On December 31 2008 06:13 Savio wrote: I don't think a shared capital is an option. There is too much trouble between jews and palestinians. The Israelis should have all of Jerusalem for their capital. The Muslims will object because it is a holy city, but heck, they a couple of others and Jersusalem is sacred to the Jews as well.
On a side note: Great OP. Very few people can explain the situation without trying to make one side look bad.
Another note: It annoys me greatly when the rest of world is completely fine with Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever killing Israelis and launching rockets at them...it doesn't even make the news (I didn't know Hamas was attacking Israel until Israel hit back--killing Israelis is not newsworthy apparently). But anytime Israel hits back, the world gets all up in arms and tries to pass UN resolutions against Israel and there are protests. Its retarded.
You might think that it is because the Israeli counterattack is much bigger and ends up killing more people but what do you expect? Should Israel just launch a FEW missles at Gaza? That would accomplish a lot. The point of force is for it to change something. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, I light military response in pointless. Israel has to decide to either do nothing militarily or to do a strong counterattack because any other choice is pointless.
So saying that Israel's counterattack was "disproportionate" is stupid. There IS a valid argument that perhaps Israel should not have counterattacked at all, but to say that they should have responded in "proportion" to the attacks against them is...well it's dumb.
Saying they should keep their attack proportionate means that they purpose of the attack is just revenge--an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket--when in reality the purpose should be to effect a change. When force is used to cause a change (and it doesn't always have to be), strong force is by far more effective than weak force.
that's totally wrong - everyone is fine with Hezbollah and Hamas? that's a joke... it's not just Hamas and Hezbollah bombing Israel, Israeli forces and Israeli sponsored groups have been bombing Hezbollah and Hamas just as much. Both sides are equally guilty (as I've said about 3 times).
the only reason some people have a positive view of Hezbollah is because they were wrongly attacked by Israel and actually emerged victorious in the conflict, which served as an inspiration to all who disagree with Western-backed Israeli policies in the Middle East.
If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel.
Well put. This does seem to be the difference between the 2 sides.
Unless you see Israeli settlements as an act of aggression.
You can say it even a 100 times it's still wrong. If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel.
You can say it even a 100 times it's still wrong. If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel.
QFT.
Would the palestinians destroy Israel with these?
They can barely hit their targets for heavens sake!
Lol, Locke. Just because some nutjob from Hamas says "lets destroy Israel" doesn't mean they're going to invade Israel. Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map, but Iran would never invade Israel. You can't prove intent by the words of some government officials. You can only prove intent with actions.
Hamas has been bombing Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, technically both are trying to destroy the other.
On December 31 2008 06:13 Savio wrote: I don't think a shared capital is an option. There is too much trouble between jews and palestinians. The Israelis should have all of Jerusalem for their capital. The Muslims will object because it is a holy city, but heck, they a couple of others and Jersusalem is sacred to the Jews as well.
On a side note: Great OP. Very few people can explain the situation without trying to make one side look bad.
Another note: It annoys me greatly when the rest of world is completely fine with Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever killing Israelis and launching rockets at them...it doesn't even make the news (I didn't know Hamas was attacking Israel until Israel hit back--killing Israelis is not newsworthy apparently). But anytime Israel hits back, the world gets all up in arms and tries to pass UN resolutions against Israel and there are protests. Its retarded.
You might think that it is because the Israeli counterattack is much bigger and ends up killing more people but what do you expect? Should Israel just launch a FEW missles at Gaza? That would accomplish a lot. The point of force is for it to change something. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, I light military response in pointless. Israel has to decide to either do nothing militarily or to do a strong counterattack because any other choice is pointless.
So saying that Israel's counterattack was "disproportionate" is stupid. There IS a valid argument that perhaps Israel should not have counterattacked at all, but to say that they should have responded in "proportion" to the attacks against them is...well it's dumb.
