 |
| |
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
You have no basis for this statement. |
Why not? They didn't go to war, did they? In the end, they talked and decided not to fight, right? Why? 100 years ago, they would have started to tussel right then and there. Democratic reforms change countries. It changes their leaders, their people. They don't want to fight against people that share their norms and ideals.
They have no compunction about fighting non-democratic states because they DON'T share their norms. They are closed, secretive, barbaric societies to them. They don't have 'civilized' goverance.
quote:
Do you believe dmeocratic leaders are so utterly risk averse? |
OF COURSE!! I've never seen a democratic leader that has not been risk averse.
quote:
Perhaps they did not go to war ebcuase the leaders at the time felt strong enough to ignore public sentiment and keep thier eyes on the bigger picture, like, well, Germany. |
If you really think that Germany in 1914 was a democracy, you must be seriously smoking something.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Oh Edan...
I said: it is baised, but it gives sources. you little quip..where did it come from? Which source did the idiots at Idiots guide get it from?
[/qb] |
There are 7 pages of Bibliography for the book, with, at a guess, around 150 sources. Would you like me to start listing them? 
quote:
They give you Page numbers and titles!
|
Ooh, page numbers and titles. Well, then, it must be true, even though the webpage is biased. And titles like _Righteous Victims_ and _Expulsion Of The Palestinians_ certainly inspire a lot of confidence in those books open-mindedness.
quote:
Don't trust them, get the book, check out the quote, see if they took it out of context. |
Tell me, did you look up those books? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why not? They didn't go to war, did they? In the end, they talked and decided not to fight, right? Why? 100 years ago, they would have started to tussel right then and there. Democratic reforms change countries. It changes their leaders, their people. They don't want to fight against people that share their norms and ideals.
They have no compunction about fighting non-democratic states because they DON'T share their norms. They are closed, secretive, barbaric societies to them. They don't have 'civilized' goverance. |
You still have no basis for any of those statements. Gathering a fact, and giving me an explination of the fact are two different things. Everyone knew that what goes up must come down well before they knew why so. Do you have any theoreticl underpinnings for any of the statements you make above? How do "democratic reforms change countires"? what is the method of that change? how does it affect the passions? how does it change the desired choices of individuals? what is the mechanism? You say people don;t want to fight those that share thier norms and ideas? Where does the line devide? how many norms and ideas must people share in order for this to be true? What accounts for civil wars then? is it only wth political norms? Or do economic, and moral norms matter was well?
All of those are what seem to me to be basic question to which porponents of "democratci peace" have ye to give me an answer I have seen.
quote:
OF COURSE!! I've never seen a democratic leader that has not been risk averse.
|
Is that so? How is our current dmeocratic leader risk averse? How was kennedy risk averse? (more than, lets say, his counterparts?)
quote:
If you really think that Germany in 1914 was a democracy, you must be seriously smoking something. |
Oh, come on! How could you not get the obviosu meaning of what I said?!
Hmm, why would France and the Uk fight each other when there were other European powers to worry about? Like,. I don;t know, Germany!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Hmm, why would France and the Uk fight each other when there were other European powers to worry about? Like,. I don;t know, Germany! |
Weren't France and Great Britain allied (with Russia)? ie, the Triple Entente? Seems like that would be a good reason to fight together...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
You still have no basis for any of those statements. Gathering a fact, and giving me an explination of the fact are two different things. Everyone knew that what goes up must come down well before they knew why so. Do you have any theoreticl underpinnings for any of the statements you make above? |
How is there ANY basis for any theory according to you? What is the basis for balance of power? Or power transition? Or better yet, what is the basis for the theory that democracy is better than authoritarianism? The answer will be like the answer I've given you. There is no 'proof' only theoretical underpinnings.
