Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Signup for Free!
-More Features-
-Far Less Ads-
About   Users   Help
Users & Guests Online
On Page: 1
Directory: 86
Entire Site: 7 & 822
Page Staff: pennylessz, pokemon x, Barathemos, tgags123, alexanyways, RavusRat,
03-29-24 04:15 AM

Forum Links

Related Threads
Coming Soon

Thread Information

Views
3,085
Replies
37
Rating
0
Status
CLOSED
Thread
Creator
geeogree
12-29-08 01:29 AM
Last
Post
Lagslayer
12-19-09 11:22 PM
Additional Thread Details
Views: 515
Today: 0
Users: 0 unique

Thread Actions

Thread Closed
New Thread
New Poll
Order
Posts


<<
2 Pages
 

Israel vs. Hamas

 

01-09-09 02:42 PM
Ziggy is Offline
| ID: 77441 | 300 Words

Ziggy
Level: 128

POSTS: 1744/4617
POST EXP: 273240
LVL EXP: 24046949
CP: 60.5
VIZ: 46564

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
by the way, the BBC has a pro-palestinian bias

1. 3 people are in a room, they area standing in the corners. a grenade explodes in the middle. all three survive because they weren't that close to the grenade. 20 people are in a room, a grenade explodes in the middle. 9 die. More casualties happen in more populated areas
2 and 3 don't need to be addressed
4. You ignore that these schools and hospitals: A) Have hamas weapon stockpiles in them/ B) are also sites of rocket firings
5. The palestinians have their own government. right now, it is under hamas control, and hamas is using the money they receive to attack israel rather than provide for the palestinians.
6. I understand that i stepped over the line, that happens when I'm angry, but you still are portraying israel as the bad guy, and that IS intolerant. By the way, you aren't your grandfather
7. Textbooks have citations, but this class was last year. By the way, I'm telling you that the 40% of christians in lebanon are being controlled by a muslim government that Hezbollah controls
8. No, it was unprovoked, and for the reasons i said
9. Sorry for misinterpreting what you said, then
10. I certainly will try
11. It means don't say that israel is wrong for fighting a terrorist organization
12. thank you for realizing that
13. no response necessary
14. not quite, and you blame israel for these attacks anyway
15. Israel thinks "citizens first" while hamas thinks "weapons and terrorism first." A less hazy response would be appreciated

yeah, i exaggerate things a lot when i get worked up. I'm sorry for some of the extreme thngs i said. But blaming israel as you are for this conflict is still intolerant
by the way, the BBC has a pro-palestinian bias

1. 3 people are in a room, they area standing in the corners. a grenade explodes in the middle. all three survive because they weren't that close to the grenade. 20 people are in a room, a grenade explodes in the middle. 9 die. More casualties happen in more populated areas
2 and 3 don't need to be addressed
4. You ignore that these schools and hospitals: A) Have hamas weapon stockpiles in them/ B) are also sites of rocket firings
5. The palestinians have their own government. right now, it is under hamas control, and hamas is using the money they receive to attack israel rather than provide for the palestinians.
6. I understand that i stepped over the line, that happens when I'm angry, but you still are portraying israel as the bad guy, and that IS intolerant. By the way, you aren't your grandfather
7. Textbooks have citations, but this class was last year. By the way, I'm telling you that the 40% of christians in lebanon are being controlled by a muslim government that Hezbollah controls
8. No, it was unprovoked, and for the reasons i said
9. Sorry for misinterpreting what you said, then
10. I certainly will try
11. It means don't say that israel is wrong for fighting a terrorist organization
12. thank you for realizing that
13. no response necessary
14. not quite, and you blame israel for these attacks anyway
15. Israel thinks "citizens first" while hamas thinks "weapons and terrorism first." A less hazy response would be appreciated

yeah, i exaggerate things a lot when i get worked up. I'm sorry for some of the extreme thngs i said. But blaming israel as you are for this conflict is still intolerant
Trusted Member
affected by act like a newbie syndrome


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 02-26-08
Location: PA
Last Post: 5332 days
Last Active: 5332 days

01-09-09 07:12 PM
Trias is Offline
| ID: 77477 | 1324 Words

Trias
Level: 9

POSTS: 7/12
POST EXP: 7400
LVL EXP: 3099
CP: 8.0
VIZ: 995

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Thanks for the link, Neyro. It's good to be able to hear what people there are saying straight from their mouths.
And you ziggy have a clear pro-Israeli bias. Everyone has some bias. Although I don't think it's so much that the BBC has a pro-Palestinian bias per se, as that the British have somewhat different values than we do.. They are generally less violent than we are (as a society), and for all that we may say otherwise, we Americans tend to believe that might makes right. In any case bias doesn't necessarily change the truthfulness of what is reported so much as what is reported and how it's emphasized.

Ziggy, thank you for apologizing. I'm glad that you were able to calm down. I understand it can be difficult to keep a level head when discussing something you care about, although it is worth it. Something you should keep in mind is that resorting to libel and ad hominem attacks tend to weaken your arguments and make you seem less credible, rather than hurt your opponent. Instead of attacking your opponent, attacking his arguments, or proving that yours are better, or reaching a consensus or compromise between your and your opponent's positions all tend to work better.

Now, onward with the discussion:
1. 20 people in a room, and a C4 charge detonates. 14 die, and most of the rest lose a limb or are otherwise crippled for life.
4. And you (and Israel) ignore that these schools and hospitals: C) Are currently sheltering/treating citizens that are suddenly caught in the crossfire. You never directly answered whether it's ok for SWAT members to shoot through human shields to get at the criminals. Should I assume that your answer is yes? Because that's what you're endorsing Israel to do.
5. The Palestinians of Gaza have their own government, but that only goes so far when Israel has control over their trade and electrical, water, and sewage systems. Gaza has only one power plant, that is run only with fuel that comes from Israel. Most of their electricity comes directly from Israeli power generators. Basic daily operations in Gaza are dependent on the good will of Israel, and that's true no matter who controls the government there. Self-governing is not the same as independent.
6. Have you been trying to accuse me of being racist or something? I criticize Israel because it's doing something I believe should be criticized. Same thing I would do of Germany and Japan based on their actions during WWII, or Russia a few months ago in Georgia, or the United States and its torture of prisoners of war recently. You're right, I'm not my grandfather, but I brought him up because you accused me of having no knowledge of the Holocaust and of being an anti-Semite. Neither is true, and I'm proud of my grandfather and what he was able to do for those prisoners while he was serving our country. (As an aside, there's a graphic novel called Maus by Art Spiegelman that you might want to read. It's a biographical account of the Holocaust from the eyes of one who went through the worst of it. About $30 for both volumes.)
7. Nevermind the textbook then. But you might want to take a look at the CIA Factbook, I didn't provide a link last time. It's occasionally useful, and seems to update frequently. As for the Christians in Lebanon, more likely they're being persecuted by Hezballah rather than controlled.
8. And I'm telling you that from the perspective of the people living in Gaza, it wasn't unprovoked. Israel has a history of punishing the general civilian population in order to get at the people shooting the rockets.
From a United Nations document
On 28 June 2006 Israeli Air Force bombed the power plant in the Gaza Strip following the capture of an Israeli soldier by Palestinian militants. All six transformers at the power plant were destroyed, immediately cutting 43% of Gaza's total power capacity....(Page 1)
On 28 October 2007, Israel began restricting fuel supplies to Gaza as a part of a sanction regime designed to pressure Palestinian militant groups into stopping launching rockets from Gaza into Israel....(Page 2)
The hospitals currently have enough fuel to power their emergency generators. However, emergency generators are designed for emergencies not for continued use. The more they are used the more likely it is they will break down. As supplies of spare parts to Gaza have also been restricted by Israel, hospitals face the potential of major disruption to their services if regular power supply is not resumed.(Page 3)
It's important to note that the water and sewage systems in Gaza also both rely on electricity. No power, no water, no sewers, no hospitals. It's not Hamas cutting these supplies off, it's Israel. And this isn't Hamas propaganda as you repeatedly accuse. That's the UN talking.
9. No problem. But perhaps we should agree that I should write a little more clearly and you should read a little more carefully.
10. I look forward to it.
11. I'm not saying Israel is wrong for fighting a terrorist organization. I'm saying Israel is wrong for how it goes about that task.
12. Yeah, I actually knew about how we helped bin Laden and then he turned on us, I just misremembered his motivations for doing so. (Although we did leave Afghanistan in quite a mess back in the '80s.)
14. I guess I wasn't clear when I said "By all means Israel, do something", but Israel defending itself is included in what I meant. I just think Israel can find a better way to do that, especially since the only ways I see to completely stop the rocket attacks are to either re-occupy Gaza and exile the entire existing population or improve the relationship between Israel and the citizens of Gaza to the point that no one in Gaza will support the terrorists. And I don't blame Israel for the attacks so much as the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the attacks. It was still Hamas' decision to start firing rockets.
15. Actually, Israel thinks "Israeli citizens first". Their military isn't actively seeking to massacre civilians in Gaza, but as far as Israel is concerned, if a few hundred innocent Palestinian non-combatants get in the way, too bad for them. No mercy, no remorse. But to elaborate on what I said on 15 of my last post, while you say that Hamas is the bad guy in this conflict, I agree that Hamas is, but I say that Israel is too. Both of them are in the wrong here. Hamas for launching the attacks and using civilians as shields, and Israel for reasons I have described several times elsewhere.

