactly gone peacefully elsewhere either.
Is that a reason to blow up a civilian bus running down a street? No. Is that a reason to drop rockets on civilians? No. Is that a reason to attack military checkpoints? Yes.
To the above, if the Palestinians threw their weapons away what would they gain? Israel will not make them full voting citizens. It will not gain them a nation of their own. All it would do is make them unable to defend themselves.
mevshooter
10-22-2011, 23:27
I guess I missed that based on the context.
In an earlier post we were discussing the multitude of low grade, non fatal rocket fire from Palestinians on Israel vs. the much, much fewer but typically very accurate and deadly strikes by Israel to Palestine.
I had likened it to the multitude of low grade, non fatal rocket fire that takes place in Afghanistan at all of our military bases and outposts on a daily basis in regards to how serious it should be taken regardless of loss of life, when there isn't any.
The conversation evolved from there.
So I was talking about U.S. Soldiers at that point that you quoted.
Mick-Boy
10-22-2011, 23:40
Well said Merl.
Mevshooter - Copy all. News coverage in Afghanistan is a whole different topic. Unless A) it's a slow news day, B)casualties on our side hit double digits or C) the attack is on a high profile target, attacks don't get reported here either.
The American people are pretty desensitized to war reporting at this point. The ones who care are pretty tired, the majority never cared in the first place.
mevshooter
10-23-2011, 00:12
Well said Merl.
Mevshooter - Copy all. News coverage in Afghanistan is a whole different topic. Unless A) it's a slow news day, B)casualties on our side hit double digits or C) the attack is on a high profile target, attacks don't get reported here either.
The American people are pretty desensitized to war reporting at this point. The ones who care are pretty tired, the majority never cared in the first place.
Sad but true. We still have hundreds of thousands of our people over there doing their jobs and putting their lives on the line... regardless of how popular or unpopular the war has become, I have to remind myself to still pray for them and be thankful.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.