Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 95
  1. #61
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by hellraiserzlo View Post
    This was a conquested region of swamps and deserts, there was no palestinian nationalism that existed here, if anything there was a "british", before that a turkish and many others.
    People did live here, but there wasn't anything stable here that would lead to what there is now.
    If you actually believe your own line that a people under colonial rule don't want independence, then I have to dismiss your view as painfully, awkwardly self-serving.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  2. #62
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Nahru2 View Post
    Although, You are correct that I would, perhaps, view this particular conflict as an occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel, even after centuries past. But that is not something which should surprise You. Just because time passes does not magically make something different than it really is. Ottoman Empire, for example, occupied and conquered many countries centuries ago. Still, historians generally do not see such acts as something other than conquest, just because time has past. It was conquest (and not, for example, self-defence) and it still is regarded as such - because that is what it was (as far as I know).
    Yes. Historians will, of course, view it as conquest. And so will the people if they know about it.

    Again, I cite France and Germany. Maybe some topics are a bit sensitive still, but by and large, the PEOPLE get along well. And THAT is the importan thing

    Or, to go with 'merica. What we did to the Native Americans can, at best, be called "A dick move" (closer to genocide and ethnic cleansing).j And I am ashamed that my country did it. But I personally feel no shame or guilt, and most Native Americans I have met understand: The white guy they are talking to isn't the same white guy who gave their ancestors plague blankets".


    And just because a thousand years, more or less, has passed does not make such crusades anything other than what they were - crusades. When it comes to relationship You mention, I suppose that similar thing would be achieved with Jews, were it not for the decades-long occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel, which is a much newer conflict than many of the wars with Christian countries. And I suppose that at one point in time one simply would need to get over the grudge based on past happenings - not necessarily forgive or forget, but not use those past happenings as an argument to do something now.
    Which once more gets us back to: hat is the cut off? When does the hurt become history?

    More about the relationship with Christians. There were, in recent years, wars or conflicts, and there still are, where Christian-based countries, or populations, acted as aggressors against Muslims, and in those parts of the world the hatred towards Christians (whether such hatred is justified or not) is very real. Still, I do not know of any recent conflict which has lasted for so long, and in the same time has been detrimental to Muslims, other than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I suppose that the very length of that conflict is additionally promoting hatred or intolerance toward Jews in the Middle East.
    ...

    Let's say 70 years for Isreal-Palestine conflict (there were jews in Palestine before that, but let's pretend it isn't PURELY religious hate. The hardcore immigration only began as a result of the events leading up to/following from WWWII).
    The tribal warfare has been going on for at least as long (since much of it is a result of the half-assed border drawing the European powers did following both World Wars) and I would think Muslim-on-Muslim violence hurts more muslims than Israel-on-Palestine (or Arab-on-Israel), although I guess one could argue that the Israelis are just REALLY good at beating the crap out of nations that come at them.

    Also, the Crusades went on for about 700 years.
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  3. #63
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Kadayi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,312
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Again, there is a difference between deciding who owns what region and if people are property.
    What's slavery got to do with what I posted? I'm talking about the civil rights movement and apathied. You're aware that under apathied that blacks were forcely relocated on masse by the SA government to particular regions and that widespread segregation was enforced with whites only areas. You don't see any parallels with what happened there with what's been happening in Palestine with the settlements that have been going up and the gradual ongoing displacement of the Palestinians?

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    So now I am a racist?
    Are you? I don't know (I wasn't asking). I do find it peculiar that you seem wholly fixated on what's best for the US with regard to the state of the world and are seemingly incapable of considering matters from a broader global perspective though.

    Except that the Arab culture is one where social status and perceived power is very important.
    Really? ......

    Except that Western European culture is one where social status and perceived power is very important.
    Except that the Japanese culture is one where social status and perceived power is very important.
    Except that North American culture is one where social status and perceived power is very important.
    A broad assertion that can be universally applied to pretty much any group it seems. No more sound a barometer of truth or insight than the horoscope in a Sunday paper.

    Again, you are so quick to cite Germany in WWII. You DO realize that France had a pretty good inkling of what was coming their way (there were one or two nations in the way) and that Germany didn't just show up at Paris with tanks. They blew stuff up along the way. And you DO realize it took the Allied Forces a while to blast their way through Germany, right?
    Having studied history I'm fairly conversant with the events of WWII. However I fail to see how what happened then is remotely relevant to how modern warfare is conducted. In an age of satellites, guided missiles and night vision the rules of engagement have radically changed as evinced by the Gulf war and the liberation of Iraq. Also I think it needs to be pointed out, Israel is just not that big place when you get down to it, and none of the occupied territories really represent much of a buffer in the event of a determined opponent.

    http://www.nationsonline.org/maps/israel_map.jpg

    In fact you could fit the entire region into good ole Texas 31.5 times: -

    http://mapfight.appspot.com/texas-vs...ize-comparison

    28.6 times into France

    http://mapfight.appspot.com/fr-vs-il...ize-comparison

    6.4 times into New York state

    http://mapfight.appspot.com/us.ny-vs...ize-comparison

    Hell, even Hawaii is bigger: -

    http://mapfight.appspot.com/us.hi-vs...ize-comparison


    I'm sorry Kad, I should have realized that it would be too difficult for people to understand the distinction between the people of a nation/culture and their political leaders. I REALLY should have clarified that.
    Neither country is a dictatorship so it's a moot point to claim a massive distinction between the people and their elected representatives.

    Oh wait, I did. You just decided to try and misrepresent my argument in an attempt to villify me. Then you responded to my argument by basically saying "Palestinian good, Israel bad, you stupid"
    You vilify yourself with the absurdity of your statements. Your attempt to give equal weight to those under occupation and the occupier, but singularly fail to acknowledge that military occupation and colonisation is inherently wrong. There is no point of equality in terms of position which is why your repeated analogy of children squabbling as if each is equal in position is so off base. You might as well be defending a rapist by claiming that the girl was asking for it due to her low cut top. Doesn't matter how you spin it, rape is still a crime. When Kuwait was invaded by Iraq was anyone going 'Well hang on a cotton picking minute here, maybe they're entitled to invade?'

    Personally all I want is peace in the middle east. I don't view the present situation as being conducive to delivering it, and I think until it's resolved in a meaningful fashion it will continue to cause problems that extend beyond itself. Personally I'd favour the UN getting directly involved and reestablishing the internationally recognized boundaries, with the potential for negotiation on certain areas already occupied. That to me would be the way to move forward, so we can collectively as a species concentrate on the important stuff like global population growth, climate change, sustainability & expansion beyond earth.
    Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil

    Tradition is the tyranny of dead men

    Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi GFWL: Kadayi

    Probable Replicant

    *blush* I'm flattered by the attention boys, but please let's not make the thread about liddle old me

    Quote Originally Posted by Finicky View Post
    Kadayi will remain the worst poster on the interwebs.
    Gifmaster 4000 2014 Year of the Gif

    He who controls the Doge controls the universe

  4. #64
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,284
    ...