I've given you the underpinnings of the theory. Take them or leave them, I don't care. I've given you an answer, you just don't want to listen to it. I've told you that people in democratic countries don't want to fight those that share their views. I don't see why I have to give a basis for that... it's common sense!
quote:
Is that so? How is our current dmeocratic leader risk averse? How was kennedy risk averse? (more than, lets say, his counterparts?) |
Yes, and probably yes, if we define his counterparts as all democratic politicians. They weren't risky, they tried to mitigate the risk. Kennedy, by negotiating and giving up something, and Bush has only fought wars that he was sure of winning easily and against regimes he could characterize as evil.
quote:
Hmm, why would France and the Uk fight each other when there were other European powers to worry about? Like,. I don;t know, Germany! |
When? In 1900? At that time Britain and Germany were on good terms with each other. Why would Britain wish to fight someone that wasn't threatening it? It only started to turn on Germany after the Kaiser's naval building program, when Britain began to feel threatened.
And France always hated Germany as well as Britain.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Edan:
did you look up from the bibliography in the idiots guide to make sure that they were correct?
|
Well, of course not. If I did that I'd be looking up bibliographies till doomsday. But I have read other books that correspond to what is stated in it (Zionism and The Arabs before WW1, Jerusalem:songs of songs, The Problem of Palestine, etc)
quote:
Can you get me any better sources than the idiots guide? I will be much better than any of you 'doubters". give me a source from any site, even one called ZIONISTARERIGHTFOREVER.com. , as long as they site their sources. |
You don't get it. But if you must have such a site, here, it took me all of 2 minutes to find this site. I can't verify anything on that site (and the source it lists certainly isn't listed in the Complete Idiot's Guide), nor do I want to bother to. However, feel free to do so yourself. And If that doesn't satisduy you, I could always list the 150+ sources from the Complete Idiot Book....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Edan
Weren't France and Great Britain allied (with Russia)? ie, the Triple Entente? Seems like that would be a good reason to fight together... |
No, not in 1895, which is the date we are discussing.
quote:
I've given you the underpinnings of the theory. Take them or leave them, I don't care. I've given you an answer, you just don't want to listen to it. I've told you that people in democratic countries don't want to fight those that share their views. I don't see why I have to give a basis for that... it's common sense! |
It is not common sense! You claim that dmeocratic peoples shre this common love of liberty, and thus they won;t fight each other..yet, they will make themsleves the undemocratic rulesr over millions of people? There was no such thing as "England" all be itself. There was the United Kingdom, which was at the head of the British Empire. What percentage of those that swore alliegence to the British crown had the right to vote? A man in London won;t want to fight a man in Paris becuase of some common sense of Liberte, fraternite, whatever..but them damn subhumans out there outside of Europe, why they don't count???? You are trying to apply your own definition back in time. Would a man in London in 1905 speaks bout the horribly undemocratic nature of the South africans? What abot the Boers, and the Transvaal republic (the whole Boer war)? When they were thinking, hmm, lets go to war with England, surely the first thing they though was: it's OK, the Brits aren't democracts, after all.... Come on, you are trying to interpose vaues upon others retrocatively.
Oh, and as for 1895..Maybe the French did not go to war precisely becuase the Brits had good relations with germany, and the brits did not go to war with France becuase France had just allied itself with Russia...both of which would be caues having nothing to do with democracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
No, not in 1895, which is the date we are discussing.
|
Oops. (Slowly backs away from conversation).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
I looke dat your site edan, and again, same quote, BUT NO SOURCE given. Where did that number come from?
my site tells you were they got thier number form, which scholar satted it. Does the idiots guide give you a foot note or end note? you say they have 150 sources, oh great, which of those 150 sources made that claim?
I could write a 20 age article saying there were 500,000 people living there, give 500 sources, and ytou know what, you would never be able to know if I was right or wrong based just on that, since you would have to read all 500 sopurces to tell me "none of your sources say that", and since you can;t [possibly read 500 books, you could never disprove me, could you?
You have written acadmeic reports before, no doubt? If you had a paper, and you stated a number such as that, and gave no citation (endnote, footnnote, or another type), would your porfessor have acceoed it, no matter how long was your bibliography? I don;t think so.
I don;t think asking for some sort of citation for such a fact is uncalled for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
A man in London won;t want to fight a man in Paris becuase of some common sense of Liberte, fraternite, whatever..but them damn subhumans out there outside of Europe, why they don't count???? |
Are you really serious?! Do you actually believe what you just said? Who is trying to impose modern values back in time now?