Saying they should keep their attack proportionate means that they purpose of the attack is just revenge--an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket--when in reality the purpose should be to effect a change. When force is used to cause a change (and it doesn't always have to be), strong force is by far more effective than weak force.
that's totally wrong - everyone is fine with Hezbollah and Hamas? that's a joke... it's not just Hamas and Hezbollah bombing Israel, Israeli forces and Israeli sponsored groups have been bombing Hezbollah and Hamas just as much. Both sides are equally guilty (as I've said about 3 times).
the only reason some people have a positive view of Hezbollah is because they were wrongly attacked by Israel and actually emerged victorious in the conflict, which served as an inspiration to all who disagree with Western-backed Israeli policies in the Middle East.
You can say it even a 100 times it's still wrong. If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel. Israel bombs Hezbollah and Hamas to protect its civilians, they fire at us to destroy us and are openly stating that for years. They are ruthless and violent dictatorships (to their own people) and we are a democracy. They despise life and worship death, they send their children to explode. They teach their children to hate Jews and Israelis, the Palestinian text books even from Arafat's time are full with antisemitism, their official maps don't have Israel on them.
That's the biggest and most retarded generalization I've ever heard. You're generalizing small subgroups (the ultra fundamentalist terrorists) of the entire organization as representing everyone. That's the most ignorant thing I've ever read on these forums.
On December 31 2008 06:13 Savio wrote: I don't think a shared capital is an option. There is too much trouble between jews and palestinians. The Israelis should have all of Jerusalem for their capital. The Muslims will object because it is a holy city, but heck, they a couple of others and Jersusalem is sacred to the Jews as well.
On a side note: Great OP. Very few people can explain the situation without trying to make one side look bad.
Another note: It annoys me greatly when the rest of world is completely fine with Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever killing Israelis and launching rockets at them...it doesn't even make the news (I didn't know Hamas was attacking Israel until Israel hit back--killing Israelis is not newsworthy apparently). But anytime Israel hits back, the world gets all up in arms and tries to pass UN resolutions against Israel and there are protests. Its retarded.
You might think that it is because the Israeli counterattack is much bigger and ends up killing more people but what do you expect? Should Israel just launch a FEW missles at Gaza? That would accomplish a lot. The point of force is for it to change something. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, I light military response in pointless. Israel has to decide to either do nothing militarily or to do a strong counterattack because any other choice is pointless.
So saying that Israel's counterattack was "disproportionate" is stupid. There IS a valid argument that perhaps Israel should not have counterattacked at all, but to say that they should have responded in "proportion" to the attacks against them is...well it's dumb.
Saying they should keep their attack proportionate means that they purpose of the attack is just revenge--an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket--when in reality the purpose should be to effect a change. When force is used to cause a change (and it doesn't always have to be), strong force is by far more effective than weak force.
that's totally wrong - everyone is fine with Hezbollah and Hamas? that's a joke... it's not just Hamas and Hezbollah bombing Israel, Israeli forces and Israeli sponsored groups have been bombing Hezbollah and Hamas just as much. Both sides are equally guilty (as I've said about 3 times).
the only reason some people have a positive view of Hezbollah is because they were wrongly attacked by Israel and actually emerged victorious in the conflict, which served as an inspiration to all who disagree with Western-backed Israeli policies in the Middle East.
You can say it even a 100 times it's still wrong. If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel. Israel bombs Hezbollah and Hamas to protect its civilians, they fire at us to destroy us and are openly stating that for years. They are ruthless and violent dictatorships (to their own people) and we are a democracy. They despise life and worship death, they send their children to explode. They teach their children to hate Jews and Israelis, the Palestinian text books even from Arafat's time are full with antisemitism, their official maps don't have Israel on them.
That's the biggest and most retarded generalization I've ever heard. You're generalizing small subgroups (the ultra fundamentalist terrorists) of the entire organization as representing everyone. That's the most ignorant thing I've ever read on these forums.
Hamas isn't a "subgroup" it was elected by a majority of Palestinians in Gaza. What I was saying about their education system and maps is true and I am talking about official Palestinian policy not just in Gaza. They don't hide these things you just need to look.
