|
On August 06 2014 03:50 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 03:29 Rebs wrote:On August 06 2014 03:15 Big J wrote:
It's ridiculous that one even has to start a discussion on that last sentence of yours. "Using any excuse". What else would be an excuse? "Hey, we are OK with everything that you do, for as long as you please don't shoot nuclear missiles at our towns, OK? That would be nice of you." THEY SHOOT FUCKING MISSILES TO KILL PEOPLE. Find me another country that will tolerate that their neighbour shoots missiles at them day-by-day and on that basis starts to give up territory out of good will. "Hey Mexico, you are right, here, take California back. Thanks for opening our eyes by attacking us! How nice of you!" Find me a country where people live like prisoners. I like how you said "give back". This whole dont shoot us debate is pointless, as people mentioned very many times, the settlements and occupations have increased non stop. Palestinians die weekly in supposed peace time. Just no one hears about it. These arent morons firing rockets just because, that do effectively nothing. This is behaviour representative of people so desperate and driven to the edge that they have nothing left else to try because sitting around and going the normal route hasnt helped and neither has the world I'm saying give back because not once will you hear me taking blame off of Israel. Not once will I say that bombing half of Gaza into the ground is the right way. But sadly it seems like these kinds of anti-violence arguments seem to be only OK if you are against Israel. When it is Palestine, suddenly we have to make distinctions between West Bank and Gaza, Hamas (or even Quassam) and the rest. And even then "they are not morons", and "it's OK, it's out of desperation". And when someone suggests a non-violent way, then there are immidiatly some "I can predict that this won't work"-guys around. Well, guess what. The violent way doesn't work either. It just makes Israel retaliate in a disproportional way.
Incorrect. The violent way has been the most successful tactic so far. The problem of nobody giving a shit about Palestine and nobody knowing anything about Palestine is conveniently solved by Israel bombing Palestine and especially the United Nations. The (unusually) disproportionate response from Israel every 5 years draws attention to the vast spectrum of abuse Israel inflicts on Palestinians on a daily basis.
|
On August 06 2014 03:56 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 03:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 03:32 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:45 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 06 2014 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:37 Jormundr wrote:On August 06 2014 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2014 02:17 DinoMight wrote:On August 05 2014 19:04 Big J wrote:
[quote]
You are deliberately mixing up civil protest and "doing nothing". Ghandi didn't do nothing.
And noone in the West gives a fuck about the West Bank on its own. Either the whole country abandons violence, or their words aren't worth anything. And if you think it's unfair that the whole country "is held hostage by Terrorists", then said nation should do something about those Terrorists, instead of giving them offical powers. What do you suggest that the millions of people living peacefully in the West Bank do about a few thousand armed Hamas terrorists in Gaza? Keep in mind that the 42.9% of Gazans who voted for Hamas did not elect the Qassam brigade into power. Most Gazans oppose Hamas. The fact that Israel won't act on the settlements in the West Bank until Hamas stops shooting rockets in Gaza is just an indication that they're using any possible excuse to stall the reform process. I generally ask people to stop trying to hit me before I will talk with them. Its only polite. wat Are you suggesting a collective culpability for palestinians I.E. Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should bear responsibility for the actions of Hamas in the West Bank? Because collective guilt is a really dumb argument to make. It can be used to justify rocket attacks on Israel, which I don't think you're in favor of. Absolutely yes. As long as the Palestinians are independently governed, they are responsible for getting their house in order. If they can't do it, then they probably shouldn't be independent. You realise the two areas are geographically cut off from each other? Officials are not allowed to travel from one to the other, they are not even allowed to print the same newspapers etc. The question asked wasn't whether Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should be responsible for the actions of Hamas in Gaza. It was, actually. I was saying that Palestinians in the West Bank have been peaceful for a while and nothing has been done about the settlements there under the pretext that Israel is "busy" dealing with Hamas. No, go read the question that I put in bold. And it wasn't your statement that I highlighted. Regardless, the point that I'm making is that Israel shouldn't bother negotiating with the Palestinians for peace if the Palestinians cannot control Hamas. In that way, the Palestinians are responsible for the actions of Hamas. During relative peacetime, Israel killed 179 civilians to Palestinian's 32. Apparently by your logic Gazans should have no reason to negotiate with Israel because it is 5x more terrorist than Hamas.
All things being equal, you're correct. The difference is that Israel is in a position to deal with "peace time breaches" whereas the Palestinians are not.
|
On August 06 2014 03:56 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 03:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 03:32 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:45 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 06 2014 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:37 Jormundr wrote:On August 06 2014 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2014 02:17 DinoMight wrote:On August 05 2014 19:04 Big J wrote:
[quote]
You are deliberately mixing up civil protest and "doing nothing". Ghandi didn't do nothing.