You know, in most circumstances I would call Israel a fairly decent example of a functional democracy. Granted that I think the nation was founded unjustly, if not illegally, but Israeli citizens have been living there for several generations and by now they have as much claim on the land as anyone else there. And they've done rather well for themselves, despite being surrounded by hostile nations. (I'm sure it helps that US policy is "support Israel no matter what") Something I personally appreciate is that they've opened up holy sites in Jerusalem to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, something not done when it was under Muslim rule. But in war and afterwards, Israel is violent, somewhat cruel, and tends to react wildly out of proportion with what it is faced with. The fact that they're fighting terrorists doesn't change the fact that some of Israel's actions border on war crimes. Israel punishes the entire population for the actions of a few, and doesn't particularly discriminate between civilian and military if they happen to be close enough together. How do you justify that, morally? I don't see why I should tolerate behavior that is morally intolerable.
Thanks for the link, Neyro. It's good to be able to hear what people there are saying straight from their mouths.
And you ziggy have a clear pro-Israeli bias. Everyone has some bias. Although I don't think it's so much that the BBC has a pro-Palestinian bias per se, as that the British have somewhat different values than we do.. They are generally less violent than we are (as a society), and for all that we may say otherwise, we Americans tend to believe that might makes right. In any case bias doesn't necessarily change the truthfulness of what is reported so much as what is reported and how it's emphasized.

Ziggy, thank you for apologizing. I'm glad that you were able to calm down. I understand it can be difficult to keep a level head when discussing something you care about, although it is worth it. Something you should keep in mind is that resorting to libel and ad hominem attacks tend to weaken your arguments and make you seem less credible, rather than hurt your opponent. Instead of attacking your opponent, attacking his arguments, or proving that yours are better, or reaching a consensus or compromise between your and your opponent's positions all tend to work better.

Now, onward with the discussion:
1. 20 people in a room, and a C4 charge detonates. 14 die, and most of the rest lose a limb or are otherwise crippled for life.
4. And you (and Israel) ignore that these schools and hospitals: C) Are currently sheltering/treating citizens that are suddenly caught in the crossfire. You never directly answered whether it's ok for SWAT members to shoot through human shields to get at the criminals. Should I assume that your answer is yes? Because that's what you're endorsing Israel to do.
5. The Palestinians of Gaza have their own government, but that only goes so far when Israel has control over their trade and electrical, water, and sewage systems. Gaza has only one power plant, that is run only with fuel that comes from Israel. Most of their electricity comes directly from Israeli power generators. Basic daily operations in Gaza are dependent on the good will of Israel, and that's true no matter who controls the government there. Self-governing is not the same as independent.
6. Have you been trying to accuse me of being racist or something? I criticize Israel because it's doing something I believe should be criticized. Same thing I would do of Germany and Japan based on their actions during WWII, or Russia a few months ago in Georgia, or the United States and its torture of prisoners of war recently. You're right, I'm not my grandfather, but I brought him up because you accused me of having no knowledge of the Holocaust and of being an anti-Semite. Neither is true, and I'm proud of my grandfather and what he was able to do for those prisoners while he was serving our country. (As an aside, there's a graphic novel called Maus by Art Spiegelman that you might want to read. It's a biographical account of the Holocaust from the eyes of one who went through the worst of it. About $30 for both volumes.)
7. Nevermind the textbook then. But you might want to take a look at the CIA Factbook, I didn't provide a link last time. It's occasionally useful, and seems to update frequently. As for the Christians in Lebanon, more likely they're being persecuted by Hezballah rather than controlled.
8. And I'm telling you that from the perspective of the people living in Gaza, it wasn't unprovoked. Israel has a history of punishing the general civilian population in order to get at the people shooting the rockets.
From a United Nations document
On 28 June 2006 Israeli Air Force bombed the power plant in the Gaza Strip following the capture of an Israeli soldier by Palestinian militants. All six transformers at the power plant were destroyed, immediately cutting 43% of Gaza's total power capacity....(Page 1)
On 28 October 2007, Israel began restricting fuel supplies to Gaza as a part of a sanction regime designed to pressure Palestinian militant groups into stopping launching rockets from Gaza into Israel....(Page 2)
The hospitals currently have enough fuel to power their emergency generators. However, emergency generators are designed for emergencies not for continued use. The more they are used the more likely it is they will break down. As supplies of spare parts to Gaza have also been restricted by Israel, hospitals face the potential of major disruption to their services if regular power supply is not resumed.(Page 3)
It's important to note that the water and sewage systems in Gaza also both rely on electricity. No power, no water, no sewers, no hospitals. It's not Hamas cutting these supplies off, it's Israel. And this isn't Hamas propaganda as you repeatedly accuse. That's the UN talking.
9. No problem. But perhaps we should agree that I should write a little more clearly and you should read a little more carefully.
10. I look forward to it.
11. I'm not saying Israel is wrong for fighting a terrorist organization. I'm saying Israel is wrong for how it goes about that task.
12. Yeah, I actually knew about how we helped bin Laden and then he turned on us, I just misremembered his motivations for doing so. (Although we did leave Afghanistan in quite a mess back in the '80s.)
14. I guess I wasn't clear when I said "By all means Israel, do something", but Israel defending itself is included in what I meant. I just think Israel can find a better way to do that, especially since the only ways I see to completely stop the rocket attacks are to either re-occupy Gaza and exile the entire existing population or improve the relationship between Israel and the citizens of Gaza to the point that no one in Gaza will support the terrorists. And I don't blame Israel for the attacks so much as the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the attacks. It was still Hamas' decision to start firing rockets.
15. Actually, Israel thinks "Israeli citizens first". Their military isn't actively seeking to massacre civilians in Gaza, but as far as Israel is concerned, if a few hundred innocent Palestinian non-combatants get in the way, too bad for them. No mercy, no remorse. But to elaborate on what I said on 15 of my last post, while you say that Hamas is the bad guy in this conflict, I agree that Hamas is, but I say that Israel is too. Both of them are in the wrong here. Hamas for launching the attacks and using civilians as shields, and Israel for reasons I have described several times elsewhere.

You know, in most circumstances I would call Israel a fairly decent example of a functional democracy. Granted that I think the nation was founded unjustly, if not illegally, but Israeli citizens have been living there for several generations and by now they have as much claim on the land as anyone else there. And they've done rather well for themselves, despite being surrounded by hostile nations. (I'm sure it helps that US policy is "support Israel no matter what") Something I personally appreciate is that they've opened up holy sites in Jerusalem to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, something not done when it was under Muslim rule. But in war and afterwards, Israel is violent, somewhat cruel, and tends to react wildly out of proportion with what it is faced with. The fact that they're fighting terrorists doesn't change the fact that some of Israel's actions border on war crimes. Israel punishes the entire population for the actions of a few, and doesn't particularly discriminate between civilian and military if they happen to be close enough together. How do you justify that, morally? I don't see why I should tolerate behavior that is morally intolerable.
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-08-09
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Last Post: 5550 days
Last Active: 5550 days

01-09-09 08:46 PM
geeogree is Offline
| ID: 77483 | 303 Words

geeogree
Mr Geeohn-A-Vash53215
Level: 290


POSTS: 1221/29291
POST EXP: 1955397
LVL EXP: 420150038
CP: 52474.2
VIZ: 528748

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I'm not going to actually get too involved in this discussion between the two of you because I don't want to read it all to get caught up.


The one thing that is bugging me right now is the general pro-palestinian bias in the media.
It seems like every story about the conflict only shows people running to hospitals with people that are dying. Is that really the only visual we can show about this entire crisis? Did anyone hear about the faked video of some doctors trying to save a child that was supposedly killed by Israel? It was on CNN and BBC. Well, the video was not real and was taken down by CNN after bloggers proved it was a fake. The story about the video never was taken down, just the video. Now that to me is almost outright propoganda. I'm not suggesting that Israel, or any other country for that matter, doesn't engage in some form of propoganda war but that just seems extreme. We're now getting fake news reports and pictures from the warzone apparently depicting things that aren't true. How are we supposed to believe anything we are hearing out of the area when this sort of thing is happening.


