NationStates Jolt Archive

In situations like this I like to think WWHD?

In situations like this I like to think WWHD?

Harry would spout some pseudo Latin which would make everyone poop in their pants. *nod*

Harry would spout some pseudo Latin which would make everyone poop in their pants. *nod*

Yeah, I think the spell went like "Crappicus Dungus"-

*Looks down*

Uh yeah... think that did it.

Though this will not garner me up much support on NSG (like I need it), my opinion is that if the majority of a country actually polls as supporting terrrosism, they won't recieve much support from the civilized world, nor should they. Those who support suicide bombings on civilians are nothing more than barbarians.

So I'm wondering... Instead of just issuing a blanket condemnation, why aren't you asking what could be done to reduce the numbers? Why don't you want that debate?

Yeah, I think the spell went like "Crappicus Dungus"

Pantalonius poopicus, actually.

Harry would spout some pseudo Latin which would make everyone poop in their pants. *nod*

No, he'd be banned on travelling to the area through Israel, and should he get there via Egypt and stand up to utter some latin, he'll have a round through his head before you can say 'I thought he was a terrorist'

Harry would spout some pseudo Latin which would make everyone poop in their pants. *nod*
That's not exactly what I meant and I think you know it. I'll give you a hint if you haven't guessed it by now. GodWIN!

That's not exactly what I meant and I think you know it.

Well, I didn't know Hermionne well enough to comment on what she'd say.

Oh wait, you meant Harrison Ford? He'd probably be in Palestinian tunnels looking for ancient artifacts that would eventually result in the devaluation of much of the surrounding territory and much fisticuffs.


I'll give you a hint if you haven't guessed it by now. GodWIN!

Oh, that one! He'd paint a picture that has something to do with loss of innocence and such, and then a Jewish ambassador would throw a temper tantrum and deface the picture with his poop. Parts of the ambassador would probably be found in a dumpster the next day.

....


Perhaps ethics, or anything else anyone "figures out", benefits from cogent, well reasoned discussion. If you don't see the point to that, well, it definitely explains the depth of your responses thus far.
....

I'm just gonna bother with this. Of course 'cogent' arguments may help but ethical development is much more of a fundamental issue, so personal experiences or experiences of close ones would have much more of an effect than an internet discussion. But meh, go ahead, yea I dunt understan kogent disucciso.

A report by the Israeli left-wing NGO Peace Now released Monday says that the government is planning to build more than 73,300 new housing units in the West Bank.

Peace Now estimates that if all of the units are built, it would mean a 100-percent increase in the total number of Israeli settlers. The report says that some settlements, including the two largest Ariel and Ma'aleh Adumim, would double in size.

According to the report, approval has already been granted for the construction of 15,000 housing units, and is pending for a further 58,000 units.

The report states that 5,722 of the planned housing units are in East Jerusalem, and some 9,000 units in total have already been built.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1068033.html

Not according to the news media. It's one of those "here be monsters" areas on the map.

Aye. Some journalists deserve ayatollah-style punishments.

Like the idiot who made the map on "La Repubblica", page 3, today. Map of the formerly-Eastern-bloc EU countries... Hungary was strangely reported bordering Croatia (ok...), Romania (ok...), Bosnia (:eek:), Albania (:eek:), Macedonia (:eek:), Montenegro (:eek:), Bulgaria (:eek:)...

The idiot mixed up Hungary with Serbia. Wikipedia is too difficult to use, I guess :rolleyes:

Aye. Some journalists deserve ayatollah-style punishments.

Like the idiot who made the map on "La Repubblica", page 3, today. Map of the formerly-Eastern-bloc EU countries... Hungary was strangely reported bordering Croatia (ok...), Romania (ok...), Bosnia (:eek:), Albania (:eek:), Macedonia (:eek:), Montenegro (:eek:), Bulgaria (:eek)...

The idiot mixed up Hungary with Serbia. Wikipedia is too difficult to use, I guess :rolleyes:

http://www.riehle.org/humorous-takes/fun-photos/ch-according-to-cnn.jpg

Fallacious argument. Are the standards the military forces of a nation are to be held to objectively tied to the form of government of the nation? No, not really.

Yes, they should. As the military forces answer directly to the government in democracies.

Example: Constitution of the Italian Republic
Art. 52
(omissis)
The regulations of the armed forces are based on the democratic spirit of the Republic.




Higher standards should not be expected of, say, soldiers of the United States just because the US happens to be democratic, nor should lower standards be expected of the soldiers of North Korea just because the DPRK happens to be a dictatorship, or of the soldiers of Gaza just because it happens to be a military junta (de-facto), etcetera. They are all human beings, and should be held to the same standards: killing innocent people is bad.


Agreed: legally and morally, all soldiers should behave correctly and accordingly to international conventions etc, and so should the etat-majeurs.
Maybe I wasn't making my point clear enough:
Aside from legal and moral considerations: I would be less surprised if (example) the Zimbabwean etat-majeur would order atrocities and the Zimbabwean soldiers would obey, than I would be about, dunno, the Swiss etat-majeur ordering atrocities and the Swiss soldiers obeying.


Instead, higher standards should be expected of Israel because many of its leaders are old enough to remember foreign rule and oppression. ...
Agreed... if you substitute the bolded part with "moreover". :D

http://www.riehle.org/humorous-takes/fun-photos/ch-according-to-cnn.jpg

Oh yeah, I remember this one. Geez.

By, the way, people: the spell is merdamentum bracarum.

No eyewitness saw any sniper; to be sure, no eyewitness saw one of the other scenarios which you rejected as "ad hoc". If the tests were performed on the bullets, that might provide evidence for one of the scenarios you reject, as easily for the one you accept: as it stands, with no tests having been done and no witnesses to whoever fired the shot, there is evidence only for "people were killed", no evidence that distinguishes among any hypotheses about how they were killed.

No, they saw their children get shot even though they were standing several metres from a window. So it might not be a sniper. It might just be an Israeli soldier with really good aim and a good rifle that has been watching the windows carefully from a really good vantage point. Which is totally different from a sniper.:rolleyes:

The Palestinians believe, without evidence, in child-hunting snipers because "J00z are teh ebil" is part of their cultural assumptions; you believe it because "downtrodden victims are in the right" is part of your assumptions; but those more familiar with how people in the military (any military) actually behave don't find it the most likely of scenarios. And as with the school story, or the "Jenin massacre" story, if the matter was actually investigated, the most extreme versions put out in the heat of the moment would probably turn out not to be exactly what happened.

When you tell me about my assumptions (that you have no evidence for), you just end up sounding really arrogant and somewhat lame.

Perhaps you could, you know, present an argument instead?

Higher than a couple months ago, I'm sure. Lower than a few years ago, however: I have posted the polls from a few years back several times on this board, every time somebody claims "only a small minority of Palestinians favor attacks against civilians"; I'll dredge them up again if you are really interested. There are fluctuations up and down over the years, but the basic situation, that a strong majority of Palestinians favor attacks on civilians, has not changed in 90 years.

Please provide links. Thanks.

Sure you do, whatever fits with what you are predisposed to believe.

See above.

Just so everyone in this thread is clear:

TAI's source says nothing about suicide bombing.

A report by the Israeli left-wing NGO Peace Now released Monday says that the government is planning to build more than 73,300 new housing units in the West Bank.

Peace Now estimates that if all of the units are built, it would mean a 100-percent increase in the total number of Israeli settlers. The report says that some settlements, including the two largest Ariel and Ma'aleh Adumim, would double in size.

According to the report, approval has already been granted for the construction of 15,000 housing units, and is pending for a further 58,000 units.

The report states that 5,722 of the planned housing units are in East Jerusalem, and some 9,000 units in total have already been built.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1068033.html

If Mexico did that, we'd call it an 'invasion'. :p

If Mexico did that, we'd call it an 'invasion'. :p

Or "The Cartels are opening up new franchises across the border."

If Mexico did that, we'd call it an 'invasion'. :p


If Mexico did that and had oil, they'd get freed and democratised.

If Mexico did that and had oil, they'd get freed and democratised.

They have drugs and cheap labor, does that count?

They have drugs and cheap labor, does that count?

Dear Jesus no - those are things that magically migrate north of their own accord.

Just so everyone in this thread is clear:

TAI's source says nothing about suicide bombing.

The opinion poll conducted by Jerusalem Media & Communications Center?

The opinion poll conducted by Jerusalem Media & Communications Center?

Yes. It may seem like a petty difference, but the opinion poll conducted asked about attacks against Israeli civilians, not about suicide bombings in particular. I guess I'm hair-splitting.

They support suicide bombings against Israelis, but might not support them against other people? (It does say suicide bombings specifically, too.)

Even if that's true, it doesn't really change the topic of the debate. Unless someone is proposing that if they support terrorism in Israel they might later support terrorism in Europe or America, which nobody's said yet, as far as I can tell.

