NationStates Jolt Archive

I heard Moses and Mohamad arm wrestled for the West Bank.Not funny. Too many Palestinians have died for the ideology, blood-thirst, and land-hunger of the Moses folks.

The UN had no right or justification to give Arab land away.

*headdesks* The Jewish people petitioned the UN for land of their own, and it was put to a vote with the majority of Ayes to Nays. And so it was made. If you don't like Jews, thats your business, but PLEASE for the love of of all things still sacred, don't shove your views down our throats.

Meh. I'd disagree. The UNSC has the right and justification to do what it feels fit in maintaining international peace and security. Thems the rules.The UNSC of today would never allow what the UN of 1947 allowed. The UN has no right whatsoever to make decisions over the heads of those who are affected by any such decision. The Palestinians Arabs were never asked whether they wanted half of their land given away to foreigners.

Not funny. Too many Palestinians have died for the ideology, blood-thirst, and land-hunger of the Moses folks.

Huh. Blood-thirsty Jews. Now where else have I heard that particular bit of stereotyping before? I seem to remember a comic book or - OH, that's right, it was Der Sturmer.

I know all of this and its Israel-friendly interpretation of things. However, that does not make Zionism and the mass immigration of Jews into Palestine and the subsequent ethnic cleansing right. Jews never belonged into Palestine in the first place (except the 7 or so percent that have always lived there). YHVH is genocidal maniac, Judaism is ideological dirt, there is no need for a Jewish state.

Warned. Trolling. You've already been warned once in this thread over inflammatory blanket statements.

Not funny. Too many Palestinians have died for the ideology, blood-thirst, and land-hunger of the Moses folks.

Naturally, the non-combatant Jews, including children, who have died in the conflict are still considered funny, right?

Oy Vey, not funny at all.

When will Hamas learn - don't fire rockets at the guy with bigger guns. I mean who here was stupid enough to throw stones at the class bully as a kid?

I mean who here was stupid enough to throw stones at the class bully as a kid?

Me. But then again, I do stupid things like stick bobby pins into eletrical sockets.

What's the point in firing them to begin with? They can't hit the broad side of a barn and they're not going to scare Israel away. All they're doing is pissing off the West and that's never helped any thing.

Me. But then again, I do stupid things like stick bobby pins into eletrical sockets.

I beat up the bully. If you hit him hard enough with the rock, you knock him out.

I beat up the bully.

I lol'd hard at this.

I lol'd hard at this.

Good. Because the bully didn't.

Oy Vey, not funny at all.

Lighten up. Mocking Jews has been a western pass time for centuries, who are you to protest against it?

Not funny. Too many Palestinians have died for the ideology, blood-thirst, and land-hunger of the Moses folks.

Mohammed should have worked out then. Everyone knows Moses has killer biceps.

*snip*

BTW - still waiting for that 12% citation.

It seems about right. According to this (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Arabs_in_Palestine.html) pro-Zionist page,

By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres.

Which is about 9% of the combined Jewish and Arab areas in the partition plan of '47.
How the ownership of land corresponded to the partition is another matter.

Mohammed should have worked out then. Everyone knows Moses has killer biceps.

Yep. Dunking full-grown adults is hard work, which is why priests nowdays prefer to do it to babies.

They were purchasing the land legally - the same way you would purchase land in California, Michigan, or Germany.

There is no record of any ethnic cleansing occurring until the Arabs fired the first shot - so to speak - by murdering Jews because of concerns that too many of them were immigrating.

This would be like us murdering black people because we think too many of them bought land in Alabama. Would you encourage behavior like that as well?

Do you mean that if several arab billionaires buy New Mexico and thousands of Arabs began to colonize it and to claim its independence, would you agree?

It seems about right. According to this (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Arabs_in_Palestine.html) pro-Zionist page,

Which is about 9% of the combined Jewish and Arab areas in the partition plan of '47.
How the ownership of land corresponded to the partition is another matter.

Ah! And here I thought he made that figure up. I stand corrected.

Those silly priests... That's why I'm still Jewish.

Do you mean that if several arab billionaires buy New Mexico and thousands of Arabs began to colonize it and to claim its independence, would you agree?

We already had a few states try to claim independence. It didn't work out as you recall.

However, if they wanted to buy up New Mexico, join local elections, and radically change the politics of that state by their numbers then they are well within their rights. I'd think they were crazy for buying New Mexico when there are so many better places, but there's no accounting for taste.

Even Ohio.

I actually want the United Nations Security Council to make a resolution. If they can not make one up, there will be more fighting.:mad:

Those silly priests... That's why I'm still Jewish.

It's a bit of a line call for me. One mob want me to give all my money to charity, the other want me to cut a bit off the dick of any male children I may have. For that, they offer me heaps of good stuff ... but only after I'm dead.

Hard to see the attraction, really.

We already had a few states try to claim independence. It didn't work out as you recall.

However, if they wanted to buy up New Mexico, join local elections, and radically change the politics of that state by their numbers then they are well within their rights. I'd think they were crazy for buying New Mexico when there are so many better places, but there's no accounting for taste.

Well, I've said New Mexico because it was the first which has come to my mind :D

What I mean is that, well the jews bought its lands legally but probably they won't let a, for instance, billionaire of Saudi Arabia to buy several lands in the State of Israel, build houses there and sell them to Palestinians, don't you think?

It's a bit of a line call for me. One mob want me to give all my money to charity, the other want me to cut a bit off the dick of any male children I may have. For that, they offer me heaps of good stuff ... but only after I'm dead.

Hard to see the attraction, really.

Totally agree :wink:

I actually want the United Nations Security Council to make a resolution. If they can not make one up, there will be more fighting.:mad:

The UN, though a wonderful idea in an ideal world, is obsolete and incompetant and really can't make a difference. We need something better than the UN for things like this.

What I mean is that, well the jews bought its lands legally but probably they won't let a, for instance, billionaire of Saudi Arabia to buy several lands in the State of Israel, build houses there and sell them to Palestinians, don't you think?

If he can convince the individual Jews in question to sell, what's to stop him?

Yep. Dunking full-grown adults is hard work, which is why priests nowdays prefer to do it to babies.

You have any idea how heavy the Red Sea is?

You have any idea how heavy the Red Sea is?

Very, very heavy.

Not as heavy as the dead sea.

If he can convince the individual Jews in question to sell, what's to stop him?

If the inhabitants of Israel, not all of course, were so respectful, probably the situation in the Middle East, at least for Palestinians, would be totally different.

Do you think that the same Israelis that are killing hundreds of inocent Palestinians would accept something like that?



PD: I know that Hamas is also killing inocent people. But Israel is strengthening the terrorists with its attack. This is not a war, is a massacre

We'll never sell that land, do you have any idea how much it's worth?

Do you think that the same Israelis that are killing hundreds of inocent Palestinians would accept something like that?

If the money was high enough, probably.

PD: I know that Hamas is also killing inocent people. But Israel is strengthening the terrorists with its attack. This is not a war, is a massacre

This is essentially how I see the entire Palestinian conflict:

Did you ever see the two kids on the playground - a bratty little kid and a bratty big kid. The little kid runs up behind the big kid and pokes him, then runs away. The big kid gets irritated, but ignores him. The little kid then runs up behind the big kid, pokes him, and then runs away.

This happens several more times until finally the big kid turns around and decks the little kid. The little kid starts screaming and crying and yelling it's unfair, and runs away.

Israel's the big kid. Palestinians are the little kid.

Yep. I walked over and decked them both and told them if they kept fucking around, I would do it 1 or 12 more times.

I don't want that you sell your land. I only want to say that probably the Palestinians thought the same when the Jews began to arrive to their lands.

I only want a solution to end violence in Israel/Palestine. I don't care if the solution is one secular state or two different states, that's a matter for those who live there, Palestinians and Israelis.

Yep, I agree.

If the money was high enough, probably..

Unfortunately, I think that the solution is much more complicated that a high amount of money. In that region, the power of the religion is higher than the power of the money I think.

This is essentially how I see the entire Palestinian conflict:

Did you ever see the two kids on the playground - a bratty little kid and a bratty big kid. The little kid runs up behind the big kid and pokes him, then runs away. The big kid gets irritated, but ignores him. The little kid then runs up behind the big kid, pokes him, and then runs away.

This happens several more times until finally the big kid turns around and decks the little kid. The little kid starts screaming and crying and yelling it's unfair, and runs away.

Israel's the big kid. Palestinians are the little kid.

I think that doesn't matter how jerk is the little one.

Remember that Hamas is a terrorist movement and Israel is supposed to be a democratic state, so they must act as such.

Unfortunately, I think that the solution is much more complicated that a high amount of money. In that region, the power of the religion is higher than the power of the money I think.

Perhaps. I won't debate that. Keep in mind, though, that many Palestinians voluntarily sold their land to Jews.

I think that doesn't matter how jerk is the little one.

Remember that Hamas is a terrorist movement and Israel is supposed to be a democratic state, so they must act as such.

Democratic =/= holy. A democratic state is supposed to act in the best interests of its people, regardless of whether those interests are right, wrong, or indifferent.

In addition, it's disingenuous to say that the Palestinians have their rights and then degrade them to a people that are so horrible they can't be held morally accountable for their actions.

I still think we should bomb them both to oblivion and raise a few hundred miles of police tape around the whole place and not let anyone have it.

The UN, though a wonderful idea in an ideal world, is obsolete and incompetant and really can't make a difference. We need something better than the UN for things like this.

They can at least impose sanctions to Israel. They close there borders, and that means less supplies are going like medicine food etc. They should not be allowed to do this, in my opinion.

And hamass would keep trying to blow them up.

Yet they've managed to kill 1 person and non-seriously wound maybe half a dozen with the last few thousand rockets?

15 kills, injuries in the hundreds. They've launched about three thousand rockets over the past seven years, many of which were the older versions of the Qassam, which were even smaller.

And you think they're saying "whatever, we won't hit anything anyways"? No they're trying activly to kill people.

Perhaps. I won't debate that. Keep in mind, though, that many Palestinians voluntarily sold their land to Jews.

I won't deny that, and I also don't want to debate it anymore (here in València are the 3:05 and I want to sleep). :D

But think that some rich Jews arrived to Palestine and they bought their lands to some poor Palestinians, who sold voluntarily, yes, but think on some poor Palestinians of the first part of the 20th century that some rich Europeans offer a high amount of money for their lands. Only think about it.

Democratic =/= holy. A democratic state is supposed to act in the best interests of its people, regardless of whether those interests are right, wrong, or indifferent.

In addition, it's disingenuous to say that the Palestinians have their rights and then degrade them to a people that are so horrible they can't be held morally accountable for their actions.


1-I don't think that to kill several Palestinian civilians is to act in the best interests of Israel. I've said before that these actions will strengthen Hamas.

2-I didn't say that the Palestinians can't be held morally accountable for their actions. I only say that it isn't the same a government that represents millions of Israelis that a terrorist group that has achieved the power of Gazzah thanks to the excesses of Israel. Remember that in the West Bank Al Fatah keeps the power.

I still think we should bomb them both to oblivion and raise a few hundred miles of police tape around the whole place and not let anyone have it.

Totally agree :D

I agree with the last part, too...

I still think we should bomb them both to oblivion and raise a few hundred miles of police tape around the whole place and not let anyone have it.

Give me the land. I need to build a Fortress! For, eh......my own reasons!

1-I don't think that to kill several Palestinian civilians is to act in the best interests of Israel. I've said before that these actions will strengthen Hamas.

Oh I agree, but they don't see it that way. However, I don't see a solution that will do anything but strengthen Hamas (or other resistance fighters). If they ease up, then the anti-israel groups will be emboldened and the members they have will fighter harder.

If they clamp down on them, they only cause more palestinians to join their cause.

2-I didn't say that the Palestinians can't be held morally accountable for their actions. I only say that it isn't the same a government that represents millions of Israelis that a terrorist group that has achieved the power of Gazzah thanks to the excesses of Israel. Remember that in the West Bank Al Fatah keeps the power.

Hamas is a political party in addition to a terrorist group. They should be held to the same standard.

I might put Dondolastan there, I have a cousin with land there...

And you think they're saying "whatever, we won't hit anything anyways"? No they're trying activly to kill people.

They're actively trying to kill people, yes. It just so happens that they use a method that deals enough damage to make Israel angry but not enough to make Israel try diplomacy. It's almost as if the entity that creates and distributes the Qassam rockets maintains power purely solely because of anger directed towards Israel. Of course, it's not like anyone smart enough and cunning enough to achieve a position of power and relative luxury would take steps designed to continue the circumstances that raised them to power and keep them in power.

I think that doesn't matter how jerk is the little one.

Remember that Hamas is a terrorist movement and Israel is supposed to be a democratic state, so they must act as such.
Is democratic state short for "let people attack with rockets, suicide bombers, guns, and rocks and stand by and take it"? Just curious.

Note: I am not defending either side. It just seems silly to me to say, "Well, Israel is a democracy, they should accept this."

^.^.^.^.^

Tada, There's your sign.

Asserting "in realpolitik, ruthlessness is the quickest and most effective way to reach ends" may be true, but why should I care?

Do you read what you write? It sounds like you're agreeing it may be factually true, but you reject it anyway.

As for your people in general comment, if they don't have power, they simply don't matter insofar as policy making goes, even in so called "democracies".


You have no answer to my assertion that Israel is a democracy, and is therefore limited in how ruthless it can be with Gaza. Not only the world community of nations, but the Israeli people themselves would reject any proposal for unbridled ruthlessness.


Limited by practical concerns, but no more than that. It's cheaper for the political parties to simply let the settlers do the job of murder for them, and act all outraged when there are reprisals, drop a few bombs, invade the place, and look strong for their voters. Which is what is happening about now.

There's your ruthlessness.

Democracies have also implemented much ruthlessness before. Slaves, slave taking, outright destruction of entire cities and all their people, wars of conquests. Plenty of ruthlessness there. Yet people were either persuaded to be just as ruthless, thus support the actions, or were silenced by propaganda.

Don't even try to pretend that a democracy is immune to ruthlessness.


That's why neither the United Nations nor any individual nation ever spends money or sends troops to protect powerless minorities or to relieve suffering.

Oh, wait ...

And for all the good they do in that aspect, they might as well have done nothing. The United Nations is hamstrung from any effective work in preventing injustice because the perpetrators are either the ones who rule it or clients of those who rule it. Individual nations don't send troops anywhere in combat capacity unless there is a benefit to doing so, unless it's to protect their interests or create an opening for them to plant interests there.


So this is what your "power comes from ruthlessness" thesis is reduced to. Whatever happens is "realpolitik" and when it doesn't appear to be, that's because the "real" power-holders are tricking everybody.

You seem to think ruthlessness only involves gas chambers, bullets and bombs. That's a limitation in your thinking, and demonstrates aptly how you would not only fail as a Machiavellian, but also fail to detect one.


If you're referring to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, then yes that's an example of ruthlessness succeeding.

There are many such examples. Especially when it comes to making room for someone else to step into power.


Generally, assassination either achieves nothing or by the matyr effect, achieves the opposite of its intent.


Tsar Nicholas, Abraham Lincoln (try pretending de facto slavery didn't exist for about 100 years after he died in the Southern states), and hmm, any number of assassinations tied to issues of succession takes your generally statement and throttles it.


Let's go big-scale: the Cold War. How could such a standoff end with anything less than the obliteration and conquest of one party by the other?


The Soviet Union was obliterated, collapsed, died, ceased to exist, etc. That didn't happen by keeping a lid on things. Active sabotage and brinkmanship brought it about. They may not have gone to open war, but they were doing their best to obliterate the other without being obliterated themselves. Are you trying to rewrite history by denying this?


Or let's go small-scale: the end of the troubles in Ireland. The terrorists of Northern Ireland didn't get all they wanted (reunification with Ireland and/or the expulsion of Protestants) but they got enough to effectively end the conflict. You can assert, if you dare, that the solution is a "feel good façade" but I refuse to accept the onus of proof.

And how do you think the troubles ended? By forcing the British to the table once it was clear that victory for them was untenable. The terrorists didn't get what they got by staying nice all the time. No, they had a campaign of terror bombing that eventually wore away at the British will to get most of what they wanted.

How was this "Keeping a lid on things"? Both sides went at each other as viciously as they could, and the only thing limiting their actions was what they wanted to keep and what they had to do damage with.


It's not me putting the absolutist position that ruthlessness is the only route to power. Right from the beginning, I have conceded that ruthlessness has its place and its time, but that it is just one approach among many and can be disastrous. As the only guiding factor in a bid for power, in the absence of some heridatary privelege to empower it, ruthlessness is a very poor strategy for a young person. It leads to jail, if you're lucky.

Let me make one thing very clear to you. Ruthlessness does not guarantee power. But taking, much less holding, power requires ruthlessness. Because if you do not have that ruthlessness, someone else who has will snatch it away.


What nonsense. The fruits of peace are driven by the work of farmers in their fields, by the love of parents for their children, by the sense of beauty expressed in a cosy home and a rose bed. With people all around you working for what they want, leading mostly-happy lives and avoiding conflict ... you insist that none of this would happen except to fund the war-machine.

Those are some serious tinted glasses you're wearing. You keep thinking micro scale. Yes, none of that would have happened without being tied to the war-machine one way or another. Masonry and iron working didn't just come about because people thought to make pretty things with it. They saw the strength of the materials and what do you think were the first things they made with them?

Stone spears, walls, buildings. Life is harsh, and hairless monkeys like humans are at a great disadvantage to a lot of predators with their bare hands. First it was tools against other predators. Then it was against other humans who would be predators. That has been the rule of major human development from the beginning. The fruits of peace came about from preparing for war.


You misuse the saying "If you want peace, prepare for war" when you assert that "preparing for war" -- national defence -- means actually going to war. The idea is, if you can make war disastrous for a rival, you never need to fight them, and can have peace instead of war.

The Soviet Union's collapse shows the utter tripe that is your statement. And even then, there is always someone stronger. History is littered with the corpses of nations who all thought they were stronger than the rest, stagnated, and died for thinking that.


What people do in peace is plainly founded in their personal interest (including supporting their country's armed forces) and to say it serves no end other than to prepare for a war that almost every one of them will find tragic and horrible ... words fail me.


