 |
| |
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
International law also says that the killing of non-combatants is illegal. Neither side has the moral high ground in this deal. |
Nope... but a lot of people here act like Israel's **** don't stink.
quote:
To my knowledge, the Israeli's never massacred civilian populations. |
You then really don't know much about the history of 1947-49 do you?
quote:
You also have to consider that the Palestinians started the war with a view to wiping out the Jews. Co-existence, accepted by Israel, has never been accepted by the Palestinians - even to this day. |
WOULD YOU? Say the UN came in and said that California was going to be given back to the Native Americans since they lived their long ago. You think the US would sit back and say, well ok. No, we'd fight and try to kick the crap out of any state that popped up.
quote:
I don't know what your precise position today on the conflict. However, given your tone, I suspect you are another ethnic cleanser, aren't you? |
No, but it sure seems you are... after all you believe the Palestinians are sub-human, don't you?
Israel, first and foremost needs to move out of the West Bank and Gaza TOTALLY, including support for settlements. Let 100% of the WB and Gaza be under control of the Palestinian people (even the current settlements), who will have UN supervised elections and Parliamentary democracy.
That is my position. But yours is to kill all the dirty Arabs (helps they aren't white, right paco?) because they are in the way of the good strong Jews.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
notyou: just to clarify things
You do support putting on a uniform and killing civilians?
You do support invading other countries, killing the inhabitants and taking their land, as long as you are strong enough to withstand the opposition?
BTW, you are blaming the victims here... Unless I'm misinterpreting your posts completely. The victims in this particular situation are the girl and the palestinians. The girl was killed, and the palestinains got their land stolen.
So by blaming the palestinians for fighting back, you are actually blaming the victims... |
I support the right of nations to defend themselves through the use of uniformed combatants. I would extend the same consideration to Palestinians in uniform who wish to fight with Israeli soldiers and police. I am not blaming all Palestinians. I am blaming terrorists who target civilians.
The Palestinians are not the victims of terrorism. They are the purpetrators of it. Why do you think they were driven out of Jordan? What did they do to Lebanon? These are the people you think the Israelis are victimizing? I don't think so.
To suggest that Israel invaded anyone is absurd. They fought a series of wars when they were attacked, or attack against them was imminent. They won. They are no more the aggressors than the United States was an agressor in WWII.
The Israelis have built settlements in the occupied territories. They also lost settlements when Israelis were driven out of some of those territories in 1948. Israel is, by and large, defending itself. However, yes, some of their settlements are probably unjust. Unfortunately I will never grant that terrorism targeting civilians is justified by any injustice. There are other solutions.
The fact is that the Palestinians are the authors of their own misfortune vis-a-vis violence. Some of them are the ones who insist on continuing an armed struggle targeting civilians. I do not blame the Israelis in the slightest when they act to annihilate the centres of terror and any who actively resist. Certain parallels may be drawn with Afghanistan.
BTW. The lands Israel took from Jordan (The West Bank) were not given back to Jordan when peace was made. I think that makes them Israeli to do with what they deem fit. It seems they deem fit to grant large parts of it to the Palestinians.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Drake, while I wholeheartedly agree with you that one has to look at the entire picture, it doesn't apply to this case. No matter how you look at it Israel is still the aggressor.
Also, it has been the stated policy of three of the four major resistance movements in palestine that once an israeli goes to a settlement he is in fact a combatant. His weapons might be bulldozers and fake legal edicts, but the result is still the same as blatant landgrabbing.
Incidentally, the fourth movement, Hamas, who advocates strikes in all Israel, not only the areas outside the green line, is also the one opposed to Arafat. If Israel truly wanted peace, they would cooperate with Arafat to stop the Hamas, instea of increasing Hamas influence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Drake:
quote:
The fact that Arafat didn't live up to any of the provisions in the Oslo accord shows how much he really cared about it. He was supposed to fight terrorism, but that didn't happen, unless you consider financially supporting terrorists and letting them hide out at your compound as "fighting terrorism". This behavior makes me seriously doubt Arafat's "acceptance" of Israel's right to exist. It takes a very naive person to take Arafat's word (or, more accurately, his English words) at face value anymore. |
How are whether Arafat is hiding wanted men indicative of whether he lived up to the Oslo accords or not? Quite frankly, using ANY examples from after the second intifada started to make points regarding the period between the intifadas is logically impossible, unless you assume that Israelis can see the future.
Finally, while it might take a naive person to take Arafts word, that person would not have to be more naive than someone taking, for example, Bush's word.
One would have to be extraordinarily naive, however, to believe that arafat could publically support an end to terrorism while Israeli occupation still continues. It amazes me how good the israeli spin-machine is on touting thispropaganda piece, and how incredibly stupid the vast majority of americans is to buy it...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Israel, first and foremost needs to move out of the West Bank and Gaza TOTALLY, including support for settlements. Let 100% of the WB and Gaza be under control of the Palestinian people (even the current settlements), who will have UN supervised elections and Parliamentary democracy.
That is my position. But yours is to kill all the dirty Arabs (helps they aren't white, right paco?) because they are in the way of the good strong Jews. |
I am sure Israel would trade all the land of the West Bank and Gaza, plus half of Jureslam, if it received, in exchange, recognition, normalization with all Arab nations and Iran, and some further guanrantee of security, such as a UN force, between it and Palestine.
To ask Israel to give up its security in exchange for nothing sounds exactly as stupid as Bush's recent call for withdrawal while providing no alternative that would protect Israel from the Palestinian suicide bombers.
If you truly desire peace, and I hope you do, then permanent withdrawal must be accompanied by a true Arab commitment to peace.