I'm not suggesting that Israel hasn't done things to provoke Hamas but people seem to forget that Hamas broke the cease-fire that was in place. Hamas chose to re-engage in war. This current conflict that they are having is not Israel's fault directly. Sure there is tons of back story and what not that has gone on for the last 60+ years that puts neither side in the right in the end, but I just can't blame Israel for reacting to the situation they are currently in the way that they are.

That's all for now
I'm not going to actually get too involved in this discussion between the two of you because I don't want to read it all to get caught up.


The one thing that is bugging me right now is the general pro-palestinian bias in the media.
It seems like every story about the conflict only shows people running to hospitals with people that are dying. Is that really the only visual we can show about this entire crisis? Did anyone hear about the faked video of some doctors trying to save a child that was supposedly killed by Israel? It was on CNN and BBC. Well, the video was not real and was taken down by CNN after bloggers proved it was a fake. The story about the video never was taken down, just the video. Now that to me is almost outright propoganda. I'm not suggesting that Israel, or any other country for that matter, doesn't engage in some form of propoganda war but that just seems extreme. We're now getting fake news reports and pictures from the warzone apparently depicting things that aren't true. How are we supposed to believe anything we are hearing out of the area when this sort of thing is happening.


I'm not suggesting that Israel hasn't done things to provoke Hamas but people seem to forget that Hamas broke the cease-fire that was in place. Hamas chose to re-engage in war. This current conflict that they are having is not Israel's fault directly. Sure there is tons of back story and what not that has gone on for the last 60+ years that puts neither side in the right in the end, but I just can't blame Israel for reacting to the situation they are currently in the way that they are.

That's all for now
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Banzilla


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-03-05
Last Post: 91 days
Last Active: 9 hours

01-09-09 10:39 PM
Ziggy is Offline
| ID: 77484 | 312 Words

Ziggy
Level: 128

POSTS: 1767/4617
POST EXP: 273240
LVL EXP: 24046949
CP: 60.5
VIZ: 46564

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
the bbc does have a pro-palestinian bias, though. and thank you for that last post, geeogree

1. my example showed how population density affects the number of people killed. yours has little purpose
4. the fact that hamas is sheltering civilians in the same place as it weapons supplies, knowing israel will attack them should concern you a lot more. hamas has little regard for any human life
5. Israel has good will when it isn't being attacked
6. i apologized for everything except calling you intolerant. israel is defending itself and trying to bring hamas down. by now, israel has tried almost every option. all they really did was respond to attacks that broke a ceasefire in what has now become the only way to do so. hopefully, this will stop and the palestinians will vote hamas out of power
7. lebanon was the only country with less than 90% muslim population besides israel in that area. and about hezbollah, it's a combination of both
8. note how that document words everything to make israel sound bad. Oh israel restricted fuel supplies and because hamas was firing measly rockets at them. that's a tone that is too widely taken
15. Israel's first priority, as is for any government, is the protection of it's citizens. You know, palestinians still live among the israelis as israelis too. also, when hamas uses civilians as shields, they can't always help who dies. but then the dead palestinian civilians turn into propaganda.

afterthought: first, keep in mind that hamas was elected into power, despite the knowledge that it is a terrorist organization. now, hamas is firing rockets from heavily populated civilian areas and storing weapons in those such places. israel, naturally, attacks the places that are attacking them. if israel didn't do these things during war, israel would not have lasted more than a few years.
the bbc does have a pro-palestinian bias, though. and thank you for that last post, geeogree

1. my example showed how population density affects the number of people killed. yours has little purpose
4. the fact that hamas is sheltering civilians in the same place as it weapons supplies, knowing israel will attack them should concern you a lot more. hamas has little regard for any human life
5. Israel has good will when it isn't being attacked
6. i apologized for everything except calling you intolerant. israel is defending itself and trying to bring hamas down. by now, israel has tried almost every option. all they really did was respond to attacks that broke a ceasefire in what has now become the only way to do so. hopefully, this will stop and the palestinians will vote hamas out of power
7. lebanon was the only country with less than 90% muslim population besides israel in that area. and about hezbollah, it's a combination of both
8. note how that document words everything to make israel sound bad. Oh israel restricted fuel supplies and because hamas was firing measly rockets at them. that's a tone that is too widely taken
15. Israel's first priority, as is for any government, is the protection of it's citizens. You know, palestinians still live among the israelis as israelis too. also, when hamas uses civilians as shields, they can't always help who dies. but then the dead palestinian civilians turn into propaganda.

afterthought: first, keep in mind that hamas was elected into power, despite the knowledge that it is a terrorist organization. now, hamas is firing rockets from heavily populated civilian areas and storing weapons in those such places. israel, naturally, attacks the places that are attacking them. if israel didn't do these things during war, israel would not have lasted more than a few years.
Trusted Member
affected by act like a newbie syndrome


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 02-26-08
Location: PA
Last Post: 5332 days
Last Active: 5332 days

01-13-09 05:42 AM
Trias is Offline
| ID: 77728 | 1055 Words

Trias
Level: 9

POSTS: 8/12
POST EXP: 7400
LVL EXP: 3099
CP: 8.0
VIZ: 995

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
First, sorry for taking so long to reply.. Saturday I decided not to visit here, and Sunday the bishop came for my priest's retirement, and I spent the rest of the day too tired to even think about participating in this discussion. And while I hadn't heard about the faked video before now, assuming it is fake (I just watched the video, it's definitely fake) there's no 'almost' about it - it is propaganda ...or maybe a troll. I wonder who originally released it? Thanks for the heads-up geeogree. You've probably heard that the Human Rights Watch has accused Israel of firing white phosphorus on civilian targets. After hearing about this fake video, I can't help but be a bit suspicious of these WP allegations. But if it's true, that's another potential war crime to add to the list.

1. Little purpose except to point out that the power of a weapon also affects casualties, and Israel is using more powerful weapons.
4. Apparently neither does Israel. Why don't they send some troops directly to the missile sites? They're already going forward with a ground invasion, and this way they could secure launch sites and ammo dumps and hopefully capture or kill some of the Hamas troops. Assuming the Israeli soldiers aren't too trigger happy that way should result in fewer civilian casualties. Instead they're just shooting straight through the hostages. By the way, I am concerned by the fact that Hamas is using people as human shields-turned-propaganda. But as you so frequently point out, they are terrorists. I expect that sort of behavior from them. Selectively ignoring the presence of those human shields is something I hadn't expected from Israel. As I said, I expect people that call themselves good guys to act like it.
5. But the civilians are not the ones attacking Israel. Hamas is. So why does Israel punish Gaza as a whole? And why doesn't that disturb you?
6. If Hamas is out of favor with the Gazans as you say, then the Palestinians were already going to vote Hamas out of power.
At this point I am no longer sure I understand what you mean by 'intolerant'. You say that I am intolerant of Israel. I said that I am not intolerant of Isreal, just some of its military, economic, and political behavior, and invited you to show me what I should tolerate that I do not already. While you provided a list of rebuttals to my arguments, you never did tell me what it is that I should be tolerating. Then you again call me intolerant in the same sub-thread where you had earlier accused me of antisemitism. What else was I supposed to think?
7. As to the first here, I already said as much. As to the second, probably. As to both, it still doesn't change the fact that there's more than religious animosity fueling the tension here, which is what we were arguing about in this point in the first place.
8. On this I can only say that you're wrong. The author(s) of this document made a point to keep their tone quite neutral. There are no words of condemnation or approval for either Israel or Gaza or Hamas in it. The document simply reports what happened, the response, and the consequences, both immediate and those of the potential future. Meanwhile, you have carefully ignored the fact that this clearly documents Israel's habit of attacking the populace when it can't get to the people firing the rockets.
15. Israel can help who dies. Israel isn't willing to bomb hospitals even when Hamas leaders take shelter in them. That's an obvious military target but the IDF hasn't attacked. We see in that that Israel is capable of avoiding some targets with a significant civilian presence. Aside from simply not directly striking targets with a high civilian presence, I have now offered two alternate tactics for taking those targets with fewer civilian casualties. I suspect that Israel has other means to ensure a minimum of civilian casualties as well, but the fact that fewer than half of the confirmed casualties are members of Hamas shows that the IDF does not particularly care about avoiding civilians. You can argue that some civilian casualties are to be expected, but there is no way you can claim that 55% is the reasonable civilian casualty rate of a "proportionate" response.