What most people do in peace is their business, they might not prepare for war even, but if the ones at the top do not prepare for war, then they are simply dooming themselves. No nation exists which does not prepare for war (whether they start it or not) at all times and there is a good reason for that. Those who didn't all died.


To the second sentence: conflict, peaceful conflict like debating, or economic conflict like striking for your union or trying to beat out a colleague for a promotion, is worlds away from the destructive conflict of war. In war, even the winner suffers -- in peaceful conflict (competition) it is possible for both sides to benefit.

I see you cherry picked only the least harmful and least influencing, thereby least significant, of non-violent conflict. How unsurprising. Let's go with a few that are quite harmful then. Economic conflict. Currency speculation. Dumping practices. All of them cause harm to quite a few people, cause many to lose jobs, even famine in some cases. Or how about religious conflict of the non-violent sort? Why, we get things like the death penalty for any number of things termed "deviant". Far more influential and far reaching than your sad little examples of non-violent conflict.


Nor is conflict central to existence.

If you wish to continue existence, yes, conflict is central to existence.


"My idea" was a reductio ad absurdum of your thesis that power rests only with the ruthless. It goes like this: if only ruthlessness (use of lethal force to achieve even small gains for the ruthless person) gains power, then among the ruthless would be the ultimate winners, and their strategy would always be to shoot first. The "ruthless capitalist" would not survive, nor the warlord. Only the individual killer, and only so many of them that they would never meet another.

If anything, this demonstrates your flawed understanding of what ruthlessness is. You keep insisting that ruthlessness only lies in shooting people. It doesn't.

For example, it is a ruthless goal of profit that ensures cutting edge medicines for endemic diseases are priced high and kept proprietary. It is the same ruthless goal of profit and low costs that sends experimental medicines with potentially lethal side effects to poor people in some backwards country in order to test their effectiveness, while simply writing them off if they die.

It is again ruthlessness that sends shipments of weapons and funds to certain warlords in various countries around the world in order to ensure that the precious resources from there are kept flowing to the sponsors.

It was ruthlessness that decided that in order to prevent the influence of one ideology, people would be armed, trained, and let loose among their country in order to maximize havoc, and once they had served their purpose, ignored.

It is ruthlessness when you decide that someone who has faithfully served you for years is no longer worth keeping contact with, and you offer that person up as a scapegoat to your detractors.

You believe that it is possible to accumulate and keep power without being ruthless. The world demonstrates how impossible that is.


The destruction is the only constant. Punitive strikes are war, but they take no loot -- in fact, they cost the punisher at least the price of the bombs they drop.

They take something. The will of the one being struck to resist.


Some wars are even more senseless. Iran and Iraq fought for ten years, and neither side ever stood a chance of recouping their losses, even with oil under the contested land.

Both hoped to win. Obviously neither did. Nobody goes to war at its outset expecting to lose.


But prisoners are often taken anyway, though feeding them and guarding them is generally more effort than can be made up as "resources" (forced labour.)

So? Taking prisoners in times of war are not mandatory.


You brought up Stalin, not me. A large part of why the Soviet Union did so poorly against Germany at first was exactly Stalin's purges. His "ruthlessness" may have protected the rule of Communism -- more likely it was to protect his own position from military coup -- but it certainly did not serve the interests of the country. It weakened the Red Army at just the wrong time.

Stalins brutal military industrialization of the Soviet Union helped offset the purging of the officer corps. And it was his same ruthlessness that made sure vital war materials were being produced at record rates. He was a tyrant, but his wartime tyranny did what it was supposed to do. Keep the Soviet Union alive.


Right. That's why crime prospers so well.


You don't see crime, especially organized crime, going away do you? Human trafficking, drugs, money laundering, arms smuggling, piracy. It's a multi-million dollar industry with huge profits, and whatever pitiful attempts there are at stopping it, it's just not going to stop people from joining up, lured by easy money.


The pitiful attempts of the vast majority to protect themselves with law enforcement doesn't work at all, does it? It's the murderers and rapists who run everything, and the rest of us are rotting in jail.


Because there's no other sort of criminal? Is that the sort of deflection you're resorting to now?


An ivory tower is a theory which can't be tested. Not a luxurious palace, as you seem to be using the term. Anyway ...

America is mostly an ivory tower, and most of its citizenry don't seem to give a hoot who in the third world suffers so long as they get them to keep providing cheap goods and fuel. The same is true of Russia, Europe, or any other nation that has risen to the top of the heap today.


You're wrong. The rule of law within one country, is an attempt to codify the personal sense of justice and apply it universally, not just to some hypothetical powerful elite who want protection.

Which is why you have national leaders being put behind bars for illegally jailing people, or having their citizenry killed, or any number of injustices that they've committed using the tools of their position.

Oh wait, they're not.


It won't surprise you that I'm in favour of the latter, just as I'm in favour of well-funded and effective law enforcement over citizens enforcing their own conception of justice with their own gun.

Then you'll have to keep on being disappointed. No one with the resources and authority to make such a thing possible would never consent to it unless they were in charge of it.


It just becomes a more complicated form of justice. It needs to be abstracted into law.
And the injustice of a vast number against some other vast number, the conflict of nations, needs to be dealt with by the same means: the peaceable majority forming and enforcing laws to protect all nations from military aggression.

And that enforcement is why you'll never do away with the injustice. No human authority with that sort of power would find itself capable of resisting the temptation to abuse others for its own end.


The United States or Russia, for instance, can and do invade other countries, but they are restricted from entirely subjugating them, turning their people into slaves and stealing all their resources -- the nearest they come to that is setting up puppet governments and maintaining military dominance.

Because it's cheaper and less of a headache to set up puppet governments than it is to create and manage another Empire. And if the puppet government collapses, you don't lose as much compared to losing a colony. Ruthlessness doesn't preclude good practical sense.


If that's where your argument lies, you have changed it. I say that yes, ruthlessness can prosper ... and you claim that was your argument. Not so. Your claim was that only ruthlessness prospers.

If you think that means I said that ruthlessness guarantees prosperity, then you're wrong. Ruthlessness is required to prosper, but ruthlessness alone it does not guarantee it.


That without ruthlessness, visiting grief on others to force their compliance, no-one has power.

Grief, or fear, or merely the threat of force.


You extended it, even, into the claim that it is always easier to bash your neighbour over the head and take their food (and women? What century are you living in??) than it is to grow food or trade some other valuable thing for it in a more just way.

How interesting that you took my example of prehistoric man and applied it to modern man.

How interesting to also note that you mentioned puppet states, but ignore their reality in your argument a paragraph later.


If law does not protect the poor from being cheated and forced to accept a bad bargain by threat of violence ... then let's look at extending law to cross national boundaries, since the oppressors largely use their economic power across national boundaries. Not just give in to such injustice! Not just say "that's how its always been." Particularly, when that is NOT how it always is.


Well then, how about you go and make that possible? Maybe you will build an almighty law-enforcing godlike being. Or perhaps make yourself an AI with such an objective and give it a legion of unstoppable killing machines?

It's all well and fine to talk about making justice universal and all that, but reality simply do not make it likely in any shape or form.


Why, wherever there is conflict but not war. The many separatist movements around the world, which did not win all their claims -- a sovereign nation -- but settle for a lesser degree of regional autonomy. Northern Ireland would be an example.

The separatist movement in Northern Ireland was a violent one, limited only by what they had on hand.


Or the freeing of slaves throughout the British Empire, and the contemporaneous European empires. Complete justice is impossible, you can't undo a crime. Compensation would be juster than simple emancipation -- yet emancipation sufficed. There is still ill-will, ex-slaves in a lot of cases are still disadvantaged within their current nations ... but it's not open war.

And how is this "keeping a lid on things"?


Or you could as well say, ruthlessness meets reality.


And the reality of it shows that even when neither side can openly oppose the other in direct conflict, it doesn't stop them from finding ways and means of gaining the upper hand, be it through strengthening themselves, undermining their opponent, or both. A lot of people die in this "peace". There is historical precedent for this.


Yep, that's the bottom line of your view of the primacy of ruthlessness. "Mankind sucks and if they all die, no great loss." Not a very useful conclusion I think.

It isn't a loss. I attach no special value to human life if human life cannot learn to value its own.


"Mass extinction" means just that: extinction of species. Lots of them. You misuse the term.

Granted. Massive destruction is much more suitable.


It is probably true that the Great War would have happened anyway without the assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand. But what a glowing example of the failure of ruthlessness. Did it bring about anarchy? Fuck no, it brought about a war between (largely) conscripts, an extremity of the oppression of individuals to serve the needs of a government.

Now show me how good feelings and virtuousness would have prevented the Great War.

I've said it before. Ruthlessness does not guarantee power, but power requires ruthlessness.


And when that war was over, were the winners proud of themselves? No. They took reparations, certainly, but these could never be enough to make the war worthwhile. Their attitude was "fuck, what a disaster, what can we do to keep it from happening again?" The result was the League of Nations, which failed in its intention to prevent future wars -- but the intention wouldn't even be there without a sense of justice, a sense that war is a bad thing to be avoided even by the eventual winners.

Sense of justice? Or sense of simply not wanting to repeat a war with no real gains? You attribute noble ideas in your attempt to cover practical concerns. Dressing them up does not change their real motivations.


And once more to Gaza. There might not be much loot there, but by your rationale of war ("it's to get their stuff off them") Israel should take the land and kill the people. They don't. Explain that by your theory.

Too costly in men, materials and political capital. The first two were demonstrated rather clearly when Israel went to Lebanon. The occasional punitive air and artillery strikes guarantees the party in power a lot of support in election times while minimizing actual losses, as opposed to completely wiping out the Palestinians, which will remove any easy to defeat bogeymen for the next elections to look strong against.


Circular argument. They "rise to the top" because their choices led to them getting to the top. Having defined ruthlessness as the route to power, you now turn around and say that whatever leads to power is ruthlessness.

Show me a non-ruthless way of rising to power then, why don't you? Oh, and keeping it too. And mind, ruthlessness doesn't necessarily mean you shot everyone on your way to the top.


Or simply didn't want to rule others to begin with.

Then they would never rule others, which does absolutely nothing to detract my statement that power lies in the hands of the ruthless. Happiness has absolutely nothing to do with it.


What a hopeless prospect. Why, why, would you close your eyes to the happiness of people all around you who oppress no-one, don't need power over others to get by?

Because the ones in power are quite capable of oppressing all the unassuming sheep unopposed. If anything, you are closing your eyes to the ones who do do the oppressing, who need the power to do so, and actually get the power.


It was just a digression on the peculiarity of "human nature" as an objective truth. Individually, what we believe human nature to be is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If that is the case, you should be able to provide me an example that quite neatly is outside the bounds I described.


Their bombs and kidnappings played a part, demanding attention to their cause. But the terrorism did not win them Israel. It was the ruthlessness of the Nazis, really, which got for the Jews a reaction of generosity from the great powers, and got them their state.

And you think that if they had quietly sat down and played rugs, they would have gotten Israel nevertheless? History, and countries, aren't kind to rugs. But try ignoring that, why don't you.


I should have put a smiley on that. But if you will take it seriously, then yes: the terrorist is the ideal example of ruthlessness without power, since they try to gain power by causing fear. Fear is a tiny fraction of submission, which is what ruthlessness WITH power seeks.

Are you seriously trying to say that ruthlessness is an instant magic empowerment tool? Seriously?

What part of "way to power" did you not get? "Way to", not "Instant gratification".

THAT was a Massive post.

THAT was a Massive post.

Aye. that is was. As certain people on the internet would say "tl;dr".

I think that There's a rule against that here...

Is democratic state short for "let people attack with rockets, suicide bombers, guns, and rocks and stand by and take it"? Just curious.
Democratic states don't use human shields, actively ignore their own Supreme Court decisions or use "violent" interrogations. These are activities we would normally associate with... well, people like Hamas and their ilk.

Note: I am not defending either side. It just seems silly to me to say, "Well, Israel is a democracy, they should accept this."

I don't think anyone is seriously touting that the Israeli government does nothing. What they should be doing is taking action like a democratic state. What the Israeli government is actively doing now, is not what democratic states do.

Britain didn't level Belfast to the ground when the IRA set off bombs continuously or almost assassinated the Prime Minister.

What should Israel do, then?

What should Israel do, then?

I'm pretty sure "not be dicks" is a valid thing to do.

Define Dick.

A dick is someone who, when in a position of power in a Jewish state, uses the word 'shoah' -- a Hebrew word reserved for the Jewish Holocaust -- to describe what Israel will do to the Palestinians. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1)

A dick is a government that blockades a small territory, depriving it of food, water, and medicine even after it brokers a truce with the group fighting back.

A dick is someone in government who looks at five casualties and decides that the proper way to respond to such an attack is to bomb a small strip of land as children walk home from school.

A dick is someone in a position of power in a navy who decides that it's reasonable to ram a vessel holding tons of medical supplies 70 miles outside of the Gazan coast.

DTI.

A dick is someone who, when in a position of power in a Jewish state, uses the word 'shoah' -- a Hebrew word reserved for the Jewish Holocaust -- to describe what Israel will do to the Palestinians. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1)

A dick is a government that blockades a small territory, depriving it of food, water, and medicine even after it brokers a truce with the group fighting back.

A dick is someone in government who looks at five casualties and decides that the proper way to respond to such an attack is to bomb a small strip of land as children walk home from school.

A dick is someone in a position of power in a navy who decides that it's reasonable to ram a vessel holding tons of medical supplies 70 miles outside of the Gazan coast.

DTI.

Yeah. It's a shame that the West would celebrate a Palestinian holocaust and generally condones what the Israeli government and the Kahanist settlers do to them.

Bah...

A dick is someone who, when in a position of power in a Jewish state, uses the word 'shoah' -- a Hebrew word reserved for the Jewish Holocaust -- to describe what Israel will do to the Palestinians. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1)

A dick is a government that blockades a small territory, depriving it of food, water, and medicine even after it brokers a truce with the group fighting back.

A dick is someone in government who looks at five casualties and decides that the proper way to respond to such an attack is to bomb a small strip of land as children walk home from school.

A dick is someone in a position of power in a navy who decides that it's reasonable to ram a vessel holding tons of medical supplies 70 miles outside of the Gazan coast.

DTI.

Don't mock me, I know hebrew.

Don't mock me, I know hebrew.

So fucking what? A lot of people don't.

So fucking what? A lot of people don't.

Chill... You can't stop the violence by being angry on the intrawebs.

Don't patronize me.

A dick is someone who, when in a position of power in a Jewish state, uses the word 'shoah' -- a Hebrew word reserved for the Jewish Holocaust -- to describe what Israel will do to the Palestinians. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1)
Iirc, this raised all kinds of hell, didn't it?

You know, when I was a kid, when my friends and I had a disagreement, we'd fist fight each other until we were tired out, or one of us conceded.

Maybe we should let Israel and Palestine do the same thing, just let them fight it out until either one concede, one cease to exist, or they both get tired of it.

Either way it's going to keep going on short of a Nuclear attack on both countries.

You know, when I was a kid, when my friends and I had a disagreement, we'd fist fight each other until we were tired out, or one of us conceded.

Maybe we should let Israel and Palestine do the same thing, just let them fight it out until either one concede, one cease to exist, or they both get tired of it.


If you could strip away their weapons and put them all in a boxing ring, I'd be all for it.

You see, it's not so much about fighting until one side gets tired out. It could easily apply if there was a constant front line with the two sides going at it hammer and tongs at full bore.

But that isn't the case. What we get here is a slow simmer with new generations being raised up on hate, but lacking the actual experience of front line combat. What this means is that short of sterilizing the populace, each new generation will easily jump into the butchery with a gusto, and when they die or finally come to their senses, a new batch of idiots are ready to replace them.


Either way it's going to keep going on short of a Nuclear attack on both countries.

Which is why the best way to get them to stop would be to make sure both sides have enough nuclear weapons and delivery methods to ensure that the moment they're touched off, there will be nobody left. One way or another, they'd stop.

You know, when I was a kid, when my friends and I had a disagreement, we'd fist fight each other until we were tired out, or one of us conceded.

Maybe we should let Israel and Palestine do the same thing, just let them fight it out until either one concede, one cease to exist, or they both get tired of it.

Either way it's going to keep going on short of a Nuclear attack on both countries.

When you were a kid, did you move into your friend's house and, when he complained, did you punch him in the face?

Then when he punched you back, did you get a pair of brass knuckles from your dad and proceed to beat the shit out of him? And when his parents went to your parents and the rest of the neighborhood, did your dad tell everyone to fuck off and that what you were doing was fine?

Then later, did you keep your friend from eating and keep people from knowing about his condition? Did you, when he angrily but because of his weakened state harmlessly punched you for starving him and treating him like complete shit, proceed to take your brass knuckles and beat the shit out of him again?

Because if so, Israel and Palestine are already doing the same thing. However, I'm going to assume that you didn't and wonder why on earth you thought the idea of two kids squabbling was at all an appropriate allegory for the I/P conflict.

How long have they been fighting now? like 40-50 years?

Do these bombings really come as a suprise?
40-50 centuries more like.

Only surprise is that they don't occur more regularly and that Israel hasn't yet decided to give up all pretense at wanting peaceful co-existence and just nuke the place (or run their tanks from one end to the other and back again repeatedly til nothing moves). It's not like they wouldn't have support for this. I know Hotwife would approve.

40-50 centuries more like.

Only surprise is that they don't occur more regularly and that Israel hasn't yet decided to give up all pretense at wanting peaceful co-existence and just nuke the place (or run their tanks from one end to the other and back again repeatedly til nothing moves). It's not like they wouldn't have support for this. I know Hotwife would approve.

Like I said, the West would cheer an outright Palestinian annihilation, and maybe even call it a "Victory in the War on Terror".

40-50 centuries more like.

Only surprise is that they don't occur more regularly and that Israel hasn't yet decided to give up all pretense at wanting peaceful co-existence and just nuke the place (or run their tanks from one end to the other and back again repeatedly til nothing moves). It's not like they wouldn't have support for this. I know Hotwife would approve.

Acclimatization. First they get you used to the idea of killing Palestinians as business as usual. Then they slowly ramp it up until you hear about peace in Palestine and you go "Well it's about time" but what you don't know is that there aren't any more Palestinians left.

Or maybe it's the realpolitik reason in that the Palestinians make convenient bogeymen to scare the voting populace with while presenting an easy to beat enemy come election time. What's a handful of dead voters and a few thousand dollars worth of property damage when it means you can stymie those pesky corruption investigations and ensure your re-election with a couple dozen bombs on the heads of people who don't matter.