They support suicide bombings against Israelis, but might not support them against other people? (It does say suicide bombings specifically, too.)

Even if that's true, it doesn't really change the topic of the debate. Unless someone is proposing that if they support terrorism in Israel they might later support terrorism in Europe or America, which nobody's said yet, as far as I can tell.

Shit. I was all about to tell you that you were wrong. But the truth is that they mention it once in the poll.

http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2009/67_jan_english.pdf

Q.14 How do you feel about the suicide bombings operations against Israeli civilians? Do you strongly support it, somewhat support it, somewhat oppose it, or strongly oppose it?

Total West Bank Gaza
n= 1198 n= 758 n= 440
Strongly support 30.1 30.9 28.6
Somewhat support 25.3 21.5 31.8
Somewhat oppose 22.7 23.9 20.7
Strongly oppose 14.9 16.0 13.0
Don’t know 5.9 6.3 5.2
No answer 1.1 1.4 0.7

See page ten of the link for a nice neat table.

So, we can see that 30.1+25.3 (strongly support plus somewhat support) is equal to 55.4%.

So, not only was I being petty, but I was being petty and wrong.:$

Hey, it happens. I'm wrong anywhere between fifty and seventy-five percent of the time. And when I'm right, someone else has usually gotten to it before me. :P

On the bright side, we have the actual data now.

Shit. I was all about to tell you that you were wrong. But the truth is that they mention it once in the poll.

http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2009/67_jan_english.pdf



Total West Bank Gaza
n= 1198 n= 758 n= 440
Strongly support 30.1 30.9 28.6
Somewhat support 25.3 21.5 31.8
Somewhat oppose 22.7 23.9 20.7
Strongly oppose 14.9 16.0 13.0
Don’t know 5.9 6.3 5.2
No answer 1.1 1.4 0.7

See page ten of the link for a nice neat table.

So, we can see that 30.1+25.3 (strongly support plus somewhat support) is equal to 55.4%.

So, not only was I being petty, but I was being petty and wrong.:$

That's what I thought I remembered seeing.

Oh well, we all make mistakes, eh? *Slaps on back*
And you own up to it, in contrast to oh so many others who just flee the threads, so good on ya for that.

*Doesn't mean to sound patronising, apologies in advance if it comes across that way*


Now, my next question would be: What the Hell does "Somewhat support suicide bombings" mean? I thought that would be a plain either/or? Would it have made a significant difference if the question posed had only allowed for that duality (and "I don't know")?

Now, my next question would be: What the Hell does "Somewhat support suicide bombings" mean? I thought that would be a plain either/or? Would it have made a significant difference if the question posed had only allowed for that duality (and "I don't know")?

"We agree with the principle of suicide bombings, but wouldn't want to do them ourselves"?

"We think something should be done to Israeli civilians, but can't decide whether we should suicide bomb them or just give them wedgies"?

"We're willing to suicide bomb them if everyone else does it"?

I dunno. Time for baseless speculation!

*Calls the baseless speculationmobile*

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/09/jdm_seppuku_nsx.jpg

*Calls the baseless speculationmobile*

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/09/jdm_seppuku_nsx.jpg

What a pleasant hypothetical color it is.

What a pleasant hypothetical color it is.

Red ones go faster.

No, they saw their children get shot even though they were standing several metres from a window. So it might not be a sniper. It might just be an Israeli soldier with really good aim and a good rifle that has been watching the windows carefully from a really good vantage point. Which is totally different from a sniper.:rolleyes:

Or: it might be that there were a lot of bullets flying in an intense firefight, and that this one wasn't aimed at the person who got hit.
Or: it might be that the Israeli was intending to kill the dad, thinking him (correctly or incorrectly) to be an insurgent, but could not see very well and hit the child instead.
Those are the hypotheses you rejected out of hand, but you have no evidence which would distinguish the hypothesis you prefer to accept from the hypotheses you prefer to reject.

When you tell me about my assumptions (that you have no evidence for), you just end up sounding really arrogant and somewhat lame.

Perhaps you could, you know, present an argument instead?

The ARGUMENT is, "You have evidence only that someone is dead, but no evidence distinguishing among the hypotheses for how that happened." Your only answer has been that whatever the Palestinians say must be true.
Please provide links. Thanks.

From Pew Research (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=257) (a globally respected organization with no particular axe to grind).

Among the most striking trends in predominantly Muslim nations is the continuing decline in the number saying that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians are justifiable in the defense of Islam. In Lebanon, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia, the proportion of Muslims who view suicide bombing and other attacks against civilians as being often or sometimes justified has declined by half or more over the past five years.

Wide majorities say such attacks are, at most, rarely acceptable. However, this is decidedly not the case in the Palestinian territories. Fully 70% of Palestinians believe that suicide bombings against civilians can be often or sometimes justified, a position starkly at odds with Muslims in other Middle Eastern, Asian, and African nations.

In some earlier post, you disputed my claim that rocket attacks had fallen off to nearly zero since the Gaza incursion. This has somewhat changed of late: the New York Times reported two rockets on Thursday, one hitting a home but causing no injuries, followed by Israeli reprisal attacks on five smuggling tunnels at the Gaza/Egypt border, again with no injuries reported; on Monday, a further story said that there had been about a dozen rockets over the course of the weekend. This is still way down from before the incursion (approx. 80 a day on average, with 120 being the maximum single-day total), but not the "zero" Israel was hoping for.

Or: it might be that there were a lot of bullets flying in an intense firefight, and that this one wasn't aimed at the person who got hit.
Or: it might be that the Israeli was intending to kill the dad, thinking him (correctly or incorrectly) to be an insurgent, but could not see very well and hit the child instead.
Those are the hypotheses you rejected out of hand, but you have no evidence which would distinguish the hypothesis you prefer to accept from the hypotheses you prefer to reject.

I rejected them because there is no evidence for them. If there was a fire fight, for example, the eyewitness accounts in the article would have mentioned it just like they mentioned an explosion that occurred right before the shooting. But they didn't mention it. Or they would have not have mentioned how the child was the only one who stood up. But they did mention it.

The ARGUMENT is, "You have evidence only that someone is dead, but no evidence distinguishing among the hypotheses for how that happened." Your only answer has been that whatever the Palestinians say must be true.

I didn't say it had to be true. I was just pointing out that that at least constitutes some evidence. Eyewitness testimony is considered admissible in court.

From Pew Research (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=257) (a globally respected organization with no particular axe to grind).

And that source doesn't actually say that Palestinian support for suicide bombing has been dwindling over the last few years.

See, I always want to look at sources because I like to know what is really going on, not what people think is going on. Sometimes this bites me on the ass, like upthread. Most often, the truth is somewhere between the two arguing sides.

In some earlier post, you disputed my claim that rocket attacks had fallen off to nearly zero since the Gaza incursion. This has somewhat changed of late: the New York Times reported two rockets on Thursday, one hitting a home but causing no injuries, followed by Israeli reprisal attacks on five smuggling tunnels at the Gaza/Egypt border, again with no injuries reported; on Monday, a further story said that there had been about a dozen rockets over the course of the weekend. This is still way down from before the incursion (approx. 80 a day on average, with 120 being the maximum single-day total), but not the "zero" Israel was hoping for.

Links, please. Thanks.

I rejected them because there is no evidence for them. If there was a fire fight, for example, the eyewitness accounts in the article would have mentioned it
They were staying inside, trying to keep away from the windows, to avoid the firefights.
I didn't say it had to be true. I was just pointing out that that at least constitutes some evidence. Eyewitness testimony is considered admissible in court.
There is no eyewitness who saw a sniper; if a witness tried to testify in court, "There must have been a sniper..." the lawyer would shout "OBJECTION: speculation!" and the judge would say "Sustained" and admonish the witness to confine himself to his personal observations, which are simply that a bullet came in and the child was hit, we don't know how.
And that source doesn't actually say that Palestinian support for suicide bombing has been dwindling over the last few years.
What is says is that Palestinian support for suicide bombing was at 70% in 2007, whereas now (according to the OP's source) it is at 55%. 55 is less than 70.
Links, please. Thanks.
I read it in the paper: you know, wood pulp covered with ink? I read the newspaper every morning. If you can't be troubled to follow the news, then don't argue who do keep up with what is happening in the world.
If you won't believe things unless they are on the Internet, the New York Times does have a web-site, some of which is free and some pay-per-view.

They were staying inside, trying to keep away from the windows, to avoid the firefights.

You mean, the firefights that were somehow not mentioned in the eyewitness accounts, but we should assume are there because they provide support for TAI's ad hoc hypotheses.

There is no eyewitness who saw a sniper; if a witness tried to testify in court, "There must have been a sniper..." the lawyer would shout "OBJECTION: speculation!" and the judge would say "Sustained" and admonish the witness to confine himself to his personal observations, which are simply that a bullet came in and the child was hit, we don't know how.