I believe I already explained Hamas' rise to power, and we are both already discussing Hamas' military tactics in Gaza in the above points. And at first I was going to say that Israel's survival has as much to do with American support as anything else (We provide much of Israel's military technology, for instance all of their active military planes come from the US, and the recent UN ceasefire resolution 1860 voted with 14 in favor, 0 against, and one abstention - by the US). And while I still think that's true, this thread has inspired me to do some research into Israel's military history. Do you know what I've found so far? Israel started the 1982 Israel-Lebanon war claiming that an organization called the Palestinian Liberation Organization tried to assassinate an Israeli diplomat. But the thing is, the then-Prime Minister of Israel knew that that was not the case, and kept that information from his Cabinet. It was just a convenient excuse to invade Lebanon. Referring to the respective leaders of the splinter group that actually attempted the assassination and the PLO, the IDF Chief of Staff at the time is quoted as saying, "Abu Nidal, Abu Shmidal. I don't know, we need to screw the PLO." Later in that same war, Israel's Minister of Defense at the time was found to be indirectly responsible for the slaughter of at least 800 refugees, which Israeli command claimed were terrorists. Also, (and this part should sound familiar) prior to the official beginning of that war Israeli planes bombed PLO buildings, in the process killing at least 300 civilians and wounding over 800, most of whom were also civilians. Obviously these are two different conflicts set thirty years apart, but you're right, Israel does have something of a history of military tactics that involve near-indiscriminate bombing of civilian population centers. Are you honestly telling me that this is a good thing?
First, sorry for taking so long to reply.. Saturday I decided not to visit here, and Sunday the bishop came for my priest's retirement, and I spent the rest of the day too tired to even think about participating in this discussion. And while I hadn't heard about the faked video before now, assuming it is fake (I just watched the video, it's definitely fake) there's no 'almost' about it - it is propaganda ...or maybe a troll. I wonder who originally released it? Thanks for the heads-up geeogree. You've probably heard that the Human Rights Watch has accused Israel of firing white phosphorus on civilian targets. After hearing about this fake video, I can't help but be a bit suspicious of these WP allegations. But if it's true, that's another potential war crime to add to the list.

1. Little purpose except to point out that the power of a weapon also affects casualties, and Israel is using more powerful weapons.
4. Apparently neither does Israel. Why don't they send some troops directly to the missile sites? They're already going forward with a ground invasion, and this way they could secure launch sites and ammo dumps and hopefully capture or kill some of the Hamas troops. Assuming the Israeli soldiers aren't too trigger happy that way should result in fewer civilian casualties. Instead they're just shooting straight through the hostages. By the way, I am concerned by the fact that Hamas is using people as human shields-turned-propaganda. But as you so frequently point out, they are terrorists. I expect that sort of behavior from them. Selectively ignoring the presence of those human shields is something I hadn't expected from Israel. As I said, I expect people that call themselves good guys to act like it.
5. But the civilians are not the ones attacking Israel. Hamas is. So why does Israel punish Gaza as a whole? And why doesn't that disturb you?
6. If Hamas is out of favor with the Gazans as you say, then the Palestinians were already going to vote Hamas out of power.
At this point I am no longer sure I understand what you mean by 'intolerant'. You say that I am intolerant of Israel. I said that I am not intolerant of Isreal, just some of its military, economic, and political behavior, and invited you to show me what I should tolerate that I do not already. While you provided a list of rebuttals to my arguments, you never did tell me what it is that I should be tolerating. Then you again call me intolerant in the same sub-thread where you had earlier accused me of antisemitism. What else was I supposed to think?
7. As to the first here, I already said as much. As to the second, probably. As to both, it still doesn't change the fact that there's more than religious animosity fueling the tension here, which is what we were arguing about in this point in the first place.
8. On this I can only say that you're wrong. The author(s) of this document made a point to keep their tone quite neutral. There are no words of condemnation or approval for either Israel or Gaza or Hamas in it. The document simply reports what happened, the response, and the consequences, both immediate and those of the potential future. Meanwhile, you have carefully ignored the fact that this clearly documents Israel's habit of attacking the populace when it can't get to the people firing the rockets.
15. Israel can help who dies. Israel isn't willing to bomb hospitals even when Hamas leaders take shelter in them. That's an obvious military target but the IDF hasn't attacked. We see in that that Israel is capable of avoiding some targets with a significant civilian presence. Aside from simply not directly striking targets with a high civilian presence, I have now offered two alternate tactics for taking those targets with fewer civilian casualties. I suspect that Israel has other means to ensure a minimum of civilian casualties as well, but the fact that fewer than half of the confirmed casualties are members of Hamas shows that the IDF does not particularly care about avoiding civilians. You can argue that some civilian casualties are to be expected, but there is no way you can claim that 55% is the reasonable civilian casualty rate of a "proportionate" response.

I believe I already explained Hamas' rise to power, and we are both already discussing Hamas' military tactics in Gaza in the above points. And at first I was going to say that Israel's survival has as much to do with American support as anything else (We provide much of Israel's military technology, for instance all of their active military planes come from the US, and the recent UN ceasefire resolution 1860 voted with 14 in favor, 0 against, and one abstention - by the US). And while I still think that's true, this thread has inspired me to do some research into Israel's military history. Do you know what I've found so far? Israel started the 1982 Israel-Lebanon war claiming that an organization called the Palestinian Liberation Organization tried to assassinate an Israeli diplomat. But the thing is, the then-Prime Minister of Israel knew that that was not the case, and kept that information from his Cabinet. It was just a convenient excuse to invade Lebanon. Referring to the respective leaders of the splinter group that actually attempted the assassination and the PLO, the IDF Chief of Staff at the time is quoted as saying, "Abu Nidal, Abu Shmidal. I don't know, we need to screw the PLO." Later in that same war, Israel's Minister of Defense at the time was found to be indirectly responsible for the slaughter of at least 800 refugees, which Israeli command claimed were terrorists. Also, (and this part should sound familiar) prior to the official beginning of that war Israeli planes bombed PLO buildings, in the process killing at least 300 civilians and wounding over 800, most of whom were also civilians. Obviously these are two different conflicts set thirty years apart, but you're right, Israel does have something of a history of military tactics that involve near-indiscriminate bombing of civilian population centers. Are you honestly telling me that this is a good thing?
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-08-09
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Last Post: 5550 days
Last Active: 5550 days

01-13-09 04:25 PM
Ziggy is Offline
| ID: 77757 | 251 Words

Ziggy
Level: 128

POSTS: 1822/4617
POST EXP: 273240
LVL EXP: 24046949
CP: 60.5
VIZ: 46564

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
4. Israel is trying to get to those sites. That's why they are invading
5. They are targeting hamas, but hamas is hiding behind civilians. Additionally, it isn't just hamas who is attacking israel. there are other extremists. Gaza is suffering because hamas won't accept humanitarian aid in. There was an agreement between hamas and israel made on january 7 that a permanent ceasefire would be in effect from 1-4 pm and humanitarian aid would be allowed into gaza. hamas broke that deal with an attack 2 days later
6. It's intolerant that you think israel is a bad guy, just to clarify. if that is not your opinion and i haven't been interpreting what you've been saying correctly, tell me
7. no comment necessary
8. The UN is obviously biased against israel. israel is the only country not allowed on the security council, and obviously israel lacks many allies compared to its number of enemy countries, which are on the UN. that article also makes gaza look like the victim and israel the aggressor.
15. the civilians who die also die due to a chain reaction effect: 1. Israel lightly bombs a target storing hamas weapons. 2. bombs hit. 3. a few civilians die, explosion sets off stored hamas weapons. 4. they explode, killing many additional civilians

the PLO ultimately wants israel to cease to exist and a palestinian state to replace it. why shouldn't israel try to eliminate such a group when that group threatens its safety and existence?

4. Israel is trying to get to those sites. That's why they are invading
5. They are targeting hamas, but hamas is hiding behind civilians. Additionally, it isn't just hamas who is attacking israel. there are other extremists. Gaza is suffering because hamas won't accept humanitarian aid in. There was an agreement between hamas and israel made on january 7 that a permanent ceasefire would be in effect from 1-4 pm and humanitarian aid would be allowed into gaza. hamas broke that deal with an attack 2 days later
6. It's intolerant that you think israel is a bad guy, just to clarify. if that is not your opinion and i haven't been interpreting what you've been saying correctly, tell me
7. no comment necessary
8. The UN is obviously biased against israel. israel is the only country not allowed on the security council, and obviously israel lacks many allies compared to its number of enemy countries, which are on the UN. that article also makes gaza look like the victim and israel the aggressor.
15. the civilians who die also die due to a chain reaction effect: 1. Israel lightly bombs a target storing hamas weapons. 2. bombs hit. 3. a few civilians die, explosion sets off stored hamas weapons. 4. they explode, killing many additional civilians

the PLO ultimately wants israel to cease to exist and a palestinian state to replace it. why shouldn't israel try to eliminate such a group when that group threatens its safety and existence?