    Yeah, Nahru, if you want to keep discussing this, I would love to. While I do find issue with some of the core of your argument, it has been a fun discussion.

    Kad: Give me a shout when you are done trying to paint me as an evil warlord who wants to oppress everyone (or are at least willing to base that painting off of what I am posting, now how you are randomly twisting things in the hopes nobody reads the post you are quoting). But thanks for being a WONDERFUL example of why it is best to use facts to form opinions rather than opinions to manipulate facts.
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  5. #65
    Network Hub Nahru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    ...

    Yeah, Nahru, if you want to keep discussing this, I would love to. While I do find issue with some of the core of your argument, it has been a fun discussion...
    Alright. Know that I am in Europe, so even in the best of cases it may take a while to post, especially if I am busy.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Yes. Historians will, of course, view it as conquest. And so will the people if they know about it.
    Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that you, to a degree at least, dislike historians and "official" history, which we learn in school(s) (if there is such a thing as "official history"). Which is okay with me, from a certain perspective. Majority of my knowledge about the past events I have acquired in high school, and it was even then (many years ago) that I realised how history is almost but a recollection of past wars - bloody and terrible as a history of humankind shows. I also realised that some of the historical facts were either relativised, misinterpreted and misrepresented, or in some other way manipulated so as to achieve something other than telling the truth.

    With that said, I still think that even such, "regular" history books contains at least some truth, and they are not to be completely dismissed. Of course, the problem lies in separating the truth from that which is not, especially if it is about complex matters. Perhaps that is the reason - the complexity - why history books can used in early education of children and teenagers cannot really dabble into the "grey areas", since the scope and complexity would be too much. I believe that for kids to learn anything at all it needs to be presented as simple as possible. That is where this age's modern technology (mainly the Internet) and relatively easy access to information, differing opinions and stances, comes into play, as one can then see all the complexity of any one particular matter.

    Again, with that said, I am still the one whose beliefs, to a certain and necessary degree, shape my understanding and viewing of matters. One of such beliefs, though not really only beliefs as there are philosophical schools with the same position, is that certain things are absolute. Thus, and this is one of the points of disagreement between you and me, I hold the position that in a war, one of the sides really can be considered victim, despite everything (as I have stated multiple times in previous posts), while the other side really can be considered an attacker/aggressor/transgressor/similar. This is a position which I cannot leave, as that would invalidate lots of things which I know and believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Again, I cite France and Germany. Maybe some topics are a bit sensitive still, but by and large, the PEOPLE get along well. And THAT is the importan thing
    Yes, but the war in which France and Germany were embroiled ended around 70 years ago, while the war (conflict), which is the topic of this thread, still exists. I think that many French were quite angry with the Germans in years following the end of WW2. But the conflict ended, and should France have decided to use its position as a relative victor in the war to start occupying and gradually destroying Germany, I doubt they would get along quite nicely. Which is actually the point - you cannot "get along well", or even have much tolerance, towards someone who is quite obviously partaking in the occupation (Israeli illegal settlers), or is supporting the continuation of war. There are countries, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH), where Christians (if I am to designate a group by its adherence to a particular religion; not that I think their religion promotes or justifies what they have done) have been, quite obviously from my point of view, the ones committing the majority of atrocities - especially, as far as I know, since they were, in many instances, systematically done by them, while the atrocities committed by Muslims were, in majority, isolated cases, at least as far as I know. Still, the (civil) war ended around 20 years ago, and people from all the religions get along relatively well. Though, the memory of the events is still fresh, so many are still suspicious of others, but what I want to say is that majority of Muslims of BH, I think, do not want to use past events as an excuse to start doing the same thing which was done to them. For if that were the case, they would bring themselves to the same position (of aggressor) their enemies were - and that would make them no better than others.

    But the same cannot be applied to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as that one still lasts, and Israel, from my perspective, is the main factor promoting it. I do not think that one could reasonably expect Palestinians to simply be happy with the Israeli neighbours, because they are being occupied by them. The same can be said for Israeli, who are being targeted by Palestinian guerrilla warriors. Still, my position about their roles are clear (as you know already) - Israel is the attacker (generally speaking) and Palestine is the victim. No amount of atrocities committed by either side will change that.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Or, to go with 'merica. What we did to the Native Americans can, at best, be called "A dick move" (closer to genocide and ethnic cleansing).j And I am ashamed that my country did it. But I personally feel no shame or guilt, and most Native Americans I have met understand: The white guy they are talking to isn't the same white guy who gave their ancestors plague blankets".
    Oh I understand. As I stated, events of the past cannot necessarily be used as an excuse to do something now. Just because the United Kingdom (UK) have acted as aggressors towards many, occupying and annexing other people's lands, including some Muslim countries, and have perhaps done something terrible to the people of those lands in the process, does neither mean nor justifies a retaliation in equal measure (or any retaliation at all - which is my position) against them now. The people who acted as conquerors in the name of the UK a century ago are not the ones (not the majority at least) who live in the UK now. Also, similar to the position of my religion about sins, sins committed by my ancestors (not excluding actions in a war which are disallowed), are neither mine nor anyone's else, and I cannot and will not, as far as I know, be asked about them.

    There are many dreadful things which Muslims have done to one another. But I, to my knowledge, am not allowed to hold a grudge against descendants of the ones who committed such acts - because they (the descendants) are not responsible for it.



    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Which once more gets us back to: hat is the cut off? When does the hurt become history?
    First I feel the need to once more reiterate one of my positions. Somewhere in this thread, though I have no wish to search for it at the moment, I think you said something like "when are we supposed to stop caring (what is the cutoff) for the people involved in continuous war or conflict?". If this is not what you have said, then I have misunderstood you and I apologise for implying it. Nonetheless, as I have already said, as a Muslim, to my knowledge, it is a duty (obligation) for every Muslim to care for another Muslim, no matter the physical distance between them. This is a general rule - meaning it does not apply only to the Muslims which are in a war, but to all Muslims, for example those struck by natural disasters; every Muslim is obliged, as far as I know, to be concerned with every other Muslim's well-being.

    With that said, I may have misunderstood you the first time, but I understand the above quoted words of yours. The answer, as you probably presume, is not a black and white one. I think that the answer to this question very much relies on many factors, including but not limited to: for how long the conflict has lasted, how terrible in terms of casualties and material destruction the conflict was/is, who was, if any, the victim (NOTE: a point of disagreement between us, so this may not have any value to you, but it has for me), what were the reasons for war (I believe that a war for resources is still regarded by many as less "evil" than the war to simply eradicate members of one religion for example; though, of course, war is usually caused by combination of these things, rather than by exclusively by one, i think) and, which I consider very important, how long has passed since the end of the war/conflict.

