 |
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Whose land was it in 1945?
|
British.
quote:
I've heard something like 3 x as many Palestinians have died as Isreali Jews, why?
|
Try comparing the number of civilians (eg, not terrorists, gunmen, etc) that died - the numbers are about the same. And given that Israel easily has the power to kill many many more, and has been working to decrease the number of civilian deaths.
quote:
Have these offers of "peace" included a sovereign Palestinian state |
Yes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
I don't think that the punishment was harsh enough. But it's rather similar to palestinian cases, so that point is void. |
quote:
Their defense attorney complained about the
sentence, saying that Arab would-be suicide
bombers are given lighter sentences than his
clients. |
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/...l?itemNo=345552
Of course, he would be biased.
Last edited by Edan on 01-10-2003 at 03:13
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
"I'd like to get along, but he started it, its his fault"
 |
That's not what I've said. I said that getting along as in living peacefully in respective countries, I accept that. Living in the same country: no way.
quote:
obviously it is not meaningless if people are willing to blow themselves up to kill Jews. During the Indian wars, people called them savages (yesterday's terrorists) for retaliating against settlements. That can't justify murdering the innocent, but to ignore the catalyst for such behavior is shortsighted.
|
Again, if you're talking about individual property: I already talked that I am willing and so are the Israeli governemnts, to compensate the loss of land, if the compensation will be resiprocated by the compensation of the Jewish property in arab countries. If you're talking about the ownership of that land as a 'nation', then since the area and the current 'indegenous' inhabitants were never a sovereign nation, that question is void, since then: We took it from the Brits who took it from the Ottoman empire, who took it..... during the last time the area was self-governed was about the last time we were here. 
quote:
Yes, both the Brits and the Turks mainly wanted resources, but they were still occupiers lacking the moral authority to keep or give away the land. The Israelis want more though, not that I blame them for wanting their own state, but it was a big mistake giving them that land. Think of all the violence that could have been avoided if the west let them stay in peace instead of trying to push the problem off on others.
|
Think of all of the violence that could've been avoided if the arabs would accepted the emergence of the Israeli state! 
.
.
.
irrelevant. 'What if's are for civilization games, and apolyton threads, sadly.
quote:
Oerdin started this thread to show there is no "moral equivelance", i.e., one side is bad, the other is good.
|
"One side is better than the other" is hardly black and white.
quote:
You don't think 3x as many people killed by "heavy equipment" is just a bit peculiar?
|
Erm, no. What does the amount of casualties both combatant and non-combatant has to do with moral value of it?
quote:
And trying to compare this to cars hitting pedestrians is illogical, you can't throw bombs around at people and then act as if the innocent killed by such reckless behavior was "unintentional".
|
You were making a certain comment on how you'd prefer to die. I said it was irrelelvant to the discussion.
quote:
That would be like using a machine gun on a crowd when someone in the crowd shoots at you.
|
A) more often than not, not a fair comparison. Cases of mistakenly identifying the victim as a threat, returning fire to a building, etc. are more often.
B) Not outlawed in the rules of war, and the geneva convention, btw.
quote:
I'd call that "involvement", but I heard he allowed a Christian militia to go in and slaughter a bunch of people as part of his plan. Perhaps you can explain what he has to answer for (your words) if he wasn't involved.
|
Yes, It was a direct order from the MoD, that was in the process of co-ordinating tens of thousands of troops to order a certain company to let the christian militia enter. His goal was pure blood.
I don't even think that about the suicide bombers.
What he HAS to answer for is purpetrating a war to install a friendly regime in Lebanon, Without the government's, and the Prime Minister's approval.
quote:
What part of "two wrongs don't make a right" do you find perplexing? If Arab dictators stole from Jews, that doesn't mean Jews can steal from other Arabs.
|
The part that it's gets kinda tiring to remain all the time with the 'historical justice' scroll in one hand, and the 'up yours!' note in the other.
quote:
Of course, but morality requires that once the combatants are done with their "adventures", they leave.
|
And we were ready to, for a lasting peace deal with the arab states. ( There is an Israeli governent memorandum on it from the late 60s. There is also a very nice answer to it in the Khartoum declaration.)