Trusted Member
affected by act like a newbie syndrome


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 02-26-08
Location: PA
Last Post: 5332 days
Last Active: 5332 days

01-14-09 09:50 PM
Trias is Offline
| ID: 77809 | 1080 Words

Trias
Level: 9

POSTS: 10/12
POST EXP: 7400
LVL EXP: 3099
CP: 8.0
VIZ: 995

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Ziggy, this is going to be my last reply to this thread, unless someone introduces sufficiently new content to the discussion. I do not know what your expectations were, but I didn't really expect to convince you, and I know you won't convince me to your side. I don't think this conversation is particularly fruitful anymore, and I currently have about ten tabs devoted to this thread, not including the one I'm typing in at this moment. You are ignoring more of my points with every post, and I've noticed that I'm increasingly slipping from apologetics to polemic. Both of us are mostly repeating ourselves now. So I'm calling it quits. I'd rather avoid completely ruining any future relations with you than pursue this further. But to demonstrate that I am not simply running away, I will write one more reply before moving on.

4. No, Israel is invading because it knows that it cannot permanently suppress Hamas using only ranged attacks. As I stated before, there is no military option to achieve that goal short of renewing the full, long-term occupation of Gaza, and probably relocating (exiling) the existing Palestinian population. That or any similar decision will only result in a new generation of anti-Israel terrorists, however.
5. Stop acting like Hamas' actions justify Israel's bad behavior. You have not given a single good or moral reason for Israel to deny basic living necessities to the people of Gaza as a whole, starting years before Hamas was even in power.
6. My opinion, as I have expressly stated before, is that while I have little problem with Israel most of the time, Israel's behavior in regard to Gaza is frequently criminal and immoral. Israel has every right to defend itself, but in doing so it has frequently committed unjustifiable evils. This is true of most every country, including ours, but Israel is the one in the spotlight now, so that's what we talk about. So if you mean that I am intolerant of Israel as a whole, you are incorrect. But if you mean that I am intolerant of Israel's actions here, in this war, then that is accurate, and I invite you once more to tell me which of these evils I should tolerate, and why.
8. To use a phrase of yours, that document IS THE FACTS. Shouting "bias!" won't change that. Do you contest that what it says is untrue? Then prove it. Perhaps everyone is mistaken, and Israel actually threw a party for Gaza in response to the capture of their soldier. Maybe the missile that everyone thinks was fired to destroy Gaza's power plant was actually filled with gumdrops and confetti intended to rain from the sky! Maybe Israel cut off Gaza's fuel supply because they were sending champaign instead! Maybe the unbalanced taxes Israel has imposed were placed in order to fund party favors and a massive cake!
...I hope you will forgive my sarcasm, but as it turns out I've also become rather intolerant of your willful ignorance. Some of Israel's actions towards Gaza have been as terroristic as Hamas' towards Israel. Deal with it. Either prove that it didn't happen, offer a moral reason why it's ok to indiscriminately attack innocent civilians in a military conflict, or accept that Israel isn't as good as you think and move on.
15. What? You already said that. And in so doing you again completely failed to address my point. Assuming that the IDF is trying to kill Hamas and not [i/]all of Gaza, the fact that only 45% of their kills are actually the intended target should tell you that something is horribly wrong. Is the Israeli army incompetent? Do they not care that they're killing more civilians than soldiers? Or is the IDF actually trying to kill civilians? I think we both agree that the first possibility isn't likely. But the third leaves the Israeli army as moral monsters, and the middle isn't much better. So which is it? Is the only good Palestinian a dead Palestinian?

Re: the PLO, you're turning the subject away from the parts you don't want to talk about again. But you want me to talk a little about the PLO first? Fine. Last I heard, the PLO has officially adopted a two-state plan. One for Israel, and one for the Palestinians. But even if that were not the case, where is the problem with the PLO seeking the removal of Israel? In case you have already forgotten my little history lesson earlier, that is exactly what Israel tried to do to the Palestinians. Israel took over their land, their homes, and chased away the people living there. Those that didn't run got put in ghettos like the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. And I already told you what Israel's done to them there. Why shouldn't the the Palestinians try to eliminate such a state when that state threatens their safety and existence?

As to the war itself, Israel knowingly invaded Lebanon under false pretenses in an unjust war targeting an organization innocent of the accused crime. Three wrongs don't make a right. And are you so inhuman that you don't care that eight hundred innocent people were killed under Israeli authorization in a single preventable incident that contained not one single genuine military objective? It doesn't magically go away just because you chose to ignore it. Again quoting you: Which government is the monster here?

Something I want to bring attention to before I leave is that I have twice compared Israel to a SWAT team that intentionally shoots hostages, and I have twice challenged you ziggy to tell me that that not is something you endorse. You have twice remained silent on both my analogy and my question.

You're in high school, right ziggy? I don't know if you've taken a civics class yet, so this may or may not be familiar to you. There's a saying that generally goes "better that ten guilty men go free than convict one innocent man." It's a concept that can be found in a number of places, including the Old Testament, and the greater part of the United States justice system was constructed around it. You should think long and hard about that, because for the past several years Israel's motto has been "better to convict one and a half million innocent people than let one member of Hamas go free," and you're defending it.

Good night.
Ziggy, this is going to be my last reply to this thread, unless someone introduces sufficiently new content to the discussion. I do not know what your expectations were, but I didn't really expect to convince you, and I know you won't convince me to your side. I don't think this conversation is particularly fruitful anymore, and I currently have about ten tabs devoted to this thread, not including the one I'm typing in at this moment. You are ignoring more of my points with every post, and I've noticed that I'm increasingly slipping from apologetics to polemic. Both of us are mostly repeating ourselves now. So I'm calling it quits. I'd rather avoid completely ruining any future relations with you than pursue this further. But to demonstrate that I am not simply running away, I will write one more reply before moving on.

4. No, Israel is invading because it knows that it cannot permanently suppress Hamas using only ranged attacks. As I stated before, there is no military option to achieve that goal short of renewing the full, long-term occupation of Gaza, and probably relocating (exiling) the existing Palestinian population. That or any similar decision will only result in a new generation of anti-Israel terrorists, however.
5. Stop acting like Hamas' actions justify Israel's bad behavior. You have not given a single good or moral reason for Israel to deny basic living necessities to the people of Gaza as a whole, starting years before Hamas was even in power.
6. My opinion, as I have expressly stated before, is that while I have little problem with Israel most of the time, Israel's behavior in regard to Gaza is frequently criminal and immoral. Israel has every right to defend itself, but in doing so it has frequently committed unjustifiable evils. This is true of most every country, including ours, but Israel is the one in the spotlight now, so that's what we talk about. So if you mean that I am intolerant of Israel as a whole, you are incorrect. But if you mean that I am intolerant of Israel's actions here, in this war, then that is accurate, and I invite you once more to tell me which of these evils I should tolerate, and why.
8. To use a phrase of yours, that document IS THE FACTS. Shouting "bias!" won't change that. Do you contest that what it says is untrue? Then prove it. Perhaps everyone is mistaken, and Israel actually threw a party for Gaza in response to the capture of their soldier. Maybe the missile that everyone thinks was fired to destroy Gaza's power plant was actually filled with gumdrops and confetti intended to rain from the sky! Maybe Israel cut off Gaza's fuel supply because they were sending champaign instead! Maybe the unbalanced taxes Israel has imposed were placed in order to fund party favors and a massive cake!
...I hope you will forgive my sarcasm, but as it turns out I've also become rather intolerant of your willful ignorance. Some of Israel's actions towards Gaza have been as terroristic as Hamas' towards Israel. Deal with it. Either prove that it didn't happen, offer a moral reason why it's ok to indiscriminately attack innocent civilians in a military conflict, or accept that Israel isn't as good as you think and move on.
15. What? You already said that. And in so doing you again completely failed to address my point. Assuming that the IDF is trying to kill Hamas and not [i/]all of Gaza, the fact that only 45% of their kills are actually the intended target should tell you that something is horribly wrong. Is the Israeli army incompetent? Do they not care that they're killing more civilians than soldiers? Or is the IDF actually trying to kill civilians? I think we both agree that the first possibility isn't likely. But the third leaves the Israeli army as moral monsters, and the middle isn't much better. So which is it? Is the only good Palestinian a dead Palestinian?