    My position about this particular matter is: there can be no arbitrarily devised cutoff, as one could not expect, I think, to simply say "Okay people, listen up. It has passed x[y(z)] years, and you should stop being grumpy about it now - it is the rule". Like I said, there are probably various factors involved that contribute to this matter. Secondly, I believe that, for as long as a conflict persists, one cannot expect people involved in that conflict (and, by extension, everyone else who cares for it) to stop having a grudge. Because, how could they - if they are being oppressed by a particular entity (a foreign state, for example) (NOTE again: my position about Palestinians is that they are being oppressed, which differs from your view of the matter, at least if I have understood you correctly), it is expected that they will not simply hail their oppressors. Thirdly, so as to not be understood wrongly, the "hurt", as in having true desire and feeling of grudge against someone/something, in my opinion should be differed from the "not forgiving"/"not forgetting". And I am not saying that due to a lack of forgiveness one side has the right to do what the other side did to the first. Nor I am saying that due to not forgetting one should do the same.

    When it comes to forgiveness, I can chose not to forgive some Israeli soldier what he or she has done to some Muslim, but I shall not use that "not forgiving" as an excuse to cause any harm to that soldier's offspring. Like I said, the sins of the ancestors are not in the same time the sins of the descendants.

    When it comes to not forgetting - it is not that I do not want to forget because I want that memory of past events to be used as an excuse to do something in the present, but because, among other things, I want to be reminded that I need to be careful to whom I can trust in the present or the future, lest that which I remember happens again.


    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Let's say 70 years for Isreal-Palestine conflict (there were jews in Palestine before that, but let's pretend it isn't PURELY religious hate. The hardcore immigration only began as a result of the events leading up to/following from WWWII).
    The tribal warfare has been going on for at least as long (since much of it is a result of the half-assed border drawing the European powers did following both World Wars) and I would think Muslim-on-Muslim violence hurts more muslims than Israel-on-Palestine (or Arab-on-Israel), although I guess one could argue that the Israelis are just REALLY good at beating the crap out of nations that come at them.

    Also, the Crusades went on for about 700 years.
    I have no time at the moment, but I will see to it that I say something about this as well. Although I think I have pretty much covered it, from my point of view, with the preceding text.

    EDIT: When it comes to violence between Muslims themselves, you are correct that much more harm has been caused by it, when compared to Israel-Palestinian conflict. Still, it has nothing to do with how this particular conflict is perceived. Just because there were conflicts between Muslims themselves which had more people killed in them does not in any way make this conflict any less important.
    Last edited by Nahru; 21-09-2013 at 02:15 PM.

  6. #66
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Nahru2 View Post
    Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that You, to a degree at least, dislike historians and "official" history, which we learn in school(s) (if there is such a thing as "official history"). Which is okay with me, from a certain perspective. Majority of my knowledge about the past events I have acquired in high school, and it was even then (many years ago) that I realised how history is almost but a recollection of past wars - bloody and terrible as a history of humankind shows. I also realised that some of the historical facts were either relativised, misinterpreted and misrepresented, or in some other way manipulated so as to achieve something other than telling the truth.
    As taught in school, yeah I have an issue with that. Mostly because, at least in American schools, they tend to half-ass it. We spent three weeks on the events leading up to The American Civil War (well, more like 10 years when you factor in all the Black History Months that mostly just consist of "Slavery bad, Abraham Lincoln, Harriet Tubman, and Rosa Parks good"), two months on the Reconstruction, and half a day on the war itself that boiled down to "lots of people died". I was fortunate to go to a good high school where we did discuss the real reasons (states rights and issues with how the electoral college works, basically), but there was still a reason why the elective courses that go deeper into the history were so popular (my Military History teacher loved to say "in my class, you find out that there actually WAS a Civil War and that the world didn't end shortly before World War I"

    No, my main issue is that people try to say "Side X were the good guys" solely from what they read in a textbook, usually made by one of the countries on side X.

    Using WWII for example. If you compare a book written in the US, a book written in France, a book written in Britain, and a GOOD book written in Germany (so not one of the ones that say "We were on vacation"), you get a VERY different picture. The US and France mostly agree that Germany were the aggressors and that the Allied forces liberated France, but the French book will heavily emphasize La Resistance and explain WHY a surrender saved so many more lives. The German book will acknowledge they "started" WWII, but will also VERY heavily emphasize the economic woes and prejudices from WWI that allowed the core of the g-bomb to come to power. The British will spend the entire book on how they are the most hardcore badasses in the world for surviving The Battle of Britain :p

    That is why it is important to get multiple perspectives and to try to separate the facts from propaganda.

    Using the occupation by Israel for example. It is a FACT that Israel occupied territories after the Six-Day War. But let's look closer

    1. WHY did they do it?
    a. Because they are money grubbing Jews who want to hide their jew-gold?
    b. Because they were afraid of a future land war and wanted to extend their borders?
    c. Because they want to assert their dominance over the region (possibly for the same reasons as b, possibly for the same reasons as a)
    2. Is what they did really unprecedented?
    a. Honestly, it is pretty common for a nation to, at least temporarily, occupy a conquered region. Sometimes for reconstruction, mostly to just keep their boot against the proverbial throat.
    b. How much of it being "illegal" is a matter of UN politics? It isn't like we 'mericans left iraq and afghanistan until we were damned well ready to
    c. Should legality have anything to do with what is morally or ethically correct?

    Again, perspective GREATLY flavors events. Killing in self defense becomes murder. Religious hate becomes "freedom fighting" or "security".

    With that said, I still think that even such, "regular" history books contains at least some truth, and they are not to be completely dismissed. Of course, the problem lies in separating the truth from that which is not, especially if it is about complex matters. Perhaps that is the reason - the complexity - why history books can used in early education of children and teenagers cannot really dabble into the "grey areas", since the scope and complexity would be too much. I believe that for kids to learn anything at all it needs to be presented as simple as possible. That is where this age's modern technology (mainly the Internet) and relatively easy access to information, differing opinions and stances, comes into play, as one can then see all the complexity of any one particular matter.
    Yup. Fully agree.

    In college, I actually took a course on the history of the arab-israeli conflict. Fun side story: The first day the professor had everyone say why they were taking it. Half the class had "just finished a heritage trip and wanted to learn more about our ancestors", half "Wanted to gain a better understanding of the persecution of our people by the Israelis" and one, incredibly handsome and sexy and intelligent man said "I need a multicultural course for my engineering degree and this was the only one that won't cover stuff I already learned every February in grade school". While I won't pretend I am an expert (ESPECIALLY not for a college course), I did have a lot of personal conversations with the professor (I think because I was the only person who paid any attention to what he said...) and he was generally great about suggesting further reading in pairs: Something written by the Arab community and something written by an Israeli. Generally you can figure out what "really" happened by what they have in common.