Actually, they know how the child was hit. By a bullet fired from someone who had a clear vantage point to the inside of the room and had the skill to kill with one shot. Because, you know, it would be really difficult to kill someone with one shot when they are severa metres from a window without those two things.

What is says is that Palestinian support for suicide bombing was at 70% in 2007, whereas now (according to the OP's source) it is at 55%. 55 is less than 70.

They're not following the same methodology. They may have been asking different questions. At least, different enough to give us a different answer.

I read it in the paper: you know, wood pulp covered with ink? I read the newspaper every morning. If you can't be troubled to follow the news, then don't argue who do keep up with what is happening in the world.
If you won't believe things unless they are on the Internet, the New York Times does have a web-site, some of which is free and some pay-per-view.

Then it should be easy for you to get me a link.

So, continued rocket attacks, no stable ceasefire, no release of Israeli soldiers, and increased support for the rocket attacks. What was Israel trying to accomplish again?

You mean, the firefights that were somehow not mentioned in the eyewitness accounts
Which WERE mentioned in the eyewitness accounts as the REASON why they were staying inside and trying to keep away from windows.
Actually, they know how the child was hit. By a bullet fired from someone who had a clear vantage point to the inside of the room and had the skill to kill with one shot.
No. We don't know that the bullet was aimed at all, and we don't know whether the father could have been the intended target. All of that is pure speculation.
They may have been asking different questions. At least, different enough to give us a different answer.
Why don't you try reading what the question was?
Then it should be easy for you to get me a link.
It would be easy for me to point you to the page, if you read the paper.
I don't have a net source, and it is not my job to find you a source if you cannot be bothered enough to follow the news at all in any form.
So, continued rocket attacks, no stable ceasefire, no release of Israeli soldiers, and increased support for the rocket attacks. What was Israel trying to accomplish again?
The rocket attacks are down to a pitifully small level compared to where they were before. Israel will continue to hit the smuggling tunnels and keep the rocket attacks down, or reduce them to zero.

The rocket attacks are down to a pitifully small level compared to where they were before. Israel will continue to hit the smuggling tunnels and keep the rocket attacks down, or reduce them to zero.

And continue to give free reign to the settlers to quietly drive out the Palestinian populace with unofficial pogroms and terror campaigns of murder while they work to ensure that the only voice that can speak in Israel is a Jewish one, preferably of Kahanist flavor.

I see no reason to give Israel the benefit of doubt in anything anymore than I would give Hamas or the Ayatollahs of Iran.

And continue to give free reign to the settlers...
On this issue I have no disagreement with you. With the Yahu in charge, we can only expect the settlers to be allowed to get even more out of hand.

On this issue I have no disagreement with you. With the Yahu in charge, we can only expect the settlers to be allowed to get even more out of hand.

And the settlers win.

They wage a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the ordinary Palestinians and the Israeli government does little to nothing about it. Hamas then uses that as an excuse to launch Qassams and some suicide bombers. Israel then uses that as an excuse to kill a whole bunch of Palestinians, which only increases their resentment of Israel and sympathy towards Hamas. Which then the hardliners in Israel use to justify their power and policies, and they quietly give a blank check to the settlers and the cycle is a perpetual motion machine.

And the settlers win.

They wage a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the ordinary Palestinians and the Israeli government does little to nothing about it. Hamas then uses that as an excuse to launch Qassams and some suicide bombers. Israel then uses that as an excuse to kill a whole bunch of Palestinians, which only increases their resentment of Israel and sympathy towards Hamas. Which then the hardliners in Israel use to justify their power and policies, and they quietly give a blank check to the settlers and the cycle is a perpetual motion machine.Yep.

Yep.

And yet you blame the Palestinians entirely for all this.

The poll surely has to be one pof the silliest that NSG has ever entertained.

Suicide bombings is one thing guaranteed to send Israelis into paroxysms of rage, fear and indignation.
Suicide bombings grabbed media headlines but did very little to advance the Palestinian cause. On the contrary, it opened up Palestinians and Arabs in general to a Western reaction that still hasn't stopped.

Using passengers on a bus as "collateral damage" was never a good idea. Maybe the Palestinians felt that they had run out of options . However, the 'suicide bombings plan' delivered the West into the hands of Israel.
Noone wants to be identified with terrorists and sociopaths. There is a difference between killing an armed enemy and a child.
I speak as one who knows a Jew who lost his daughter in a restaurant suicide bombing in Israel.
I never saw eye-to-eye with Arnold's politics (he believed that as an Australian Jew, he needed to make aliyah to Israel). His daughter was collateral damage of that shithouse Middle Eastern blood feud.

Shalom/Salaam!

Which WERE mentioned in the eyewitness accounts as the REASON why they were staying inside and trying to keep away from windows.

Please provide a quote. Thanks.

No. We don't know that the bullet was aimed at all, and we don't know whether the father could have been the intended target. All of that is pure speculation.

Are you reading the same article I am?

You know, rather than picking at tiny little details, I would like to just point out we can pretend we're runing a trial here, but the truth is that even if the Israeli soldiers were walking right up to kids and shooting them in the forehead, we're not going to hear about it, and nothing would be done about it. Media blackouts and complete lack of accountability have seen to that.

Why don't you try reading what the question was?

The JCC poll asks about Israeli civilians, while the Pew one asks about civilians in general. So, two different questions.

It would be easy for me to point you to the page, if you read the paper.
I don't have a net source, and it is not my job to find you a source if you cannot be bothered enough to follow the news at all in any form.

I'm so sorry that you have to condescend to inform me of the truth that shines from your vast intellect.

The rocket attacks are down to a pitifully small level compared to where they were before. Israel will continue to hit the smuggling tunnels and keep the rocket attacks down, or reduce them to zero.

The rate of rocket attacks by both sides is down from where it was at the height of the fighting. Can we now claim that Hamas did something to stop Israeli attacks?

But that's not the point. The point is that the Israeli government created more support for rocket attacks through their latest attack. The smuggling tunnels still exist (because the blockade does) and there is even less chance of peace.

It would be easy for me to point you to the page, if you read the paper.
I don't have a net source, and it is not my job to find you a source if you cannot be bothered enough to follow the news at all in any form.

I'm so sorry that you have to condescend to inform me of the truth that shines from your vast intellect.


Just saying: keep it civil, folks.

Are you reading the same article I am?
Probably not.
the truth is that even if the Israeli soldiers were walking right up to kids and shooting them in the forehead, we're not going to hear about it, and nothing would be done about it. Media blackouts and complete lack of accountability have seen to that.
Actually, I did hear about such a case. I'm sure you don't believe me, though.
The JCC poll asks about Israeli civilians, while the Pew one asks about civilians in general. So, two different questions.
You haven't thought this through. You are claiming that there are Palestinians who are fine with suicide bombings but only as long as it's NOT against Israelis?
I'm so sorry that you have to condescend to inform me of the truth that shines from your vast intellect.
I was not informing you of truths from my vast intellect. I was informing you of stories on the front page of the newspaper.
Look, it's one thing if you ask "What's your source?" in order to decide how much credibility you give to assertions from that source. I told you (voice of Russian ambassador from Dr. Strangelove) "My source was the New York Times." If my source was a web-link, I would have given you the web-link, but it wasn't. If newspapers are not a good enough source for you: whatever; that's up to you.
What you are demanding is that I research a source more to your taste. I am not your servant. If you choose not to read papers, and choose not to believe people who tell you what's in the papers, then you can inform yourself in whatever other manner you prefer, or choose to remain uninformed: what the hell do I care?
The point is that the Israeli government created more support for rocket attacks through their latest attack.
And less CAPACITY for rocket attacks. The Israelis operate on the assumption that "support" for attacks will always be there.
The smuggling tunnels still exist
The tunnels which existed before do not still exist. New ones have been dug, and the Israelis are now busy collapsing those.
there is even less chance of peace.
Was there any before?

Probably not.

I posted a link to it upthread. Go. Read.

Actually, I did hear about such a case. I'm sure you don't believe me, though.

You're right. I don't.

You haven't thought this through. You are claiming that there are Palestinians who are fine with suicide bombings but only as long as it's NOT against Israelis?

No. I'm claiming that the two questions may be different enough to solicit a different percenatge respondents who answered yes. Like when you do a science experiment twice to see if you can replicate the results, you have to have the same methodology, or else it doesn't really count.

And less CAPACITY for rocket attacks. The Israelis operate on the assumption that "support" for attacks will always be there.

If the Israelis keep attacking like that, I predict that the support will continue to exist.

So why don't the Israelis attack the Canadians to make sure that the Canucks don't have the capability of bombing Israel?

The tunnels which existed before do not still exist. New ones have been dug, and the Israelis are now busy collapsing those.

That does not address the point in any way.

Was there any before?

Do you understand how the word 'less' modified my sentence?