quote:
I'm not sure that qualifies as an endorsement
|
quote:
And he was a "terrorist" who got elected, that was my earlier point, both sides elect terrorists. |
okay, I can play along with that statement. Now how does this reflect on the rest of the arguement?
quote:
Azazel, correct me if I'm wrong, but according to that map, those triangles are Israeli settlements within Palestianian "sovereignty" (the lighter shade of brown).
|
The triangles inside the light-gray territory are the settlements to be removed. The blue spots in the Israeli territory are the ones to remain.
quote:
The IDF is the moral equivalent of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al_Aqsa brigades. |
quote:
The only difference is that Israel has said certain civilians are not allowed to murder Palestinians.This then is supposed to mean that Israel is somehow much more morally superior to the Palestinians?
|
quote? 
Seriously, I guess you know very little of what happens to such soldiers. It's not punishment enough, but saying that people don't get punished is a lie, as well. I know of people who have been jailed for that.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
That map looks like some kind of sick puppy pissing on Israel...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
Azazel - quote:
Again, if you're talking about individual property: I already talked that I am willing and so are the Israeli governemnts, to compensate the loss of land, if the compensation will be resiprocated by the compensation of the Jewish property in arab countries. |
So you guys will "compensate" for stolen land if other thieves will do the same? Gee, I'll stop murdering people if someone else does too.
quote:
If you're talking about the ownership of that land as a 'nation', then since the area and the current 'indegenous' inhabitants were never a sovereign nation, that question is void, since then: We took it from the Brits who took it from the Ottoman empire, who took it..... during the last time the area was self-governed was about the last time we were here. |
That's a bogus argument, it doesn't matter if the people living there were a "nation". That's like saying the USSR could have morally kept eastern Europe since Germany conquered it first and abolished the victim's nationhood.
quote:
Think of all of the violence that could've been avoided if the arabs would accepted the emergence of the Israeli state! |
Yeah, all those people who are robbed of their land should just keep quiet and embrace the people who took their lands.
quote:
irrelevant. 'What if's are for civilization games, and apolyton threads, sadly. |
Apparently it is relevant or there wouldn't be a problem over there. Arabs aren't crossing the Atlantic to bomb Jews in NYC...
quote:
"One side is better than the other" is hardly black and white. |
Tell that to Oerdin.
quote:
Erm, no. What does the amount of casualties both combatant and non-combatant has to do with moral value of it? |
When one side is portrayed as causing all or most of the death and destruction while the other side has actually killed ~3x as many people, that argument takes on the appearance of a peculiarity to say the least.
quote:
You were making a certain comment on how you'd prefer to die. I said it was irrelelvant to the discussion. |
Irrelevant? Hardly, over here we get a picture of brutal savages blowing up children while these numbers are rarely mentioned. Your "justification" for these numbers was "heavy equipment",
meaning you guys are just guilty of being sloppy?
quote:
A) more often than not, not a fair comparison. Cases of mistakenly identifying the victim as a threat, returning fire to a building, etc. are more often.
B) Not outlawed in the rules of war, and the geneva convention, btw. |
If it's a war and killing civilians is acceptable (albeit perhaps lamentable?), then why complain about the bombings of civilians? Yes, ~3x as many Arabs are "mistakenly" killed...
quote:
The part that it's gets kinda tiring to remain all the time with the 'historical justice' scroll in one hand, and the 'up yours!' note in the other. |
You can't ignore recent history, the people who got screwed won't. And telling them they'll be compensated when someone else comensates you won't convince them you have the moral high ground.
quote:
And we were ready to, for a lasting peace deal with the arab states. |
But not the Arabs living there. What is the "right of return"? Isn't that about Arabs who fled their lands during these wars only for the victors to keep what was theirs when they came back?
quote:
okay, I can play along with that statement. Now how does this reflect on the rest of the arguement? |
You expressed confusion when I said both sides elect terrorists.
quote:
The triangles inside the light-gray territory are the settlements to be removed. The blue spots in the Israeli territory are the ones to remain. |
Ah, okay. But I thought that was sovereign lands belonging to the Arabs, so why are there any settlements there to begin with?