    Again, with that said, I am still the one whose beliefs, to a certain and necessary degree, shape my understanding and viewing of matters. One of such beliefs, though not really only beliefs as there are philosophical schools with the same position, is that certain things are absolute. Thus, and this is one of the points of disagreement between You and me, I hold the position that in a war, one of the sides really can be considered victim, despite everything (as I have stated multiple times in previous posts), while the other side really can be considered an attacker/aggressor/transgressor/similar. This is a position which I cannot leave, as that would invalidate lots of things which I know and believe.
    Oh, I definitely believe one side can be the victim of a war. I just generally assume that is the non-combatant civilians :p

    Because, outside of a full on curb-stomping, things tend to result in retaliatory strikes. X bombed City N, so Y invades City M in retaliation.

    I mean, if we only consider who started a war, the US were the "victims" of the Pacific Theatre of WWII. The victims who nuked the hell out of Japan (who, in turn, invaded and raped their way through the Pacific and China)...


    Yes, but the war in which France and Germany were embroiled ended around 70 years ago, while the war (conflict), which is the topic of this thread, still exists. I think that many French were quite angry with the Germans in years following the end of WW2. But the conflict ended, and should France have decided to use its position as a relative victor in the war to start occupying and gradually destroying Germany, I doubt they would get along quite nicely. Which is actually the point - You cannot "get along well", or even have much tolerance, towards someone who is quite obviously partaking in the occupation (Israeli illegal settlers), or is supporting the continuation of war. There are countries, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH), where Christians (if I am to designate a group by its adherence to a particular religion; not that I think their religion promotes or justifies what they have done) have been, quite obviously from my point of view, the ones committing the majority of atrocities - especially, as far as I know, since they were, in many instances, systematically done by them, while the atrocities committed by Muslims were, in majority, isolated cases, at least as far as I know. Still, the (civil) war ended around 20 years ago, and people from all the religions get along relatively well. Though, the memory of the events is still fresh, so many are still suspicious of others, but what I want to say is that majority of Muslims of BH, I think, do not want to use past events as an excuse to start doing the same thing which was done to them. For if that were the case, they would bring themselves to the same position (of aggressor) their enemies were - and that would make them no better than others.
    Exactly, I don't care what the rationale is, at some point you need to at least TRY to stop retaliating for past events.

    You say "illegal settlers". They might just say "The region seemed nice and we got tax credits to move here".


    But the same cannot be applied to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as that one still lasts, and Israel, from my perspective, is the main factor promoting it. I do not think that one could reasonably expect Palestinians to simply be happy with the Israeli neighbours, because they are being occupied by them. The same can be said for Israeli, who are being targeted by Palestinian guerrilla warriors. Still, my position about their roles are clear (as You know already) - Israel is the attacker (generally speaking) and Palestine is the victim. No amount of atrocities committed by either side will change that.
    They don't have to be happy, but they CAN attempt to live in peace. And, by and large, from what I have read and watched, the actual PEOPLE tend to do that. It is only the highly political people who still push for continued conflicts.

    As for the last part: I again cite the US and Japan. The Japanese were the attackers (Pearl Harbor for the US, a LOT of crap for basically everyone else involved), which would make the US the "victim". But we used atomic bombs to end that war and killed a LOT of innocent civilians. Are you still so sure things are as cut and dry as "America were the victims"?
    Don't get me wrong, I actually fully support our use of the nukes to end the war quickly and with minimal bloodshed, but I am NEVER going to claim we were "the victims" or that using nukes were a morally right thing to do. What we did WAS an atrocity. Maybe a justified and well-meaning atrocity, but still an atrocity.

    And that's basically the same way I feel about what is going on with Israel and Palestine. While nobody has gone full on nuke-levels of atrocity, even starting the Israelis with a big penalty due to being the new kids on the block will probably result in a very close balance once you start tallying up all the violence and suffering caused by both sides.

    I dunno, I guess the thing is: I am a firm believer in personal responsibility (even at the nation/political group level). "He started it" or "he made me do it" aren't excuses in my eyes.


    Oh I understand. As I stated, events of the past cannot necessarily be used as an excuse to do something now. Just because the United Kingdom (UK) have acted as aggressors towards many, occupying and annexing other people's lands, including some Muslim countries, and have perhaps done something terrible to the people of those lands in the process, does neither mean nor justifies a retaliation in equal measure (or any retaliation at all - which is my position) against them now. The people who acted as conquerors in the name of the UK a century ago are not the ones (not the majority at least) who live in the UK now. Also, similar to the position of my religion about sins, sins committed by my ancestors (not excluding actions in a war which are disallowed), are neither mine nor anyone's else, and I cannot and will not, as far as I know, be asked about them.

    There are many dreadful things which Muslims have done to one another. But I, to my knowledge, am not allowed to hold a grudge against descendants of the ones who committed such acts - because they (the descendants) are not responsible for it.
    And yet, with Israel, they are still all held responsible for what their parents, grand parents, and great grand parents did.



    First I feel the need to once more reiterate one of my positions. Somewhere in this thread, though I have no wish to search for it at the moment, I think You said something like "when are we supposed to stop caring (what is the cutoff) for the people involved in continuous war or conflict?". If this is not what You have said, then I have misunderstood You and I apologise for implying it. Nonetheless, as I have already said, as a Muslim, to my knowledge, it is a duty (obligation) for every Muslim to care for another Muslim, no matter the physical distance between them. This is a general rule - meaning it does not apply only to the Muslims which are in a war, but to all Muslims, for example those struck by natural disasters; every Muslim is obliged, as far as I know, to be concerned with every other Muslim's well-being.
    Maybe I worded that incorrectly. What I meant was "When can we put the past aside and try to make a better future? When can we stop blaming side X for what happened in the past?"