The problem rests in the hands of Zionists, who continue to push for the extermination of the Palestinians, and all Arabs.

:rolleyes: Keep on dreaming that Zionists are the innocents ones. IIRC, they came and stole land which was not theirs, which caused this whole mess in the first place. Let's not forget that! Let's not forget the ghettos they have created out of Gaza, refusing to allows basic needs and supplies in there. But those poor,poor innocent Israelis are never to blame. After all, think about the Holocaust, or what ever the general emotional argument is being tossed around.

Here's the problem laid out for you Zilam and others to consider, read on carefully and consider your response intelligently:

About 2000 years ago in ancient Judea, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate under the Emperor Tiberius had sacked Jerusalem (again) he became tired of the unruly Jews who refused to accept the Roman occupation. Judea’s natives were Arabs & Jews, in particular Semites. The Jews are referred to as Israelites, the word Israel means sons of Jacob (the 12 tribes). The remaining Arabs went with the flow and so not being as much of a burden to the Roman occupiers tended to be left alone. It was at this point in history that the Jews were either slaughtered or forcibly moved throughout the Roman Empire into lands that they had no ancestral past.

In AD 135, after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt, the second major Jewish revolt against Rome, the Emperor Hadrian wanted to blot out the name of the Roman "Provincia Judaea" and so renamed it "Provincia Syria Palaestina", the Latin version of the Greek name and the first use of the name as an administrative unit. The name "Provincia Syria Palaestina" was later shortened to Palaestina, from which the modern, anglicized "Palestine" is derived.

The Philistines invaded and conquered from the coast. The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.
Intermingled with the indigenous Arabs, these would be your modern day Palestinians.

The Jewish people, through each generation proclaimed that they will one day return to “The Promised Land” – whatever the name, they are referring to Judea.

About 800 years later we have the birth of Islam and so gradually in this area the populous converted to Islam.

Still, the displaced Jews are having to survive in places as far a field as Russia etc.. and still promising themselves that they will return.

Over the last 200 years they have been more politically motivated in seeing that dream through. Bizarrely in 1908 under the British Empire they were offered Uganda to be their country. They declined.

Wherever they have settled (had to settle) they have endured not being wanted.

It could be argued that after the second world war they had more determination than ever to return to the home of their ancestors.

In 1948 one year after the creation of Pakistan, The State of Israel was created.

I might add at this point, that if we agree in removing the State of Israel we should only be fair and remove the State of Pakistan as well. I do not agree in the removal of either.

People often do not know their own history never mind others and so generations of Palestinians have little idea why this people from other countries want and got “their” country.

What is certain to me is that both of these people have a home here and a valid past but the political handling of these affairs has been a disaster.

The Jews are afraid and their own past gives them just cause to be so.
The Palestinians feel aggrieved because by many Arabs they have been treated as 3rd class people and aren’t “proper” Arabs. They have none the less been there long enough to have a right to also calling the land their own.

Zilam says:

Keep on dreaming that Zionists are the innocents ones.
IIRC, they came and stole land which was not theirs, which caused this whole mess in the first place.
Let's not forget that! Let's not forget the ghettos they have created out of Gaza, refusing to allows basic needs and supplies in there.

Under no definition have the Jews “stolen” the Land. For the record, not that it helps much, but the UN voted 33 for, 13 against and 9 abstained.

We are well aware of the tension between the Israelis and Palestinians and thus the Israeli blockades preventing essential supplies going into Gaza. But Gaza also borders Egypt. Why is this border crossing not permitting essential supplies?

The Holocaust is still a recent event Zilam. If you found that you once had a large family, perhaps you learnt what wonderful and kind people your Grandparents were but they were tortured and killed by another group and had your uncle not been tossed alive into a pit of bodies and buried alive when he was a year old, you might to have a lump in your throat. The madness of human cruelty may even make you shed a tear how people could behave like this.
Well this is the private thoughts that many Jews live with today. Spare a thought for that the next time you toss out comments like:
“But those poor,poor innocent Israelis are never to blame.
After all, think about the Holocaust, or what ever the general emotional argument is being tossed around.” – Zilam

A historical past such as this in my eyes still does not excuse the Israelis from cruel actions to others – I’m sure many Israelis would agree, sadly not all.
But no one should compare the Israelis with Nazis, unless of course your mad in which case I doesn’t matter what you say. You didn’t do that Zilam but I have heard it said by others.

To close.

To be able to take a side in this debate is to not understand the problem.
If there is a solution it would no doubt involve a State of Palestine and a State of Israel side by side and with full international economic support, bridge these two states with an infrastructure that might even be the envy of the world.

Peace be with you brother

If anyone feels like passing this around to help others begin to get a clearer understanding it wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

The problem rests in the hands of Zionists, who continue to push for the extermination of the Palestinians, and all Arabs.


No they don't.

In 1967 the combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Lebanon were greater than Israel. Their combined public decree under Egypt's lead was to "drive the Jews into the sea" - this is public record. They lined there armies up along the borders and prepared to invade. The Israeli air force followed by their at the time smaller army launched a preemptive strike and secured Gaza, West Bank and Golan heights. The positions that these neighboring Arab states had held.
After this 6 day war the Israelis secured vast amounts of help from the USA.

Egypt, Syria, Lebanon... what were you thinking?

That was a public decree of genocide. If Israel wanted to kill all the Palestinians why haven't they? They have Air superiority, more tanks, more bullets.

Let go of your hate and help us peaceful bothers work for a solution to protect our Palestinian brothers and Israelis alike.

Egypt, Syria, Lebanon... what were you thinking?


Just a shot in the dark but, I'd imagine they were super pissed off at having a bunch of Israelis in the middle of them.

Wild guess on my part though. ;)

Just a shot in the dark but, I'd imagine they were super pissed off at having a bunch of Israelis in the middle of them.

Wild guess on my part though. ;)

Accurate. It's quite a threat to Islam isn't it.

I'm really looking for more comments on my previous post - sorry it's a long one but what do you think if you have time to read it

Accurate. It's quite a threat to Islam isn't it.
None of the countries that invaded were democracies - Islam/Judaism really had nothing to do with it. Picking on "the Jews" is a handy distraction for domestic turmoil in authoritarian Middle Eastern states - still happens to this very day. Much like today, the Israeli government picks on the Palestinians whenever an election comes near. It's using politics as a weapon against neighbours, to distract your own population from their troubles.

I'm really looking for more comments on my previous post - sorry it's a long one but what do you think if you have time to read it
I don't believe in the justification that "My ancestors were from here 2,000 years ago, therefore it's my land now. Get out". Legally buy the land? Fine.

But there's far and away enough evidence that shows still to this day, that a lot of land grabbing continues. One only has to look at the path of the Wall, or illegal settlements, or occupations by settlers that the Courts declare illegal, but rarely anyone physically does anything.

If there is a solution it would no doubt involve a State of Palestine and a State of Israel side by side and with full international economic support, bridge these two states with an infrastructure that might even be the envy of the world.
The infrastructure is an interesting point. Who is going to repair the Gazan infrastructure? Who will foot the bill?

The two-state and one-state solutions are both flawed. On one hand, we're talking about treating the Palestinians as separate and distinct from the state of Israel, which is, to be blunt, tremendously injust. The people of Palestine are being evicted from their homes for the sake of religious purity, and it is crazy to think that the right thing to do is to say "okay, we'll allow you to make a new home". On the other, how can we legitimately encourage them to return to be oppressed by an establishment that treats them as second-class citizens?

The problem, as I see it, is that Israel cannot be allowed to be a Jewish homeland while there are Muslims with a legitimate claim to citizenship. Similarly, however, Jewish people also have a right to claim citizenship there, and it is also injust to allow it to be governed by an Islamic regime.

The only long-term solution is that of the single, secular state. This may require external administration; however, if kids can't learn to share then they need to be taught. Hopefully, they will be able to keep their toys without teacher having to step in and take them away.

The Philistines invaded and conquered from the coast. The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.
Intermingled with the indigenous Arabs, these would be your modern day Palestinians.


Dear o dear......


Results of a DNA study by geneticist Ariella Oppenheim in 2000 matched historical accounts that Arab Israelis and Palestinians,[70][71] together as the one same population, represent modern "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times", albeit religiously Christianized and later largely Islamized, then both ultimately becoming culturally Arabized.[72] Referring to those of the Muslim faith more specifically, it reaffirmed that Palestinian "Muslim Arabs are descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel, Sinai and part of Jordan." Geneticist Michael Hammer praised "the study for 'focusing in detail on the Jewish and Palestinian populations.'" [73] The study proposes that:

...More than 70% of Jewish men and half of the Arab men whose DNA was studied inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the region within the last few thousand years...found that the Y chromosome in Middle Eastern Arabs was almost indistinguishable from that of Jews.[74]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people

Thoughts?

None of the countries that invaded were democracies - Islam/Judaism really had nothing to do with it. Picking on "the Jews" is a handy distraction for domestic turmoil in authoritarian Middle Eastern states - still happens to this very day. Much like today, the Israeli government picks on the Palestinians whenever an election comes near. It's using politics as a weapon against neighbours, to distract your own population from their troubles.


I don't believe in the justification that "My ancestors were from here 2,000 years ago, therefore it's my land now. Get out". Legally buy the land? Fine.

But there's far and away enough evidence that shows still to this day, that a lot of land grabbing continues. One only has to look at the path of the Wall, or illegal settlements, or occupations by settlers that the Courts declare illegal, but rarely anyone physically does anything.


The infrastructure is an interesting point. Who is going to repair the Gazan infrastructure? Who will foot the bill?

On your first point I agree, as I said within post 573
A historical past such as this in my eyes still does not excuse the Israelis from cruel actions to others

On your second point are you suggesting that we should put a shelf life on peoples beliefs. They have been away for 2000 years because they have not had the means to return. They had no political power and lacked the means to do it before now. That said, there are some who never left and have indeed been there these last 2000 years, though not many granted.
As I also said it's how the transition has been handled politically that's been the real mess. Like it or not, the UN agreement has made it legal.
The legal way to approach this ruling is to challenge this rule. Not that you'd get far I suspect.
Shall we remove the state of Israel? okay but let's get rid of Pakistan to.
Where do you think the Jews should return to. Within modern history most countries were glad to be rid of them... so where should they go?

You haven't addressed why the border of Gaza and Egypt hasn't allowed a supply line of essentials. Can you address this please?

Who's going to repair the infrastructure? On the basis of peace, we all should. It would be far cheaper than the endless funding of war for all of us.

As I said:
Intermingled with the indigenous Arabs.

This would account for shared DNA

Yeah. It's a shame that the West would celebrate a Palestinian holocaust and generally condones what the Israeli government and the Kahanist settlers do to them.

Did you not hear the reports that Hamas continually fired rockets at Israel DURING A "CEASE FIRE"? Did you not read reports that Hamas deliberately hides its weapons stores in mosques and in civilian homes and deliberately uses civilians INCLUDING CHILDREN as human shields for its terrorists?

I'd have no trouble with Israel continuing to attack until the last of the terrorists was wiped out.

Did you not hear the reports that Hamas continually fired rockets at Israel DURING A "CEASE FIRE"? Did you not read reports that Hamas deliberately hides its weapons stores in mosques and in civilian homes and deliberately uses civilians INCLUDING CHILDREN as human shields for its terrorists?

I'd have no trouble with Israel continuing to attack until the last of the terrorists was wiped out.

Check out this sweet video of those terrorists Ham-ass getting the shit bombed out of them by Israel

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-174766

oh wait it's just men women and children in an open market, dti

On your second point are you suggesting that we should put a shelf life on peoples beliefs. They have been away for 2000 years because they have not had the means to return.
No, I'm sorry - "they" have not been away for 2000 years. Their ancestors were there. The inhabitants then and the inhabitants now are not the same. Religion is not a justifiable linkage between your ancestors ownership and your claim to ownership.

As I also said it's how the transition has been handled politically that's been the real mess. Like it or not, the UN agreement has made it legal.
I am well aware the United Nations made a State legal. What State is the question? Did the UN authorise settler expansion outside of the State's borders and the establishment of military outposts within these settlements? No.

The legal way to approach this ruling is to challenge this rule. Not that you'd get far I suspect.
Of course not. The Israeli Government disregards it's own Supreme Court rulings, why would you assume it bothers to listen to international law.

Shall we remove the state of Israel? okay but let's get rid of Pakistan to.
Don't be silly. I've never claimed that. I've always stated that every people has the right to self determination. That goes for the Israelis, and the Palestinians.

You haven't addressed why the border of Gaza and Egypt hasn't allowed a supply line of essentials. Can you address this please?
Egypt had temporarily reopened the border for humanitarian reasons.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050359.html

Egypt has opened its long-sealed border with Gaza to allow in the wounded for medical treatment

The Egyptians don't really recognise Hamas as the legitimate government, as it seized Gaza from the PA by force. Mubarak says it will reopen when control is given back to Abbas.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-12-30-voa39.cfm

Who's going to repair the infrastructure? On the basis of peace, we all should. It would be far cheaper than the endless funding of war for all of us.
I said who will. Not who should.
Edit: Although I do admire your optimistic attitude to the situation.

Did you not hear the reports that Hamas continually fired rockets at Israel DURING A "CEASE FIRE"?
Did you not read that the IDF made raids into Gaza, and killed people, also breaking the cease fire? Neither side stuck to it.

Did you not read reports that Hamas deliberately hides its weapons stores in mosques and in civilian homes
I'd love to read independently verified reports of that. But I can't. Why? Because the Israeli government refuses to allow international journalists into Gaza, in direct contradiction of the Israeli Supreme Court ruling.

and deliberately uses civilians INCLUDING CHILDREN as human shields for its terrorists?
*shrug*
The IDF uses civilians as human shields too.

I'd have no trouble with Israel continuing to attack until the last of the terrorists was wiped out.
You'll probably be in for a loooooooooooong wait ;)

Like I said, the West would cheer an outright Palestinian annihilation, and maybe even call it a "Victory in the War on Terror".
Only some in the West.

Did you not read that the IDF made raids into Gaza, and ki

Yes. But I doubt that over the same time period, the IDF fired 3000 missiles at Gaza.

Hamas also made it quite clear that they are having none of the cease fire (especially towards the end, where they fired 200 rockets in one week). They also refuse to negotiate with Israel (gee, that makes things difficult from a diplomatic perspective), and this week, refuse to include "stop firing rockets at Israel" as any condition for a cease fire.

In essence, they want a cease fire to apply only to Israel, which they have sworn to destroy.

I think it's quite obvious that Israel is showing some restraint - if they had meant to kill civilians wholesale (as Hamas wishes to do), everyone in Gaza would already be dead or wounded. Considering the total population of Gaza, the casualty rate is remarkably low.

But let's not hesistate to criticize Israel for showing some forbearance, and let's never, ever criticize Hamas, whose only goal is to kill every Israeli man, woman, and child.

Yes.
Thank you.

At least you acknowledge that both sides are as guilty as each other for breaking the cease fire.

But I doubt that over the same time period, the IDF fired 3000 missiles at Gaza.
"I broke it a little" vs "I broke it more than the other guy" - so? They both still broke it.


I think it's quite obvious that Israel is showing some restraint - if they had meant to kill civilians wholesale (as Hamas wishes to do), everyone in Gaza would already be dead or wounded. Considering the total population of Gaza, the casualty rate is remarkably low.
:rolleyes:

But let's not hesistate to criticize Israel for showing some forbearance, and let's never, ever criticize Hamas, whose only goal is to kill every Israeli man, woman, and child.
I will criticise the policies and actions of a State that declares itself to be a democracy, but does not act the way democratic states act. I didn't feel it necessary to qualify a critical post of Israeli government actions, with a "oh and Hamas are bad too". Of course I condemn rocket attacks on civilian areas, or suicide bombings on civilian areas.

It's not that we're not criticizing Hamas. Their hands are bloodied, too.

But Israel has killed over 500 people, many of whom are civilians, in response to 5 Israeli deaths. Five. Not fifty dead Israelis, not five hundred dead Israelis, five.

If you were locked in a closet in your house after other people forcefully moved in and shoved you in there, wouldn't you be a little pissed off? Wouldn't you be even more pissed off when they stopped allowing people to feed you? Yeah, you fucking would, and you would do whatever you could to strike back at the people who did it.

But let's not hesistate to criticize Israel for showing some forbearance, and let's never, ever criticize Hamas, whose only goal is to kill every Israeli man, woman, and child.
Can't we simply criticise both sides for being the bloody-handed morons that they both are?

It's not that we're not criticizing Hamas. Their hands are bloodied, too.

But Israel has killed over 500 people, many of whom are civilians, in response to 5 Israeli deaths. Five. Not fifty dead Israelis, not five hundred dead Israelis, five.

If you were locked in a closet in your house after other people forcefully moved in and shoved you in there, wouldn't you be a little pissed off? Wouldn't you be even more pissed off when they stopped allowing people to feed you? Yeah, you fucking would, and you would do whatever you could to strike back at the people who did it.

I doubt that most of the 500 are civilians. And any civilians located near any valid military target (there are some great videos online now of mosques that unfortunately were being used by Hamas as weapons storage facilities - the massive secondary explosions are the Hamas weapons blowing up) are victims of Hamas, not Israel, by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

I believe I stated that some had never left.

Please reread post 573 and reply when you've read it all top to bottom.

To those that are trying to justify Israeli attacks because Hamas did this and that and to those who try to show examples of what Israelis are doing, what are you trying to prove. All you are doing is bickering in the same way they are and they've been doing it a lot longer than you - ask them where's it getting them.

Stop looking for justifications, stop trying to take sides.
Do read their history

Take sides and you're just as screwed as they are.

The future is not yet written.

I will criticise the policies and actions of a State that declares itself to be a democracy, but does not act the way democratic states act. I didn't feel it necessary to qualify a critical post of Israeli government actions, with a "oh and Hamas are bad too". Of course I condemn rocket attacks on civilian areas, or suicide bombings on civilian areas.

What does being a democracy have to do with bombing an external threat? What Israel should be criticized for is ignoring their own laws and precedents and not following through on other decrees and promises that were obtained in a legal and obligating fashion. Those are the things that speak poorly of "democracy," not how the government responds to a threat from another state-level entity, proportionately or not.