I posted a link to it upthread. Go. Read.
You're pointing to an ABSENCE in your article: whereas in the story as I got it, the family was staying crouched down and avoiding windows to avoid all the flying bullets, in your version the family was staying crouched down and avoiding windows for no stated reason. You want to take that as "evidence" that the family was staying crouched down and avoiding windows for no reason at all, really, just sounded like fun or something; if there was a reason for it, you argue, wouldn't it be mentioned? Perhaps the reason why the family was staying crouched down and avoiding windows went unmentioned because that point was considered too obvious to need mentioning.
You're right. I don't.
As I suspected. I've never told you lies, but your default assumption is that anybody who politically disagrees with you must be lying all the time. That's rather sad, but I doubt I can change you.
No. I'm claiming that the two questions may be different enough to solicit a different percenatge respondents who answered yes.
You are claiming that it causes a difference in a particular direction. Now, if your claim was that asking about targeting "Israelis" generates a higher number of Yes answers than asking about targeting "civilians", that would make some sense: it would pick up Palestinians who do not think "Israelis" should be classified as "civilians". But your claim is that you get a higher number who support targeting "civilians" than those who support targeting "Israelis": this implies that ~20% of Palestinians support suicide bombing ONLY IF no Israelis are harmed: they only want to target non-Israelis.
Like when you do a science experiment twice to see if you can replicate the results, you have to have the same methodology, or else it doesn't really count.
You never get perfect replications. The job of a scientist is to decide which differences from one case to another are logical explanations for differing outcomes. The easiest hypothesis here for why Pew got different numbers from the Jerusalem pollsters is simply: they were conducted at different times. Is there evidence that these percentages are volatile, and change a lot from one time to another? Yes: in the Pew survey, many Muslim countries (unfortunately not Palestine) have data from both 2002 and 2007, showing a remarkable drop; Palestine stood out as an anomaly because it still had a high percentage more characteristic, in the rest of the Muslim world, of the attitudes of 5 years earlier, so it is not surprising that a 2009 poll would find the Palestine numbers coming down somewhat, though still dismayingly high.
If the Israelis keep attacking like that, I predict that the support will continue to exist.
The same as if they don't.
So why don't the Israelis attack the Canadians to make sure that the Canucks don't have the capability of bombing Israel?
Uhhh... because Canadians don't have a 90 year history of attacking them?
That does not address the point in any way.
I'm not sure, then, what point you were making. I thought your point was that Israel didn't knock out smuggling tunnels. Yes, they did, which is why it has taken Hamas a while to get any tunnels back in operation, and why they still can't launch rockets at more than a small fraction of December's pace.
Do you understand how the word 'less' modified my sentence?
In order for there to be "less" chance now, there has to have existed "some" chance before.

On paper, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isratine_proposal) is, IMO, the best possible solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Sadly, it will never happen.

On paper, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isratine_proposal) is, IMO, the best possible solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Sadly, it will never happen.

Never happen. If they can't live in seperate states, they won't live in the one.

Uhhh... because Canadians don't have a 90 year history of attacking them?

.

...not unrelated to the fact they don't have a long history of trying to colonise Canada and drive out large numbers of its inhabitants....

Never happen. If they can't live in seperate states, they won't live in the one.

That's true, but in theory it's a good plan (IMO).

On this issue I have no disagreement with you. With the Yahu in charge, we can only expect the settlers to be allowed to get even more out of hand.

Answer me this then. Why should Israel get any better preference over Hamas when it's clear that the power wielding bloc of Israel isn't any more interested in peace than Hamas is?

Why does Israel get to play the "oh we're such innocent babies" card when they choose conflict and to sow the seeds of conflict of their own volition?

Why is the Jewish housewife who gets blown to bits by a rocket worth greater outrage than the Palestinian farmer beheaded by Jewish Kahanist gangs, or the unarmed Palestinian child deliberately gunned down in cold blood by an IDF lieutenant?

Why is the blood of innocent Jews worth hundreds of times more than the blood of innocent Palestinians?

Answer me this then. Why should Israel get any better preference over Hamas when it's clear that the power wielding bloc of Israel isn't any more interested in peace than Hamas is?

Why does Israel get to play the "oh we're such innocent babies" card when they choose conflict and to sow the seeds of conflict of their own volition?

Why is the Jewish housewife who gets blown to bits by a rocket worth greater outrage than the Palestinian farmer beheaded by Jewish Kahanist gangs, or the unarmed Palestinian child deliberately gunned down in cold blood by an IDF lieutenant?

Why is the blood of innocent Jews worth hundreds of times more than the blood of innocent Palestinians?

Of course, the answer to your questions is "it isn't", NAS. And I figure no one here would say otherwise.

But it is hard to summon much outrage when HAMAS troops get slaughtered standing around the missile launcher they were using to bombard a nearby town. If they chose to attack the settlements, I might have more sympathy. As it is, they're just human junk.

You're pointing to an ABSENCE in your article: whereas in the story as I got it, the family was staying crouched down and avoiding windows to avoid all the flying bullets, in your version the family was staying crouched down and avoiding windows for no stated reason. You want to take that as "evidence" that the family was staying crouched down and avoiding windows for no reason at all, really, just sounded like fun or something; if there was a reason for it, you argue, wouldn't it be mentioned? Perhaps the reason why the family was staying crouched down and avoiding windows went unmentioned because that point was considered too obvious to need mentioning.

You didn't read the article, did you? Because they specifically mention an explosion that happened shortly before. Why would they mention the explosion and not the firefight?

As I suspected. I've never told you lies, but your default assumption is that anybody who politically disagrees with you must be lying all the time. That's rather sad, but I doubt I can change you.

Because I don't believe you when you say that you happen to have evidence of a case where an IDF soldier shot a kid point-blank in the forehead? From that you get that I assume you're always lying?

:rolleyes:

You are claiming that it causes a difference in a particular direction. Now, if your claim was that asking about targeting "Israelis" generates a higher number of Yes answers than asking about targeting "civilians", that would make some sense: it would pick up Palestinians who do not think "Israelis" should be classified as "civilians". But your claim is that you get a higher number who support targeting "civilians" than those who support targeting "Israelis": this implies that ~20% of Palestinians support suicide bombing ONLY IF no Israelis are harmed: they only want to target non-Israelis.

Actually I'm claiming that it could have been worded differently, or they could have asked people living in a different area of Palestine, or they could have done some other difference from the other pollsters.

You never get perfect replications. The job of a scientist is to decide which differences from one case to another are logical explanations for differing outcomes. The easiest hypothesis here for why Pew got different numbers from the Jerusalem pollsters is simply: they were conducted at different times. Is there evidence that these percentages are volatile, and change a lot from one time to another? Yes: in the Pew survey, many Muslim countries (unfortunately not Palestine) have data from both 2002 and 2007, showing a remarkable drop; Palestine stood out as an anomaly because it still had a high percentage more characteristic, in the rest of the Muslim world, of the attitudes of 5 years earlier, so it is not surprising that a 2009 poll would find the Palestine numbers coming down somewhat, though still dismayingly high.

You wouldn't happen to have the actual data of the Pew survey, would you?

The same as if they don't.

Do you have any evidence for this claim? We already saw that Israeli atacks increase support. We can safely infer that an absence of Israeli attacks would therefore decrease support.

Uhhh... because Canadians don't have a 90 year history of attacking them?

And why don't Canadians attack them?

I'm not sure, then, what point you were making. I thought your point was that Israel didn't knock out smuggling tunnels. Yes, they did, which is why it has taken Hamas a while to get any tunnels back in operation, and why they still can't launch rockets at more than a small fraction of December's pace.

The idea is to get rid of the tunnels so that Hamas cannot smuggle rockets through them, right?

As long as the tunnels are there, Hamas can use them.

So you knock out the tunnels. But those damn Palestinians build more.

Why? Two reasons. So they can smuggle rockets, and so that they can smuggle in the necessary supplies such as food and medicine for the Palestinians living in the area.

So, even if you magically destroyed every single Hamas member in the world, the tunnels would still be there. Because they have to feed their kids.

So, if you want to get rid of the tunnels, and keep them from building more, you have to loosen the blockade.

In order for there to be "less" chance now, there has to have existed "some" chance before.

Yes. And there was some chance. And there is still is. Just less.

Of course, the answer to your questions is "it isn't", NAS. And I figure no one here would say otherwise.

Oh no? How do you explain the likes of New Mitanni, DK and various others on this board who have all but danced a jig at Palestinian casualties, regardless of guilt, but howl for Palestinian blood the moment any hostile act is taken on their part?


But it is hard to summon much outrage when HAMAS troops get slaughtered standing around the missile launcher they were using to bombard a nearby town. If they chose to attack the settlements, I might have more sympathy. As it is, they're just human junk.