    My position about this particular matter is: there can be no arbitrarily devised cutoff, as one could not expect, I think, to simply say "Okay people, listen up. It has passed x[y(z)] years, and You should stop being grumpy about it now - it is the rule". Like I said, there are probably various factors involved that contribute to this matter. Secondly, I believe that, for as long as a conflict persists, one cannot expect people involved in that conflict (and, by extension, everyone else who cares for it) to stop having a grudge. Because, how could they - if they are being oppressed by a particular entity (a foreign state, for example) (NOTE again: my position about Palestinians is that they are being oppressed, which differs from Your view of the matter, at least if I have understood You correctly), it is expected that they will not simply hail their oppressors. Thirdly, so as to not be understood wrongly, the "hurt", as in having true desire and feeling of grudge against someone/something, in my opinion should be differed from the "not forgiving"/"not forgetting". And I am not saying that due to a lack of forgiveness one side has the right to do what the other side did to the first. Nor I am saying that due to not forgetting one should do the same.
    I agree that the grumpiness and the like can, and probably SHOULD, continue. A good acquaintance of mine IS a native american. His father is still NOT happy that whitey stole his land, and he can get very emotional and heated about the issue. To him, America HAS been occupying his nation since The Mayflower. But he doesn't let that stop him from providing for his family or interacting with his neighbors and co-workers. His son is probably going to marry a white girl who can trace her ancestry back to before the American Civil War. He isn't huge on that and has made that fairly clear, but he has also never done a single thing to not make her feel welcome or accepted.
    And honestly, I really admire the hell out of him for it.

    When it comes to forgiveness, I can chose not to forgive some Israeli soldier what he or she has done to some Muslim, but I shall not use that "not forgiving" as an excuse to cause any harm to that soldier's offspring. Like I said, the sins of the ancestors are not in the same time the sins of the descendants.

    When it comes to not forgetting - it is not that I do not want to forget because I want that memory of past events to be used as an excuse to do something in the present, but because, among other things, I want to be reminded that I need to be careful to whom I can trust in the present or the future, lest that which I remember happens again.
    And there is nothing wrong with that.

    What I have issue with is the continued aggression.

    At least in recent years, Israel have not tried to wipe out or destroy the Palestinian people. While I am not there, I would be surprised if there wasn't SOME prejudice, all indications are that a Palestinian person can make a good living and won't be murdered for acknowledging they are Palestinian. The rest will take time to achieve. But so long as the aggression and violence continues, that clock keeps getting reset. And while it does suck since the Palestinians have more to lose than the Israelis, they also have a LOT more flexibility as their only enemy in the region IS Israel, whereas Israel have basically the entire region.

    It sucks, and it isn't fair, but whoever said life was fair? And if it benefits the people (not the politicians, the people) on both sides, isn't that worth it? Eventually, someone has to "be the bigger man"
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  7. #67
    Network Hub Nahru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    ...Using the occupation by Israel for example. It is a FACT that Israel occupied territories after the Six-Day War. But let's look closer

    1. WHY did they do it?
    a. Because they are money grubbing Jews who want to hide their jew-gold?
    b. Because they were afraid of a future land war and wanted to extend their borders?
    c. Because they want to assert their dominance over the region (possibly for the same reasons as b, possibly for the same reasons as a)
    2. Is what they did really unprecedented?
    a. Honestly, it is pretty common for a nation to, at least temporarily, occupy a conquered region. Sometimes for reconstruction, mostly to just keep their boot against the proverbial throat.
    b. How much of it being "illegal" is a matter of UN politics? It isn't like we 'mericans left iraq and afghanistan until we were damned well ready to
    c. Should legality have anything to do with what is morally or ethically correct?
    I agree, of course, about everything said. Still, I tend to look at what is now, at the present. Whatever the reasons for occupation of Palestine that started decades ago were, whether justified or not, does not necessarily mean that many of those reasons are today, from my perspective, valid. The reason is because this continued occupation just exacerbates the situation. Of course, one could say that Israel is surrounded with potential or existing enemies, but I will once more state that I think the peace would be much closer if Israel (the Israel's government that is, as general populace of the Israel and Palestine might simply want all this mess to at last end) would be more willing to make compromises. We should not forget that, despite surrounded by Arab states, Israel is backed by much more powerful allies. I doubt, to be honest, despite past happenings, that any neighbouring Arab states would, even if they wanted, cause any significant damage to Israel in case of open war. In fact, I doubt they would dare to attack in light of the fact that Israel has some very powerful allies. They tried their luck decades ago - and lost. Meanwhile, Israel has grown in military and economic might in such a way, that, I think, it is more advanced than its neighbours now, than when compared to 30 or 40 years. There is a reason why Israel has won 6-day war. There is a reason why that war lasted for "only" 6 days. Israel's military is far more advanced than its neighbours', and in this day and age technologically advanced military can offset its potential lacking in personnel.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Oh, I definitely believe one side can be the victim of a war. I just generally assume that is the non-combatant civilians :p
    You are correct that civilians suffer the most casualties (contrary to what might be thought, since civilians do not engage in direct combat). I think I have read on Wikipedia that, even today when the attempt is to be more careful about civilian losses, the ratio of civilian to soldier casualties is 10:1.

    But I disagree with your limitation of victim status to civilians of both sides. Yes, civilians of both sides are victims of a conflict. But I, as you can already presume, can consider an entire nation, or another entity, a victim. (I think I will say something about this further in the text - well, it seems I will not :)

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Because, outside of a full on curb-stomping, things tend to result in retaliatory strikes. X bombed City N, so Y invades City M in retaliation.
    When it comes to this conflict, I do not think that Palestinians have the capacity to pull something like invasion of a part of Israel's territory. What they can do, not that it is justifiable (but, I shall dare say, not that it is not justifiable as well *I will try to say something about this as well...* - see further text), is launch missile and similar strikes against parts of Israel's territory.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    I mean, if we only consider who started a war, the US were the "victims" of the Pacific Theatre of WWII. The victims who nuked the hell out of Japan (who, in turn, invaded and raped their way through the Pacific and China)...
    True, the US were initially the victims. Japan willingly assaulted the US - nobody forced them to do that. And, while I condemn the usage of nuclear weapons by the US in WW2 against Japan, I shall say that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as terrible as such acts were, does not change the fact that the US were the victims.

    Also, I am of the position that the victim status can change into an aggressor status - when a country decides that its self-defence was not enough, but wants to use its position as relative victor to further obtain what it had not prior to the war.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    You say "illegal settlers". They might just say "The region seemed nice and we got tax credits to move here".
    By "illegal" I meant contrary to international treaties and agreements (though I am not quite versed into this matter - what are those agreements and treaties, but I presume, perhaps erroneously, that such things exist and should be upheld by all countries which are members of the UN)

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    They don't have to be happy, but they CAN attempt to live in peace. And, by and large, from what I have read and watched, the actual PEOPLE tend to do that. It is only the highly political people who still push for continued conflicts.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    As for the last part: I again cite the US and Japan. The Japanese were the attackers (Pearl Harbor for the US, a LOT of crap for basically everyone else involved), which would make the US the "victim". But we used atomic bombs to end that war and killed a LOT of innocent civilians. Are you still so sure things are as cut and dry as "America were the victims"?...
    I have said something about this already. Initially, yes, I would consider the US to be the victims. Whatever the hostilities that may have existed between the US and Japan were back then, the irrefutable fact is that Japan struck first. That certainly made them the aggressors, from my point of view. Again, I do not justify the atrocities committed by either side (the US and Japan), but one of them willingly, without provocation, attacked, and one of them was a target of the attack. Now, whether it was justified to use nuclear weapons is another thing.