You didn't say one informative thing in this post. Go ahead show us that Hamas doesn't want to destroy Israel, that their maps does include Israel. You can't show that because it's false. So just keep saying that's a "retarded generalization" or that it's "ignorant", you say it enough times it's bound to be effective.
You can say it even a 100 times it's still wrong. If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel.
QFT.
Would the palestinians destroy Israel with these?
They can barely hit their targets for heavens sake!
It's the intent that are behind the rockets. It's a technically lethal weapon with the intent of killing Israel citizens. Granted, it would look much worse if the rockets were gigantic v2-sized rockets, but they are still attacking Israel (although, perhaps not in the most damaging of matters), and thus Israel took it as breaking the peace treaty, and responded accordingly.
On December 31 2008 08:01 Xeris wrote: Lol, Locke. Just because some nutjob from Hamas says "lets destroy Israel" doesn't mean they're going to invade Israel. Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map, but Iran would never invade Israel. You can't prove intent by the words of some government officials. You can only prove intent with actions.
Hamas has been bombing Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, technically both are trying to destroy the other.
Ahmadinejad... "some government official"... Wow, congratulations on winning dumb fuck of the year.
On December 31 2008 08:01 Xeris wrote: Lol, Locke. Just because some nutjob from Hamas says "lets destroy Israel" doesn't mean they're going to invade Israel. Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map, but Iran would never invade Israel. You can't prove intent by the words of some government officials. You can only prove intent with actions.
Hamas has been bombing Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, technically both are trying to destroy the other.
I agree with you they are crazy, that doesn't make them less dangerous, it makes them more so. they fired tens of thousands of rockets at us they can't destroy us yet but they sure are doing their best.
As for your president Ahmadinejad he did say that Israel should be wiped off the map and he is making nuclear weapons as fast as he can - your point being?? if you don't see anything alarming in that your logic isn't working properly.
On December 31 2008 08:01 Xeris wrote: Lol, Locke. Just because some nutjob from Hamas says "lets destroy Israel" doesn't mean they're going to invade Israel. Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map, but Iran would never invade Israel. You can't prove intent by the words of some government officials. You can only prove intent with actions.
Hamas has been bombing Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, technically both are trying to destroy the other.
Ahmadinejad... "some government official"... Wow, congratulations on winning dumb fuck of the year.
Congratulations on looking like the biggest retard ever, what Xeris said isnt stupid, you are stupid GTFO
On December 31 2008 08:01 Xeris wrote: Lol, Locke. Just because some nutjob from Hamas says "lets destroy Israel" doesn't mean they're going to invade Israel. Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map, but Iran would never invade Israel. You can't prove intent by the words of some government officials. You can only prove intent with actions.
Perhaps the only reason Iran has not invaded Israel, is because Israel is strong. Locke said that if Israel laid down its arms, it would cease to exist. The fact that Israel is not being invaded is not proof that its enemies are moderate or that they wouldn't destroy Israel, but that having a strong military IS a good deterrent.
Hamas has been bombing Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, technically both are trying to destroy the other.
The difference is that there was a peace agreement. It expired, but Israel did not immediately start attacking. Hamas is the one who starting firing missles. Israel bombs Hamas, but almost always it is because they are currently under attack.
Every nation in the world has the right to fight back when it is under attack. Hamas used to just be a terrorist organization, but now it is a political entity which has decided to continue acting like a terrorist organization.
I say that whoever starts the war has more blame because without their actions, there would be peace.
If Israel was not bombing Hamas right now, Hamas would still be attacking Israel, but if Hamas had never attacked Israel, there would still be peace.
Once you recognize Israel's right to sovereignty, their right to defend themselves from aggression follows. The only counterpoint is to argue that Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, because Arabs have occupied the land for X-amount of time.
Firstly, recognize the existence of Judah's Kingdom of Israel in palestine, where Jews lived until 500BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians.
Then for the next couple thousand years, Jews were under the dominion of various foreign empires, but retained their cultural identity.