Re: the PLO, you're turning the subject away from the parts you don't want to talk about again. But you want me to talk a little about the PLO first? Fine. Last I heard, the PLO has officially adopted a two-state plan. One for Israel, and one for the Palestinians. But even if that were not the case, where is the problem with the PLO seeking the removal of Israel? In case you have already forgotten my little history lesson earlier, that is exactly what Israel tried to do to the Palestinians. Israel took over their land, their homes, and chased away the people living there. Those that didn't run got put in ghettos like the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. And I already told you what Israel's done to them there. Why shouldn't the the Palestinians try to eliminate such a state when that state threatens their safety and existence?

As to the war itself, Israel knowingly invaded Lebanon under false pretenses in an unjust war targeting an organization innocent of the accused crime. Three wrongs don't make a right. And are you so inhuman that you don't care that eight hundred innocent people were killed under Israeli authorization in a single preventable incident that contained not one single genuine military objective? It doesn't magically go away just because you chose to ignore it. Again quoting you: Which government is the monster here?

Something I want to bring attention to before I leave is that I have twice compared Israel to a SWAT team that intentionally shoots hostages, and I have twice challenged you ziggy to tell me that that not is something you endorse. You have twice remained silent on both my analogy and my question.

You're in high school, right ziggy? I don't know if you've taken a civics class yet, so this may or may not be familiar to you. There's a saying that generally goes "better that ten guilty men go free than convict one innocent man." It's a concept that can be found in a number of places, including the Old Testament, and the greater part of the United States justice system was constructed around it. You should think long and hard about that, because for the past several years Israel's motto has been "better to convict one and a half million innocent people than let one member of Hamas go free," and you're defending it.

Good night.
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-08-09
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Last Post: 5550 days
Last Active: 5550 days

01-15-09 03:36 PM
Ziggy is Offline
| ID: 77843 | 439 Words

Ziggy
Level: 128

POSTS: 1844/4617
POST EXP: 273240
LVL EXP: 24046949
CP: 60.5
VIZ: 46564

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
4.As to your point about suppressing hamas, how else does one do that without eradicating hamas' weapon supply, which is why they're invading
5. Dude, all hamas needed to do was stop firing rockets between 1 and 4 pm for humanitarian aid to be let in. all hamas needed to do was hold the ceasefire. they failed the second, then the first. Israel wouldn't do anything to them unless they provoked it
6. so self defense is an unjustifiable evil? trying to remove a terrorist organization from power is evil? the civilians wouldn't be suffering if Israel wasn't constatly being attacked
8. Just because it's factual, doesn't mean that the facts aren't presented in a biased fashion. Also, you clearly are intolerant if you are comparing Israel's and hamas' actions like that. Israel NEVER would use civilians as shields (a point you have somewhat ignored by repeatedly bringing up the percentage of civilian deaths). Israel would NEVER send people to blow themselves up on a bus in the middle of a city.
15. civilians as shields, ring a bell?

The PLO has changed over the years, I'll give you that much. However, the current Palestinian leaders DO NOT WANT 2 STATES. They just want a Palestinian state, no Israel. At first, mind you, the Palestinians were living among the Israelis as Israelis. and don't you give me crap about the creation of israel. If you knew anything about how much the Jews have suffered, you wouldn't try to make a point that the creation of Israel is bad

Lebanon is one of the countries that has caused Israel absolute hell throughout its existence. Also, if you knew half of what you think you knew about the Arab-Israeli conflict, you wouldn't think that Israel is a monster for fighting during times of war. Rarely, if ever, is Israel the aggressor. By the way, if you post here again i want (a link to) your source about the Lebanon conflict (which i asked you for already)

You think your view about Israel isn't intolerant? Then why say that they deliberately kill innocent people(SWAT reference)? By the way, I thought geeogree commented on it so I didn't think i needed to.

FYI, I haven't ignored your points nearly as much as you have mine. You still don't even recognize that hamas uses civilians as shields. All i can say now, is that your argument is the combination of hamas propaganda and logic. one of those doesn't belong. That's not to say that i don't have a pro-Israel bias, but I make sure that i learn the facts neutrally before developing an opinion
4.As to your point about suppressing hamas, how else does one do that without eradicating hamas' weapon supply, which is why they're invading
5. Dude, all hamas needed to do was stop firing rockets between 1 and 4 pm for humanitarian aid to be let in. all hamas needed to do was hold the ceasefire. they failed the second, then the first. Israel wouldn't do anything to them unless they provoked it
6. so self defense is an unjustifiable evil? trying to remove a terrorist organization from power is evil? the civilians wouldn't be suffering if Israel wasn't constatly being attacked
8. Just because it's factual, doesn't mean that the facts aren't presented in a biased fashion. Also, you clearly are intolerant if you are comparing Israel's and hamas' actions like that. Israel NEVER would use civilians as shields (a point you have somewhat ignored by repeatedly bringing up the percentage of civilian deaths). Israel would NEVER send people to blow themselves up on a bus in the middle of a city.
15. civilians as shields, ring a bell?

The PLO has changed over the years, I'll give you that much. However, the current Palestinian leaders DO NOT WANT 2 STATES. They just want a Palestinian state, no Israel. At first, mind you, the Palestinians were living among the Israelis as Israelis. and don't you give me crap about the creation of israel. If you knew anything about how much the Jews have suffered, you wouldn't try to make a point that the creation of Israel is bad

Lebanon is one of the countries that has caused Israel absolute hell throughout its existence. Also, if you knew half of what you think you knew about the Arab-Israeli conflict, you wouldn't think that Israel is a monster for fighting during times of war. Rarely, if ever, is Israel the aggressor. By the way, if you post here again i want (a link to) your source about the Lebanon conflict (which i asked you for already)

You think your view about Israel isn't intolerant? Then why say that they deliberately kill innocent people(SWAT reference)? By the way, I thought geeogree commented on it so I didn't think i needed to.

FYI, I haven't ignored your points nearly as much as you have mine. You still don't even recognize that hamas uses civilians as shields. All i can say now, is that your argument is the combination of hamas propaganda and logic. one of those doesn't belong. That's not to say that i don't have a pro-Israel bias, but I make sure that i learn the facts neutrally before developing an opinion
Trusted Member
affected by act like a newbie syndrome


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 02-26-08
Location: PA
Last Post: 5332 days
Last Active: 5332 days

01-16-09 06:47 PM
Trias is Offline
| ID: 77924 | 270 Words

Trias
Level: 9

POSTS: 12/12
POST EXP: 7400
LVL EXP: 3099
CP: 8.0
VIZ: 995

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Ziggy, your anger and your zeal are getting in the way of your reading comprehension again. Calm down.

...

Are you calm yet? I'm posting because you asked for a link. I will provide that first. Then I will try one more time to clear up a few points. If, after that time, you still cannot understand what I am saying, there will be nothing more I can do for you here.

Originally posted by ziggy
By the way, if you post here again i want (a link to) your source about the Lebanon conflict (which i asked you for already)
Actually, you didn't. I checked. Thrice. But you're right that I didn't provide links.

For an article about the entire 1982 Lebanon-Israel War, click here. For the civilians dead before the war officially started, look here, specifically the part citing this book. For Prime Minister Menachem Begin's knowledge that the war was directed against the wrong group, see this, and for his "screw the PLO" line click here. Concerning the deaths of 800 refugees under the pretense of "terrorists", look to the last paragraph of this section, or here. I'm sure there are other sources, but I don't have the good fortune of living next to a library anymore.

Regarding the numbered points, I'm not going to say any more. If you can't or won't understand what I've said there by now, repeating myself again won't change that.

Originally posted by ziggy
They hide behind innocent people and when the innocent die with them, they use it against Israel saying "look how many died" when its hamas' fault in the first place
Originally posted by ziggy
15. civilians as shields, ring a bell?
Originally posted by ziggy
Then why say that they deliberately kill innocent people(SWAT reference)?
You're kidding, right? Do you really not see this? Israel knows that Hamas is hiding behind civilians but bomb anyway. Just like a cop that knows the robber is hiding behind a hostage but shoots anyway. So I say they deliberately kill innocent people because they do.

I already admitted that the current Palestinian leaders may want only one state, but you are making an assertion that that is definitely the case. Prove it or leave it alone.
Originally posted by ziggy
If you knew anything about how much the Jews have suffered, you wouldn't try to make a point that the creation of Israel is bad
We already went over this. Stop accusing me of things that are demonstrably false. And I did not say that the creation of a new Israel was "bad". It was a mistake, largely because of the location (as you say, the surrounding countries tend to be Muslim and rather hostile) and the fact that the prior inhabitants had not voluntarily given it up. As I said before, as far as I am concerned Israel now has as much claim to the land as any by virtue of living there for several generations, but that last part, that the land was forcibly taken from the Palestinians, is why I don't mind them trying to take it back through either legal, military, or social means. Unfortunately, terrorism seems to be the most visible method of choice, which is not something I endorse.