    And while I am here, allow me to interrupt this flow of text to quote you:

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Don't get me wrong, I actually fully support our use of the nukes to end the war quickly and with minimal bloodshed, but I am NEVER going to claim we were "the victims" or that using nukes were a morally right thing to do. What we did WAS an atrocity. Maybe a justified and well-meaning atrocity, but still an atrocity.
    I intend to go back to the above quote in more depth later on (EDIT: it seems that I have not, again...), but for now I have something other to say. Somewhere in this post I stated that the actions done by the Palestinians, targeted towards Israeli civilians, are not necessarily justified, but in the same time are not necessarily not justified - in simpler terms, I state that such actions may have justification, to a degree. That justification may stem from the attempt that, by targeting civilian structures, one of the sides tries to weaken the other. This is more so important when it comes to Israel-Palestine war/conflict. Israel has superior military and can effectively target military objectives of the Palestinians. But what about Palestinians? Could they effectively target Israel's military objectives? I think you should agree with me that they cannot. Then, and considering the Palestinians to be the victims (which is my position), what it is they are left with? Either they can surrender completely and unconditionally or attack civilian "objectives".

    Note that I condemn the use of force versus the unarmed - especially the civilians. But, is it possible to justify such actions in a situation where the oppressed side cannot do much else, save for surrender? That is the reason, I believe, why the Palestinian guerrilla allows itself and, again I believe, considers it morally right to attack the civilian Jews. Not because they consider them to be directly responsible for the situation, not because they necessarily believe Jews of Israel want to obliterate them and thus they have the right to do the same to the Jews, but because in their desperate attempts to do *something* they attack what they can - and they cannot effectively counter the Israel's military.

    You may say that they should surrender then. That would, perhaps, even be the best choice, from a certain perspective, but it is a difficult choice for anyone to make - to give up of one's homeland, possessions and other things. you may argue that, in the case of surrender (of the Palestinians), Israel would accept their coexistence, but to what degree is a question. Israel is very much "Jewish state". They may accept a number of Palestinians into their society, but not that much so as to jeopardize their position as a majority, I think. Perhaps indeed surrender of some of their territories to Israel would help the Palestinians, but combine that with the economical position of Palestine (lack of infrastructure, decreasing territory due to the occupation and other things), and one sees how difficult it would be to do such a thing.

    And with Israel not showing willingness to remove the disputed territories the conflict is very much locked in its course for the foreseeable future, I think.

    I understand the Palestinian desire to have their territories (those prior to 6-day war) back. Because, those desires are the same as the Israeli wanting to have a part of Earth where they would be free to do what they want with their country.

    The difference is that the Israeli can have what they want, while the Palestinians are being squeezed to ever decreasing lands.

    Once more I shall reiterate my belief, that whatever the reasons for the occupation, they are not as strong and valid as they may have been. I think that Israel's occupation of Palestine now primarily serves to fuel the Palestinians' (and Arabs' and Muslims' I think) hatred towards it, and not much else.

    You state that:

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    And yet, with Israel, they are still all held responsible for what their parents, grand parents, and great grand parents did.
    Perhaps that is the attitude of some, but it is nonetheless wrong. The ancestors are responsible for their actions, while the current generation is responsible for theirs. I believe that the reason why Israel is considered responsible for some of the things done in the past, apart from those things for which it was responsible, is because they use now that which has happened in the past. Israel occupied Palestine decades ago. For such action, the government of Israel back then was responsible. But today's Israel still holds and expands upon those territories - for that the today's Israel is responsible, I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    What I have issue with is the continued aggression.
    Ah, and now you should accept that someone in this conflict is an aggressor - one has to be. I do not want to sound arrogant, but I think it is pretty obvious that Israel assumes that position, generally speaking. Yes, the other side did and does things against civilians of Israel, but broadly considered, Israel is the aggressor.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    At least in recent years, Israel have not tried to wipe out or destroy the Palestinian people. While I am not there, I would be surprised if there wasn't SOME prejudice, all indications are that a Palestinian person can make a good living and won't be murdered for acknowledging they are Palestinian. The rest will take time to achieve. But so long as the aggression and violence continues, that clock keeps getting reset.
    Violence is committed by both sides, but that is expected to happen in a war. Aggression, in terms of one entity using its advantaged military position to conquer, or occupy other entity, as I have stated numerous times, can be attributed, as far as I know, to Israel alone. We can disagree about this, if you want, but I shall in most probability not back from my position about this particular matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    And while it does suck since the Palestinians have more to lose than the Israelis, they also have a LOT more flexibility as their only enemy in the region IS Israel, whereas Israel have basically the entire region.
    You would be wrong. Neighbouring countries of Israel (apart from Palestine): Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and potentially (though not directly bordering) Saudi Arabia. As I have somewhere stated, Israel has powerful allies who exert significant influence on most of the neighbouring countries (even Egyptian military is significantly, I think around 20-25% funded by the US, which gives them a say in the matters). The Syria is in disarray, though I guess that it should not be considered that much important since it is something of newer origin, from a certain point of view. Lebanon? I hardly could believe them to represent a significant threat. Saudi Arabia? They are under heavy influence of the US, and as far as I know are even considered somewhat allied with the US (I think there are military bases in Saudi Arabia, but would not claim for sure). When it comes to Jordan I have never really considered them significantly strong in military. And Egypt has, during the last war with Israel, at one point lost almost entire Sinai peninsula.

    While the entire region could potentially be considered an enemy to Israel, Israel is so much more powerful, economically and militarily, that I do not believe, although I am no expert about this, the region presents that much of a threat. Also, the very reason why so many Arab view Israel as an enemy is due to lengthy occupation of Palestine.

    Furthermore, what flexibility of the Palestinians? Yes, in terms of state count their only (current) enemy is Israel. But their territories are ravaged, certainly far more than Israel's, their economy heavily relies on foreign aid, the overpopulation is probably a significant problem as well as shortages of various supplies, and in the end - are neighbouring states willing to sacrifice much of their wealth to aid the Palestinians? Especially with all the problems the most important neighbours (Egypt, Syria) have been and are facing? There is no true flexibility of their position I think.

    An Israel? Economically, militarily, technologically advanced state. Their superior military greatly accommodates the lack of personnel. Sure, Egypt has around 80 million people, and perhaps proportionally larger military, but in this age of increased reliance on technology when it comes to everything, including military, it makes those numbers largely useless.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    It sucks, and it isn't fair, but whoever said life was fair? And if it benefits the people (not the politicians, the people) on both sides, isn't that worth it? Eventually, someone has to "be the bigger man"
    Yes, someone has to be the "bigger man", as you say. It still does not justify what he does, however, that fact that he is bigger.
    Last edited by Nahru; 21-09-2013 at 02:16 PM.