Of course the British would treate people outside of Europe the same as those that have seen the enlightenment and adopted the ideas of democracy as those in Europe .
quote:
Would a man in London in 1905 speaks bout the horribly undemocratic nature of the South africans? What abot the Boers, and the Transvaal republic (the whole Boer war)? |
He would definetly be thinking about it. Those damn savages, they aren't even civilized enough to have any democratic governance. They don't share any of the values that I hold dear to my heart. Definetly play a role.
quote:
Oh, and as for 1895..Maybe the French did not go to war precisely becuase the Brits had good relations with germany, and the brits did not go to war with France becuase France had just allied itself with Russia...both of which would be caues having nothing to do with democracy. |
I doubt it. Allies didn't stop WW1, and it wouldn't have stopped a Franco-British war in the 1890s. The Germans, for one weren't allied to Britain, so wouldn't come in, and secondly, no one took Russia seriously as a Great Power... especially their navy.
It was because times had changed, both countries were now democratic and decided to, instead of pulling the trigger first, to negotiate and discuss things. After all, they were parliamentarians, who's kids would be going off to war, and they could be voted out if it turned out badly. No way they'd risk that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I looke dat your site edan, and again, same quote, BUT NO SOURCE given. Where did that number come from?
|
You may have looked at dat site, but did you actually read it?
1Carl Voss, The Palestine Problem Today, Israel and Its Neighbors, (MA: Beacon Press, 1953), p. 13.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Edan:
did you look up from the bibliography in the idiots guide to make sure that they were correct?
Let me guess...the envelope please? NO!
And yes, edan, I do prefer sources that tell me outright what their sources are, where they got what they are telling me. It is far more difficult to make sh1t up when you put out there were you claim you got it from (as the Twain misquote form the innitial article proves).
quote:
Tell me, did you look up those books? |
Just as much as you did. I guess I am just a thourought with my research as you......
Can you get me any better sources than the idiots guide? I will be much better than any of you 'doubters". give me a source from any site, even one called ZIONISTARERIGHTFOREVER.com. , as long as they site their sources. |
why on earth would any of the Israeli or Jewish posters or supporters post a link , ....
cause for the simple fact if they are posted you ignore them or say they are a bunch of crap , ...
if you can post here you can find the facts yourself , just use a searchengine , .... it cant be that hard , ... 
if you are "thourought" with your research you can find the fatcs , .......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
Imran:
Why was the "democratic" tie to the French greater than lets say, the tie to the semi-democratic Germans, if there was an even bigger , more important differentiantion, European, or none European?
You are trying to claim that the distinction "democrat" is so important to people in dmeocraces they won;t fight other people in dmeocracies (which is why a dmeocratic leader may lose thier job, and thus be timid to act). OK, why is it more imnportant than the distinction: "European"? "worker"?, "capitalist"?, "Christian"?
You can show me that when deciding not to go to war in 1895, what the british and french leaders were thinking was : If i go to war against a fellow democracy, I will lose my job! But you can;t. Without being able to give me some quote to prove this, then you have to give me sound theoretical arguemnts, and as of yet, you havent made one, as to why the shared indentity of "democracy" is stronger than a whole other set of shared identities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Edan
No, you come on. I gave you exactly what you requested, despite the fact that didn't support that website or verify anything on it - for all I know, it could be completely made up. Just as easily as your site could be. I admit that, but you're a hypocrite, because any site you agree with, the sources are valid, any site you don't agree with aren't. At least I have physical books, and don't resort to looking things on the web (except when asked to, despite my doing so under protest.  ) |
My protest lies with how they made their citation. If I was as careless in my univeristy, i would not have done well.
Lets move on. can you give me a ocunter nuber to the one saying that as of 1924, the population was only 8% Jewish, out of over 500,000 people there?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
I read the beginning and the end of this thread. It began as an Arab-bashing thread and ended as an Israel-bashing thread. One would almost think that there are people on this forum that deliberately try to divert attention away from difficult issues involving the Arabs by blaming all their problems on Israel.
But getting back to the original topic of this thread, if one looks at how Palestinians were treated by individual Arab countries, such as how they were treated by the Kuwaitis and Jordanians, I can see justifications for what those two countries did. It is my understanding that the Palestinians (not just Arafat) openly sided with Saddam Hussein against the liberation of Kuwait. I think there is total justification by the Kuwait government in expelling the Palestinians.