I must say again, stop misquoting me. I have never said that self defense is an unjustifiable evil, nor have I said that excising a terrorist organization is evil, nor have I said that Israel is a monster for fighting during times of war. I can't respect you as an intellectual opponent when you continue to fail to accurately represent what I am arguing, especially when my points are right in front of you. I am not saying Israel is in the wrong for fighting, I am saying Israel is in the wrong for how it fights. Here is an example of what I mean: In WWII, the Allies were justified for defending themselves from and eventually defeating Germany, and America was justified in defending itself from and eventually defeating Japan. However, just because America and the Allies in Europe were justified overall, does not change the fact that both participated in war crimes during the course of that war. Specifically actions such as the firebombing of Dresden and the use of two nuclear weapons on civilian targets in Japan. Also, America imprisoned and impoverished American citizens of Japanese ethnicity on the premise that they may be sympathetic to Japan during that same war. Not a war crime per se, but nevertheless immoral. In the same way, Israel is justified in self defense, but that does not change the fact that imprisoning and impoverishing the entire one and a half million people of the Gaza Strip in order to attack the relative few terrorists and engaging in an artillery and bombing campaign that kills and injures more civilians than terrorists are both criminal and immoral.

A few more words on bias: Once you have an opinion on a subject, all subsequent information on the subject will be colored by that opinion until such a time as that opinion changes. Then you will reinterpret the facts in light of your new opinion. The degree by which your interpretation is biased may vary, but the presence of the bias will not. Neutrality is dependent upon either the lack of an opinion or awareness of and careful training to remove bias from statements and arguments. While it doesn't always work out this way in practice, employees for organizations such as the UN and many journalists are supposed to have one or both of those qualities. As you have an explicitly stated pro-Israel bias, any and all information you receive concerning Israel and its neighbors will be interpreted in a way that favors Israel. You may not be conscious of the process, but neither you nor I are interpreting facts about Israel and Gaza neutrally.

Speaking of bias, I wonder if it's more than just a pro-Israel attitude. I wonder if you also have an anti-Palestinian bias. Perhaps you are "intolerant" of Gaza.

Good day.
Ziggy, your anger and your zeal are getting in the way of your reading comprehension again. Calm down.

...

Are you calm yet? I'm posting because you asked for a link. I will provide that first. Then I will try one more time to clear up a few points. If, after that time, you still cannot understand what I am saying, there will be nothing more I can do for you here.

Originally posted by ziggy
By the way, if you post here again i want (a link to) your source about the Lebanon conflict (which i asked you for already)
Actually, you didn't. I checked. Thrice. But you're right that I didn't provide links.

For an article about the entire 1982 Lebanon-Israel War, click here. For the civilians dead before the war officially started, look here, specifically the part citing this book. For Prime Minister Menachem Begin's knowledge that the war was directed against the wrong group, see this, and for his "screw the PLO" line click here. Concerning the deaths of 800 refugees under the pretense of "terrorists", look to the last paragraph of this section, or here. I'm sure there are other sources, but I don't have the good fortune of living next to a library anymore.

Regarding the numbered points, I'm not going to say any more. If you can't or won't understand what I've said there by now, repeating myself again won't change that.

Originally posted by ziggy
They hide behind innocent people and when the innocent die with them, they use it against Israel saying "look how many died" when its hamas' fault in the first place
Originally posted by ziggy
15. civilians as shields, ring a bell?
Originally posted by ziggy
Then why say that they deliberately kill innocent people(SWAT reference)?
You're kidding, right? Do you really not see this? Israel knows that Hamas is hiding behind civilians but bomb anyway. Just like a cop that knows the robber is hiding behind a hostage but shoots anyway. So I say they deliberately kill innocent people because they do.

I already admitted that the current Palestinian leaders may want only one state, but you are making an assertion that that is definitely the case. Prove it or leave it alone.
Originally posted by ziggy
If you knew anything about how much the Jews have suffered, you wouldn't try to make a point that the creation of Israel is bad
We already went over this. Stop accusing me of things that are demonstrably false. And I did not say that the creation of a new Israel was "bad". It was a mistake, largely because of the location (as you say, the surrounding countries tend to be Muslim and rather hostile) and the fact that the prior inhabitants had not voluntarily given it up. As I said before, as far as I am concerned Israel now has as much claim to the land as any by virtue of living there for several generations, but that last part, that the land was forcibly taken from the Palestinians, is why I don't mind them trying to take it back through either legal, military, or social means. Unfortunately, terrorism seems to be the most visible method of choice, which is not something I endorse.

I must say again, stop misquoting me. I have never said that self defense is an unjustifiable evil, nor have I said that excising a terrorist organization is evil, nor have I said that Israel is a monster for fighting during times of war. I can't respect you as an intellectual opponent when you continue to fail to accurately represent what I am arguing, especially when my points are right in front of you. I am not saying Israel is in the wrong for fighting, I am saying Israel is in the wrong for how it fights. Here is an example of what I mean: In WWII, the Allies were justified for defending themselves from and eventually defeating Germany, and America was justified in defending itself from and eventually defeating Japan. However, just because America and the Allies in Europe were justified overall, does not change the fact that both participated in war crimes during the course of that war. Specifically actions such as the firebombing of Dresden and the use of two nuclear weapons on civilian targets in Japan. Also, America imprisoned and impoverished American citizens of Japanese ethnicity on the premise that they may be sympathetic to Japan during that same war. Not a war crime per se, but nevertheless immoral. In the same way, Israel is justified in self defense, but that does not change the fact that imprisoning and impoverishing the entire one and a half million people of the Gaza Strip in order to attack the relative few terrorists and engaging in an artillery and bombing campaign that kills and injures more civilians than terrorists are both criminal and immoral.

A few more words on bias: Once you have an opinion on a subject, all subsequent information on the subject will be colored by that opinion until such a time as that opinion changes. Then you will reinterpret the facts in light of your new opinion. The degree by which your interpretation is biased may vary, but the presence of the bias will not. Neutrality is dependent upon either the lack of an opinion or awareness of and careful training to remove bias from statements and arguments. While it doesn't always work out this way in practice, employees for organizations such as the UN and many journalists are supposed to have one or both of those qualities. As you have an explicitly stated pro-Israel bias, any and all information you receive concerning Israel and its neighbors will be interpreted in a way that favors Israel. You may not be conscious of the process, but neither you nor I are interpreting facts about Israel and Gaza neutrally.

Speaking of bias, I wonder if it's more than just a pro-Israel attitude. I wonder if you also have an anti-Palestinian bias. Perhaps you are "intolerant" of Gaza.

Good day.
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-08-09
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Last Post: 5550 days
Last Active: 5550 days

01-16-09 07:26 PM
Ziggy is Offline
| ID: 77925 | 322 Words

Ziggy
Level: 128

POSTS: 1866/4617
POST EXP: 273240
LVL EXP: 24046949
CP: 60.5
VIZ: 46564

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
No i'm getting what you're saying, but I'm not sure that you know what you're saying

Impressive, you used wikipedia as your source. It's not that i think people just load random crap on the site, but it certainly isn't reliable to provide an accurate, unbiased account of this kind of thing

I quote "Israel took over their land, their homes, and chased away the people living there." yeah, that isn't calling the creation of Israel bad, oh wait yes it is.

Dresden was retaliation for the bombing of Coventry which used the same tactics. By the way, do you even have any clue about the number of people Germany killed? And not just soldiers, I'm talking about civilians. In the Siege of Stalingrad alone, they killed 2 MILLION Russian civilians.

The atomic weapons SAVED lives because they made a full scale invasion unnecessary (predictions for the lives lost in an invasion were 10 times higher than the death tolls of the atomic bombs

I know how the Americans treated the Japanese in WWII. I can also tell you that my ancestors were being held in far worse conditions in Poland. My grandmom lost her entire family in the camps

WWII is bad way to compare these events if the person you're arguing with knows enough about what happened. I may be a high school student but I'm well studied on this subject

Now you think Israel WANTS to kill civilians? You know, that possible 55:45 ratio of civilian to hamas militant deaths is impressive for a war. that means a very large portion of deaths are hamas. compare that to the WWII civilian to soldier death tolls and i believe it is 48 to 25 million, almost 2:1 or 66.6 : 33.3

So "death to Israel" chants aren't enough proof of their beliefs?

by the way, if i'm misquoting you then you need to word everything so there's no gray area

No i'm getting what you're saying, but I'm not sure that you know what you're saying

Impressive, you used wikipedia as your source. It's not that i think people just load random crap on the site, but it certainly isn't reliable to provide an accurate, unbiased account of this kind of thing

I quote "Israel took over their land, their homes, and chased away the people living there." yeah, that isn't calling the creation of Israel bad, oh wait yes it is.