It is not the Hamas troops that evoke sympathy. It is the ones who are caught in the middle that do. How do you explain to a Palestinian doctor, one who hoped for co-existence and worked towards it that his daughters deserved to die in an Israeli artillery strike, merely because they simply lived in Palestine? How do you explain the Israeli people who called up while his grief was broadcast live, people who accused him of not only being a terrorist, but that his daughters were too and deserved worst?

This is not a fluke, not a single instance of stupidity. This is raw hatred and bloodlust, no more, no less.

Hamas has it's hand in this issue, equally as bloodstained. But Israel has long since chosen hate as vitriolic and noxious as the ones they claim to be fighting against.

There is no innocent party here. No moral highground. Just rabid dogs.

There is no innocent party here. No moral highground. Just rabid dogs.

It's sad :(

Answer me this then. Why should Israel get any better preference over Hamas when it's clear that the power wielding bloc of Israel isn't any more interested in peace than Hamas is?

Why does Israel get to play the "oh we're such innocent babies" card when they choose conflict and to sow the seeds of conflict of their own volition?

Why is the Jewish housewife who gets blown to bits by a rocket worth greater outrage than the Palestinian farmer beheaded by Jewish Kahanist gangs, or the unarmed Palestinian child deliberately gunned down in cold blood by an IDF lieutenant?

Why is the blood of innocent Jews worth hundreds of times more than the blood of innocent Palestinians?

Rabbi Yaacov Perrin gave us the answer long ago at Baruch Goldstein's eulogy:

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."

Because they specifically mention an explosion that happened shortly before. Why would they mention the explosion and not the firefight?
The explosion obviously resulted in a lot of return fire. That is hardly evidence that there was no fighting going on before. I am struggling to understand what you think the sequence of events was. It was a calm day, nothing at all happening, the family is huddling on the floor keeping away from the windows because that is a traditional game to play with children on a nice day, then there is a totally unexpected explosion out of nowhere, but that of course had nothing to do with the bullet that then came through the window: that was just a sniper who was hunting children for no reason?

If the explosion was caused by an RPG (or whatever) fired at the Israelis from that very building, do you think that would be mentioned? Of course, unless the father was the one who actually fired it (not likely, in my view), he wouldn't actually know what the explosion was, and so anything he said about the explosion would be speculation, just like his speculation about the internal motives of a person he never even saw.
Because I don't believe you when you say that you happen to have evidence of a case where an IDF soldier shot a kid point-blank in the forehead?
All I said was that I had heard of it. I don't "have evidence" right now; it's something I read back in the Sharon Administration, and it would take some doing to dig it up now.
From that you get that I assume you're always lying?
Yes. If YOU told ME that you had heard about a story of "...." [fill in the blank], my default assumption would be, of course, that you had indeed heard such a story. Given your track record, I might well wonder whether you had garbled or misinterpreted some details, but I wouldn't right off the bat tell you I didn't believe you when you said you'd heard it: the presumption of dishonesty that you apply to everyone who meet who isn't on your side is sad.
Actually I'm claiming that it could have been worded differently
So I told you to look at what the wording actually was. You did, to your credit, and you should see that the wording difference, if it caused any change in the results, should have caused a change in the opposite direction.
or they could have asked people living in a different area of Palestine, or they could have done some other difference from the other pollsters.
Then: look into the methodology. Your first attempt to guess at what difference could explain the differing outcomes was a poor one. I don't think you are going to find an alternate explanation that improves on the simple one: there were differing outcomes because the polls were taken at different times, and this is a particularly volatile subject where changes in attitude are frequent.
You wouldn't happen to have the actual data of the Pew survey, would you?
I gave you the link. It has sub-links with more details.
Do you have any evidence for this claim? We already saw that Israeli atacks increase support.
No, what we see is that support for attacks on civilians fluctuates up and down over time, and that in the immediate aftermath of the Israeli attacks, support is at a lower level than it was just a couple years ago. Support for attacks on civilians has always been a strong majority among the Palestinians, going all the way back to when the Majlissiyun party nearly swept the 1920 elections on the catchy campaign slogan Itbach al Yahud! (exterminate the Jew).
We can safely infer that an absence of Israeli attacks would therefore decrease support.
No, we cannot. Israeli withdrawals are always followed by increases in attacks.
And why don't Canadians attack them?
I don't know. Aren't you Canadian? Maybe you could explain it to me.

After all, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jews were immigrating to Canada as well as to Palestine, buying homes and starting businesses and doing all those other nefarious things. The Palestinians decided that, obviously, all Jewish immigrants need to to exterminated, and you seem to think that was a reasonable reaction: so why don't Canadians think it reasonable to exterminate all immigrants, or at least all immigrants from disfavored groups?

Jewish immigrants to Canada didn't even have the excuse that Canada was their ancestral home. What if it was a bunch of Cree who were moving into your neighborhood, saying they thought it was a good place to go because Cree used to live there? Would you immediately start burning them out? Would you insist on going to war against the Cree Nation, and if you lost that war would you insist on continuing to fight forever until every last Cree was dead? If that is not the Canadian attitude: why not?
The idea is to get rid of the tunnels so that Hamas cannot smuggle rockets through them, right?
Yep.
As long as the tunnels are there, Hamas can use them.
Yep.
So you knock out the tunnels. But those damn Palestinians build more.
So you knock those out too.
Why? Two reasons. So they can smuggle rockets, and so that they can smuggle in the necessary supplies such as food and medicine for the Palestinians living in the area.
No, food and medicine comes in from Israel.
Yes. And there was some chance. And there is still is. Just less.
I don't think so. The Palestinians want to continue the war forever: they keep losing and losing more, but they are not interested in what is good for themselves, only in what is bad for the other side.

As it stands the main theme of the conflict is survival the Israelis know that if they lay down their guns the Arab nations will come in and exterminate them. And the Arab nations believe that they cannot allow the Israelis to remain in that region (quite possibly anywhere on this planet). So it certainly looks like it will be a fight to the death because the Arabs are unwilling to compromise.

After all, in the late 19th (....) attitude: why not?.


The usual generalities and massive oversimplifications.

I'm awaiting the inevitable appearance of Darth Mufti.

The explosion obviously resulted in a lot of return fire. That is hardly evidence that there was no fighting going on before. I am struggling to understand what you think the sequence of events was. It was a calm day, nothing at all happening, the family is huddling on the floor keeping away from the windows because that is a traditional game to play with children on a nice day, then there is a totally unexpected explosion out of nowhere, but that of course had nothing to do with the bullet that then came through the window: that was just a sniper who was hunting children for no reason?

If the explosion was caused by an RPG (or whatever) fired at the Israelis from that very building, do you think that would be mentioned? Of course, unless the father was the one who actually fired it (not likely, in my view), he wouldn't actually know what the explosion was, and so anything he said about the explosion would be speculation, just like his speculation about the internal motives of a person he never even saw.

You haven't read the article. I'm tired of discussing this. If you had read the article, you would know exactly why the family was hiding.

All I said was that I had heard of it. I don't "have evidence" right now; it's something I read back in the Sharon Administration, and it would take some doing to dig it up now.

Yes. If YOU told ME that you had heard about a story of "...." [fill in the blank], my default assumption would be, of course, that you had indeed heard such a story. Given your track record, I might well wonder whether you had garbled or misinterpreted some details, but I wouldn't right off the bat tell you I didn't believe you when you said you'd heard it: the presumption of dishonesty that you apply to everyone who meet who isn't on your side is sad.

I don't really care if you think that I think you're a liar.

So I told you to look at what the wording actually was. You did, to your credit, and you should see that the wording difference, if it caused any change in the results, should have caused a change in the opposite direction.

Then: look into the methodology. Your first attempt to guess at what difference could explain the differing outcomes was a poor one. I don't think you are going to find an alternate explanation that improves on the simple one: there were differing outcomes because the polls were taken at different times, and this is a particularly volatile subject where changes in attitude are frequent.

I gave you the link. It has sub-links with more details.

I'm tired of doing all the research. You made the claim that the rate is descending. Show me. Provide quotes.

No, what we see is that support for attacks on civilians fluctuates up and down over time, and that in the immediate aftermath of the Israeli attacks, support is at a lower level than it was just a couple years ago. Support for attacks on civilians has always been a strong majority among the Palestinians, going all the way back to when the Majlissiyun party nearly swept the 1920 elections on the catchy campaign slogan Itbach al Yahud! (exterminate the Jew).

No. The study I linked to and quoted explicitly showed an upswing in support immediately following the Israeli attack. You haven't shown how it fluctuates over time or what factors increase or decrease it.

No, we cannot. Israeli withdrawals are always followed by increases in attacks.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

I don't know. Aren't you Canadian? Maybe you could explain it to me.

After all, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jews were immigrating to Canada as well as to Palestine, buying homes and starting businesses and doing all those other nefarious things. The Palestinians decided that, obviously, all Jewish immigrants need to to exterminated, and you seem to think that was a reasonable reaction: so why don't Canadians think it reasonable to exterminate all immigrants, or at least all immigrants from disfavored groups?