And noone in the West gives a fuck about the West Bank on its own. Either the whole country abandons violence, or their words aren't worth anything. And if you think it's unfair that the whole country "is held hostage by Terrorists", then said nation should do something about those Terrorists, instead of giving them offical powers. What do you suggest that the millions of people living peacefully in the West Bank do about a few thousand armed Hamas terrorists in Gaza? Keep in mind that the 42.9% of Gazans who voted for Hamas did not elect the Qassam brigade into power. Most Gazans oppose Hamas. The fact that Israel won't act on the settlements in the West Bank until Hamas stops shooting rockets in Gaza is just an indication that they're using any possible excuse to stall the reform process. I generally ask people to stop trying to hit me before I will talk with them. Its only polite. wat Are you suggesting a collective culpability for palestinians I.E. Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should bear responsibility for the actions of Hamas in the West Bank? Because collective guilt is a really dumb argument to make. It can be used to justify rocket attacks on Israel, which I don't think you're in favor of. Absolutely yes. As long as the Palestinians are independently governed, they are responsible for getting their house in order. If they can't do it, then they probably shouldn't be independent. You realise the two areas are geographically cut off from each other? Officials are not allowed to travel from one to the other, they are not even allowed to print the same newspapers etc. The question asked wasn't whether Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should be responsible for the actions of Hamas in Gaza. It was, actually. I was saying that Palestinians in the West Bank have been peaceful for a while and nothing has been done about the settlements there under the pretext that Israel is "busy" dealing with Hamas. No, go read the question that I put in bold. And it wasn't your statement that I highlighted. Regardless, the point that I'm making is that Israel shouldn't bother negotiating with the Palestinians for peace if the Palestinians cannot control Hamas. In that way, the Palestinians are responsible for the actions of Hamas. If Israel can negotiate a deal with the other Palestinians that will get Hamas militants to put their guns down... shouldn't they try? "We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a line that's often quoted in movies and the media, but in practice the United States and other countries frequently negotiate with terrorists. Why does Israel refuse to negotiate with ANY coalition government that includes Hamas? After all wouldn't it make the most sense to talk to the people you're fighting with?
Because neither side trusts each other and just assumes the worst. Its just like the US and USSR during the high of the cold war. If you look at this thread, anyone who sides with the folks in Gaza basically assumes the worst of Israel and can think of 1000 reasons to back up their decision to do so. This is why these conflicts go on forever and ever.
Both sides can't sit their and go "you first" and expect anything to change. It just feeds into the cycle to sit there, arms cross and wait for the other side to make the first move. If someone really wanted to try something crazy in Gaza, they would offer to turn over weapons for Israel to dispose of and request aid in exchange.
|
On August 06 2014 04:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 03:56 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 03:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 03:32 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:45 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 06 2014 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:37 Jormundr wrote:On August 06 2014 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2014 02:17 DinoMight wrote:
[quote]
What do you suggest that the millions of people living peacefully in the West Bank do about a few thousand armed Hamas terrorists in Gaza?
Keep in mind that the 42.9% of Gazans who voted for Hamas did not elect the Qassam brigade into power. Most Gazans oppose Hamas.
The fact that Israel won't act on the settlements in the West Bank until Hamas stops shooting rockets in Gaza is just an indication that they're using any possible excuse to stall the reform process. I generally ask people to stop trying to hit me before I will talk with them. Its only polite. wat Are you suggesting a collective culpability for palestinians I.E. Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should bear responsibility for the actions of Hamas in the West Bank? Because collective guilt is a really dumb argument to make. It can be used to justify rocket attacks on Israel, which I don't think you're in favor of. Absolutely yes. As long as the Palestinians are independently governed, they are responsible for getting their house in order. If they can't do it, then they probably shouldn't be independent. You realise the two areas are geographically cut off from each other? Officials are not allowed to travel from one to the other, they are not even allowed to print the same newspapers etc. The question asked wasn't whether Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should be responsible for the actions of Hamas in Gaza. It was, actually. I was saying that Palestinians in the West Bank have been peaceful for a while and nothing has been done about the settlements there under the pretext that Israel is "busy" dealing with Hamas. No, go read the question that I put in bold. And it wasn't your statement that I highlighted. Regardless, the point that I'm making is that Israel shouldn't bother negotiating with the Palestinians for peace if the Palestinians cannot control Hamas. In that way, the Palestinians are responsible for the actions of Hamas. If Israel can negotiate a deal with the other Palestinians that will get Hamas militants to put their guns down... shouldn't they try? "We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a line that's often quoted in movies and the media, but in practice the United States and other countries frequently negotiate with terrorists. Why does Israel refuse to negotiate with ANY coalition government that includes Hamas? After all wouldn't it make the most sense to talk to the people you're fighting with? Because neither side trusts each other and just assumes the worst. Its just like the US and USSR during the high of the cold war. If you look at this thread, anyone who sides with the folks in Gaza basically assumes the worst of Israel and can think of 1000 reasons to back up their decision to do so. This is why these conflicts go on forever and ever. Both sides can't sit their and go "you first" and expect anything to change. It just feeds into the cycle to sit there, arms cross and wait for the other side to make the first move. If someone really wanted to try something crazy in Gaza, they would offer to turn over weapons for Israel to dispose of and request aid in exchange.
And you're saying "You first!" to the side which by any rational measure is on the receiving end of 99.9999% of the abuse. It's not hard to paint Israel as the bad guys here. If Israeli logic is to be followed, then it can be derived that Hitler was justified in putting the Jews in camps, but not justified in killing them if he thought their existence posed a threat to Germany. That is absolutely ridiculous. YOU CAN'T FUCKING PUT PEOPLE IN WALLED OFF GUARDED CAMPS BECAUSE OF THEIR ETHNICITY. There is no way to justify that, especially when you go into the camps and mow them down every once in a while.
See:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/casualtiestotal.html
|
On August 06 2014 04:33 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 04:05 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2014 03:56 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 03:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 03:32 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:45 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 06 2014 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:37 Jormundr wrote:On August 06 2014 02:25 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I generally ask people to stop trying to hit me before I will talk with them. Its only polite. wat Are you suggesting a collective culpability for palestinians I.E. Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should bear responsibility for the actions of Hamas in the West Bank? Because collective guilt is a really dumb argument to make. It can be used to justify rocket attacks on Israel, which I don't think you're in favor of. Absolutely yes. As long as the Palestinians are independently governed, they are responsible for getting their house in order. If they can't do it, then they probably shouldn't be independent. You realise the two areas are geographically cut off from each other? Officials are not allowed to travel from one to the other, they are not even allowed to print the same newspapers etc. The question asked wasn't whether Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should be responsible for the actions of Hamas in Gaza. It was, actually. I was saying that Palestinians in the West Bank have been peaceful for a while and nothing has been done about the settlements there under the pretext that Israel is "busy" dealing with Hamas. No, go read the question that I put in bold. And it wasn't your statement that I highlighted. Regardless, the point that I'm making is that Israel shouldn't bother negotiating with the Palestinians for peace if the Palestinians cannot control Hamas. In that way, the Palestinians are responsible for the actions of Hamas. If Israel can negotiate a deal with the other Palestinians that will get Hamas militants to put their guns down... shouldn't they try? "We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a line that's often quoted in movies and the media, but in practice the United States and other countries frequently negotiate with terrorists. Why does Israel refuse to negotiate with ANY coalition government that includes Hamas? After all wouldn't it make the most sense to talk to the people you're fighting with? Because neither side trusts each other and just assumes the worst. Its just like the US and USSR during the high of the cold war. If you look at this thread, anyone who sides with the folks in Gaza basically assumes the worst of Israel and can think of 1000 reasons to back up their decision to do so. This is why these conflicts go on forever and ever. Both sides can't sit their and go "you first" and expect anything to change. It just feeds into the cycle to sit there, arms cross and wait for the other side to make the first move. If someone really wanted to try something crazy in Gaza, they would offer to turn over weapons for Israel to dispose of and request aid in exchange. And you're saying "You first!" to the side which by any rational measure is on the receiving end of 99.9999% of the abuse. It's not hard to paint Israel as the bad guys here. If Israeli logic is to be followed, then it can be derived that Hitler was justified in putting the Jews in camps, but not justified in killing them if he thought their existence posed a threat to Germany. That is absolutely ridiculous. YOU CAN'T FUCKING PUT PEOPLE IN WALLED OFF GUARDED CAMPS BECAUSE OF THEIR ETHNICITY. There is no way to justify that, especially when you go into the camps and mow them down every once in a while. See: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/casualtiestotal.html
Ok, lets be clear, they wouldn't have gone in if the rockets hadn't been fired. And Hamas would have killed just as many civilians if they had the capability. They didn't, but the desire was there.
But Godwin's law has been reached, so I guess we can end the discussion now.
|
On August 06 2014 04:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 04:33 Jormundr wrote:On August 06 2014 04:05 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2014 03:56 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 03:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 03:32 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:45 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 06 2014 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:37 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
wat
Are you suggesting a collective culpability for palestinians I.E. Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should bear responsibility for the actions of Hamas in the West Bank?
Because collective guilt is a really dumb argument to make. It can be used to justify rocket attacks on Israel, which I don't think you're in favor of. Absolutely yes. As long as the Palestinians are independently governed, they are responsible for getting their house in order. If they can't do it, then they probably shouldn't be independent. You realise the two areas are geographically cut off from each other? Officials are not allowed to travel from one to the other, they are not even allowed to print the same newspapers etc. The question asked wasn't whether Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should be responsible for the actions of Hamas in Gaza. It was, actually. I was saying that Palestinians in the West Bank have been peaceful for a while and nothing has been done about the settlements there under the pretext that Israel is "busy" dealing with Hamas. No, go read the question that I put in bold. And it wasn't your statement that I highlighted. Regardless, the point that I'm making is that Israel shouldn't bother negotiating with the Palestinians for peace if the Palestinians cannot control Hamas. In that way, the Palestinians are responsible for the actions of Hamas. If Israel can negotiate a deal with the other Palestinians that will get Hamas militants to put their guns down... shouldn't they try? "We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a line that's often quoted in movies and the media, but in practice the United States and other countries frequently negotiate with terrorists. Why does Israel refuse to negotiate with ANY coalition government that includes Hamas? After all wouldn't it make the most sense to talk to the people you're fighting with? Because neither side trusts each other and just assumes the worst. Its just like the US and USSR during the high of the cold war. If you look at this thread, anyone who sides with the folks in Gaza basically assumes the worst of Israel and can think of 1000 reasons to back up their decision to do so. This is why these conflicts go on forever and ever. Both sides can't sit their and go "you first" and expect anything to change. It just feeds into the cycle to sit there, arms cross and wait for the other side to make the first move. If someone really wanted to try something crazy in Gaza, they would offer to turn over weapons for Israel to dispose of and request aid in exchange. And you're saying "You first!" to the side which by any rational measure is on the receiving end of 99.9999% of the abuse. It's not hard to paint Israel as the bad guys here. If Israeli logic is to be followed, then it can be derived that Hitler was justified in putting the Jews in camps, but not justified in killing them if he thought their existence posed a threat to Germany. That is absolutely ridiculous. YOU CAN'T FUCKING PUT PEOPLE IN WALLED OFF GUARDED CAMPS BECAUSE OF THEIR ETHNICITY. There is no way to justify that, especially when you go into the camps and mow them down every once in a while. See: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/casualtiestotal.html Ok, lets be clear, they wouldn't have gone in if the rockets hadn't been fired. And Hamas would have killed just as many civilians if they had the capability. They didn't, but the desire was there. But Godwin's law has been reached, so I guess we can end the discussion now.