To put it another way, Israel's government could be modeled on the fucking Saudis and it wouldn't make the disproportionality of their reprisal attacks any more acceptable, but it would add a layer of unacceptability to their internal politics.

I will criticise the policies and actions of a State that declares itself to be a democracy, but does not act the way democratic states act.

Eeehmm.. how DO democratic states act and why is misbehaving towards disliked foreigners and/or minorities undemocratic ?

What does being a democracy have to do with bombing an external threat?
It's the wholly disproportionate manner and methodology that is in question here. Liberal democracies inherently try to minimise civilian casualties in the event of conflict. This is not occuring.

What Israel should be criticized for is ignoring their own laws and precedents and not following through on other decrees and promises that were obtained in a legal and obligating fashion. Those are the things that speak poorly of "democracy," not how the government responds to a threat from another state-level entity, proportionately or not.
Hamas is not a state-level entity. It is a group albeit a group with a political wing. Yet the wider population are being forced to suffer because of both sides actions.


Eeehmm.. how DO democratic states act and why is misbehaving towards disliked foreigners and/or minorities undemocratic ?

By not indiscriminately bombing in heavily civilian areas. When the IRA bombed Britain for decades, and almost assassinated the British Prime Minister and Cabinet, the response was not the leveling of Belfast or towns of republican support.

Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7811386.stm

An article on the problems surrounding "Who is a civilian in Gaza?"

By not indiscriminately bombing in heavily civilian areas. When the IRA bombed Britain for decades, and almost assassinated the British Prime Minister and Cabinet, the response was not the leveling of Belfast or towns of republican support.

Good point except not really. The IRA didn't fire rockets into Northern Ireland on anything like the same scale as what's happening in Israel, surrounding themselves with schools and hospitals as a shield. Nor did they have a policy of killing all Protestants in Northern Ireland and a desire to drive them into the sea.
They just wanted the British army and government out.
Had they behaved the same way as Hamas I suspect the British would have responded differently. The IRA were more cunning. They did not use women and children as suicide bombers either.
Peace has been brought to Ireland because secretly the British and the IRA held secret talks and unless Hamas are doing like... well, nothing will change.

Hamas is not a state-level entity. It is a group albeit a group with a political wing. Yet the wider population are being forced to suffer because of both sides actions.


If Hamas isnt the state level entity in Gaza, then who is?

If Hamas isnt the state level entity in Gaza, then who is?

The news would have us believe that Gaza is a disputed territory rather than having any kind of government enforced.

By not indiscriminately bombing in heavily civilian areas.

I see no reason why being a democracy necessitates such good behaviour.
Would be nice of course, but as far as I can see it does not.

Goodnight people. I'm making dinner.

It's not that we're not criticizing Hamas. Their hands are bloodied, too.

But Israel has killed over 500 people, many of whom are civilians, in response to 5 Israeli deaths. Five. Not fifty dead Israelis, not five hundred dead Israelis, five.

If you were locked in a closet in your house after other people forcefully moved in and shoved you in there, wouldn't you be a little pissed off? Wouldn't you be even more pissed off when they stopped allowing people to feed you? Yeah, you fucking would, and you would do whatever you could to strike back at the people who did it.

I bet you don't have a shotgun in your closet.

I bet you don't have a shotgun in your closet.

I bet you take analogies too literally.

I doubt that most of the 500 are civilians.
Estimations suggest 25%, and rising. (22% children between the ages of 0 and 17 years old)

And any civilians located near any valid military target (there are some great videos online now of mosques that unfortunately were being used by Hamas as weapons storage facilities - the massive secondary explosions are the Hamas weapons blowing up) are victims of Hamas, not Israel, by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Ah the joys of propaganda. And you swallow what they feed you; no surprise there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7809371.stm

Can't we simply criticise both sides for being the bloody-handed morons that they both are?

Agreed. There is no good side in this particular battle.

I doubt that most of the 500 are civilians. And any civilians located near any valid military target ( *snip* ) are victims of Hamas, not Israel, by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Which article of that convention?

I'm guessing you mean article 3, part (b), against the taking of hostages.

I'm not seeing any provision for killing hostages with impunity, when such are taken by the other side. That's even granting that the family members living with a Hamas member are hostages (a dubious assertion anyway.) Not even Israel calls them hostages, but "human shields" -- an emotive term with no legal meaning.

Here is the text of the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm). Show me how "civilians located near any valid military target" are victims of Hamas by this convention.

Which article of that convention?

I think article 28 would be the one you're looking for, but I'm not done reading the whole thing yet.

Well it will end faster now that a ground campaign has started - they are killing more civilians so even the US can't look the other way and now some Israelis are dieing because they invaded Gaza for spurious reasons and now the Israelis don't want their soldiers dieing. If they had just kept bombing the Palestinians, everyone would be all for it. By which I mean the US and Israeli citizens.

I think article 28 would be the one you're looking for, but I'm not done reading the whole thing yet.

: The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

That Hamas may be violating the Geneva convention thus, does not make it exclusively their fault when the "target" is bombed anyway.



No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

And I would argue that a Hamas member in their own home is NOT conducting military operations from a protected area, unless that is proven. An individual soldier is not "a legitimate military target" in the sense that a radar dish or a rocket launcher is -- and a written warning or phone call doesn't make a person something which civilians should recognize as a legitimate target of that kind.

Whether the onus to protect civilians falls on Hamas or on the IDF seems to depend largely on which is considered to control Gaza. Quite a grey area: does the clear military dominance of Israel and violation of the "sovereignty" of Gaza make it an occupied territory?

I'm curious to see if Hotwife falls back on his old favourite "the Geneva Convention doesn't apply when the other side violate it." That would be pretty funny, given that it was him who invoked it this time.

I bet you take analogies too literally.

Maybe he meant a metaphorical shotgun that represents an oppressed groups willingness to resist violently, if necessary.







No, no...let's face it, he meant a shotgun.

That Hamas may be violating the Geneva convention thus, does not make it exclusively their fault when the "target" is bombed anyway.

This is the clause that gives Israel the right to "bomb anyway" regardless. It says that a protected individual does not a protected area make.

And I would argue that a Hamas member in their own home is NOT conducting military operations from a protected area, unless that is proven.

Well, that depends on interpretation I suppose. However, if a major head-honcho (and I love that term) is conducting military business from his home - whether physically moving rockets, guns, and ammunition through, or calling in attacks, he's still conducting military business, and that nullifies the protected area.

I'll let Hotwife address the rest. I'm just pointing out what clause it is you're looking for.

This is the clause that gives Israel the right to "bomb anyway" regardless. It says that a protected individual does not a protected area make.
No it doesn't. That Article is more in line with say, what Saddam Hussein did when he moved Western civilians into his palaces (and then showed them off on tv) to specifically prevent being struck by the UN forces.

In other words, the military cannot use human shields to prevent an attack - Hamas is firing from residential areas (hardly surprising given the size and population density of the Gaza Strip) but not transporting human shields around with their launchers to prevent an air strike..... obviously unless there is evidence to the contrary :)

No it doesn't. That Article is more in line with say, what Saddam Hussein did when he moved Western civilians into his palaces (and then showed them off on tv) to specifically prevent being struck by the UN forces.

In other words, the military cannot use human shields to prevent an attack - Hamas is firing from residential areas (hardly surprising given the size and population density of the Gaza Strip) but not transporting human shields around with their launchers to prevent an air strike..... obviously unless there is evidence to the contrary :)

The article doesn't say whether the protected individuals are being moved around or not - simply defines their presence as not being a valid reason for not attacking.

Is it true that the Geneva convention says that .50 cal should only be used against vehicles, buildings and equipment? But that it also counts uniforms as "equipment"?

Has there ever been a redrafting or update of the Geneva Convention?

This is the clause that gives Israel the right to "bomb anyway" regardless. It says that a protected individual does not a protected area make.

Except it doesn't. I says that if Hamas does deliberately place protected people inside a legitimate target, that Hamas is in violation of the Geneva Convention.

There are other articles which say what you are saying but I think Hotwife should find them himself, since it was his claim.

I'll let Hotwife address the rest. I'm just pointing out what clause it is you're looking for.

No, you're spoiling my fun. :tongue:

Given a choice between actually reading the Fourth Geneva Convention he invoked, or going with the "it doesn't apply if the other side broke it" defence ... I'm pretty sure he'd have gone the latter. Until you helped him out :mad:

Except it doesn't. I says that if Hamas does deliberately place protected people inside a legitimate target, that Hamas is in violation of the Geneva Convention.

It says: The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

In other words, the presence of a protected person (I.E. civilian) does not render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

No, you're spoiling my fun. :tongue:

I do that.

Given a choice between actually reading the Fourth Geneva Convention he invoked, or going with the "it doesn't apply if the other side broke it" defence ... I'm pretty sure he'd have gone the latter. Until you helped him out :mad:

Oh well.

Is it true that the Geneva convention says that .50 cal should only be used against vehicles, buildings and equipment? But that it also counts uniforms as "equipment"?

Neat-oh. "We were only trying to destroy their equipment. It's their fault for hiding soldiers inside the uniforms."

Has there ever been a redrafting or update of the Geneva Convention?

Since 1949? In the version I linked to before (UNHCHR) there are "draft clauses" called Annexes. At the end.

The article doesn't say whether the protected individuals are being moved around or not - simply defines their presence as not being a valid reason for not attacking.

Because by your reading of it, any civilian area in any city in any country of the world is now a legitimate target because the presence of a civilian population means diddly squat.

The first interpretation has actually been used in Iraq when the Fedayeen and Republican Guard were fighting against UK forces in Basra. I believe, though I cannot be positive, that the violation of Article 28 was used against Saddam Hussein in his trial - again I'm open to correction on that last point.

It says:
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
In other words,

In other words, "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

That prevents either party from deliberately doing that. If they do so, they are in contravention of the Convention.

There ARE passages (particularly related to conducting military operations from inside a hospital, refugee camp etc) which say what you're saying. But it's not my side of the argument to point them out.

Because by your reading of it, any civilian area in any city in any country of the world is now a legitimate target because the presence of a civilian population means diddly squat.

Only if a military target is also present is how I read it. It reads similarly to the hospital clauses - where a Hospital may not be attacked unless it's being used for aggression against the other nation.

The first interpretation has actually been used in Iraq when the Fedayeen and Republican Guard were fighting against UK forces in Basra. I believe, though I cannot be positive, that the violation of Article 28 was used against Saddam Hussein in his trial - again I'm open to correction on that last point.

I don't know. I'm not familiar.

Neat-oh. "We were only trying to destroy their equipment. It's their fault for hiding soldiers inside the uniforms."


Yeah, it seems to defeat the purpose.


Since 1949? In the version I linked to before (UNHCR) there are "draft clauses" called Annexes. At the end.

I wonder if a ground up international redo would be helpful. So much of the technology is different now.

There ARE passages (particularly related to conducting military operations from inside a hospital, refugee camp etc) which say what you're saying. But it's not my side of the argument to point them out.

They specifically refer to hospitals and modes of transportation carrying the wounded and do not apply to generalized civilian areas.

They specifically refer to hospitals and modes of transportation carrying the wounded and do not apply to generalized civilian areas.

It seemed that way to me too. "Protected areas" include refugee camps I think, but it's still a matter of people who are specifically put in one place to protect them ... not people who have failed to move away from a target.

I wonder if a ground up international redo would be helpful.

I doubt it. Certain major powers would want it rewritten to favour force-multipliers like airstrikes over force-multipliers like hiding among civilians. When they don't get their way, the world would end up with the old document but weakened by the controversy.

It seemed that way to me too. "Protected areas" include refugee camps I think, but it's still a matter of people who are specifically put in one place to protect them ... not people who have failed to move away from a target.

Yes, which are agreed marked and given notice of upon on the basis of articles 6 and 7. If the opposing side was not given notice of and the area properly marked, it's not a designated safety zone (according to the geneva convention).

What goes on in that zone is also restricted by Articles 2, 4, and 5.

israel is counting rockets,
gaza is counting dead bodies.

right now i'm not supporting either of them,
precisely because

i believe that every living organism has more right to exist then any sovereign nation.

i also feel that every nation has neither more nor less right to exist
then any other nation,

that is to say, that every population has as much right as every other population,
to be represented by a nation whose mandate is to protect their environment and their civil rights,

(something that dominant predatory nations, led by america's example for the past several decades, seem adamantly opposed to tolerating),

but that no nation has a right to dictate the faiths of its citizens.

(but i do support the notion that it is immoral that a civilian population should be starved out as a way of attacking its democratically elected government, and thus that it is utterly immoral that humanitarian assistance, and journalistic observation, continue to be deliberately obstructed)

Is it true that the Geneva convention says that .50 cal should only be used against vehicles, buildings and equipment? But that it also counts uniforms as "equipment"?

That's ONLY for .50 cal Machine guns mounted on tanks, IFVs, HUMVEEs, etc.

The .50 cal round can be used in Sniper rifles due to it's ability to "reach out and touch people" at long ranges.

That's ONLY for .50 cal Machine guns mounted on tanks, IFVs, HUMVEEs, etc.

The .50 cal round can be used in Sniper rifles due to it's ability to "reach out and touch people" at long ranges.

To be fair, at the time that section was written no one HAD .50 sniper rifles, primarily because the long glass that makes them worthwhile had not yet been developed.

I don't believe there is a single country that follows the Geneva Conventions in their entirety (The Hague Conventions are another story - they're broader and more general). Many nations use combat shotguns; flamethrowers; human shields. The only really important aspects are the treatment of prisoners and captives clauses - which, unfortunately, only the West seems to value.

At any rate, they've certainly become more of a suggestion than a law, when everybody and his dog can violate them with impunity.

That's ONLY for .50 cal Machine guns mounted on tanks, IFVs, HUMVEEs, etc.

The .50 cal round can be used in Sniper rifles due to it's ability to "reach out and touch people" at long ranges.

So, its not the cartridge itself, its only when used in certain ways? Okay, I'll buy that. But if I were in a tank and some dude was coming up on me with whatever anti-tank gear a dude can carry, I think I'd be hard pressed not to shoot him with a tank mounted .50 if thats what I had.

Now I feel like a bad person.

So, its not the cartridge itself, its only when used in certain ways? Okay, I'll buy that. But if I were in a tank and some dude was coming up on me with whatever anti-tank gear a dude can carry, I think I'd be hard pressed not to shoot him with a tank mounted .50 if thats what I had.

Now I feel like a bad person.

Don't. Be happy. I'd do the same thing. Or(if I was in the M1A1 Abrams) use the 120 mm M256 smoothbore cannon.

Don't. Be happy. I'd do the same thing. Or(if I was in the M1A1 Abrams) use the 120 mm M256 smoothbore cannon.

This reminds me of the "War in the Sun" storyline in Preacher, when that guy fires a sabot tank round into the Saint of Killers at point blank range...

This reminds me of the "War in the Sun" storyline in Preacher, when that guy fires a sabot tank round into the Saint of Killers at point blank range...

Never heard of that, but it sounds hilarious, but that may be just because I'm slightly psychotic!

Don't. Be happy. I'd do the same thing. Or(if I was in the M1A1 Abrams) use the 120 mm M256 smoothbore cannon.

Tanks have mounted machine guns for a reason.

Tanks have mounted machine guns for a reason.Yes, because exposing yourself to shoot back is a good idea. Unless you're the commander using the CWS, or CROWS.

As I said:
Intermingled with the indigenous Arabs.

This would account for shared DNA

You're either acting the maggot or not very good at reading comprehension.

.....2000 matched historical accounts that Arab Israelis and Palestinians,[70][71] together as the one same population, represent modern "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times", albeit religiously Christianized and later largely Islamized, then both ultimately becoming culturally Arabized.[72] Referring to those of the Muslim faith more specifically, it reaffirmed that Palestinian "Muslim Arabs are descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel, Sinai and part of Jordan."

Estimations suggest 25%, and rising. (22% children between the ages of 0 and 17 years old)


Ah the joys of propaganda. And you swallow what they feed you; no surprise there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7809371.stm

Hamas executed 70 members of the PLO, do they also form part of the statistics
of casualties at the hands of the IDF?

You're either acting the maggot or not very good at reading comprehension.

I think you'll find that the Southern Levant also includes Anatolia. I don't deny that they are effectively the same people

Tiocfaidh ar la (I think this is pronounced chucky ar la, yes?) Isn't that the IRA's motto?

Tiocfaidh ar la (I think this is pronounced chucky ar la, yes?) Isn't that the IRA's motto?

Correctamundo.

you're either acting the maggot or not very good at reading comprehension.

correctamundo.

בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה

בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה

The rough translation I was able to obtain of that left me none the wiser as to its meaning, particularily in the context of those quotes....

The sad thing is, that the Israeli government ordered this invasion just to make sure they are reelected in a few months.

Both sides are guilty as hell, but this last deed of Israel is over the top.

You just do not punish an entire population for the malicious deeds of some.

In a normal world the UN should interfere asap, so we may safely assume we are not living in a normal world.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090106/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Yes.... those wascally Palestinians anyway.

If they would just behave and be the 2nd Class citizens they are, and stay on their reservation with no hopes for the future, then the poor poor Israelis wouldn't have to endure such terrifying cathartic/intermittent rocket attacks that are quite scawwy. Even though 97%+ of the time they injure nobody and fall harmlessly in the middle of no man's land.

Yes! Great job Israel! I would say that it is indeed proportional. 1 Israeli citizen was killed yesterday in a retaliatory Hamas Rocket attack, so Israel did the right thing by bombing a UN Sponsored, Posted and Identified School, and obliterating 34 evil and dangerous children.

It feels so good to be on the side of the Righteous....no?

Especially when the Palestinians bring it ALL upon themselves. That way there really is no guilt about it. It can all be justified as necessary self defense with "unfortunate" collateral damage.

I love being an American. Seriously. Can't the rest of the World see why we are the only ones who truly understand how magnificent Israel is? Why, we did the same thing to a continent full of former Land Dwellers of our own Manifest Destiny ordained soil. Perhaps that is the reason we are the only ones who can understand how badly the Israelis have it? Why they have no choice but to respond so harshly.

Again....I know Jesus loves America and Israel more than any other Nation(s) on the Earth. You know of course that he can't come and save us all until the Israelis build another Temple.... Oh goody goody I just can't wait. These are such stirring times to live in! Scripture is being played out in front of us.