  8. #68
    Thinner territory for Israel means that the enemy artillery is closer to the population centers and any sneaking in by a hostile group is potentially more dangerous, there was a very successful one a couple of years ago that killed an entire family, the parents,2 children and a baby, their daughter is alive today because she stayed at her friends house that evening.
    That's why no one is considering on going back to the old borders as long as hamas and other terrorist organizations exist and still hell bent on killing Israeli civilians.
    Also if you don't know it, in Israeli cities that are close to the borders the population is used to getting mortar and arty missiles fired on them, you know like hearing a siren in the middle of night and running down to the shelters until it's safe to get out is a routine part of their lives, are they victims or aggressors?

  9. #69
    Network Hub Nahru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    430
    I think I have contributed to this thread as much as I could and wanted... I guess a few more sentences would suffice (under the presumption that your questions are directed towards me...)?

    Quote Originally Posted by hellraiserzlo View Post
    Thinner territory for Israel means that the enemy artillery is closer to the population centers and any sneaking in by a hostile group is potentially more dangerous...
    In a broad sense, you are correct...

    Quote Originally Posted by hellraiserzlo View Post
    there was a very successful one a couple of years ago that killed an entire family, the parents,2 children and a baby, their daughter is alive today because she stayed at her friends house that evening.
    ... but an appeal to emotions, as I read this particular statement, is not of much use. Many more Palestinians have died in this war, not that it lessens the importance of anyone's loss.

    Quote Originally Posted by hellraiserzlo View Post
    That's why no one is considering on going back to the old borders as long as hamas and other terrorist organizations exist and still hell bent on killing Israeli civilians.
    And as long as Israel continues its occupation and gradual reduction of Palestinians' lands. It is, in a way, a circle of conflict, which I think will last until either one of the sides is wiped out or someone decides to make serious compromises. As you can guess, my bet is that Israel is in a better position to make compromises which would end the conflict, as it has less to loose (from my point of view).

    Quote Originally Posted by hellraiserzlo View Post
    Also if you don't know it, in Israeli cities that are close to the borders the population is used to getting mortar and arty missiles fired on them, you know like hearing a siren in the middle of night and running down to the shelters until it's safe to get out is a routine part of their lives...
    I guess it is pretty much the same, if not worse, for the Palestinians. But, I do not live there, so perhaps I err.

    Quote Originally Posted by hellraiserzlo View Post
    ...are they victims or aggressors?
    My position is that Israel, the state, is the aggressor and Palestine, the state (?), is the victim. Every unarmed person who suffers due to a war can be considered a victim, from my point of view, but it still does not change who - generally - is a victim (state/nation/other entity).

    The people of Israel I do not necessarily consider aggressors. I know that there are Israeli who are against the occupation of Palestine. I do not generalize the concept of aggressor to the people of a particular state. But, like I said before, Israel (the state) is the aggressor, from my perspective. What the people of Israel want (all of them or only a part - majority or minority) does not change what Israel is doing - occupying Palestine.
    Last edited by Nahru; 21-09-2013 at 02:16 PM.

  10. #70
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,284
    Heh, forgot about this thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Nahru2 View Post
    I agree, of course, about everything said. Still, I tend to look at what is now, at the present. Whatever the reasons for occupation of Palestine that started decades ago were, whether justified or not, does not necessarily mean that many of those reasons are today, from my perspective, valid.
    And whatever dumbass rationale we had for taking Texas sure doesn't make any sense given the current land of Texas. I don't see the US saying "Our bad Mexico, you can have it back"

    Because whatever the original reasons were, there is now a new and VERY important reason to keep the territory under a pro-Israeli government: A lot of Israelis live there now.
    Of course, one could say that Israel is surrounded with potential or existing enemies, but I will once more state that I think the peace would be much closer if Israel (the Israel's government that is, as general populace of the Israel and Palestine might simply want all this mess to at last end) would be more willing to make compromises.
    I am also inclined to agree with this, but I also can't blame Israel for being wary of having neighbors who regularly say they shouldn't exist and who either at the governmental or "not at all affiliated with us but we let them live here" level still try to make it a religious war rather than a "Get the fuck out of our backyard" war

    We should not forget that, despite surrounded by Arab states, Israel is backed by much more powerful allies.
    Allies who are increasingly distancing themselves from Israel and with the only ally who might have bothered to put a significant number of boots on the ground suffering from "Shooting arabs" fatigue.

    They tried their luck decades ago - and lost. Meanwhile, Israel has grown in military and economic might in such a way, that, I think, it is more advanced than its neighbours now, than when compared to 30 or 40 years.
    We could easily have said the exact same thing right before the Six Day War.

    When it comes to this conflict, I do not think that Palestinians have the capacity to pull something like invasion of a part of Israel's territory. What they can do, not that it is justifiable (but, I shall dare say, not that it is not justifiable as well *I will try to say something about this as well...* - see further text), is launch missile and similar strikes against parts of Israel's territory.
    They can't win a military conflict, that much is for certain. But they just have to keep making it too bloody. See exactly what happened to the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    By "illegal" I meant contrary to international treaties and agreements (though I am not quite versed into this matter - what are those agreements and treaties, but I presume, perhaps erroneously, that such things exist and should be upheld by all countries which are members of the UN)
    The issue with the UN is that it is basically "the popular kids in high school". They make fun of people behind their backs and try to organize a shunning, but they also can't really do anything if someone with power ignores them. That's why it isn't about UN sanctions for North Korea: It is about convincing China to say "you so crazy" to Lil Kim. Because the UN can tell all the people who already don't like someone to ignore them, but unless they actually convince the people who DO "like" a nation, it is pointless.

    I have said something about this already. Initially, yes, I would consider the US to be the victims. Whatever the hostilities that may have existed between the US and Japan were back then, the irrefutable fact is that Japan struck first. That certainly made them the aggressors, from my point of view. Again, I do not justify the atrocities committed by either side (the US and Japan), but one of them willingly, without provocation, attacked, and one of them was a target of the attack. Now, whether it was justified to use nuclear weapons is another thing.
    "They started it" is a pretty weak argument. It is weak with kids and it is equally weak with nations.