And Israel, by virtue of killing fathers, sons, mothers, and daughters is the party which gives Hamas the limited capabilities and manpower that they currently have.
I mean seriously, what justification is there for treating 4.4 million people like this:
![[image loading]](http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Palestinians+Cross+West+Bank+Check+Point+Work+7brsKZKGuJFl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://f8wee1vvia32pdxo527grujy61.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/BdTtpHpCAAE9Q9n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3IukbPY.jpg?1)
|
On August 06 2014 04:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 04:33 Jormundr wrote:On August 06 2014 04:05 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2014 03:56 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 03:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 03:32 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:45 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 06 2014 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:37 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
wat
Are you suggesting a collective culpability for palestinians I.E. Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should bear responsibility for the actions of Hamas in the West Bank?
Because collective guilt is a really dumb argument to make. It can be used to justify rocket attacks on Israel, which I don't think you're in favor of. Absolutely yes. As long as the Palestinians are independently governed, they are responsible for getting their house in order. If they can't do it, then they probably shouldn't be independent. You realise the two areas are geographically cut off from each other? Officials are not allowed to travel from one to the other, they are not even allowed to print the same newspapers etc. The question asked wasn't whether Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should be responsible for the actions of Hamas in Gaza. It was, actually. I was saying that Palestinians in the West Bank have been peaceful for a while and nothing has been done about the settlements there under the pretext that Israel is "busy" dealing with Hamas. No, go read the question that I put in bold. And it wasn't your statement that I highlighted. Regardless, the point that I'm making is that Israel shouldn't bother negotiating with the Palestinians for peace if the Palestinians cannot control Hamas. In that way, the Palestinians are responsible for the actions of Hamas. If Israel can negotiate a deal with the other Palestinians that will get Hamas militants to put their guns down... shouldn't they try? "We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a line that's often quoted in movies and the media, but in practice the United States and other countries frequently negotiate with terrorists. Why does Israel refuse to negotiate with ANY coalition government that includes Hamas? After all wouldn't it make the most sense to talk to the people you're fighting with? Because neither side trusts each other and just assumes the worst. Its just like the US and USSR during the high of the cold war. If you look at this thread, anyone who sides with the folks in Gaza basically assumes the worst of Israel and can think of 1000 reasons to back up their decision to do so. This is why these conflicts go on forever and ever. Both sides can't sit their and go "you first" and expect anything to change. It just feeds into the cycle to sit there, arms cross and wait for the other side to make the first move. If someone really wanted to try something crazy in Gaza, they would offer to turn over weapons for Israel to dispose of and request aid in exchange. And you're saying "You first!" to the side which by any rational measure is on the receiving end of 99.9999% of the abuse. It's not hard to paint Israel as the bad guys here. If Israeli logic is to be followed, then it can be derived that Hitler was justified in putting the Jews in camps, but not justified in killing them if he thought their existence posed a threat to Germany. That is absolutely ridiculous. YOU CAN'T FUCKING PUT PEOPLE IN WALLED OFF GUARDED CAMPS BECAUSE OF THEIR ETHNICITY. There is no way to justify that, especially when you go into the camps and mow them down every once in a while. See: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/casualtiestotal.html Ok, lets be clear, they wouldn't have gone in if the rockets hadn't been fired. And Hamas would have killed just as many civilians if they had the capability. They didn't, but the desire was there. But Godwin's law has been reached, so I guess we can end the discussion now.
Everyone claims Hamas started the conflict because it launched rockets at Israel. But this is often overlooked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Immediate_events
On 12 June 2014, three Israeli teenagers were abducted in the West Bank: Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaer, and Eyal Yifrah. Israel blamed Hamas, and the IDF stated that the two men Israel suspects of having kidnapped the teenagers were known members of Hamas.[66][67] No evidence of Hamas involvement has been offered by the Israeli authorities[68] and high-ranking members of Hamas have denied the group had any involvement in the incident.[69] The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank attribute the abductions to the Qawasameh clan which is notorious for acting against Hamas's policies and any attempts to reach an entente with Israel.[70] Hamas political chief Khaled Meshal said he can neither confirm nor deny the kidnapping of the three Israelis, but congratulated the abductors.[71] Israel launched Operation Brother's Keeper, a large-scale crackdown of what it called Hamas's terrorist infrastructure and personnel in the West Bank,[72] ostensibly aimed at securing the release of the kidnapped teenagers. 10 Palestinians were killed in numerous raids,[73][74][75] and between 350 and 600 Palestinians,[69][73][76][77] including nearly all of Hamas' West Bank leaders,[26][78][79] were arrested.[80][81][82] Among those arrested were many people who had only recently been freed under the terms of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange.[citation needed]
On 30 June, search teams found the bodies of the three missing teenagers near Hebron.[83][84][85] Israeli authorities appear to have known with near certainty from the outset that the three had been shot almost immediately after the kidnapping,[86][87]
So three Israeli teenagers were abducted and shot. The Israeli military (not the police, this is an important distinction) then killed 10 Palestinians and arrested (and beat/abused, there is ample Youtube evidence of this) "between 350 and 600 Palestinians" Including nearly all of Hamas's West Bank leaders. Then, surprise surprise, information surfaced that Hamas wasn't responsible.