In the case of Jordan, I believe that the Palestinians, led by Arafat and the PLO, revolted and were trying to take over the government of Jordan.
Now as to the situation in Lebanon, I do not have enough information about the situation there to make a judgment. The Lebanese government may have a good reason to not allow the Palestinians to become Lebanese citizens. They apparently allowed 25,000 become citizens; but somehow this has boomeranged on the Lebanese in some fashion. Before we can make a judgment here as to the rightness or wrongness the Lebanese government's action, I believe we need more information as to why they are thinking about revoking the citizenship of the 25,000.
However, that said, I simply do not understand how these Palestinian refugee camps can continue to exist nearly 60 years after they were first created. This is not a simple matter of discrimination by non-Palestinian Arabs against the Palestinians. The camps continue to exist even in the West Bank and Gaza. All involved in keeping these camps in existence for such a long time deserve to be condemned in harsh terms.
I think the UN is partly to blame because they do not put a time limit on how long they will continue to fund the camps nor do they place any requirement on the governments that host the camps that they must make permanent disposition of the refugees. Keeping the camps in existence for such a long time only makes the ultimate settlement between Israel and the Palestinians more difficult, just as the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza make peace more difficult. If the UN truly was for peace, it would do everything in its power to make a permanent disposition of the Palestinian refugees in Arab lands particularly since it has no power to end the conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis.
This is not to say that a permanent disposition of the Palestinian refugees would amount to an abandonment of the refugees inherent right to compensation or to and abandonment of their right to return to the portion of Palestine that is now Israel. It is intended to alleviate their suffering while the war between Israel and the Arabs continues. But as we know, the number of Palestinians who would actually return to Palestine (Israel) will be far fewer if they were permanently settled in their host countries. Keeping them in the camps, not only extends their suffering, but it makes it far more likely that they will want to return to Palestine when there is peace. Obviously, this enormously complicates the issues involved in any peace settlement. Thus the UN position on the refugee camps perversely not only extends the suffering of the refugees, it helps prevent peace.
BTW, does anyone know how many refugees live in the camps outside of Palestine?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
I am not having it both ways: One thing i am always clear with is sources. Honestly look at the two sites given, the one I posted to, the one Edan posted too. LOOK at THEM. Read what they say, and how they say it. No one can be unbiased when it comes to this conflict, but as we all know from this forum, you can make an arguemnt well or you can make it badly.
All the peole bashing the site as biased: how many of you actually read it? I read Edans site, and besides the poor use of sitation, well, it gives you 2, and most of it is simple argument, without facts. The one I posted, well, it almost all sites, quotes, and may I point out, almost none from a Palestinian source.
For example, in the pro-zionist site quoted, you get the argument that since most palestinians were from newly arrived families, they had no tie to the land, and thus could not become refugees. Well, how mnay Israelis can trace thier families back more than 70 years themselves in that land? So the site is telling me that if there was a war tommorrow, and Eli, Siro, and Azazel were forced to flee from Israel due to a war, because none of them were actually born in the land, that they have no tie to it? That they would NOT be refugees? I am sorry, but not only is that argument totaly undocumented (the law defining refugees says nothing about a time span one must have lived there to become a refugee), but it is CRAP ON ITS FACE!
So no, i have no problem questioning the site Edan gave me, because unlike most people here, I actually read both, and the differences in style, in usefullness are vast, and the "bias" (you actualy mean, its politcal leaning) does nothing to detract from its value, or its effectiveness.
I am finding more and more that poeple here don;t seem to know how to honestly handle sources. If they don;t say what you like, well, ignore them: that is the surest way to a crap arguemnt, and to those waiting to say I want it both ways, well address my comment about the method of quotation: I assume you al go, or have gone, to some sort of higher education, one which calls for you to create research papers: tell me that site does a good job: look at them both as if you were a professor, and tell me which of them makes a stronger case, a case with evidence. Are they equal?
quote:
BTW, does anyone know how many refugees live in the camps outside of Palestine? |
The UN would telly ou, as they handle the camps and must eep the data. it is certainly more than one million.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-05-2003 23:48
|