Btw, can you identify the source of your quotes, you mixed 3 people into your last post.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
The American peoples intention in Iraq is evil.
Obviously Saddam Hussein is better than the people of America.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catfish
|
|
Wollongong, Australia
Aug 2000
time: 14:31
|
|
I don't have time wade through all these posts, but I stumbled on this:
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Oh yeah, he was involved with that slaughter (oops, "adventure"). So, which PM was bombing British soldiers a few decades ago? |
David Ben-Gurion is the one you're thinking of - responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, amongst other things.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:31
|
|
How, well typical an ME thread. Do these rulings show a moral superiority of the Israeli side? No. They show that the rule of law is followed in the Israeli side more often than the Palestinians side: only if you define following the law as inherently moral, regardless of the law does this conjure any sort of "moral superiority". Both sides commit criminal acts:different criminal acts yes, both both criminal.
Oh, and on Sharon: what first made his famous was a 1953 incident: a group of pas infiltrated into Israel (common enough back in 1953) and they ambushed a car, killing a woman and her two children. In retaliation, the Israelis launched a raid into the west bank, held by jordan then, to discourage further attacks. Sharon and his unit went inot the village and blew most of the hosues up. They did not particualrly give the inhabitants the time to leave though..over 60 inhabitants of the village were killed (67 people I believe). This lead to widespread international condemnation.
Finally, to say the land was British is incorrect. Britain held a "tusteeship": in essence, Britian was the designated the legal guardian of the land util the people of it were ready for self-rule. This does not make the land English though. Of course, the problems inherent in trying to create a Jewsih homeland delayed the end of the trusteeship beyond the end of all the other ones in the ME (sych as Transjordan, Iraq, Syria, lebanon)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So a council of thieves gave the biggest thief the land. There was a revolution. The Arabs had overthrown the Turks with Brit help. To take their "Leage" alloted protectorates, though, they had to invade, and bomb, and conquer these aeras from the Arab people.
The Allies had promised the Arabs independence, the Jews Palestine, and themelves the oil. They only kept one of those promises. |
I'd take the history presented in the movie "Lawrence of Arabia" with a grain of salt. The British were responsible for the overwhelming majority of the victories in Palestine, Transjordan, Syria and Iraq. The portrayal of Lawrence's Arabs as taking al Aquaba and then fighting their way northward in parallel with the British Army is total bunk. Al Aquaba wasn't taken from the south by the Arabs, but instead fell to a British column coming from the norhteast. The British took Damascus
weeks before Lawrence's Arab League arrived. The British then made Transjordan, Syria and Iraq into puppet kingdoms doled out to various Arabian families, some of whom were relatives of the house of Saud, others of whom were rivals. All of them were given their posts as a means of getting them out of the hair of the Saudis so that the Saudi royals could go about their business of consolidating their grip on all of modern Arabia in order to provide a safe comfy environment for the British to drill oil in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
David Ben-Gurion is the one you're thinking of - responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, amongst other things. |
Sorry Catfish, the name just doesn't ring a bell although the incident sounds familiar. I thought it was Begin, but I'm not up on recent history over there.
Oerdin - quote:
Most of the land belonged to the Ottoman Sultan since most of the land was uninhabited and, in the Treaty of Versailles, the Ottomans ceded the land to the British. Clearly if the recognized sovereign of a land cedes the land to another sovereign then they are the legitamite owners. This legitamacy was further sanctified by the League of Nations reaffirming British ownership. |
Sorry, but dictators laying claim to a land via force doesn't create legitimacy (the scene of Dennis explaining this to King Arthur in Monty Python & the Holy Grail comes to mind ).
And I seriously doubt most of the land was uninhabited, but the people who were there had the best claim of legitimacy, not some Turkish Sultan and not the Brits... While the past is past, resentment over these sovereign powers playing chess with other people's lands doesn't die easy. Too bad the west (and the US) was so anti-Jew following WWII even after what the Nazis did, there was plenty of room for European Jews wanting to leave Europe for the US and the mess created over there could have been avoided.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-10-2003 02:26
|