:hail:

I like your name. :wink:

But, this is nothing new. We've been bombarded with these threads (No pun intended) for months now.

oh joy, another hamas/isreal thread.

Enough of your sarcasm, Islamist scum. If you don't support everything Israel does, the terrorists win.

I like your name. :wink:

But, this is nothing new. We've been bombarded with these threads (No pun intended) for months now.

Hmmmmmm.

Maybe I should just post some pics of Jessica Biel instead?

Or maybe a poll? "Do you like your mashed potatoes lumpy or creamy?"

:(

Enough of your sarcasm, Islamist scum. If you don't support everything Israel does, the terrorists win.

Israel is regional terrorist no.1 -nods-

Enough of your sarcasm, Islamist scum. If you don't support everything Israel does, the terrorists win.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Enough of your sarcasm, Islamist scum. If you don't support everything Israel does, the terrorists win.

LOL!

I thought they already one?

Didn't they win just this past Xmas when retail sales were down?

Weren't we supposed to buy all the uselss shit we could? Constantly and even more so during the holidays?

So the terrorists didn't already win?

Phew......... :D

Hmmmmmm.

Maybe I should just post some pics of Jessica Biel instead?

Or maybe a poll? "Do you like your mashed potatoes lumpy or creamy?"

:(

I like my Mashed Potatoes shaken, not stirred. :D

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Absolutely. ;)

Couldn't this have gone in the other hundreds of threads on the Israel and Palestinian conflict?

Couldn't this have gone in the other hundreds of threads on the Israel and Palestinian conflict?

I think all of the hamas/israel threads should be combined into one uber thread.


Or even its own forum at this rate. :rolleyes:

I think all of the hamas/israel threads should be combined into one uber thread.


Or even its own forum at this rate. :rolleyes:

Seems that's just happened.

I heard Israel had F-F incident today, a Merkava tank blasted a building that IDF guys were inside, and an artillery shell hit another garrisoned building

Can't we ban all Israeli hawks and Hamas dogs to the moon?

Supose Hamas and Israel were people. In most US states they would have received the capital punishment.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Nonsense. They're all terrorists. And they all work together. I've seen Mandela shipping weapons off to Iraqistan where all the terrorists come from.

I think all of the hamas/israel threads should be combined into one uber thread.

Consider your wish granted. :D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090106/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Yes.... those wascally Palestinians anyway.

If they would just behave and be the 2nd Class citizens they are, and stay on their reservation with no hopes for the future, then the poor poor Israelis wouldn't have to endure such terrifying cathartic/intermittent rocket attacks that are quite scawwy. Even though 97%+ of the time they injure nobody and fall harmlessly in the middle of no man's land.

Yes! Great job Israel! I would say that it is indeed proportional. 1 Israeli citizen was killed yesterday in a retaliatory Hamas Rocket attack, so Israel did the right thing by bombing a UN Sponsored, Posted and Identified School, and obliterating 34 evil and dangerous children.

It feels so good to be on the side of the Righteous....no?

Especially when the Palestinians bring it ALL upon themselves. That way there really is no guilt about it. It can all be justified as necessary self defense with "unfortunate" collateral damage.

I love being an American. Seriously. Can't the rest of the World see why we are the only ones who truly understand how magnificent Israel is? Why, we did the same thing to a continent full of former Land Dwellers of our own Manifest Destiny ordained soil. Perhaps that is the reason we are the only ones who can understand how badly the Israelis have it? Why they have no choice but to respond so harshly.

Again....I know Jesus loves America and Israel more than any other Nation(s) on the Earth. You know of course that he can't come and save us all until the Israelis build another Temple.... Oh goody goody I just can't wait. These are such stirring times to live in! Scripture is being played out in front of us.

:hail:
Don't you know that school bullies are terrorists?


Gotta respect Israel, it takes guts to teach those bullies a lesson.

What a tragedy. I've lost so much respect for Israel during the last few days. It's one thing to defend yourself from attacks, but this preemptive strike has hurt too many civilians. :(

me too, but then i didn't have much respect for them in the first place (http://www.sott.net/image/image/9591/israel-palestine_map.jpg)

Hamas executed 70 members of the PLO, do they also form part of the statistics of casualties at the hands of the IDF?

Doesn't look that way, no.

I heard Israel had F-F incident today, a Merkava tank blasted a building that IDF guys were inside, and an artillery shell hit another garrisoned building

4 members of IDF were killed by that.

One soldier was killed in an exchange of fire with militants in Gaza City, while four others were killed by shellfire from their own tanks earlier in the day, Israeli military officials said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7814054.stm

From the same article The UN aid agency in Gaza, Unrwa, said three artillery shells had landed close to the al-Fakhura school on Tuesday afternoon, spraying shrapnel on people both inside and outside the building.
About 350 people had sought refuge at the school in effort to escape the fighting between Israeli soldiers and militants on the outskirts of the refugee camp, to the east of Gaza City.

The UN officials said they regularly provided the Israeli military with exact co-ordinates of their facilities, and that the school was in a built-up area.

And This is the second Israeli air strike on a UN-run school in a day. Earlier, at least three Palestinians were killed when a school was hit in the Shati camp, UN officials said.

A bit of verbal mistake by the article though as it says "second air strike" when the first instance was shelling.

A bit of verbal mistake by the article though as it says "second air strike" when the first instance was shelling.

The strike on the first school appears justified. There's a video of it on Youtube, with the school being used as a firing position for mortars and heavy machineguns. Then it gets blown up.

Maybe Hamas should tell people to get out of buildings they're firing from... oh wait...

Don't you know that school bullies are terrorists?


Gotta respect Israel, it takes guts to teach those bullies a lesson.

It are the Jews that invaded a land that didn't belong to them in 1948.

And learning a lesson? What lesson?

There are children, women and old people starving a cruel death, just because some politicians want to be reelected in a few months.

I have no respect for the institute of Israel. It's a land on the axis of evil.

It are the Jews that invaded a land that didn't belong to them in 1948.

And learning a lesson? What lesson?
Might makes right and the more might you have the more right you are.

There are children, women and old people starving a cruel death, just because some politicians want to be reelected in a few months.
That's palestinian propaganda.

They're really all enemy combatants.

The strike on the first school appears justified. There's a video of it on Youtube, with the school being used as a firing position for mortars and heavy machineguns. Then it gets blown up.
1) I'm looking for it but I can't find it. What search words brought it up? (A lot of videos with similar tags are older)

2) I'm highly skeptical of IDF videos, especially after they said and then showed a video of it, that they bombed a truck that was carrying rockets - and B'Tselem has reports of it being a truck being loaded with oxygen tanks.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20081231_Army_bombs_metal_workshop_in_Gaza.asp

Consider your wish granted. :D

Thanks :)

1) I'm looking for it but I can't find it. What search words brought it up? (A lot of videos with similar tags are older)

2) I'm highly skeptical of IDF videos, especially after they said and then showed a video of it, that they bombed a truck that was carrying rockets - and B'Tselem has reports of it being a truck being loaded with oxygen tanks.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20081231_Army_bombs_metal_workshop_in_Gaza.asp

There's a video of two mosques also being bombed, with significant secondary explosions.

You're going to say now that the mosques were full of oxygen tanks? They sure looked like ordnance going off to me.

It's hard to get reliable reports from Gaza at this time - all of the reporters and photographers on the ground are Palestinian, and are accredited first by Hamas.

Might makes right and the more might you have the more right you are.

So the Nazi Germans were once right when they killed 6 million jews?



That's palestinian propaganda.

They're really all enemy combatants.

I, and with me the entire world, saw death children on my TV screen, 3 or 4 years old. No propaganda.

So the Nazi Germans were once right when they killed 6 million jews?

No, because the Nazis bit off more than they could chew and got their asses kicked.

There's a video of two mosques also being bombed, with significant secondary explosions.

You're going to say now that the mosques were full of oxygen tanks? They sure looked like ordnance going off to me.
Nice overall obfuscation. I'll give you a 7 for that.

It's hard to get reliable reports from Gaza at this time - all of the reporters and photographers on the ground are Palestinian, and are accredited first by Hamas.
Well we know who's to blame for that don't we.

So the Nazi Germans were once right when they killed 6 million jews?Well, not really...They lost.

Had the Nazis won...
I, and with me the entire world, saw death children on my TV screen, 3 or 4 years old. No propaganda.
Enemy combatants, you're following the wrong media.

Well, not really...They lost.

Had the Nazis won...

Didn't know that the Israel-Palestine conflict had a winner.



Enemy combatants, you're following the wrong media.


CNN, BBC, TF1, the internet and local papers.

I, and with me the entire world, saw death children on my TV screen, 3 or 4 years old. No propaganda.

There are multiple people of that age on the US terrorist list ;)

The strike on the first school appears justified.
There's a video of two mosques also being bombed, with significant secondary explosions.
So I guess you're unable to provide the inks to the YouTube video then, since you're suddenly changing the topic and start talking about Israeli propaganda.

You're going to say now that the mosques were full of oxygen tanks? They sure looked like ordnance going off to me.
Independent verification? No? Oh well.

It's hard to get reliable reports from Gaza at this time - all of the reporters and photographers on the ground are Palestinian, and are accredited first by Hamas.
Thanks to Israel denying entry into Gaza, yes... I wonder why they defy their own Supreme Court.

Didn't know that the Israel-Palestine conflict had a winner.
Well, not necessarily a winner but the fact of the matter is that Israel can't lose thanks to good ol' religious USA.

Protecting the holy land is so medieval...
CNN, BBC, TF1, the internet and local papers.
Like I said, wrong media.

Well, not necessarily a winner but the fact of the matter is that Israel can't lose thanks to good ol' religious USA.

Protecting the holy land is so medieval...


Savior Obama promised Change. But about Israel he's very silent. He'll shout when he's prez. Sure.


Like I said, wrong media.


I'm sorry, but we can't watch Tzahal propaganda stations.

Savior Obama promised Change. But about Israel he's very silent. He'll shout when he's prez. Sure.
The VP to be - Biden - said he and Obama will be Israel's strongest allies in the debate.

I'm sorry, but we can't watch Tzahal propaganda stations.
Your - and Palestinian - loss. :p

If they would just behave and be the 2nd Class citizens they are, and stay on their reservation with no hopes for the future
If they want a future, THEY have to build it.

In the years after 1948: a large proportion of Israel's population was refugees who had come with nothing (including, besides the Holocaust survivors, those kicked out of the Arab countries) and during this "Austerity Period" of great poverty Israel did not yet have any alliance with the United States to fall back on; yet they have built an economy noted for technological innovation. And during the same years, there were millions of German refugees, far more numerous than the Palestinian refugees, kicked out of their homes which were colonized by other peoples, and the remaining German lands they fled to were all under occupation: where is Germany now? And in those same years, TEN MILLION Chinese refugees went through Hong Kong, mostly kicked out to Taiwan: where is Hong Kong now, and where is Taiwan?

The Palestinians have decided to live as welfare dependents on the UNRWA, having nine children per family to make Gaza the most crowded place in the world (if the rest of the world expanded at the Palestinian rate, the world's population would be 12 billion now), with no means of supporting all those people because they hardly build anything that isn't intended to blow people up. If they are in dire poverty, it is because they have CHOSEN it. What can we do with them now? They have this imaginary conception that if Israel just disappeared and they took all that land back, they would be happy: or would they just turn it all into desert and still be in dire poverty, and still looking for people to blow up in their anger?

Maybe China should administer Gaza, impose the strict one-child-per-couple rule until the population is sustainable, and condition all assistance to the adults on the "he doesn't work, doesn't eat" rule: yes, they need much work building up infrastructure especially after the recent destruction, and they can't be expected to pay for it themselves (the United States would need to contribute heavily), but without a very fundamental change in CULTURE, nothing good can happen.

If they want a future, THEY have to build it.

Yeah, it's easy to build your own future when you're blockaded from working, selling your produce, or purchasing things you need to make building your own future possible. Not to mention your basic infrastructure either keeps getting cut off or gets bombed to shit along with your workforce.

Yeah, it's all their damn fault.

:rolleyes:

where is Germany now?

In Europe?

Yeah, it's easy to build your own future when you're blockaded from working, selling your produce, or purchasing things you need

Gazans used to work in Israel, sell produce to Israel, purchase from Israel. They decided they would rather kill Israelis than continue such economic relations. That was THEIR choice. If they prefer to exist as an island, with no friendly relations with their neighbors, that will make it more difficult for them, obviously, but that is up to them.
Yeah, it's all their damn fault.

Exactly.

Gazans used to work in Israel, sell produce to Israel, purchase from Israel. They decided they would rather kill Israelis than continue such economic relations. That was THEIR choice. If they prefer to exist as an island, with no friendly relations with their neighbors, that will make it more difficult for them, obviously, but that is up to them.
Yeah, because every impoverished Palestinian is a suicide bomber? Give me a break.

The strike on the first school appears justified. There's a video of it on Youtube, with the school being used as a firing position for mortars and heavy machineguns. Then it gets blown up.


That wouldn't be the video from 2006 when the UN evacuated the school and then Hamas moved in would it.....?

Hmmmm, is that froth I see before me...


The Palestinians have (...........) anger?

Ja! Zey are breeding like der vermin!!!!


Maybe China should administer Gaza, impose the strict one-child-per-couple rule until the population is sustainable, and condition all assistance to the adults on the "he doesn't work, doesn't eat" rule:

Once we were discussing the massive rise in settlers in the OT. You mentioned the very high birth rate amongst the ultra-orthodox/conservative settler element. Why didn't you propose that solution for them? And isn't it true theres sects amongst those that don't work as such as a matter of principle......?


Gazans used to work in Israel, sell produce to Israel, purchase from Israel

...used to be kept waiting at the checkpoint till the fruit rotted (like their kin in the West Bank still do), used to see their greenhouses crushed under tanks....purely coincidental they were operating in competition with the settlers who'd grabbed the top third of Gaza.....I mean, what lunatic would draw their own conclusions there....

Yeah, it's easy to build your own future when you're blockaded from working, selling your produce, or purchasing things you need to make building your own future possible. Not to mention your basic infrastructure either keeps getting cut off or gets bombed to shit along with your workforce.

Yeah, it's all their damn fault.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, it pretty much is all their damn fault.

Just one example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9331863/



Sept. 13, 2005
NEVE DEKALIM, Gaza Strip - Palestinians looted dozens of greenhouses on Tuesday, walking off with irrigation hoses, water pumps and plastic sheeting in a blow to fledgling efforts to reconstruct the Gaza Strip.

American Jewish donors had bought more than 3,000 greenhouses from Israeli settlers in Gaza for $14 million last month and transferred them to the Palestinian Authority. Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn, who brokered the deal, put up $500,000 of his own cash.

Palestinian police stood by helplessly Tuesday as looters carted off materials from greenhouses in several settlements, and commanders complained they did not have enough manpower to protect the prized assets. In some instances, there was no security and in others, police even joined the looters, witnesses said.

. . . .

SNIP

Wow. That's all I can say.

Yeah, it pretty much is all their damn fault.

Just one example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9331863/

You mean a state of chaos emerged and there was trouble? Wow....can't imagine that happening in America.......

Yeah, it pretty much is all their damn fault.

Just one example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9331863/

Of course theyre looting. How else are they supposed to get what they need? Israel denys them all that.

Poor, poor Israel. NM, you should send the Ents over there. Palastine is kinda like Isengard, a base for the Dark[y] Lord.

Wait...youve probably killed all the Ents strip mining for coal.

Wait...youve probably killed all the Ents strip mining for coal.

No, sparrows were launching crap of mass destruction from their branches. As a result they had no choice but to use the flame throwers.

...with no means of supporting all those people because they hardly build anything that isn't intended to blow people up.

that kinda makes sense if you keep being blown up by your neighbour

Am I the only one who believes that both sides should be destoryed?

Am I the only one who believes that both sides should be destoryed?

No, in fact the charming sentiment that committing genocide in the Middle East, often (though not always) with nuclear weapons, has been proposed several times already. Kudos to you for such an original and not in any way criminally stupid idea though.

No, in fact the charming sentiment that committing genocide in the Middle East, often (though not always) with nuclear weapons, has been proposed several times already. Kudos to you for such an original and not in any way criminally stupid idea though.

What we should do is lock-in all of the middle east, escape from NY style. Rig all of the countries with cameras and recording equipment. Just turn it into one large prison, and just let them fight it all out to the death. Anyone who attempts to escape is shot. No nukes, no missiles, just guns, swords, and their faulty belief structures to take into battle. (All of this will be available for view on PPV for a minimal fee.)And in the end the winners will be standing high on a pedestal looking proud that they finally proved their view by killing everyone else, and they shall be rewarded....by being killed themselves. And they all have to die by crucifixion. Then the world sends in teams to clean up the entire mess and turn the entire area into the worlds biggest water park. And lets not forget to keep the crucified winners on their golden calf crucifixes entertained by having anyone attending the park throw pies at them (for a minimal fee of course). This entire idea would generate billions (if not trillions)in revenue from the PPV sales, merchandising, and of course the fees of the worlds biggest water park.

You mean a state of chaos emerged and there was trouble? Wow....can't imagine that happening in America.......

Looting doesn't happen in the US. But presumably, if there were incidents of looting, all economic, social and political problems associated with the USA would therefore be our own damn fault.

Looting doesn't happen in the US. But presumably, if there were incidents of looting, all economic, social and political problems associated with the USA would therefore be our own damn fault.

...and Pearl Harbour.

Gazans used to work in Israel, sell produce to Israel, purchase from Israel. They decided they would rather kill Israelis than continue such economic relations. That was THEIR choice.
The choice of all Gazans, all Palestinians?

Every Gazan has chosen to kill Israelis?

I doubt that highly.

If they want a future, THEY have to build it.

Where? (http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/InsertMap_Fragmentation_May07-withCheckpoint.pdf)

The report examines the humanitarian impact on Palestinians from the ongoing settlements in the West Bank and other Israeli infrastructure, such as the Barrier and the roads that accompany them. The analysis shows that more than 38% of the West Bank is now taken up by Israeli infrastructure. Roads linking settlements and other infrastructure to Israel – in conjunction with an extensive system of checkpoints and roadblocks – have fragmented the West Bank into a series of enclaves separating Palestinian communities from each other. The socio-economic impact has been profound.