Jewish immigrants to Canada didn't even have the excuse that Canada was their ancestral home. What if it was a bunch of Cree who were moving into your neighborhood, saying they thought it was a good place to go because Cree used to live there? Would you immediately start burning them out? Would you insist on going to war against the Cree Nation, and if you lost that war would you insist on continuing to fight forever until every last Cree was dead? If that is not the Canadian attitude: why not?

I'm just going to ignore your weird analogy. I bolded the racism, just for the fun of it.

Now, why don't Canadians attack the Israelis? As you say, the Israelis also settled in Canada. So there must have been some sort of difference. What was it?

Yep.

Yep.

So you knock those out too.

No, food and medicine comes in from Israel.

Not nearly enough, according to the people in charge of actually distributing it:

The amount of aid currently being allowed in by the Israeli military is "nowhere near enough to met the needs of the people there," says Shaheen Chughtai, humanitarian policy adviser for international relief agency Oxfam, in a phone interview from Jerusalem. "These crossings need to be open 24 hours."

Even if more supplies are let through, the humanitarian crisis will persist, she says. "Only those who are near the entry points would be able to access such supplies, leaving the majority of the population still struggling to survive in the face of a dearth of food, medicines and other essential items."

Linky. (http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=2f5804ff6fbc2a83487e3b2ddb6d844b)

The tunnels will continue to exist as long as people need them to provide the essentials of life.

I don't think so. The Palestinians want to continue the war forever: they keep losing and losing more, but they are not interested in what is good for themselves, only in what is bad for the other side.

One could say the same of the Israelis.

The usual generalities and massive oversimplifications.

I'm awaiting the inevitable appearance of Darth Mufti.

http://www.gransito.com/ilsignoredeglianelli/RitornodelRe/sauron.jpg

(I don't know. Aren't you Canadian? Maybe you could explain it to me.

After all, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jews were immigrating to Canada as well as to Palestine, buying homes and starting businesses and doing all those other nefarious things. The Palestinians decided that, obviously, all Jewish immigrants need to to exterminated, and you seem to think that was a reasonable reaction: so why don't Canadians think it reasonable to exterminate all immigrants, or at least all immigrants from disfavored groups?

Jewish immigrants to Canada didn't even have the excuse that Canada was their ancestral home. What if it was a bunch of Cree who were moving into your neighborhood, saying they thought it was a good place to go because Cree used to live there? Would you immediately start burning them out? Would you insist on going to war against the Cree Nation, and if you lost that war would you insist on continuing to fight forever until every last Cree was dead? If that is not the Canadian attitude: why not? quoted from Gift-of-God)

I will tell you why true Canadians will not fight. It is because our society teaches us to be tolerant of others. This compromise, this "weakness" of tolerance comes from the understanding that as different as we are we are all human and that part of being human is diversity and difference of opinion. I personally believe that tolerance should not extend to the intolerant.

You haven't read the article. I'm tired of discussing this. If you had read the article, you would know exactly why the family was hiding.
I read it when it was in the news; I don't know if the version you insist on was a different article than I read, or if you just interpret what it says differently. I have a slow Internet connection which is on-and-off, so it isn't helpful for you just to say the link to your version is somewhere upthread, given that this thread is past 20 pages. I suspect that in any case, if I read or re-read the article, I would still have to play telepathy ("what does GoG think this means?") to figure out what you think is the reason, other than (you know) fighting going on, for the family to be hiding.
I don't really care if you think that I think you're a liar.
You called me a liar; whether you honestly think that or were just saying it to be noxious, I don't care.
I'm tired of doing all the research. You made the claim that the rate is descending. Show me. Provide quotes.

It was 70%. Now it's 55%. I saw a figure of 65% from another poll (in the immediate aftermath of a suicide bombing some years ago). The number is volatile. I don't claim the long-term trend is down: just that any fluctuation upward in the immediate aftermath of the Gaza attacks is not something to be regarded as significant, in view of the overall tendency of the numbers to bounce up and down for any number of reasons.
[Tmut]Israeli withdrawals are always followed by increases in attacks.
Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Lebanon. Gaza.
I'm just going to ignore your weird analogy.

What's weird about it?
I bolded the racism, just for the fun of it.

What you bolded was a PLAIN STATEMENT OF FACT. Extermination of the Jewish immigrants was, explicitly, the political platform of the party which the Palestinian community elected as their official leadership, by an overwhelming majority. In 1929 the policy was clarified: all Jews in Palestine, whether recent immigrants or not, were to be exterminated (attacks were launched against the communities in Hebron, East Jerusalem, and Tzefat, which had been there for centuries). In the 1930's, the policy was broadened further: all Jews, anywhere on the planet, were to be exterminated. This remains the official policy of Hamas. Some say that a lot of people in Hamas don't really mean that, but as long as they are officially committed to it, the chance for peace is zero, and cannot be made "less". If you don't understand this very basic fact about the conflict, you are missing the main point.
Now, why don't Canadians attack the Israelis? As you say, the Israelis also settled in Canada. So there must have been some sort of difference. What was it?
That Canadians do not have a culture which regards acts of random murder as an acceptable form of "political expression"?
Not nearly enough, according to the people in charge of actually distributing it:
...
The tunnels will continue to exist as long as people need them to provide the essentials of life.
OK, this is good info.

Lebanon. Gaza..

Neither was a total withdrawal. The Gazan withdrawal did not free the borders of the area, or the resources, nor was it part of a negotiated peace deal. This also considers Gaza as if the people there were seperate from their fellows in Arab East Jerusalem, Golan and the West Bank.


That Canadians do not have a culture which regards acts of random murder as an acceptable form of "political expression"?.

Are Canadians being driven from their homes by a state that explicilty and implicilty encourages, aids and abets the annexation of their land?


Extermination of the Jewish immigrants (...........)oint."?.

Sources...?

I read it when it was in the news; I don't know if the version you insist on was a different article than I read, or if you just interpret what it says differently. I have a slow Internet connection which is on-and-off, so it isn't helpful for you just to say the link to your version is somewhere upthread, given that this thread is past 20 pages. I suspect that in any case, if I read or re-read the article, I would still have to play telepathy ("what does GoG think this means?") to figure out what you think is the reason, other than (you know) fighting going on, for the family to be hiding.

So, this whole time you were debating the details about something that you might remember from a story you may have read?

It was 70%. Now it's 55%. I saw a figure of 65% from another poll (in the immediate aftermath of a suicide bombing some years ago). The number is volatile. I don't claim the long-term trend is down: just that any fluctuation upward in the immediate aftermath of the Gaza attacks is not something to be regarded as significant, in view of the overall tendency of the numbers to bounce up and down for any number of reasons.

Tell me, did you read that in the paper a few days ago but just can't seem to find anything to support it online?

Lebanon. Gaza.

Are places in the Middle East. So?

What's weird about it?

The way it has only the vaguest relationship with what we're discussing.

What you bolded was a PLAIN STATEMENT OF FACT. Extermination of the Jewish immigrants was, explicitly, the political platform of the party which the Palestinian community elected as their official leadership, by an overwhelming majority. In 1929 the policy was clarified: all Jews in Palestine, whether recent immigrants or not, were to be exterminated (attacks were launched against the communities in Hebron, East Jerusalem, and Tzefat, which had been there for centuries). In the 1930's, the policy was broadened further: all Jews, anywhere on the planet, were to be exterminated. This remains the official policy of Hamas. Some say that a lot of people in Hamas don't really mean that, but as long as they are officially committed to it, the chance for peace is zero, and cannot be made "less". If you don't understand this very basic fact about the conflict, you are missing the main point.

It's kinda funny how they managed to make all these official proclamations as an elected leadership when they were ruled by the British at the time. Unless you mean that Hamas formulated these policies at that time. No, wait. That's also impossible. Okay. What the hell are you talking about?

That Canadians do not have a culture which regards acts of random murder as an acceptable form of "political expression"?

You're just restating the findings of the study and ignorantly blaming it on some amorphous 'Palestinian culture'. Now, why do you think the Palestinians support civilian attacks while Canadians do not?

OK, this is good info.

And it supports the idea that bombing the tunnels is not a permanent solution to the problem.

You're just restating the findings of the study and ignorantly blaming it on some amorphous 'Palestinian culture'.
Culture no doubt has quite a bit to do with it.

Culture no doubt has quite a bit to do with it.

Well, when subjected to 4 decades of colonisation and brutality, extremes are rather inevitable.

Culture no doubt has quite a bit to do with it.

No doubt Tmutarakhan thinks so. Now all we need is some sort of empirical evidence or a way of logically deducing this and we might have an actual argument.

No doubt Tmutarakhan thinks so. Now all we need is some sort of empirical evidence or a way of logically deducing this and we might have an actual argument.

If only empirical evidence were the foundation of every legitimate field of study, you would be right.