My view is they took this opportunity to incite conflict. As they have been doing every 2-3 years for a month or so.
Someone like Plansix might say "Okay, so both sides are evil. What of it?"
Well, one side is a terrorist group of a few thousand people. The other is supposedly a civilized, democratic nation to which the United States supplies weapons. It should be held to a higher standard.
|
Yes, both sides suck and resort to violence every time even a minor conflict comes up. Three murders of teenagers, for reasons beyond our understanding, lead to a full escalation of an armed conflict. Either side could de-escalate the situation by not resorting to the worst possible outcome, but they don't. Previous conflicts have been started by even more minor stuff, including a car crash that was likely a freak accident, but escalated into a major conflict.
There is no higher standard. There is just wrong and wrong. Hamas doesn't get any more of a pass than Israel in this one. There are parties on both sides just waiting to fight and that is all they want.
|
On August 06 2014 05:38 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 04:39 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2014 04:33 Jormundr wrote:On August 06 2014 04:05 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2014 03:56 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 03:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 03:32 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:45 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 06 2014 02:39 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Absolutely yes. As long as the Palestinians are independently governed, they are responsible for getting their house in order. If they can't do it, then they probably shouldn't be independent. You realise the two areas are geographically cut off from each other? Officials are not allowed to travel from one to the other, they are not even allowed to print the same newspapers etc. The question asked wasn't whether Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should be responsible for the actions of Hamas in Gaza. It was, actually. I was saying that Palestinians in the West Bank have been peaceful for a while and nothing has been done about the settlements there under the pretext that Israel is "busy" dealing with Hamas. No, go read the question that I put in bold. And it wasn't your statement that I highlighted. Regardless, the point that I'm making is that Israel shouldn't bother negotiating with the Palestinians for peace if the Palestinians cannot control Hamas. In that way, the Palestinians are responsible for the actions of Hamas. If Israel can negotiate a deal with the other Palestinians that will get Hamas militants to put their guns down... shouldn't they try? "We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a line that's often quoted in movies and the media, but in practice the United States and other countries frequently negotiate with terrorists. Why does Israel refuse to negotiate with ANY coalition government that includes Hamas? After all wouldn't it make the most sense to talk to the people you're fighting with? Because neither side trusts each other and just assumes the worst. Its just like the US and USSR during the high of the cold war. If you look at this thread, anyone who sides with the folks in Gaza basically assumes the worst of Israel and can think of 1000 reasons to back up their decision to do so. This is why these conflicts go on forever and ever. Both sides can't sit their and go "you first" and expect anything to change. It just feeds into the cycle to sit there, arms cross and wait for the other side to make the first move. If someone really wanted to try something crazy in Gaza, they would offer to turn over weapons for Israel to dispose of and request aid in exchange. And you're saying "You first!" to the side which by any rational measure is on the receiving end of 99.9999% of the abuse. It's not hard to paint Israel as the bad guys here. If Israeli logic is to be followed, then it can be derived that Hitler was justified in putting the Jews in camps, but not justified in killing them if he thought their existence posed a threat to Germany. That is absolutely ridiculous. YOU CAN'T FUCKING PUT PEOPLE IN WALLED OFF GUARDED CAMPS BECAUSE OF THEIR ETHNICITY. There is no way to justify that, especially when you go into the camps and mow them down every once in a while. See: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/casualtiestotal.html Ok, lets be clear, they wouldn't have gone in if the rockets hadn't been fired. And Hamas would have killed just as many civilians if they had the capability. They didn't, but the desire was there. But Godwin's law has been reached, so I guess we can end the discussion now. Everyone claims Hamas started the conflict because it launched rockets at Israel. But this is often overlooked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Immediate_eventsShow nested quote +On 12 June 2014, three Israeli teenagers were abducted in the West Bank: Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaer, and Eyal Yifrah. Israel blamed Hamas, and the IDF stated that the two men Israel suspects of having kidnapped the teenagers were known members of Hamas.[66][67] No evidence of Hamas involvement has been offered by the Israeli authorities[68] and high-ranking members of Hamas have denied the group had any involvement in the incident.[69] The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank attribute the abductions to the Qawasameh clan which is notorious for acting against Hamas's policies and any attempts to reach an entente with Israel.[70] Hamas political chief Khaled Meshal said he can neither confirm nor deny the kidnapping of the three Israelis, but congratulated the abductors.[71] Israel launched Operation Brother's Keeper, a large-scale crackdown of what it called Hamas's terrorist infrastructure and personnel in the West Bank,[72] ostensibly aimed at securing the release of the kidnapped teenagers. 10 Palestinians were killed in numerous raids,[73][74][75] and between 350 and 600 Palestinians,[69][73][76][77] including nearly all of Hamas' West Bank leaders,[26][78][79] were arrested.[80][81][82] Among those arrested were many people who had only recently been freed under the terms of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange.[citation needed]
On 30 June, search teams found the bodies of the three missing teenagers near Hebron.[83][84][85] Israeli authorities appear to have known with near certainty from the outset that the three had been shot almost immediately after the kidnapping,[86][87]
So three Israeli teenagers were abducted and shot. The Israeli military (not the police, this is an important distinction) then killed 10 Palestinians and arrested (and beat/abused, there is ample Youtube evidence of this) "between 350 and 600 Palestinians" Including nearly all of Hamas's West Bank leaders. Then, surprise surprise, information surfaced that Hamas wasn't responsible. My view is they took this opportunity to incite conflict. As they have been doing every 2-3 years for a month or so. Someone like Plansix might say "Okay, so both sides are evil. What of it?" Well, one side is a terrorist group of a few thousand people. The other is supposedly a civilized, democratic nation to which the United States supplies weapons. It should be held to a higher standard.