More than 38% of the West Bank now consists of settlements, outposts, military bases and closed military areas, Israeli declared nature reserves or other related infrastructure that are off-limits or tightly controlled to Palestinians.

The settlements are linked to each other and to Israel by an extensive road network. Palestinians for the most part are either prevented from using these roads or have only restricted access onto them.
http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/TheHumanitarianImpactOfIsraeliInfrastructureTheWestBank_full.pdf


IDF soldiers fired on trespassers in or near restricted areas. Since September 2000 at least 284 Palestinians have been killed for moving within 460 feet of the Gaza perimeter fence, which Israel declared off limits to Palestinians. Of those killed, 117 were civilians, including 23 children.

According to OCHA, there were an average of 86 staffed checkpoints and 462 non-staffed physical roadblocks during the year. In the West Bank, there were 561 obstacles to movement, including 67 fully manned checkpoints, 20 occasionally manned checkpoints, 210 earth mounds, 70 cement roadblocks, 85 road gates, 25 earthen walls, 17 trenches, and 67 road protection fences. In 2006 of the 117 gates along the separation barrier, 38 were accessible to Palestinians in possession of permits. Operating hours of the accessible gates were limited and although schedules were announced, openings and closings were erratic.

Between January and August, OCHA recorded 5,858 "temporary" checkpoints in the West Bank, a weekly average of 113, due to arrests or other operations.

Palestinians in the Israeli-controlled section of Hebron (H2), according to OCHA, faced 84 significant obstacles to movement. Access for Palestinians to the Old City was limited to six IDF-controlled gates. Since 2000, legal and physical segregation between Israeli settlers enforced by the IDF in Hebron's commercial center has led to extensive restrictions on Palestinian movement. According to a November/December 2006 B'Tselem survey, these policies have resulted in Palestinians abandoning more than 1,000 homes (40 percent of all Palestinian homes) and at least 1,829 (over 76 percent) businesses in H2.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100597.htm

Some 200 hectares (nearly 500 acres) of Palestinian lands around Bilin, west of the West Bank political capital of Ramallah, have been confiscated by the Israeli state to make way for the separation barrier in a move regarded by the Palestinians as a land-grab.

The modifications ordered by the High Court would reduce the amount of land expropriated by roughly half.

Israel's construction work on the barrier around Bilin, which has entailed uprooting hundreds of olive trees that are the livelihood of Palestinian farmers, has drawn weekly protests by Jewish left-wingers and foreign activists as well as local residents for nearly three years.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gygzcZ8NvQCXYdrS-W-lTpp7Gatw

that kinda makes sense if you keep being blown up by your neighbour
It would only make sense if the Palestinians ever acted to decrease Israel's ability to do damage to Palestinians (as the Israelis act to decrease Palestinians' ability to do damage to Israelis). Instead they just commit acts of destruction for destruction's own sake, as a means of anger-venting, although this only increases the danger that Palestinians are in. No, this does not make any sense.

The choice of all Gazans, all Palestinians?
The overwhelming majority. It is unfortunate that a collective decision has consequences that fall even on those who have dissented from it, but such is life: I didn't vote for Dubya, but it hasn't stopped consequences from falling on me.

Once we were discussing the massive rise in settlers in the OT. You mentioned the very high birth rate amongst the ultra-orthodox/conservative settler element.
Solely for purposes of disputing your contention that the population rise reflected new migration into the settlements (which outside the Jerusalem Zone has been virtually nil for years).
Why didn't you propose that solution for them?
What I have proposed, repeatedly, is that every single one of those settlers be kicked out of there. You keep demanding that I oppose the settlers, and refuse to take Yes for an answer.

The overwhelming majority. It is unfortunate that a collective decision has consequences that fall even on those who have dissented from it, but such is life: I didn't vote for Dubya, but it hasn't stopped consequences from falling on me.

Pics or didn't happen.

i.e., what's your source for your assertation that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians choose violence.

The overwhelming majority. It is unfortunate that a collective decision has consequences that fall even on those who have dissented from it, but such is life: I didn't vote for Dubya, but it hasn't stopped consequences from falling on me.

Such a glib and shallow justification for the death of innocents. "Shit happens." Why yes it does, and it's shittier still that some people argue in favor of it while interjecting a transparently artificial "how unfortunate" comment to cover up the inherent immorality of their position.

Pics or didn't happen.

i.e., what's your source for your assertation that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians choose violence.

Also considering that about 45% of the population on the Gaza Strip is below the age of 14. (About 40% in the West Bank.)

Pics or didn't happen.

i.e., what's your source for your assertation that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians choose violence.

I bet he'll say that they voted Hamas in.

Pics or didn't happen.

i.e., what's your source for your assertation that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians choose violence.

Every poll and every election ever conducted among them for the last ninety years. It is the most prominent and important fact about this situation, and if you haven't picked up on yet then you really don't get the big picture.
Yes, I'll get around to linking some polls, but I only have a short time window right now. I thought however that it was notorious (all over the news at the time, you know) that Hamas and Fatah (also a violent party, just one in favor of a tactical stand-down right now, and willing to accept that a state of Israel is going to permanently exist) took almost all of the votes between them: there were two parties advocating non-violence, who got 1% and 2% of the vote.
EDIT: one recent poll, by Pew Institute (http://www.bruneinews.net/story/267777) (good reputation, no particular axe to grind):
Tuesday 24th July, 2007

A comprehensive report says support for terrorist tactics has fallen in most Muslim-majority countries.

Support for terrorism has fallen in seven of the eight countries polled on the question, according to the Washington-based Pew group.

Only in the Palestinian territories have seventy per cent of Palestinians said suicide bombing is justified.

Every poll and every election ever conducted among them for the last ninety years. It is the most prominent and important fact about this situation, and if you haven't picked up on yet then you really don't get the big picture.
Yes, I'll get around to linking some polls, but I only have a short time window right now. I thought however that it was notorious (all over the news at the time, you know) that Hamas and Fatah (also a violent party, just one in favor of a tactical stand-down right now, and willing to accept that a state of Israel is going to permanently exist) took almost all of the votes between them: there were two parties advocating non-violence, who got 1% and 2% of the vote.


Ever consider that Hamas won because they do a lot of humanitarian aid that helps the community?

Or is that little tidbit inconvenient because it shows that not all the brown people want to kill poor defenseless, innocent Israel?

Ever consider that Hamas won because they do a lot of humanitarian aid that helps the community?

Or is that little tidbit inconvenient because it shows that not all the brown people want to kill poor defenseless, innocent Israel?

You and your Liberal Bias. The truth is that the Palestinians were actually prospering under Fatah corruption and nepotism that got jack shit done, and that they just voted Hamas into power because They Hate Freedom™.

It's true, I read it on NationStates General.

Knights of Liberty Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Even the PLO refuse to recognise them as legitimate rulers of the Gaza Strip. Hamas was 'elected' through vote rigging and threats, and what on Earht do you mean by "they do a lot of humanitarian aid that helps the community?" As they themselves are in Palestine the only way they are getting this aid must be by stealing it and as the only place to steal it from is the international humanitartion aid it sounds like they are looking after themselves more then others.

Knights of Liberty Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Even the PLO refuse to recognise them as legitimate rulers of the Gaza Strip.Source?

Hamas was 'elected' through vote rigging and threats,Source?

and what on [Earth] do you mean by "they do a lot of humanitarian aid that helps the community?" As they themselves are in Palestine the only way they are getting this aid must be by stealing it and as the only place to steal it from is the international humanitartion aid it sounds like they are looking after themselves more then others.Source?

Such strong statements require strong evidence.

Aceopolis evidence for Hamas being a terrorist orgnaisation was agreed by a special meeting of the European Council and this can be found on the EU website.

Other sources showing this are;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3100518.stm

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act/proscribed-groups

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65462.pdf (WARNING LARGE AMOUNT OF DATA IS OPENED ON THIS LINK AND MAY COURSE COMPUTER TO SLOW CONSIDERABLY)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20030907/ai_n11405874

Where? (http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/InsertMap_Fragmentation_May07-withCheckpoint.pdf)






http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/TheHumanitarianImpactOfIsraeliInfrastructureTheWestBank_full.pdf




http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100597.htm






http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gygzcZ8NvQCXYdrS-W-lTpp7Gatw


QF fuckin T. Maith an Fear.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65462.pdf (WARNING LARGE AMOUNT OF DATA IS OPENED ON THIS LINK AND MAY COURSE COMPUTER TO SLOW CONSIDERABLY)

Whoa, how big is that?

I have 2 gigs installed in this laptop and I don't have enough to open it.

What I have proposed, repeatedly, is that every single one of those settlers be kicked out of there. You keep demanding that I oppose the settlers, and refuse to take Yes for an answer.

But what about capping the breeding. Sauce for the fertile goose is surely good enough to put the kybosh on the gander...And the unemployed thing too....

You wouldn't be proposing a double standard would you...?

Aceopolis evidence for Hamas being a terrorist orgnaisation was agreed by a special meeting of the European Council and this can be found on the EU website.
Yes, Hamas is a terrorist organization. But also...

Is Hamas only a terrorist group?

No. In addition to its military wing, the so-called Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. Indeed, the extensive social and political work done by Hamas - and its reputation among Palestinians as averse to corruption - partly explain its defeat of the Fatah old guard in the 2006 legislative vote. Hamas funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. "Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. The Palestinian Authority often fails to provide such services, and Hamas's efforts in this area—as well as a reputation for honesty, in contrast to the many Fatah officials accused of corruption—help to explain the broad popularity it summoned to defeat Fatah in the PA's recent elections.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/

But what about capping the breeding.
The settlers breed like they do because they think they can keep siezing more land for homes for their children. Let's try making it plain to them that this will not be allowed to continue. What should we do about the Palestinians? Just stop feeding them?

The settlers breed like they do because they think they can keep siezing more land for homes for their children. Let's try making it plain to them that this will not be allowed to continue. What should we do about the Palestinians? Just stop feeding them?

Reducing child mortality, increasing the standards of living, and increasing life expectancy might help.

The settlers breed like they do because they think they can keep siezing more land for homes for their children. Let's try making it plain to them that this will not be allowed to continue.

But how come no "Maybe China should administer Gaza, impose the strict one-child-per-couple rule until the population is sustainable, and condition all assistance to the adults on the "he doesn't work, doesn't eat" rule:", hmmmm?

Why do the Palestinians large families deserve the tender hands of the PRC yet their Israeli counterparts are let off with a stern talking to?

Pics or didn't happen.

i.e., what's your source for your assertation that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians choose violence.

# 66% support and 32% oppose the Saudi initiative which calls for Arab recognition of and normalization of relations with Israel after it ends its occupation to Palestinian territories occupied in 1967 and after the establishment of a Palestinian state.
# 64% support and 33% oppose launching rockets from the Gaza Strip against Israeli towns and cities such as Sderot and Ashkelon.

# 55% support and 44% oppose mutual recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people and Palestine as the state for the Palestinian people as part of a permanent status agreement.
# 67% of the Israelis support and 29% oppose mutual recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people and Palestine as the state for the Palestinian people as part of a permanent status agreement.

From March 2008 (http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2008/p27e1.html)

To help you draw your own conclusions. :wink:

The overwhelming majority.
I don't see how you can correlate that voting in of Hamas with an active choice by Palestinians to "rather kill Israelis than continue... economic relations".

Using your Dubya example, you seem to be implying that all US citizens made an active choice to kill Iraqi's rather than continue with diplomatic relations, etc.

Yes, Hamas is a terrorist organization. But also...


http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/

They're a pseudo-state, and not merely your common cell-based terrorist group, which is admittedly significantly worrying in a region in which states are as weak and low on legitimacy. I'd be concerned that if folks like Hamas and Hezbollah continue to grow and develop as pseudo-states, they're more likely to have imitators elsewhere. What implications that could hold for the broader region, especially especially in the long term, fragmentation of states, increased political factionalism and the potential for increased levels of dislocation.

The question is, will Iran or other Arab countries, come to aid Palestine..
or will America decide to intervene?

Venezuela expels Israeli ambassador over Gaza (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hj0ehBqPmjVyWuBEdqsfMorPjobQD95HTQ4G0)

Also:

Denmark's foreign ministry Tuesday summoned Israel's ambassador to Copenhagen for an explanation of the bombing of three mobile clinics run by a Danish charity in Gaza.

The Folkekirkens Noedhjaelp (DanChurchAid) clinics were bombarded on Monday night despite being clearly marked, said the organisation's secretary general Henrik Stubkjaer in a statement.
http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=090106193629.8ek1ufkh.php

In addition to its military wing, the so-called Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. Indeed, the extensive social and political work done by Hamas - and its reputation among Palestinians as averse to corruption - partly explain its defeat of the Fatah old guard in the 2006 legislative vote. Hamas funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. "Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. The Palestinian Authority often fails to provide such services, and Hamas's efforts in this area—as well as a reputation for honesty, in contrast to the many Fatah officials accused of corruption—help to explain the broad popularity it summoned to defeat Fatah in the PA's recent elections.

Oh, thats just great. The vile, murderous fanatics are capable of running an honest attempt at infrastructure, but in my area, corruption is rampant.

I'm going to a join Islam website.

The question is, will Iran or other Arab countries, come to aid Palestine..
or will America decide to intervene?

The answer: Doubtful.

Venezuela expels Israeli ambassador over Gaza (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hj0ehBqPmjVyWuBEdqsfMorPjobQD95HTQ4G0)

Also:


http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=090106193629.8ek1ufkh.php

Israel is trying to wipe out Gaza, they have gone from bombing stuff remotely related to Hamas to bombing foreign-owned humanitaran buildings. The longer this goes on, the longer it looks less like the "stopping of Hamas rocket and more like "the wiping out of Palestine."

And they won't stop until they are done because the only nation that could possibly stop it is the US and the are giving their tacit approval. Either this war will end with the razing of Gaza for Zionist settlers or a full-out war.

Either this war will end with the razing of Gaza for Zionist settlers or a full-out war.

Which would be odd since Israel kicked all the zionist settlers out of Gaza in 2005
:confused:

Oh Gods.

Knights of Liberty Hamas is a terrorist organisation.

No. They have a military wing, but they do other things as well.

Even the PLO refuse to recognise them as legitimate rulers of the Gaza Strip.

Course they dont, the PLO wants control.

Hamas was 'elected' through vote rigging and threats,

Source?

and what on Earht do you mean by "they do a lot of humanitarian aid that helps the community?"

Building and running hospital, for example.

As they themselves are in Palestine the only way they are getting this aid must be by stealing it and as the only place to steal it from is the international humanitartion aid it sounds like they are looking after themselves more then others.


Wow. What an ignorant and slightly racist thing to say.

Tell me, do you know...anything about this situation?

let's just nuke it (I mean ALL of it) and be done with this headache.

let's just nuke it (I mean ALL of it) and be done with this headache.

Boy, there's one thing i just never get tired of seeing posted over and over and over and over, and that's calls for genocide.

Yeah, your headache is really a good justification for another Holocaust.

Why doesn't anyone ever say "Let's just nuke the United States and be done with this headache?" I mean, apart from the fact that people who are in big favor of using nuclear weapons to slaughter civilians and solve problems tend to be from the United States.

Boy, there's one thing i just never get tired of seeing posted over and over and over and over, and that's calls for genocide.

I for one, propose making sure that both sides are quite capable of carrying out nuclear genocide on each other, with no hope of avoiding total destruction of both sides if they were to be used, and leave it at that.

Either idiocy runs greater in that sad little corner of the world and they are doing the human race a favor by wiping themselves from existence, or they will actually learn to grow up in the face of immediate and total destruction.

I for one, propose making sure that both sides are quite capable of carrying out nuclear genocide on each other, with no hope of avoiding total destruction of both sides if they were to be used, and leave it at that.

Either idiocy runs greater in that sad little corner of the world and they are doing the human race a favor by wiping themselves from existence, or they will actually learn to grow up in the face of immediate and total destruction.

Yeah I'm sure that's exactly what you'd say if half of your family lived in that "sad little corner of the world," including yourself.

No you wouldn't. Your position of flippant pro-genocidal lunacy is borne completely from your casual disassociation, your removal from the situation and all of its consequences. It's TV to you, so what the fuck you care? LOL NUKE NUKE NUKES R SOLUTIONS 2 PROBLEMZ.

Boy, there's one thing i just never get tired of seeing posted over and over and over and over, and that's calls for genocide.

Yeah, your headache is really a good justification for another Holocaust.

Why doesn't anyone ever say "Let's just nuke the United States and be done with this headache?" I mean, apart from the fact that people who are in big favor of using nuclear weapons to slaughter civilians and solve problems tend to be from the United States.

I'm not calling for any genocide. I'm calling for the utter destruction of a stupid piece of land that causes nothing but problems.

I'm not calling for any genocide. I'm calling for the utter destruction of a stupid piece of land that causes nothing but problems.

With nukes. And it just happens that millions of people live on that land. Pure coincidence, surely!

Or maybe we can have a forced evacuation first! Raise your hand if you want millions of angry refugee immigrants to "steal your jobs." Please, not everyone at once.

What I like about this is your reasoning seems to be, "They are stupid for all the killing that's going on, because killing people needlessly is stupid and wrong. LETS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN HITLER!"

"LETS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN HITLER!"

Did you know Stalin killed more?

Did you know Stalin killed more?

Yes, yes I did. Also he had the bigger Dictator Mustache.

Also he had the bigger Dictator Mustache.
And better tunes.

Yeah I'm sure that's exactly what you'd say if half of your family lived in that "sad little corner of the world," including yourself.

I attach no particular special value to any human life, be I related to them or not or whether they died by disembowelment for Japanese amusement nearly seventy years ago.


No you wouldn't. Your position of flippant pro-genocidal lunacy is borne completely from your casual disassociation, your removal from the situation and all of its consequences.

You really don't know a thing about me, so my "removal" from its consequences is nothing more than a hopeful assumption from your side in order to bolster your rebuttal.


It's TV to you, so what the fuck you care? LOL NUKE NUKE NUKES R SOLUTIONS 2 PROBLEMZ.

That only demonstrates your lack of historical awareness and realpolitik. When both sides of a conflict are equally strong that neither can attack without losing, then there won't be a conflict, at least openly. The fools at the bottom may not care, but those with the reins on power care very much if they can continue to exist, especially if they can still hold on to power.