Israeli troops had to leave their vehicles to plant the mines, indicating that they faced no danger and that there was no military or operational justification, she said.

Breaking the Silence, an Israeli group that gathers and circulates the testimonies of Israeli soldiers, has also told the BBC News website that its findings from the Gaza war suggested many demolitions had been carried out when there was no immediate threat.

"From the testimonies that we've gathered, lots of demolitions - buildings demolished either by bulldozers or explosives - were done after the area was under Israeli control," said Yehuda Shaul, one of the group's members.
link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7926413.stm)

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7926413.stm)

Combined with the blockade against building supplies, and people's basic need for shelter, we can only predict more and larger smuggling tunnels to be used for transportation of building materials.

Combined with the blockade against building supplies, and people's basic need for shelter, we can only predict more and larger smuggling tunnels to be used for transportation of building materials.

Indeed. A spirit of defiance enhanced by the fact that regardless of ones affilliation, one is targeted merely due to the title "Palestinian", with the approval of many.

Indeed. A spirit of defiance enhanced by the fact that regardless of ones affilliation, one is targeted merely due to the title "Palestinian", with the approval of many.

Especially since people can't seem to choose between "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people" or "Palestinians are evil terrorist supporters who deserve what they get."

It'd be amusing if it wasn't so disgusting.

Especially since people can't seem to choose between "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people" or "Palestinians are evil terrorist supporters who deserve what they get."

It'd be amusing if it wasn't so disgusting.

They're whicheveer suits the Israelis and their apologists at the time.

Ebil Mozlem Nonexistent Terrorist Supporters for the win.

So, this whole time you were debating the details about something that you might remember from a story you may have read?
It did not seem like a very complicated story. The battle had moved in to the neighborhood. The family was lying low. After a big boom, the girl stood up. A bullet came through the window and killed her. The father is upset and enraged, understandably. Am I missing something?

We don't know what the explosion was: was it something fired at the Israelis? Was it fired from that building? How much return fire was there?

We don't know what the role of the father: was he a militant? If he was not, might the Israelis have thought he was? Was this a case where the Israelis told everybody to clear out (although they had few options of places to go) and would assume everybody who stayed was a fighter?

Without further information, all theories about why the girl was shot are of course speculative: my only point was that the theory you like is no less speculative than the theories you reject out of hand.
Tell me, did you read that in the paper a few days ago
Pay some attention. I said it was after a bombing in Israel: as you should know, the Palestinians haven't managed to pull one of those off in a couple years.
but just can't seem to find anything to support it online?
I would try to dig it up, if you were sincerely interested, but if you are just going to say that for some vague reason it doesn't count, why bother?
Are places in the Middle East. So?
They are places from which Israel withdrew, which promptly became bases for rocket attacks.
The way it has only the vaguest relationship with what we're discussing.
On the contrary, I hewed as closely as I could to the actual history of how this conflict started. You evidently do not know anything, anything at all, about the history.
It's kinda funny how they managed to make all these official proclamations as an elected leadership when they were ruled by the British at the time.
Like this, for example. Palestine was not a "colony" ruled as part of the British Empire; it was a "mandate" being prepared for independence. The first thing the British tried to do was run elections for a legislative council: the initial intention was to have a unitary state, in which Muslims, Christians, and Jews would all have equal rights, but the Muslims rejected this; non-Muslim immigrant were expected to accept second-class citizenship, paying ritual and material tribute to the Muslim overlord-class (no non-Muslim could ride a horse or a camel in the presence of an unmounted Muslim, lest his head be higher, or walk on a sidewalk if a Muslim was on it, etc.; and the local Muslim shayks would periodically enter Christian or Jewish villages to let their men take what they wanted, within vague but understood limits, as "jizya", the special tax owed by the "dhimmi" to the Muslims; the Ottoman regime had officially abolished all this in the "tanzimat" reforms of the mid-19th-century, but Palestine rejected these reforms).

So the British had to come to terms with the "millet" system in which each religious community chose separate leaderships to govern their internal affairs, with the Muslim council administering the country. The election for the Muslim community was nearly swept by the Majlissiyun party, so the head of that party, Amin Husseini, was made the prime minister, or "Grand Mufti" (the inherited Turkish term for "head of the civil service"). The intended transfer of greater autonomous powers to this council was thwarted by the Mufti's view that the principal role of his "government" was organizing violent upheavals. The election "campaign" had consisted of rallies where the crowds shouted "exterminate the Jews!" and, in about a half-dozen cases, actually committed murders. Such rallies continued through the 20's, but the number of killings remained small and sporadic until in 1929 the Mufti gave the green light to attacking the old established Jewish towns, not just the immigrants: hundreds were killed.

Further escalation of the violence came in the 30's. Initially it was Iz al-Din Qassem's "Ikhwan" ("brotherhood") which began receiving arms from Nazi Germany; the Mufti felt compelled to join in explicitly allying with Germany, at which point Britain expelled him (he spent the war years making propaganda broadcasts from Berlin and recruiting Muslim SS units in Bosnia and Algeria), and expelled Jabotinski, leader of the Radical Zionists, for balance. The Radical Zionists then declared that they would no longer restrict themselves to self-defense, but would undertake "reprisal" actions (making sure their own terror attacks caused more casualties than the attacks they responded to), and would also consider the British administrators as their enemies: these groups, the "Lehi" and "Irgun", eventually morphed into the Likud party.
Unless you mean that Hamas formulated these policies at that time.
If you believe Hamas, yes, the Ikhwan "was" Hamas: they claim to be the institutional continuation of the Ikhwan, call their military wing the Qassem Brigades, and have a charter which recycles Islamized versions of Nazi propaganda from the 1930's without modification. The actual extent of continuity is difficult to ascertain: "Muslim Brotherhood" organizations in neighboring countries, tracing to factions akin to the Palestinian Ikhwan, do have continuity back to the 30's, but in Palestine it seems to have been rather moribund from the mid-50's to mid-70's.
Now, why do you think the Palestinians support civilian attacks while Canadians do not?
Xenophobic violence has always been condoned rather than condemned in Palestine. This was true long before there was an occupation, long before there was a state of Israel, long before any Palestinians had been driven from their homes. Of course xenophobia occurs in other cultures too: around where I live, it was quite common for KKK-types to burn out, threaten, or outright kill black people who moved into white neighborhoods, within living memory; and in present-day Germany, similar attacks on Turkish immigrants are common to this day. In Palestine, thugs of this type achieved overwhelming majority support and took control of the political leadership ninety years ago.
And it supports the idea that bombing the tunnels is not a permanent solution to the problem.
It is a temporary alleviation of the problem. I don't believe that any "permanent" solution is in sight.

It did not seem like a very complicated story. The battle had moved in to the neighborhood. The family was lying low. After a big boom, the girl stood up. A bullet came through the window and killed her. The father is upset and enraged, understandably. Am I missing something?

We don't know what the explosion was: was it something fired at the Israelis? Was it fired from that building? How much return fire was there?

We don't know what the role of the father: was he a militant? If he was not, might the Israelis have thought he was? Was this a case where the Israelis told everybody to clear out (although they had few options of places to go) and would assume everybody who stayed was a fighter?

Without further information, all theories about why the girl was shot are of course speculative: my only point was that the theory you like is no less speculative than the theories you reject out of hand.


You can't say that at all. You haven't even read the article so you don't what information is in it. And since you don't know the information, you can't say what the information supports and doesn't.

Pay some attention. I said it was after a bombing in Israel: as you should know, the Palestinians haven't managed to pull one of those off in a couple years.

I would try to dig it up, if you were sincerely interested, but if you are just going to say that for some vague reason it doesn't count, why bother?

They are places from which Israel withdrew, which promptly became bases for rocket attacks.

Unless you provide links with quotes, I'm going to assume that you are simply speculating.

On the contrary, I hewed as closely as I could to the actual history of how this conflict started. You evidently do not know anything, anything at all, about the history.

Suuure.

Like this, for example. Palestine was not a "colony" ruled as part of the British Empire; it was a "mandate" being prepared for independence. The first thing the British tried to do was run elections for a legislative council: the initial intention was to have a unitary state, in which Muslims, Christians, and Jews would all have equal rights, but the Muslims rejected this; non-Muslim immigrant were expected to accept second-class citizenship, paying ritual and material tribute to the Muslim overlord-class (no non-Muslim could ride a horse or a camel in the presence of an unmounted Muslim, lest his head be higher, or walk on a sidewalk if a Muslim was on it, etc.; and the local Muslim shayks would periodically enter Christian or Jewish villages to let their men take what they wanted, within vague but understood limits, as "jizya", the special tax owed by the "dhimmi" to the Muslims; the Ottoman regime had officially abolished all this in the "tanzimat" reforms of the mid-19th-century, but Palestine rejected these reforms).