Why are you guys so worked up over what Plansix say? He have a long history of trolling/bating and then when he gets called up to it, he remains evasive and can't step up to the plate.
The fact that you are giving him heed, you are feeding him fatter.
|
On August 06 2014 05:59 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 05:38 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 04:39 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2014 04:33 Jormundr wrote:On August 06 2014 04:05 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2014 03:56 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 03:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 03:32 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:45 EtherealBlade wrote:
[quote]
You realise the two areas are geographically cut off from each other? Officials are not allowed to travel from one to the other, they are not even allowed to print the same newspapers etc. The question asked wasn't whether Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should be responsible for the actions of Hamas in Gaza. It was, actually. I was saying that Palestinians in the West Bank have been peaceful for a while and nothing has been done about the settlements there under the pretext that Israel is "busy" dealing with Hamas. No, go read the question that I put in bold. And it wasn't your statement that I highlighted. Regardless, the point that I'm making is that Israel shouldn't bother negotiating with the Palestinians for peace if the Palestinians cannot control Hamas. In that way, the Palestinians are responsible for the actions of Hamas. If Israel can negotiate a deal with the other Palestinians that will get Hamas militants to put their guns down... shouldn't they try? "We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a line that's often quoted in movies and the media, but in practice the United States and other countries frequently negotiate with terrorists. Why does Israel refuse to negotiate with ANY coalition government that includes Hamas? After all wouldn't it make the most sense to talk to the people you're fighting with? Because neither side trusts each other and just assumes the worst. Its just like the US and USSR during the high of the cold war. If you look at this thread, anyone who sides with the folks in Gaza basically assumes the worst of Israel and can think of 1000 reasons to back up their decision to do so. This is why these conflicts go on forever and ever. Both sides can't sit their and go "you first" and expect anything to change. It just feeds into the cycle to sit there, arms cross and wait for the other side to make the first move. If someone really wanted to try something crazy in Gaza, they would offer to turn over weapons for Israel to dispose of and request aid in exchange. And you're saying "You first!" to the side which by any rational measure is on the receiving end of 99.9999% of the abuse. It's not hard to paint Israel as the bad guys here. If Israeli logic is to be followed, then it can be derived that Hitler was justified in putting the Jews in camps, but not justified in killing them if he thought their existence posed a threat to Germany. That is absolutely ridiculous. YOU CAN'T FUCKING PUT PEOPLE IN WALLED OFF GUARDED CAMPS BECAUSE OF THEIR ETHNICITY. There is no way to justify that, especially when you go into the camps and mow them down every once in a while. See: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/casualtiestotal.html Ok, lets be clear, they wouldn't have gone in if the rockets hadn't been fired. And Hamas would have killed just as many civilians if they had the capability. They didn't, but the desire was there. But Godwin's law has been reached, so I guess we can end the discussion now. Everyone claims Hamas started the conflict because it launched rockets at Israel. But this is often overlooked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Immediate_eventsOn 12 June 2014, three Israeli teenagers were abducted in the West Bank: Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaer, and Eyal Yifrah. Israel blamed Hamas, and the IDF stated that the two men Israel suspects of having kidnapped the teenagers were known members of Hamas.[66][67] No evidence of Hamas involvement has been offered by the Israeli authorities[68] and high-ranking members of Hamas have denied the group had any involvement in the incident.[69] The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank attribute the abductions to the Qawasameh clan which is notorious for acting against Hamas's policies and any attempts to reach an entente with Israel.[70] Hamas political chief Khaled Meshal said he can neither confirm nor deny the kidnapping of the three Israelis, but congratulated the abductors.[71] Israel launched Operation Brother's Keeper, a large-scale crackdown of what it called Hamas's terrorist infrastructure and personnel in the West Bank,[72] ostensibly aimed at securing the release of the kidnapped teenagers. 10 Palestinians were killed in numerous raids,[73][74][75] and between 350 and 600 Palestinians,[69][73][76][77] including nearly all of Hamas' West Bank leaders,[26][78][79] were arrested.[80][81][82] Among those arrested were many people who had only recently been freed under the terms of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange.[citation needed]
On 30 June, search teams found the bodies of the three missing teenagers near Hebron.[83][84][85] Israeli authorities appear to have known with near certainty from the outset that the three had been shot almost immediately after the kidnapping,[86][87]
So three Israeli teenagers were abducted and shot. The Israeli military (not the police, this is an important distinction) then killed 10 Palestinians and arrested (and beat/abused, there is ample Youtube evidence of this) "between 350 and 600 Palestinians" Including nearly all of Hamas's West Bank leaders. Then, surprise surprise, information surfaced that Hamas wasn't responsible. My view is they took this opportunity to incite conflict. As they have been doing every 2-3 years for a month or so. Someone like Plansix might say "Okay, so both sides are evil. What of it?" Well, one side is a terrorist group of a few thousand people. The other is supposedly a civilized, democratic nation to which the United States supplies weapons. It should be held to a higher standard. Why are you guys so worked up over what Plansix say? He have a long history of trolling/bating and then when he gets called up to it, he remains evasive and can't step up to the plate. The fact that you are giving him heed, you are feeding him fatter.