An all out war of destruction with no winners will not be what they want, and you can be assured that if both sides are capable of such, they will do all they can to avoid such a war.

Whatever happens, if they do not choose peace, one side will assuredly die in the end, with a great many corpses. Make no mistake, if they do not learn, one side will exterminate the other eventually. The only difference that nuclear devices would make is that rather than a slow drip, it would happen all at once, and to both sides. And if you believe that a slow drip is better, well, hypocrisy is a very seductive poison.

I attach no particular special value to any human life, be I related to them or not or whether they died by disembowelment for Japanese amusement nearly seventy years ago.


You're not quite making sense here.

You really don't know a thing about me, so my "removal" from its consequences is nothing more than a hopeful assumption from your side in order to bolster your rebuttal.

Well, unless you happen to live in the Israeli-Palestine area, you're removed enough to explain why you advocate what you do. It's always easy to advocate that someone else gets the shaft.

That only demonstrates your lack of historical awareness and realpolitik.

Ah, yes, whenever I disagree with someone's psychotic position I just don't understand the magic of realpolitik. :rolleyes:

When both sides of a conflict are equally strong that neither can attack without losing, then there won't be a conflict, at least openly. The fools at the bottom may not care, but those with the reins on power care very much if they can continue to exist, especially if they can still hold on to power.

An all out war of destruction with no winners will not be what they want, and you can be assured that if both sides are capable of such, they will do all they can to avoid such a war.

Presuming leaders are perfectly rational. Lucky I don't have any historical awareness or I might be able to point out a few instances of political leaders NOT behaving perfectly rationally.

Whatever happens, if they do not choose peace, one side will assuredly die in the end, with a great many corpses. Make no mistake, if they do not learn, one side will exterminate the other eventually.

"They'll all die anyway." I wonder how many murders have been committed with that thought in mind. "He'd die in the end anyway. I'm actually being merciful!"

It of course presumes that total extermination is inevitable, something history doesn't exactly support but that must be my lack of awareness and stuff.

The only difference that nuclear devices would make is that rather than a slow drip, it would happen all at once, and to both sides.

And with radioactive fallout. LOL what could go wrong with my evil plan? The people, they will love me for my God-like mercy! In the end, they will come to thank me!'

And if you believe that a slow drip is better, well, hypocrisy is a very seductive poison.

Nah I guess my lack of understanding of realpolitik just makes me opposed to genocide and mass destruction. Weird.

Or maybe we can have a forced evacuation first! Raise your hand if you want millions of angry refugee immigrants to "steal your jobs." Please, not everyone at once.

Okay, sure.

You're not quite making sense here.


As I said, I give no special value to any human life whatsoever. They are all the same to me.


Well, unless you happen to live in the Israeli-Palestine area, you're removed enough to explain why you advocate what you do. It's always easy to advocate that someone else gets the shaft.

Nuclear war will affect a great deal more than just the Israeli-Palestine area. Israel does have it's Samson option (kill everyone in reach if it looks like they're losing), and certainly no reason not to employ it beyond common human decency, which they haven't exactly shown much of.

So yes, I would be affected rather badly as well.


Ah, yes, whenever I disagree with someone's psychotic position I just don't understand the magic of realpolitik. :rolleyes:


Truly suicidal people rarely get into power. They tend to get eaten alive by the more pragmatic ones.


Presuming leaders are perfectly rational. Lucky I don't have any historical awareness or I might be able to point out a few instances of political leaders NOT behaving perfectly rationally.

They don't have to behave rationally. All they have to do is value their skins and their power. And I've yet to see anyone in power lack for want of both.


"They'll all die anyway." I wonder how many murders have been committed with that thought in mind. "He'd die in the end anyway. I'm actually being merciful!"

Hypocrisy is a very seductive poison. It helps you feel better, even if you don't really make anything better.

You don't see it do you? The bodycount will be the same in the end. Bleeding to death and having your head cut off amount to the exact same thing, the only difference is how long it takes. But somehow one is better than the other? Please.

If both sides choose destruction, then it makes no difference whether they had nuclear arms or not, except for how much more destruction is wrought. If both sides choose survival, then it makes quite a bit of difference.


It of course presumes that total extermination is inevitable, something history doesn't exactly support but that must be my lack of awareness and stuff.

You seem to be arguing that because it's happening in a disorganized fashion and slowly, ethnic cleansing isn't happening.


And with radioactive fallout. LOL what could go wrong with my evil plan? The people, they will love me for my God-like mercy! In the end, they will come to thank me!'

And of course with the worries of nuclear Armageddon, the neighboring nations, any in Israel's striking distance really, would have a much greater interest in bringing peace between the two, rather than the occasional moral hand wringing or arms smuggling and insurgency funding.

Nuclear blackmail always works.


Nah I guess my lack of understanding of realpolitik just makes me opposed to genocide and mass destruction. Weird.

You think too small, and too idealistically.

I'm not going to quote anyone specifically because I don't want to make enemies by calling anyone out, but I'm repeatedly seeing argument in this threat that akins what Israel is doing to genocide.

Is that really the best argument? I don't think Israel is trying to commit genocide. If they were they would do a better job of it. There's only been 600 dead in Gaza.

If Israel wanted to kill everyone they could have inflicted 600,000 casualties in the last couple weeks WITHOUT nukes.

Oh, but I do have to respond to one thing.

Whatever happens, if they do not choose peace, one side will assuredly die in the end, with a great many corpses. Make no mistake, if they do not learn, one side will exterminate the other eventually. The only difference that nuclear devices would make is that rather than a slow drip, it would happen all at once, and to both sides. And if you believe that a slow drip is better, well, hypocrisy is a very seductive poison.

Ummmm...OK. So you say you know about realpolitik and etc. OK.

So then why would you write this? If you know about realpolitik then you know that the U.N. was set up with the purpose of having a multi-layer bureaucracy. Why? Because if nations were sitting at a lengthy negotiation instead of fighting then they weren't fighting. The thinking went that any amount of paperwork and any cost of time was better than people dying.

Preferring a slow drip is not hypocrisy. It's reality. If a nuclear weapon goes off in a populated part of the world tomorrow then the world will never be the same. Millions could die in an instant. If you think that's OK, and better or the same as 11 days of fighting in which only 600 or so have died? It's not the same. And it's not equivalent.

What you're talking about isn't realpolitik. It's a kind of human rights defeatism in which all international conflicts have to be settled violently, either through repeated acts of violence over a long period of time or one or several major acts of violence in a short time. And I completely disagree with that.

And so would Henry Kissinger, and Kissinger is as big a fan of realpolitik as anyone I know of.

As I said, I give no special value to any human life whatsoever. They are all the same to me.

Oh, clearly. And you don't seem to attach value to human life beyond that of insects either.

Nuclear war will affect a great deal more than just the Israeli-Palestine area. Israel does have it's Samson option (kill everyone in reach if it looks like they're losing), and certainly no reason not to employ it beyond common human decency, which they haven't exactly shown much of.

So yes, I would be affected rather badly as well.

And you still think you've proposed an actual solution.

Truly suicidal people rarely get into power. They tend to get eaten alive by the more pragmatic ones.

Well, that's enough for me. Nukes for everybody!

They don't have to behave rationally. All they have to do is value their skins and their power.

And to agree with your assessment of M.A.D. And agree that they wouldn't believe they could escape. Or that they wouldn't be crazy religious fundamentalists.

Hypocrisy is a very seductive poison. It helps you feel better, even if you don't really make anything better.

Making baseless ad hominem fallacies is also pretty seductive.

You don't see it do you? The bodycount will be the same in the end. Bleeding to death and having your head cut off amount to the exact same thing, the only difference is how long it takes.

You seem to think that total genocide (the kind that will be guaranteed by nuclear weapon use) is inevitable. You seem to think that "unless both sides choose peace" they will butcher each other to every last man, woman and child. This is a nonsensical and absurd false dichotomy. For all of Israel's existence it hasn't "chosen peace," and yet this mass genocide hasn't happened. You are wrong.

So yeah, I "don't see" what isn't there.

If both sides choose destruction, then it makes no difference whether they had nuclear arms or not, except for how much more destruction is wrought.

Oh yeah, except for that in the current style of warfare hundreds, sometimes thousands die, and in a nuclear holocaust millions die. But other than that they're no different!


You seem to be arguing that because it's happening in a disorganized fashion and slowly, ethnic cleansing isn't happening.

No, I am arguing that even if "ethnic cleansing is happening" "slowly," it is not a good reason to let the nukes fly.

And of course with the worries of nuclear Armageddon, the neighboring nations, any in Israel's striking distance really, would have a much greater interest in bringing peace between the two

Ha-ha.

You think too small, and too idealistically.

I like it when arguing against war crimes is "too idealistically."

So then why would you write this? If you know about realpolitik then you know that the U.N. was set up with the purpose of having a multi-layer bureaucracy. Why? Because if nations were sitting at a lengthy negotiation instead of fighting then they weren't fighting. The thinking went that any amount of paperwork and any cost of time was better than people dying.


Which if you look at it, didn't really stop people from dying. The UN didn't stop the major powers from going to war. It was nuclear weapons and the fact that once one was touched off when everyone else had them, there was no stopping it from quickly escalating to a full scale strategic nuclear war in which no government had a prayer of surviving. Humanity would have likely survived, but all the big players would have been turned into anarchy ridden hotspots.

In short, it became a zero sum game, so nobody played.

But that didn't stop both sides from trying to find one way to trump the other, some way of being able to obliterate the competition without being obliterated themselves. And all the while, they were still going at each other, funding dirty little secrets across the globe to set up regimes friendly to themselves, or directly sabotaging the economy and military of those they weren't friendly with.


Preferring a slow drip is not hypocrisy. It's reality. If a nuclear weapon goes off in a populated part of the world tomorrow then the world will never be the same. Millions could die in an instant. If you think that's OK, and better or the same as 11 days of fighting in which only 600 or so have died? It's not the same. And it's not equivalent.

11 days? Is that how short you've got the duration to? Try hmm, over 80 years of constant fighting between both sides at various levels of strength. Try stacking those corpses up then tell me it's not equivalent.

Giving them nuclear parity doesn't mean you're pulling the trigger. It simply means that they have the trigger. What happens after that is on their heads. If they choose to destroy themselves, then so be it.


What you're talking about isn't realpolitik. It's a kind of human rights defeatism in which all international conflicts have to be settled violently, either through repeated acts of violence over a long period of time or one or several major acts of violence in a short time. And I completely disagree with that.


Feel free to disagree. It won't change several thousand years of human devotion to becoming king of the heap as long as they aren't part of the corpse mountain.

Which if you look at it, didn't really stop people from dying. The UN didn't stop the major powers from going to war. It was nuclear weapons and the fact that once one was touched off when everyone else had them, there was no stopping it from quickly escalating to a full scale strategic nuclear war in which no government had a prayer of surviving. Humanity would have likely survived, but all the big players would have been turned into anarchy ridden hotspots.

In short, it became a zero sum game, so nobody played.

But that didn't stop both sides from trying to find one way to trump the other, some way of being able to obliterate the competition without being obliterated themselves. And all the while, they were still going at each other, funding dirty little secrets across the globe to set up regimes friendly to themselves, or directly sabotaging the economy and military of those they weren't friendly with.

I think this argument is shameful and I'm not going to respond to it.

Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

John F. Kennedy

11 days? Is that how short you've got the duration to? Try hmm, over 80 years of constant fighting between both sides at various levels of strength. Try stacking those corpses up then tell me it's not equivalent.

Giving them nuclear parity doesn't mean you're pulling the trigger. It simply means that they have the trigger. What happens after that is on their heads. If they choose to destroy themselves, then so be it.

It's absolutely not equivalent. Even if the casualty count were similar, which I doubt, then it still wouldn't be equivalent. What happens to nuclear parity when a coup takes place in an unstable nation and the players in the coup prefer martyrdom to peace?

Millions of innocents can die for your foolish nuclear parity in that scenario and you don't care?

Feel free to disagree. It won't change several thousand years of human devotion to becoming king of the heap as long as they aren't part of the corpse mountain.

I do disagree. I think you're channeling Thomas Hobbes, except unlike Hobbes, you don't think submission to civilization and government and social contracts can prevent what is essentially a state of nature.

I think if I had your view of humanity I wouldn't care if millions were wiped out either. But unlike you, I believe in the sand dollar analogy.

A man is walking on the beach, and the tide came in so there are thousands of sand dollars laying on the beach, slowly dying. And he comes across another man who is busily tossing sand dollars back into the ocean. So he approaches the man who is throwing sand dollars, and he says to him "Why bother doing that? You can't possibly save all of them."

And the man throwing the sand dollars back in the water picks up another sand dollar, shows it to the man who asked the question and flings it back into the ocean. And he says "No, I can't save all of them...but I can save THAT one."

Oh, clearly. And you don't seem to attach value to human life beyond that of insects either.

Can you give me a reason I should? The same humans who never tire of war, no matter how many die. The same humans who are willing to let hatred and prejudice, no matter how empty, be their guiding light as they commit murder in its name. The same humans who willingly bleed entire countries dry in their quest for power and influence.

You might like to think that because we're humans, we're different somehow, maybe even better, but in reality, humanity is just another animal, just as savage as any other, and as far as I can see, deserving no more value than any other animal.


And you still think you've proposed an actual solution.


Of course. Make peace everybody's business, because the alternative is death. Humans often respond well to the fear of their personal death.


And to agree with your assessment of M.A.D. And agree that they wouldn't believe they could escape. Or that they wouldn't be crazy religious fundamentalists.

Mutually Assured Destruction is a concept neither side can escape really. Only someone living under a rock would think that throwing anything Israel's way won't be retaliated with interest, and nuclear weapons guarantees that even if they somehow survive, the ones who pushed the buttons would not have any power left worth clinging to.

As for crazy religious fundamentalists, did you mean the low level people who are fully with the concept of martyrdom? That sort is not the type to ever reach any appreciable power, or gain keys to the most powerful weapons.

Granted, I did not specify who would be getting the keys initially, but I would say it should be to the one who has demonstrated the most competency at managing their territory.


Making baseless ad hominem fallacies is also pretty seductive.


It is hypocrisy to believe that slow drip death for one side is somehow better than a choice between peace for all or death for both.


You seem to think that total genocide (the kind that will be guaranteed by nuclear weapon use) is inevitable. You seem to think that "unless both sides choose peace" they will butcher each other to every last man, woman and child. This is a nonsensical and absurd false dichotomy. For all of Israel's existence it hasn't "chosen peace," and yet this mass genocide hasn't happened. You are wrong.

Am I wrong in pointing out that Palestinian territory has constantly shrunk over the years? Am I wrong in pointing out that settlers have built illegal settlements all over Palestinian territory, gradually pushing out the Palestinians (or killing them) into ever tinier amounts of land. Am I wrong in pointing out that for decades, the Palestinians have been launching attacks on Israeli territory as long as they have been able, despite evidence aplenty that doing so only worsens their conditions? Am I wrong in pointing out that these worsening conditions are taking their toll in terms of both Palestinian lives and life expectancy?

You don't see, because either you don't want to, or it's happening too slowly for you to. This isn't something that will take days, or weeks, or even months. It's a spiral of death that has taken decades to get to this point and shows no signs of reversing.


Oh yeah, except for that in the current style of warfare hundreds, sometimes thousands die, and in a nuclear holocaust millions die. But other than that they're no different!

They either die piecemeal in dozens of little skirmishes every year, or they die in one fell swoop, or maybe, they learn to live in peace when the option is for them all to die instantly. Whichever the case, the choice of violence nets the same body count at the end. So, no, not much of a difference.


No, I am arguing that even if "ethnic cleansing is happening" "slowly," it is not a good reason to let the nukes fly.


Am I arguing for the nuclear destruction of the two? No. I am arguing for the capability of nuclear destruction for the two. What they do with that lies on their hands, and their hands alone.


Ha-ha.

So you laugh at the idea. I suppose you believe that even Europe is led by martyrs willing to doom themselves in order to destroy Israel, because Europe certainly seems within Israel's striking distance should they employ the Samson option.

How curious that you blather about how genocide is evil and that death and destruction is wrong, but yet argue that the threat of such things to stave them off from actually happening is worse.


I like it when arguing against war crimes is "too idealistically."

Because war crimes will happen no matter what you think, and because only the loser of that war will ever suffer for committing war crimes. Those who win wars rarely, if ever, prosecute their own for war crimes.

Sometimes, they even give them medals.

I think this argument is shameful and I'm not going to respond to it.

Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

John F. Kennedy

Cute. I suppose you're going to pretend the development of MIRVs, the SDI project (failed as it was) and SSBNs were not to gain the upper hand over the other, and that nuclear brinkmanship was merely a fabrication? And I also suppose you're going to deny that both sides of the cold war fronted a variety of proxy governments and guerrilla groups intended to install regimes favorable to them, despite how much blood they would spill to do so?

John F. Kennedy's quote is nice, but it doesn't change reality.


It's absolutely not equivalent. Even if the casualty count were similar, which I doubt, then it still wouldn't be equivalent. What happens to nuclear parity when a coup takes place in an unstable nation and the players in the coup prefer martyrdom to peace?

If you can show me an example of coup leaders preferring martyrdom as opposed to their continued existence and the reins of power they've seized, you might have a point.


Millions of innocents can die for your foolish nuclear parity in that scenario and you don't care?

People die, perhaps millions of them, every year. Most die in pointless, often unjust and painful deaths. Famine, disease, war, an endless sea of suffering that happens to thousands for no other reason than they happened to be there at the time. Do you care about each and every death? Do you feel grief for them? Cry over every corpse?

If you don't, then you don't really care either. You might care about the injustice in an abstract manner, but not really for the individual person.

As for millions dying in the scenario, so they may. Or they may not. Destructive parity might be the answer to having a few less die in such a manner than letting things go on as they have.


I do disagree. I think you're channeling Thomas Hobbes, except unlike Hobbes, you don't think submission to civilization and government and social contracts can prevent what is essentially a state of nature.

Of course not. Civilization, government, social contracts, they are simply layers upon which the base human motivations and desires act upon. But it does not take away the motivations at all. Whether you have a government or not, there will be those who are greedy, those who desire power, those who will oppress to gain what they want.

All civilization did was formalize things. The ego for the id.

Can you give me a reason I should?