During this time there was a great dispersion of Jews. I've heard anti-semitism explained to me this way by a foreigner I went to school with, "It's not hate, it's resentment. They adhere to their own identity and rebut assimilation. A Jew lives in Germany his whole life, raises a family there and his children, and how do they hail? As Jews, not Germans. They require a distinction." Any group of people so displaced yet so tightly bound together (in this case, by a religion, but any cultural glue suffices) would suffer the same resentments. And the intellectual excellence Jews have historically been known for makes resentment seem especially plausible in their unwitting gentile hosts.
problem: Jews are kicked around wherever they go. solution: a Jewish state.
It looks like both parties really don't want peace. How much motivation was there to implement the road map? only some from palestinian side and little to none from israel...
On December 31 2008 09:15 Savio wrote: Perhaps the only reason Iran has not invaded Israel, is because Israel is strong. Locke said that if Israel laid down its arms, it would cease to exist. The fact that Israel is not being invaded is not proof that its enemies are moderate or that they wouldn't destroy Israel, but that having a strong military IS a good deterrent.
It's funny to see arguments like this in this thread, especially when you consider Iran is doing the exact same thing by obtaining (or at least allowing the possibility of obtaining) nuclear weapons - something the majority of the world bashes them for. And let's not all forget the fact that Israel actually has nukes of their own, and has for years. Now, I'm of the position that nuclear deterrents are insanity and terrible for the state of the world, but can you really blame countries like Iran who have seen that countries with nukes do not get fucked with all too much, while ones without get the Iraq treatment? It's common sense, and it's survival.
Anyhow, to the thread in general:
On December 30 2008 21:06 rushz0rz wrote: Clash of the Religions.
On December 31 2008 09:16 HeadBangaa wrote: Once you recognize Israel's right to sovereignty, their right to defend themselves from aggression follows. The only counterpoint is to argue that Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, because Arabs have occupied the land for X-amount of time.
Firstly, recognize the existence of Judah's Kingdom of Israel in palestine, where Jews lived until 500BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians.
Then for the next couple thousand years, Jews were under the dominion of various foreign empires, but retained their cultural identity.
During this time there was a great dispersion of Jews. I've heard anti-semitism explained to me this way by a foreigner I went to school with, "It's not hate, it's resentment. They adhere to their own identity and rebut assimilation. A Jew lives in Germany his whole life, raises a family there and his children, and how do they hail? As Jews, not Germans. They require a distinction." Any group of people so displaced yet so tightly bound together (in this case, by a religion, but any cultural glue suffices) would suffer the same resentments. And the intellectual excellence Jews have historically been known for makes resentment seem especially plausible in their unwitting gentile hosts.
problem: Jews are kicked around wherever they go. solution: a Jewish state.
A Jewish state was placed in the one place that would cause all that violence though. Say what you will about the strife in the Middle East but from my recollection, the violence only stirred up when the US and England decided to put them there.
Also, for whomever says the US is losing a ton of money on the conflict, you're a bit off your mark there. US and England makes a ton of money off the arms sale in that conflict. You can make the argument that selling weapons is letting Israel protect itself but I'll propose to you this question. Since when has giving someone a gun saved peace? If anything, it's in their best interest that there isn't peace in the Middle East (despite their condemnation of it outwards). A lot of other major powers aren't exactly clean on their dealings there either, China, Russia all makes a ton of money by selling their arsenal as well. It's a bit sickening how the major world powers pull all this stunt about world peace while basically funding things so Third World Nations or (developing nations like Israel) get screwed around with. Have you guys ever seen places like Iraq or Jerusalem pre World War II? They were beautiful places with some of the richest culture at the time. The Muslim region was one of the most TOLERANT of all places in terms of religion. If you studied history at all, one of the safest havens for Jewish refugees pre World War II was the Ottomon Empire and other Arabic nations. Now look at places like Baghdad, it's a practical wasteland.
If you guys really care about the peace in the Middle East, stop pointing fingers at the Jews or the Arabs there, point fingers at your own countries for causing it in the first place and making no real efforts to stop it.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.adders.org/gazza.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Quassam_rockets.jpg/800px-)