I heard this story about the pot and the kettle. You should look it up some time.
|
On August 06 2014 05:57 Plansix wrote:
Yes, both sides suck and resort to violence every time even a minor conflict comes up. Three murders of teenagers, for reasons beyond our understanding, lead to a full escalation of an armed conflict. Either side could de-escalate the situation by not resorting to the worst possible outcome, but they don't. Previous conflicts have been started by even more minor stuff, including a car crash that was likely a freak accident, but escalated into a major conflict.
There is no higher standard. There is just wrong and wrong. Hamas doesn't get any more of a pass than Israel in this one. There are parties on both sides just waiting to fight and that is all they want.
If both are the same and there is no responsibility for Israel to act differently, then doesn't that make them a terrorist organization as well?
What I'm saying is that Israel is a US ally. We spend billions of our dollars supporting them while our national debt rises. Surely, we should demand more of them. They should not be behaving like savages, especially if we're the ones arming them.
|
On August 06 2014 05:57 Plansix wrote:
Yes, both sides suck and resort to violence every time even a minor conflict comes up. Three murders of teenagers, for reasons beyond our understanding, lead to a full escalation of an armed conflict. Either side could de-escalate the situation by not resorting to the worst possible outcome, but they don't. Previous conflicts have been started by even more minor stuff, including a car crash that was likely a freak accident, but escalated into a major conflict.
There is no higher standard. There is just wrong and wrong. Hamas doesn't get any more of a pass than Israel in this one. There are parties on both sides just waiting to fight and that is all they want.
Were the slaves in America freed because they 'de-escalated the situation'? Did the Jews escape from Egypt by 'de-escalating the situation'? Was the Holocaust ended by passive resistance? Did the Ukrainians survive the Holodomor through inaction? Should the Palestinians just give up and hope they have as lucrative a future as the native americans?
Your argument makes no sense because for some reason you are assuming that if the Palestinians sit down and let Israel do whatever they want with them that Israel will mysteriously decide to treat muslims like equals at the expense of its own interests.
|
On August 06 2014 06:21 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 05:57 Plansix wrote:
Yes, both sides suck and resort to violence every time even a minor conflict comes up. Three murders of teenagers, for reasons beyond our understanding, lead to a full escalation of an armed conflict. Either side could de-escalate the situation by not resorting to the worst possible outcome, but they don't. Previous conflicts have been started by even more minor stuff, including a car crash that was likely a freak accident, but escalated into a major conflict.
There is no higher standard. There is just wrong and wrong. Hamas doesn't get any more of a pass than Israel in this one. There are parties on both sides just waiting to fight and that is all they want. Were the slaves in America freed because they 'de-escalated the situation'? Did the Jews escape from Egypt by 'de-escalating the situation'? Was the Holocaust ended by passive resistance? Did the Ukrainians survive the Holodomor through inaction? Should the Palestinians just give up and hope they have as lucrative a future as the native americans? Your argument makes no sense because for some reason you are assuming that if the Palestinians sit down and let Israel do whatever they want with them that Israel will mysteriously decide to treat muslims like equals at the expense of its own interests.
I choose to believe there are other routes beyond violence in response to violence. If you think fighting back is their only option, there is very little I can do to dissuade you of that belief. With that being the case, I'm going to bow out of this one, as people seem pretty committed to their point of view and we are just going in circles.
|
On August 06 2014 06:21 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 05:57 Plansix wrote:
Yes, both sides suck and resort to violence every time even a minor conflict comes up. Three murders of teenagers, for reasons beyond our understanding, lead to a full escalation of an armed conflict. Either side could de-escalate the situation by not resorting to the worst possible outcome, but they don't. Previous conflicts have been started by even more minor stuff, including a car crash that was likely a freak accident, but escalated into a major conflict.