]So the British had to come to terms with the "millet" system in which each religious community chose separate leaderships to govern their internal affairs, with the Muslim council administering the country. The election for the Muslim community was nearly swept by the Majlissiyun party, so the head of that party, Amin Husseini, was made the prime minister, or "Grand Mufti" (the inherited Turkish term for "head of the civil service"). The intended transfer of greater autonomous powers to this council was thwarted by the Mufti's view that the principal role of his "government" was organizing violent upheavals. The election "campaign" had consisted of rallies where the crowds shouted "exterminate the Jews!" and, in about a half-dozen cases, actually committed murders. Such rallies continued through the 20's, but the number of killings remained small and sporadic until in 1929 the Mufti gave the green light to attacking the old established Jewish towns, not just the immigrants: hundreds were killed.

Further escalation of the violence came in the 30's. Initially it was Iz al-Din Qassem's "Ikhwan" ("brotherhood") which began receiving arms from Nazi Germany; the Mufti felt compelled to join in explicitly allying with Germany, at which point Britain expelled him (he spent the war years making propaganda broadcasts from Berlin and recruiting Muslim SS units in Bosnia and Algeria), and expelled Jabotinski, leader of the Radical Zionists, for balance. The Radical Zionists then declared that they would no longer restrict themselves to self-defense, but would undertake "reprisal" actions (making sure their own terror attacks caused more casualties than the attacks they responded to), and would also consider the British administrators as their enemies: these groups, the "Lehi" and "Irgun", eventually morphed into the Likud party.

Source?

If you believe Hamas, yes, the Ikhwan "was" Hamas: they claim to be the institutional continuation of the Ikhwan, call their military wing the Qassem Brigades, and have a charter which recycles Islamized versions of Nazi propaganda from the 1930's without modification. The actual extent of continuity is difficult to ascertain: "Muslim Brotherhood" organizations in neighboring countries, tracing to factions akin to the Palestinian Ikhwan, do have continuity back to the 30's, but in Palestine it seems to have been rather moribund from the mid-50's to mid-70's.

I'm guessing you believe Hamas, then?

Xenophobic violence has always been condoned rather than condemned in Palestine. This was true long before there was an occupation, long before there was a state of Israel, long before any Palestinians had been driven from their homes. Of course xenophobia occurs in other cultures too: around where I live, it was quite common for KKK-types to burn out, threaten, or outright kill black people who moved into white neighborhoods, within living memory; and in present-day Germany, similar attacks on Turkish immigrants are common to this day. In Palestine, thugs of this type achieved overwhelming majority support and took control of the political leadership ninety years ago.

Look, instead of repeating your racist thoughts about Palestinians as though they were factual, can you actually provide support for the claims you make? Thanks.


It is a temporary alleviation of the problem. I don't believe that any "permanent" solution is in sight.

Reality doesn't work according to what you believe. Sorry.

So the British had to come to terms with the "millet" system in which each religious community chose separate leaderships to govern their internal affairs, with the Muslim council administering the country. The election for the Muslim community was nearly swept by the Majlissiyun party, so the head of that party, Amin Husseini, was made the prime minister, or "Grand Mufti" (the inherited Turkish term for "head of the civil service")..

I'm beginning to get tired of your repeating this nonsense.

The mu'aridun won the first three places and Husseini came last. The British appointed him "Grand Mufti" which is not a Turkish office, but one they invented for him, to keep his clan happy.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

Why are you posting this version again when I've refuted it at least twice before? Do you think repetition of your potted history has an effect on the actual record?

I asked for a source for one of your earlier remarks. Why haven't you provided one.



Of course (......)is in sight.

More inept analogies. Are there two populations in Germany promised an independent state comprising the same area? Are immigrants into Germany living in communes explicily dedicated to erecting a seperate state there?

In fact, that whole post is so inept as to border on flamebait.

Look, instead of repeating your racist thoughts about Palestinians as though they were factual, can you actually provide support for the claims you make? Thanks.



Reality doesn't work according to what you believe. Sorry.

Why are you posting this version again when I've refuted it at least twice before? Do you think repetition of your potted history has an effect on the actual record?

Tmut has made it clear that while he'll hound the Palestinian people as a whole every time Hamas so much as picks a nose, when it comes to Kahanist settler violence and terrorism against ordinary Palestinians it'll conveniently be See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil, I Know Nothing, No-thing!

Unfortunately, its beginning to seem that way.

Meanwhile, in the present....

A confidential EU report accuses the Israeli government of using settlement expansion, house demolitions, discriminatory housing policies and the West Bank barrier as a way of "actively pursuing the illegal annexation" of East Jerusalem.

The document says Israel has accelerated its plans for East Jerusalem, and is undermining the Palestinian Authority's credibility and weakening support for peace talks. "Israel's actions in and around Jerusalem constitute one of the most acute challenges to Israeli-Palestinian peace-making," says the document, EU Heads of Mission Report on East Jerusalem.

The report, obtained by the Guardian, is dated 15 December 2008. It acknowledges Israel's legitimate security concerns in Jerusalem, but adds: "Many of its current illegal actions in and around the city have limited security justifications."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/07/israel-palestine-eu-report-jerusalem

Thats what Abbas gets for attempting to play ball. The sooner they kick out the corrupt git and put in someone with a pair, the better.

You can't say that at all. You haven't even read the article so you don't what information is in it. And since you don't know the information, you can't say what the information supports and doesn't.

I have read AN article, and told you what information I got from it. I don't know whether or not it is the same article you read: all you will tell me is that there is a link somewhere back in these 20 pages, and if you don't care enough to go back and hunt for it, certainly I don't (it is more difficult for me). If there is some significant piece of information you think I'm missing, you could of course just TELL me what it is. I would not, unlike you, stoop to accusing you of lying about what you read.
Unless you provide links with quotes, I'm going to assume that you are simply speculating.

No, I'm telling you what I read. I would go back and hunt up a link, except I don't believe you really have any interest, and I don't have much more interest in talking to someone who cannot argue on a basis of mutual good faith.
Source?

Are you willing to go to a library and read actual books, or do you only believe things you find on the intertubes? "A Peace to End All Peace" would be a good book to start with (not entirely about Palestine, but rather about the whole Mideast in the period after the Ottoman collapse).
I'm guessing you believe Hamas, then?

Instead of guessing, why don't you try reading what I said? I said that in Palestine the "Brotherhood" groups seemed to be moribund for 20 years, so that the claims to continuity were problematic.
I'm beginning to get tired of your repeating this nonsense.

The mu'aridun won the first three places and Husseini came last. The British appointed him "Grand Mufti" which is not a Turkish office, but one they invented for him, to keep his clan happy.
As I said, the British were intending a position like "prime minister", but reused the old Turkish title, although it had not had the same powers-- since the Turks of course had never intended to allow any self-government. The "mufti of Jerusalem" had previously headed the civil service in a wide district, but not coinciding with the boundaries of Mandate Palestine, and the post had been treated as an honorary parking place for an elder rather than as an effective executive: the "ulema" (local body of scholars in Islamic law) would propose three candidates to the Turkish authorities, who would pick one. The British disregarded the ulema's nominations because they intended a Westminster system in which the executive went to the head of the party which controlled the elected councils. The party centered around the Nashashibi clan (hereditary enemies of the Husseinis) was called the Mu'aridun "opposition" party because it was heavily outnumbered on the councils, both local and mandate-wide; its standing in the ulema was irrelevant to its degree of popular support.
Why are you posting this version again when I've refuted it at least twice before? Do you think repetition of your potted history has an effect on the actual record?

You have STATED YOUR DISAGREEMENT with my account of the history; that's not the same as "refuting" it. I have stated my disagreement with your counter-version: you and your source want to believe that the British chose Husseini arbitrarily, just because they liked him, but on the contrary, the British first reacted to his campaign by arresting him; they put him in the executive because he had demonstrated popular support.
I asked for a source for one of your earlier remarks. Why haven't you provided one.
Because I missed it. Which remark of mine are you talking about?
More inept analogies. Are there two populations in Germany promised an independent state comprising the same area? Are immigrants into Germany living in communes explicily dedicated to erecting a seperate state there?

There was no intention to create separate states for the Muslims, Christians, and Jews. In 1920 the idea was that there would be a unitary state where people of all religions had equal citizenship; hiving off Transjordan as a "Jew-free zone" was the only partition that was contemplated, until the violence of the mid-30's caused the idea of a further partition to be broached.
Tmut has made it clear that while he'll hound the Palestinian people as a whole every time Hamas so much as picks a nose, when it comes to Kahanist settler violence and terrorism against ordinary Palestinians it'll conveniently be See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil, I Know Nothing, No-thing!
Liar. I have repeatedly agreed that the settlers and the Likud are in the wrong.

This appears to be deteriorating into a "show me your sources and I'll show you mine" standoff, with flamey accessories. I'm closing this thread. If there's something you still want to debate, go ahead, but please state it clearly in a new thread.