Ned
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:19
|
|
I don't know how you can say Oslo was dead before Camp David, since Camp David was an attempt to restart the Oslo process. The process certainly did stall after Rabin's assassination, but it was not even close to dead. Oslo didn't truly die until the second intifada started, thanks to Arafat.
quote:
The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements is the main agreement signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. It was signed on White House lawn amid much fanfare in September 1993.
Many of the declaration's provisions - the inauguration of the Palestinian National Authority, the handover of some land to Palestinian control, and the formation of the Palestinian security forces for example - were implemented.
However, Palestinian and Israeli negotiators failed to move on from these initial provisions to a permanent status agreement on issues including Jerusalem, borders and refugees.
Frustration at the failure of the peace process to deliver what it promised, and the collapse of last ditch talks chaired by former US President Bill Clinton at Camp David were partly to blame for the beginning of another Palestinian intifada, or rebellion against Israeli occupation, in September 2000.
The deterioration of relations since the start of the intifada means that many Israelis and Palestinians now see the process that was begun in 1993 as dead. |
http://www.iap.org/oslo.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Drake, the jews of palestine lived peacefully with the arabs until the zionist movement affirmed that their goal was to create their own, jewish, state in palestine. Prior to this jews were actually encouraged to move to palestine, due to the money and investments theyr brought with them. In 1900, the number of palestinan jews were about 25,000.
during WW1, palestinian fighters fought on the side of the british, in return for a promise of statehood. that statehood would include all ethnicities, in a democratic fashion.
The zionist movements in Israel refused wuite vehemently, however, and a period civil unrest of atrocities started. During this time, the brits lied pretty much evenly to both sides.
Eventually, the brits ceeded the mandate of palestine to the UN. the UN offered a partition, which was rejected by the arab states. thus, the UN mandate never had a legal standing.
Regardless, the jews os palestine declared statehood, effectively stealing 50% of historical palestine. The arab states, naturally not inclined to take landtheft lying down, went to war.
A common, albeit flawed, counterargument here is that since 25% of the people in palestine were jews, it was only fair for them to get their own state. this conveniantly ignores that even if large portions of an ethnic group moves into an area, this does not make landpartitioning legal. Imagine if california decided to join mexico, since the majority of californians are hispanic. The U.S. would never agree to that, since it is essentially an abuse of hospitality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
notyou, so once the military migh of a country is defeated, the rest of the population should just roll over and take it?
Simple question for you; what is your view on the french resistance?
BTW, what are those parallells with afganistan? What parts of the afganistan did the US occupy prior to sept 11? |
Yes. If people do not want to be shot, they should not resist an armed authority. If they do resist, maybe they have good reasons to do so, and good on em. But if they target civilians, they are scum. Pure and simple, they should be shot. The French resistance reference is a red herring, they are not equivalent organizations. The French did not blow up Germans in Hamburg.
The parallel to Afghanistan is that the United States and many of her allies took the entire country apart to get the terrorists. If Palestine had been linked to 9/11, Arafat would be dead or in a cage right now. The Israelis have shown much more restraint, even though they have been in a positon to obliterate Arafat for about a month now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
drake:
Actually, california, or rather, the hispanics of california would be the aggressors. If you rent a room somewhere, that doesn't give you the right to take over the building when your lease expires. And if you refuse to leave, the police and and will remove you with force.
notyou, I think you mean a strawman. A red herring is a false clue. 
I don't fully understand your argument. Are you saying that the reason you can't compare the french and palestinan resistance movements is because the french never went to german soil?
If so, you would realize that the attack on the settlemtns that started this thread is very much like the french resistance, and attacks on Israel proper is debateable...
Other, and perhaps more important parallells between palestine and afganistan is that both names contain the letter 'a'. while this had nothing to do with the conflict, I don't think your example did either...
Not on crack, just literate. Just because palestine changed occupying power doesn't mean the occupying power has the right to give it's land away.
to again illustrate with a simpler example, if I steal your bike, and then give it to my brother, who in turn gives it to some guy he knows named Ken, who does the bike belong to? Well, you, of course. Kind of obvious when you put it like this, don't you think?
so, you see, there are no contortions here. I can only surmise that you perceive my answers as such because you have to bend your mind in new ways to avoid dealing with the uncomfortable truth: you area defending the actions of a fascist state.
night
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:19
|
|
A red herring is also a spurious example. You did not make an asinine extrapolation from my statements and present it as what I had said. That would be a straw man.
The Palestinians and the French do/did not have the same circumstances, they do/did not use the same tactics, and they do/did not have the same motives. They are not equivalent examples. Focused attacks on civilians is and never will be anything like what the French did.
Palestine never was a state prior to 1948. Nobody gave parts of 'Palestine' away. Partition addressed the reality that there was more than one ethnic component to the land in 1947. Arabs within the original Israel have been treated very well. They are as free as any other Israeli. How do you make the jump to Israel is all bad?
Parallels with common property crime are over simplistic don't you think? We're talking about land that has multiple and just claims on it. The fact is the Israelis would like nothing better than to get out of much of it, but they can't if they do not have resonable prospects of real peace in exchange for that withdrawal.
My mind is quite capable of telling right from wrong. It seems to me that many other minds have been 'bent' to see terrorism and murder as acceptable courses of action when a group does not get its way. Keep going down that road. Airplanes are coming soon to a London, Paris, Washington, Tokyo, or Moscow near you. Who knows, maybe next time it will be a nuclear device.
Of course, so too is a brutal reaction against such cr*p that will make Afghanistan look like a picnic by comparison.
Last edited by notyoueither on 29-04-2002 at 22:38
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-04-2002 12:10
|