There is no higher standard. There is just wrong and wrong. Hamas doesn't get any more of a pass than Israel in this one. There are parties on both sides just waiting to fight and that is all they want. Were the slaves in America freed because they 'de-escalated the situation'? Did the Jews escape from Egypt by 'de-escalating the situation'? Was the Holocaust ended by passive resistance? Did the Ukrainians survive the Holodomor through inaction? Should the Palestinians just give up and hope they have as lucrative a future as the native americans? Your argument makes no sense because for some reason you are assuming that if the Palestinians sit down and let Israel do whatever they want with them that Israel will mysteriously decide to treat muslims like equals at the expense of its own interests.
Then why agree to a cease fire? Shouldn't they just go balls to the wall and end this?
|
On August 06 2014 06:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 06:21 Jormundr wrote:On August 06 2014 05:57 Plansix wrote:
Yes, both sides suck and resort to violence every time even a minor conflict comes up. Three murders of teenagers, for reasons beyond our understanding, lead to a full escalation of an armed conflict. Either side could de-escalate the situation by not resorting to the worst possible outcome, but they don't. Previous conflicts have been started by even more minor stuff, including a car crash that was likely a freak accident, but escalated into a major conflict.
There is no higher standard. There is just wrong and wrong. Hamas doesn't get any more of a pass than Israel in this one. There are parties on both sides just waiting to fight and that is all they want. Were the slaves in America freed because they 'de-escalated the situation'? Did the Jews escape from Egypt by 'de-escalating the situation'? Was the Holocaust ended by passive resistance? Did the Ukrainians survive the Holodomor through inaction? Should the Palestinians just give up and hope they have as lucrative a future as the native americans? Your argument makes no sense because for some reason you are assuming that if the Palestinians sit down and let Israel do whatever they want with them that Israel will mysteriously decide to treat muslims like equals at the expense of its own interests. Then why agree to a cease fire? Shouldn't they just go balls to the wall and end this?
Do they really agree to a cease fire or is it pure posturing for the foreign media, just like the different peace talks?
|
On August 06 2014 06:43 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 06:38 Mohdoo wrote:On August 06 2014 06:21 Jormundr wrote:On August 06 2014 05:57 Plansix wrote:
Yes, both sides suck and resort to violence every time even a minor conflict comes up. Three murders of teenagers, for reasons beyond our understanding, lead to a full escalation of an armed conflict. Either side could de-escalate the situation by not resorting to the worst possible outcome, but they don't. Previous conflicts have been started by even more minor stuff, including a car crash that was likely a freak accident, but escalated into a major conflict.
There is no higher standard. There is just wrong and wrong. Hamas doesn't get any more of a pass than Israel in this one. There are parties on both sides just waiting to fight and that is all they want. Were the slaves in America freed because they 'de-escalated the situation'? Did the Jews escape from Egypt by 'de-escalating the situation'? Was the Holocaust ended by passive resistance? Did the Ukrainians survive the Holodomor through inaction? Should the Palestinians just give up and hope they have as lucrative a future as the native americans? Your argument makes no sense because for some reason you are assuming that if the Palestinians sit down and let Israel do whatever they want with them that Israel will mysteriously decide to treat muslims like equals at the expense of its own interests. Then why agree to a cease fire? Shouldn't they just go balls to the wall and end this? Do they really agree to a cease fire or is it pure posturing for the foreign media, just like the different peace talks?
They agreed to a "cease fire" but hours later Israel declared "mission accomplished" meaning that they bombed everything they wanted to bomb and are now done.
|
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass.
|
On August 06 2014 06:21 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 05:57 Plansix wrote:
Yes, both sides suck and resort to violence every time even a minor conflict comes up. Three murders of teenagers, for reasons beyond our understanding, lead to a full escalation of an armed conflict. Either side could de-escalate the situation by not resorting to the worst possible outcome, but they don't. Previous conflicts have been started by even more minor stuff, including a car crash that was likely a freak accident, but escalated into a major conflict.
There is no higher standard. There is just wrong and wrong. Hamas doesn't get any more of a pass than Israel in this one. There are parties on both sides just waiting to fight and that is all they want. Were the slaves in America freed because they 'de-escalated the situation'? Did the Jews escape from Egypt by 'de-escalating the situation'? Was the Holocaust ended by passive resistance? Did the Ukrainians survive the Holodomor through inaction? Should the Palestinians just give up and hope they have as lucrative a future as the native americans? Your argument makes no sense because for some reason you are assuming that if the Palestinians sit down and let Israel do whatever they want with them that Israel will mysteriously decide to treat muslims like equals at the expense of its own interests.
The slaves were freed as in, they didnt free themselves.
The Jews said, fuck this place let's go somewhere else. That's the contrary to what Hamas does.
Thr Holocaust was ended by a superior alliance of opponents. Not by some freedom fighters trying to take on one of the world's most high tech armies.
Not certain about the details of Holodomor. I only know that as some hunger periode or something like that.
Actually the only somewhat matching example is the one with the massively inferior native Americans taking on the White Man. And that didnt go so well for them, did it?
History has told us that if you want to win by force, you must be the greater force. Palestine isn't. They cannot win that way. Apart from the violence having to stop, for their own good they must go another way.
|
On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass.
Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
|
Algeria won their independance despite being completly dominated by the french army. But i guess that, in all our flaws, we french were brave enough to understand and give freedom to those who deserved it, and to see how wrong our actions were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