I guess if you're going to be like that, no, nothing I can say will convince you of the worth of human rights. At this point you're literally asking me, "Why is murder wrong?" like Arnie in Terminator 2. If you truly don't have ethics or empathy, you're essentially sociopathic and we have no common ground from which to dialog.

The same humans who never tire of war, no matter how many die.

You are referring to the dead children killed in attacks? The same children who voted for Hamas and "got what they deserved" eh. Yeah everyone who dies must be a guilty warmongering criminal, thus it's all right.

Or are you referring to "humans" in general - excepting your own, special, Robot self?

The same humans who are willing to let hatred and prejudice, no matter how empty, be their guiding light as they commit murder in its name. The same humans who willingly bleed entire countries dry in their quest for power and influence.

Well, now you're just contradicting yourself and talking about murder and bleeding entire countries as if they're bad things.

You might like to think that because we're humans, we're different somehow, maybe even better, but in reality, humanity is just another animal, just as savage as any other, and as far as I can see, deserving no more value than any other animal.

Our sentience gives us greater ability to suffer. This is why humans will commit suicide and animals do not. It's also the source of much art, poetry, literature and music.

I don't think we're better. But I don't pretend that humans are cockroaches. Or for that matter, that any animal species is "savage" and does the same kinds of things that humans do. Our sentience allows us to be cruel too.

At any rate, "better" than other animals or not is irrelevant to the point, which is your advocacy of mass slaughter of humans.

Of course. Make peace everybody's business, because the alternative is death. Humans often respond well to the fear of their personal death.

No they don't. They fight or flight. It's 50/50, and you're gambling on millions of lives. Lucky for humanity you don't really have a say.

Mutually Assured Destruction is a concept neither side can escape really. Only someone living under a rock would think that throwing anything Israel's way won't be retaliated with interest, and nuclear weapons guarantees that even if they somehow survive, the ones who pushed the buttons would not have any power left worth clinging to.

Right. Because people don't make suicidal attacks or patently hopeless things. People don't attack others just to attack them. No one is delusional or mistaken or misguided by ideology or religion. Not if they're "IN POWER!" since being IN POWER turns you from the dumb mean "savage" into some Machiavellian master. Convenient how humans are savage animals one moment and perfectly rational the next depending on your mood.

As for crazy religious fundamentalists, did you mean the low level people who are fully with the concept of martyrdom? That sort is not the type to ever reach any appreciable power, or gain keys to the most powerful weapons.

Granted, I did not specify who would be getting the keys initially, but I would say it should be to the one who has demonstrated the most competency at managing their territory.

Giving power to the "most competent" leaders. Now why didn't anyone else think of that? How simple.

It is hypocrisy to believe that slow drip death for one side is somehow better than a choice between peace for all or death for both.

It's a strawman to say I believe in your "slow drip death" nonsense. The rest that follows is therefore invalid. Even if it wasn't, "You're a hypocrite" is itself an ad hominem fallacy.

Am I wrong in pointing out that Palestinian territory has constantly shrunk over the years?

You are wrong in equating a loss of territory with NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION.

Am I wrong in pointing out that settlers have built illegal settlements all over Palestinian territory, gradually pushing out the Palestinians (or killing them) into ever tinier amounts of land.

You are wrong in equating this with NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION.

Am I wrong in pointing out that for decades, the Palestinians have been launching attacks on Israeli territory as long as they have been able, despite evidence aplenty that doing so only worsens their conditions?

You are wrong in seeing this and then concluding that arming these people with nuclear weapons is a good idea.

Am I wrong in pointing out that these worsening conditions are taking their toll in terms of both Palestinian lives and life expectancy?

You are wrong in seeing this and then concluding that KILLING THEM ALL WITH NUCLEAR FIRE is some kind of ethical decision. You are also wrong by equating this with genocide.

You don't see, because either you don't want to, or it's happening too slowly for you to. This isn't something that will take days, or weeks, or even months. It's a spiral of death that has taken decades to get to this point and shows no signs of reversing.

How poetic and self-righteous... and, for a guy who views humans as bugs to be stepped on, hypocritical. Kudos on being the first guy to actually make a "mercy genocide" argument on NSG, though, and apparently while being serious.


They either die piecemeal in dozens of little skirmishes every year, or they die in one fell swoop

Right cuz it's exactly the same.

, or maybe, they learn to live in peace when the option is for them all to die instantly. Whichever the case, the choice of violence nets the same body count at the end.

Oh, back to the magical precision nuclear weapons are we? YAY I LIKE LIVING IN FANTASYLAND TOO.

So, no, not much of a difference.

LA LA LA

Am I arguing for the nuclear destruction of the two? No. I am arguing for the capability of nuclear destruction for the two. What they do with that lies on their hands, and their hands alone.

The same hands that are currently shaking each other in peace? Ha. No.

The same hands that are currently committing genocide? Oops wait, there isn't that either.

Your argument doesn't hold a molecule of water.

So you laugh at the idea. I suppose you believe that even Europe is led by martyrs willing to doom themselves in order to destroy Israel, because Europe certainly seems within Israel's striking distance should they employ the Samson option.

You suppose wrong.

How curious that you blather about how genocide is evil and that death and destruction is wrong, but yet argue that the threat of such things to stave them off from actually happening is worse.

Someone's not getting it, and it's not me.

Because war crimes will happen no matter what you think, and because only the loser of that war will ever suffer for committing war crimes. Those who win wars rarely, if ever, prosecute their own for war crimes.

Therefore war crimes are good.

Sometimes, they even give them medals.

Better than good, they're great!

You know, sometimes I just don't know when people are trolling and when they really believe what they say. Your argument straddles this depressingly thin line. It's honestly like:

"I think children should be given loaded machine guns, fragmentation grenades, and canisters of biological warfare agents. It would be an awesome way for them to learn how to cooperate in peace. Either that or they'd all die, and kill some of us along with them, but hey we all die anyway so WHO CARES! In fact that would be merciful and YOU are cruel and hypocritical for arguing against my wonderful idea. Also children are perfectly rational and would never hurt each other, even though I'll spend paragraphs ranting about how savage and animalistic humanity is. And this makes sense to me because of realpolitik, which you don't understand because you're a meatbag."

But how come no "Maybe China should administer Gaza, impose the strict one-child-per-couple rule until the population is sustainable, and condition all assistance to the adults on the "he doesn't work, doesn't eat" rule:", hmmmm?

Why do the Palestinians large families deserve the tender hands of the PRC yet their Israeli counterparts are let off with a stern talking to?
Well first of all, the "China" proposal was sarcasm, like my "casinos" proposal, but everybody is very humorless, so seriously:
If the settlers are forced to abandon their present course, there is a society with a functional, productive economy that they can be made to assimilate into. The problem with the Palestinians is that they have never built a viable society or economy, and it is unclear how to induce them to move in that direction. They are accustomed to thinking of their pseudo-government as a source of patronage "jobs" that consist of brandishing weapons, which is not a useful kind of "work", and to having the world's charity as a backstop (all funneled through Israel: did either the Allies or the Axis keep shipping food to the other side while bombing their cities? can't someone notice how bizarre this "war" really is?).

Cute. I suppose you're going to pretend the development of MIRVs, the SDI project (failed as it was) and SSBNs were not to gain the upper hand over the other, and that nuclear brinkmanship was merely a fabrication? And I also suppose you're going to deny that both sides of the cold war fronted a variety of proxy governments and guerrilla groups intended to install regimes favorable to them, despite how much blood they would spill to do so?

John F. Kennedy's quote is nice, but it doesn't change reality.

The world is full of conflicts. They happen all the time. The way in which you're interpreting those events is what I take issue with. I don't deny any of the details of any of the conflicts you're citing. I deny the way in which you're interpreting them.

And the solution you propose I find abhorrent. You call it reality. Well, I say it's your reality. The world I see has gotten vastly better over the centuries. All eras before the current one sucked relative to the current one. Less people hungry now than ever, less people dead from war now than ever. Etc. etc. Advents in technology, globalization. The material quality of life in the United States increased 7x from 1900-2000. The world will live better (and longer) 10 years from now than it does now, and in 20 years we'll live better than we will in 10 years.

And the reason why is because the state of nature you're essentially embracing can be controlled. It's in man's nature to murder, yes. But we make it illegal domestically in almost every country in the world. We can control the spread of nuclear weaponry, too. We can do a lot of things. The world isn't a zero sum game in terms of human dignity and quality of life and quantity of violence. It can be improved, and has improved.

I think your view is defeatist and callous and if the people who were actually in charge of maintaining international order adopted it than the world would be in grave danger. Sorry. There's very little I can say to disprove you, but I think if you looked at the reality of what would happen given global nuclear parity you'd realize that you're essentially prescribing a death sentence for millions. And why is that acceptable to you? Because it's faster. It wouldn't take as long. It wouldn't be as hard to watch because it would all be over in an instant.

I absolutely do not agree with you. Not for a second. My stepfather and one of my best friends both agree with you, so I know what you're saying and I'm not trying to insult you because both my stepdad and my friend are both exceedingly intelligent. I just don't agree with you, and I don't agree that your interpretation is reality. And neither do Henry Kissinger or Warren Buffett or Fareed Zakaria, and those are my 3 biggest influences in terms of my perspective on the world.

People die, perhaps millions of them, every year. Most die in pointless, often unjust and painful deaths. Famine, disease, war, an endless sea of suffering that happens to thousands for no other reason than they happened to be there at the time. Do you care about each and every death? Do you feel grief for them? Cry over every corpse?

If you don't, then you don't really care either. You might care about the injustice in an abstract manner, but not really for the individual person.

Every senseless death saddens me, although I do have perspective. For instance, I realize that 600 deaths in Gaza is better than 600,000, and if I can do something to assure even the prevention of 1 needless death by violence I'm all for it. Therefore, I support diplomacy and the United Nations.

That said, the emergence of a strong international order that can more effectively stop things like genocide and other international problems is hard to create, and there are legitimate issues that need to be addressed before such an entity can emerge (limitations on sovereignty is a big one). But that doesn't mean we should just stop trying. If you think the world would be just as violent without the UN as with it? Then we just have ideological differences in terms of human nature.

This is why I said your view is shameful. It's a fundamental difference in viewpoints about the quality of human beings, yours being one which I find shameful and wrong.

As for millions dying in the scenario, so they may. Or they may not. Destructive parity might be the answer to having a few less die in such a manner than letting things go on as they have.

I think things have gone on better over time. I don't think things have maintained a plateau over the last century and just "continued on as they have been."

I think there have been major, marked improvements in both the quality and the length of life, as well as the quantity of famine, disease, war deaths, etc. etc.

Of course not. Civilization, government, social contracts, they are simply layers upon which the base human motivations and desires act upon. But it does not take away the motivations at all. Whether you have a government or not, there will be those who are greedy, those who desire power, those who will oppress to gain what they want.

All civilization did was formalize things. The ego for the id.

And thus we come to your point: The world IS a zero-sum game in terms of the advancement of human rights and the prevention of violence, and thus the only way to prevent such things is mutually-assured destruction due to the inherently greedy, Freudian nature of human beings.

And as I said before, if I had that view I would put millions of lives in peril with my policy prescriptions without worrying about it as well.

But I don't have that view.

This is like a discussion about abortion. There's no solution. But I'll tell you something: I prefer the potentially useless effort on the part of the world to stop such things over what you're arguing for. And I prefer it every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Why? Because it's not reckless. It doesn't intentionally put millions of lives in danger on the assumption that mutually-assured destruction will prevent every nation in the world from engaging in war with every other nation in the world. The prevention of the spread of nuclear technology, while potentially useless, is still worth it. The effort to prevent these things is worthwhile, regardless of whether they work.

As I said before, I think your whole approach can be summed up in one word: Defeatism. And it's not contributive. It's detrimental and dangerous.

You sound like a Ron Paul fan.

I guess if you're going to be like that, no, nothing I can say will convince you of the worth of human rights. At this point you're literally asking me, "Why is murder wrong?" like Arnie in Terminator 2. If you truly don't have ethics or empathy, you're essentially sociopathic and we have no common ground from which to dialog.

I might have ethics. I might even have empathy. But what I believe won't change reality, and it certainly won't change human desires and ruthlessness. The most practical option would be to make use of that ruthlessness and desire to bring about the most stable outcome.

You on the other hand, appear to believe in the principles of enlightenment and species wide ethics. It's admirable, but it won't get very much done, and at best, make you feel good while accomplishing nothing at all.


You are referring to the dead children killed in attacks?


I refer to the human species in it's entirety. Even if individuals tire of war and strife, others will pick it up readily enough. It's quite that simple.


Well, now you're just contradicting yourself and talking about murder and bleeding entire countries as if they're bad things.

Am I? I gave what I believe was the best available option towards ensuring a cessation of hostilities between two antagonists by ensuring them an absolute and immediate zero sum game if they continued. If I thought wanton murder and destruction were good things, I would have advocated the best available option towards escalating hostilities while still preserving their will to fight.


At any rate, "better" than other animals or not is irrelevant to the point, which is your advocacy of mass slaughter of humans.

And now you make up lies about my position. Giving them the ability to do so is in no way advocating that they do so.


No they don't. They fight or flight. It's 50/50, and you're gambling on millions of lives. Lucky for humanity you don't really have a say.

There are at least seven known nuclear powers (eight if we include North Korea). If we follow your odds, then half of those powers should be dead by now, devastated by nuclear war. Obviously that is not the case.


Right. Because people don't make suicidal attacks or patently hopeless things. People don't attack others just to attack them. No one is delusional or mistaken or misguided by ideology or religion. Not if they're "IN POWER!" since being IN POWER turns you from the dumb mean "savage" into some Machiavellian master. Convenient how humans are savage animals one moment and perfectly rational the next depending on your mood.

Curious. You seem incapable of conceiving of the concept of savage rationality.

It is rather simple. Power, that is influence and control over others, does not come to the stupid. It goes to those who are ruthless enough, clever enough, and of course, rational enough, to do whatever it takes to seize it.

Do you see leaders of fanatical organizations making suicide attacks of their own? Do you see war mongers leading at the forefront of their armies when they go on conquest?'

Of course not. That would easily jeopardize the power they gained. Instead they have their pawns and footsoldiers, their expendables, do so.

Ah, but perhaps you subscribe to the subset of thinking where "All Muslims are evil hive minded terrorists willing to martyr themselves."

Maybe you do not, but it would certainly explain why you're so desperate to argue the "first strike self martyring leader" despite evidence to the contrary.


Giving power to the "most competent" leaders. Now why didn't anyone else think of that? How simple.

Yet you are decrying the option of giving them enough power to balance the two sides.


You are wrong in equating a loss of territory with NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION.

You are wrong in equating this with NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION.


Nuclear annihilation, if that is what they choose, would simply be the culmination of their inability to co-exist. Bullets, bombs, or tanks, in the end, it's the same thing. People die.

Does the scale of it make a difference? Why, yes, it does. It means that those who would choose to do continue the conflict would not escape at all. This, more than anything else, brings them the same threat their soldiers face when they send them out to fight, and limits their choices to just two.

Life or death.


You are wrong in seeing this and then concluding that arming these people with nuclear weapons is a good idea.

Arming the leadership of these people is what I propose. It will bring both to the table. Instead of an annoyance and reprisals, both sides will become equal in their ability to destroy the other, including the leaders. The Israeli leadership currently has no cause to fear anything from the Palestinians, and for all the talk of how Yasser Arrafat was a terrorist leader (and how much of it might have been real), he had little direct risk of being killed during the worst of the attacks.


You are wrong in seeing this and then concluding that KILLING THEM ALL WITH NUCLEAR FIRE is some kind of ethical decision.


And you would be lying if you claim my position would be to "kill them all with nuclear fire".


How poetic and self-righteous... and, for a guy who views humans as bugs to be stepped on, hypocritical. Kudos on being the first guy to actually make a "mercy genocide" argument on NSG, though, and apparently while being serious.

It's rather simple. They choose to co-exist, or they continue on their path and wipe themselves off the face of the planet. Give them the means, but leave them the choice.

You on the other hand, do not seem to be willing to see a parity between both groups, much less allow them to make their own choices.


The same hands that are currently shaking each other in peace? Ha. No.


Hands shook in an agreement 20 years ago that there would be no winners in a nuclear war and that by trying to one up the other, they risked destruction.

Are you saying that it is impossible here?


Someone's not getting it, and it's not me.


Oh? Then why don't you explain why it wouldn't work hmm?

It seems to me that if your argument is that both sides cannot live as equals and would sooner choose destruction, you would also be arguing that there would never be a cessation of hostilities until one side has been completely exterminated.


Therefore war crimes are good.

Better than good, they're great!


If that is your opinion.

I do not believe they are all that good, but history, as they say, is written by the victors, or rather, those who are left. War criminals become war heroes depending on who spins the tale, especially if they are on the winning side.

That is the reality of it. No matter how much you cling to the supposed virtues of ethics, they are so much wastepaper if you have not the strength to enforce it.


You know, sometimes I just don't know when people are trolling and when they really believe what they say. Your argument straddles this depressingly thin line. It's honestly like:

Depressing? Perhaps. But that is the reality of the situation. In the international stage, power, and only power (economic or military), is respected. Only when you have power equal to your opponent is he willing to sit down at the table and negotiate with you.

Witness North Korea, viewed as a pariah among nations and one of the so called "axis of evil". American talks with the country were belligerent, far more so than other countries (who were in artillery range) with the regime. Then North Korea demonstrated that it had nuclear weapons, and talks quickly became somewhat more conciliatory. The same could have been said of the early days after the Second World War, when the United States alone held nuclear supremacy.

Nuclear power is the big currency on the international stage, the crudest, but most visible, sign of power.

As for you comment on arming children, I would ask you this. How are you so certain the leaders of the world are not?

The problem with the Palestinians is that they have never built a viable society or economy?).

They were producing agricultural produce and exporting the surplus pre 1948. Please spare us the racist generalisations.


, and it is unclear how to induce them to move in that direction. They are accustomed to thinking of their pseudo-government as a source of patronage "jobs" that consist of brandishing weapons, which is not a useful kind of "work", and to having the world's charity as a backstop (all funneled through Israel:

That'd be the same Israel that routinely destroys their crops, resources, confiscates land, blocks transport of produce, uses its alliance with the US to isolate them, attacks children on the way to school...that Israel.....