Dresden was retaliation for the bombing of Coventry which used the same tactics. By the way, do you even have any clue about the number of people Germany killed? And not just soldiers, I'm talking about civilians. In the Siege of Stalingrad alone, they killed 2 MILLION Russian civilians.

The atomic weapons SAVED lives because they made a full scale invasion unnecessary (predictions for the lives lost in an invasion were 10 times higher than the death tolls of the atomic bombs

I know how the Americans treated the Japanese in WWII. I can also tell you that my ancestors were being held in far worse conditions in Poland. My grandmom lost her entire family in the camps

WWII is bad way to compare these events if the person you're arguing with knows enough about what happened. I may be a high school student but I'm well studied on this subject

Now you think Israel WANTS to kill civilians? You know, that possible 55:45 ratio of civilian to hamas militant deaths is impressive for a war. that means a very large portion of deaths are hamas. compare that to the WWII civilian to soldier death tolls and i believe it is 48 to 25 million, almost 2:1 or 66.6 : 33.3

So "death to Israel" chants aren't enough proof of their beliefs?

by the way, if i'm misquoting you then you need to word everything so there's no gray area

Trusted Member
affected by act like a newbie syndrome


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 02-26-08
Location: PA
Last Post: 5332 days
Last Active: 5332 days

06-18-09 10:26 AM
ismkeweed420 is Offline
| ID: 98976 | 107 Words

ismkeweed420
Level: 14

POSTS: 16/28
POST EXP: 1103
LVL EXP: 10901
CP: 0.0
VIZ: 352

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
first id like to state im not for one side or the other i think both sides commit horrible crimes against the other but since the creation of a separate jewish state after ww2 isael has since pushed the boundries of its country leaving palestine with less than 10% of the terratory the controlled before the 1948 borders were drawn. i feel the only solution with a chance of working is a viable 2 state solution until the two countrys both learn to live together the only course is continued violence (there have been cease fires in the past many not lasting more than a couple days.)
first id like to state im not for one side or the other i think both sides commit horrible crimes against the other but since the creation of a separate jewish state after ww2 isael has since pushed the boundries of its country leaving palestine with less than 10% of the terratory the controlled before the 1948 borders were drawn. i feel the only solution with a chance of working is a viable 2 state solution until the two countrys both learn to live together the only course is continued violence (there have been cease fires in the past many not lasting more than a couple days.)
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 06-02-09
Location: east coast
Last Post: 5392 days
Last Active: 5388 days

06-18-09 11:16 AM
geeogree is Offline
| ID: 98982 | 108 Words

geeogree
Mr Geeohn-A-Vash53215
Level: 290


POSTS: 2983/29291
POST EXP: 1955397
LVL EXP: 420150038
CP: 52474.2
VIZ: 528748

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
here is why I think the 2 state solution will not work... and I quote

"Israel needs to be destroyed"
"I want Israel wiped off the map"
and on and on and on....

that is the rhetoric of people in the middle east in regards to Israel. There is no 2 state solution in their minds. There is only a 1 state solution - Palestine... with no Israeli's in it.

I agree there should be some sort of solution and that both sides are guilty of doing horrible things to each other... but giving palestinians a legitimate state with which to continue it's assault on Israel is madness....
here is why I think the 2 state solution will not work... and I quote

"Israel needs to be destroyed"
"I want Israel wiped off the map"
and on and on and on....

that is the rhetoric of people in the middle east in regards to Israel. There is no 2 state solution in their minds. There is only a 1 state solution - Palestine... with no Israeli's in it.

I agree there should be some sort of solution and that both sides are guilty of doing horrible things to each other... but giving palestinians a legitimate state with which to continue it's assault on Israel is madness....
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Banzilla


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-03-05
Last Post: 91 days
Last Active: 9 hours

06-25-09 05:01 PM
Ziggy is Offline
| ID: 100876 | 14 Words

Ziggy
Level: 128

POSTS: 3816/4617
POST EXP: 273240
LVL EXP: 24046949
CP: 60.5
VIZ: 46564

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Yeah, and when Israel gives the Palestinians more land, they fire rockets from it
Yeah, and when Israel gives the Palestinians more land, they fire rockets from it
Trusted Member
affected by act like a newbie syndrome


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 02-26-08
Location: PA
Last Post: 5332 days
Last Active: 5332 days

06-30-09 09:54 PM
geeogree is Offline
| ID: 102271 | 86 Words

geeogree
Mr Geeohn-A-Vash53215
Level: 290


POSTS: 3332/29291
POST EXP: 1955397
LVL EXP: 420150038
CP: 52474.2
VIZ: 528748

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
and the scary thing is that Obama is likely to be the President to actually try to give the Palestinians their own country.

And then what happens when Israel fights them next time.

"Oh, this poor defenceless country is being attacked by the horrible Israeli's .... why can't Israel just let Palestine govern itself peacefully?!?"

and so on.... the more palestine gets the more it will use against Israel. I doubt it will be long before there is another major war in that region involving Israel.

and the scary thing is that Obama is likely to be the President to actually try to give the Palestinians their own country.

And then what happens when Israel fights them next time.

"Oh, this poor defenceless country is being attacked by the horrible Israeli's .... why can't Israel just let Palestine govern itself peacefully?!?"

and so on.... the more palestine gets the more it will use against Israel. I doubt it will be long before there is another major war in that region involving Israel.

Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Banzilla


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-03-05
Last Post: 91 days
Last Active: 9 hours

07-01-09 11:56 PM
Ziggy is Offline
| ID: 102586 | 23 Words

Ziggy
Level: 128

POSTS: 3950/4617
POST EXP: 273240
LVL EXP: 24046949
CP: 60.5
VIZ: 46564

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
And I hate that. I just hope he realizes that a two state solution won't work with the Palenstinians in their current mindset
And I hate that. I just hope he realizes that a two state solution won't work with the Palenstinians in their current mindset
Trusted Member
affected by act like a newbie syndrome


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 02-26-08
Location: PA
Last Post: 5332 days
Last Active: 5332 days

07-02-09 12:19 AM
geeogree is Offline
| ID: 102598 | 47 Words

geeogree
Mr Geeohn-A-Vash53215
Level: 290


POSTS: 3375/29291
POST EXP: 1955397
LVL EXP: 420150038
CP: 52474.2
VIZ: 528748

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
and it's not just the Palestinians mindset.... Iran, Jordan, Egpyt, Syria, Saudi Arabia... etc. These countries do not like Israel. Sure maybe the "governments" aren't outright saying it but the religious leaders are for sure and they drive public opinion more than anyone else in those countries.
and it's not just the Palestinians mindset.... Iran, Jordan, Egpyt, Syria, Saudi Arabia... etc. These countries do not like Israel. Sure maybe the "governments" aren't outright saying it but the religious leaders are for sure and they drive public opinion more than anyone else in those countries.
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Banzilla


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-03-05
Last Post: 91 days
Last Active: 9 hours

07-02-09 04:07 PM
Ziggy is Offline
| ID: 102752 | 16 Words

Ziggy
Level: 128

POSTS: 3982/4617
POST EXP: 273240
LVL EXP: 24046949
CP: 60.5
VIZ: 46564

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
No, the governments of most of them have made it pretty clear that they hate Israel.
No, the governments of most of them have made it pretty clear that they hate Israel.
Trusted Member
affected by act like a newbie syndrome


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 02-26-08
Location: PA
Last Post: 5332 days
Last Active: 5332 days

12-19-09 11:22 PM
Lagslayer is Offline
| ID: 128325 | 16 Words

Lagslayer
Level: 46


POSTS: 54/453
POST EXP: 27933
LVL EXP: 700825
CP: 581.8
VIZ: 21993

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
These terrorist have been at it for hundreds of years. They clearly cannot be reasoned with.
These terrorist have been at it for hundreds of years. They clearly cannot be reasoned with.
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 10-10-09
Last Post: 3714 days
Last Active: 987 days

Links

Page Comments


This page has no comments

Adblocker detected!

Vizzed.com is very expensive to keep alive! The Ads pay for the servers.

Vizzed has 3 TB worth of games and 1 TB worth of music.  This site is free to use but the ads barely pay for the monthly server fees.  If too many more people use ad block, the site cannot survive.

We prioritize the community over the site profits.  This is why we avoid using annoying (but high paying) ads like most other sites which include popups, obnoxious sounds and animations, malware, and other forms of intrusiveness.  We'll do our part to never resort to these types of ads, please do your part by helping support this site by adding Vizzed.com to your ad blocking whitelist.

×