    I intend to go back to the above quote in more depth later on (EDIT: it seems that I have not, again...), but for now I have something other to say. Somewhere in this post I stated that the actions done by the Palestinians, targeted towards Israeli civilians, are not necessarily justified, but in the same time are not necessarily not justified - in simpler terms, I state that such actions may have justification, to a degree. That justification may stem from the attempt that, by targeting civilian structures, one of the sides tries to weaken the other. This is more so important when it comes to Israel-Palestine war/conflict. Israel has superior military and can effectively target military objectives of the Palestinians. But what about Palestinians? Could they effectively target Israel's military objectives? I think You should agree with me that they cannot. Then, and considering the Palestinians to be the victims (which is my position), what it is they are left with? Either they can surrender completely and unconditionally or attack civilian "objectives".
    So Israel is forcing them to murder women and children?

    What's more important, winning or being "right". Because maybe the Palestinians could "win" by raping and murdering every woman in Israel, but you'll understand if I would drive down to DC and petition my politicians to nuke the fuck out of them at that point.

    Note that I condemn the use of force versus the unarmed - especially the civilians. But, is it possible to justify such actions in a situation where the oppressed side cannot do much else, save for surrender? That is the reason, I believe, why the Palestinian guerrilla allows itself and, again I believe, considers it morally right to attack the civilian Jews. Not because they consider them to be directly responsible for the situation, not because they necessarily believe Jews of Israel want to obliterate them and thus they have the right to do the same to the Jews, but because in their desperate attempts to do *something* they attack what they can - and they cannot effectively counter the Israel's military.
    So they are bored and wanna kill people? And if you can't kill your actual enemies, kill the random people on the street. Gotta use them bullets somehow.

    You may say that they should surrender then. That would, perhaps, even be the best choice, from a certain perspective, but it is a difficult choice for anyone to make - to give up of one's homeland, possessions and other things. You may argue that, in the case of surrender (of the Palestinians), Israel would accept their coexistence, but to what degree is a question. Israel is very much "Jewish state". They may accept a number of Palestinians into their society, but not that much so as to jeopardize their position as a majority, I think. Perhaps indeed surrender of some of their territories to Israel would help the Palestinians, but combine that with the economical position of Palestine (lack of infrastructure, decreasing territory due to the occupation and other things), and one sees how difficult it would be to do such a thing.
    That's just it. They aren't giving up their homeland or possessions. If they have been living in a military camp for the past few decades, even a shitty apartment is better. And if they live in a shitty apartment, it doesn't matter if they put an Israeli postal code or a Palestinian postal code, they'll still get their Victoria's Secret catalogs.

    And here is the thing: Isreal got away with "telling people to leave" in the 40s and 50s. That ain't gonna fly in this world of social media and the twenty-four seven news cycle. The BEST Israel can do is try to restrict public office, and even the US (once enough liberal news networks notice it :p) will say "yo guys, that ain't right". They won't DO anything, but considering "US and Israel 4-ever" is what is holding back a lot of Israel's neighbors...

    And with Israel not showing willingness to remove the disputed territories the conflict is very much locked in its course for the foreseeable future, I think.
    "And with Palestine not showing willingness to drop the issue of disputed territories, the conflict is very much locked in its course for the foreseeable future, I think"

    I understand the Palestinian desire to have their territories (those prior to 6-day war) back. Because, those desires are the same as the Israeli wanting to have a part of Earth where they would be free to do what they want with their country.

    The difference is that the Israeli can have what they want, while the Palestinians are being squeezed to ever decreasing lands.
    Except that they aren't. Lots of Palestinian civilians are living happy lives.

    And I want Stana Katic to knock on my door and offer to let me do really depraved things with her. To paraphrase a great writer: Since when did life have anything to do with getting what you want?



    Perhaps that is the attitude of some, but it is nonetheless wrong. The ancestors are responsible for their actions, while the current generation is responsible for theirs. I believe that the reason why Israel is considered responsible for some of the things done in the past, apart from those things for which it was responsible, is because they use now that which has happened in the past. Israel occupied Palestine decades ago. For such action, the government of Israel back then was responsible. But today's Israel still holds and expands upon those territories - for that the today's Israel is responsible, I think.
    So the fact that I live in the US right now makes me responsible for subjugating the Native Americans by not giving their land back?



    Ah, and now You should accept that someone in this conflict is an aggressor - one has to be. I do not want to sound arrogant, but I think it is pretty obvious that Israel assumes that position, generally speaking. Yes, the other side did and does things against civilians of Israel, but broadly considered, Israel is the aggressor.
    Yes, there is always an aggressor. but after enough exchanges, it becomes REALLY hard to say that one side is innocent.

    And you say Israel are the aggressors. An Israeli who just had his family murdered by a Palestinian guerilla who "wanted to kill something" might disagree with you.

    Let's pretend I am French for a moment (Oui oui monsieur, I shall go eat my baguette and wear my beret). And I decide to go shoot a random German in the head. The Germans started it. They are the aggressors. I am a victim!


    Violence is committed by both sides, but that is expected to happen in a war. Aggression, in terms of one entity using its advantaged military position to conquer, or occupy other entity, as I have stated numerous times, can be attributed, as far as I know, to Israel alone. We can disagree about this, if You want, but I shall in most probability not back from my position about this particular matter.
    Yeah, Israel won. They were attacked, they retaliated, they won. The difference is that they didn't then go back home after beating the shit out of their neighbors for the second time in less than forty years.


    Furthermore, what flexibility of the Palestinians? Yes, in terms of state count their only (current) enemy is Israel. But their territories are ravaged, certainly far more than Israel's, their economy heavily relies on foreign aid, the overpopulation is probably a significant problem as well as shortages of various supplies, and in the end - are neighbouring states willing to sacrifice much of their wealth to aid the Palestinians? Especially with all the problems the most important neighbours (Egypt, Syria) have been and are facing? There is no true flexibility of their position I think.
    I hate to say it: But when you don't have much, you don't have many responsibilities. it is much easier for a poor homeless guy to move to a new city than it is for someone with a family and a mansion.

    An Israel? Economically, militarily, technologically advanced state. Their superior military greatly accommodates the lack of personnel. Sure, Egypt has around 80 million people, and perhaps proportionally larger military, but in this age of increased reliance on technology when it comes to everything, including military, it makes those numbers largely useless.
    Not really. Superior numbers can still overwhelm. And to be a bit cynical for a moment (not like I am EVER cynical :p): If you show camera footage of Israeli soldiers with their sexy ass guns (Have they adopted the TAR, or are they still experimenting?) murdering ten or twenty arabs armed with half-broken AKs a piece, Isreal will lose. Because even if those enemy combatants just got done raping and murdeirng a bunch of children, all the world will see is a slaughter and "ethnic cleansing"

    Yes, someone has to be the "bigger man", as You say. It still does not justify what he does, however, that fact that he is bigger.
    If he stops a war and minimizes the suffering, I think that is a pretty good justification.
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  11. #71
    Network Hub Nahru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Heh, forgot about this thread
    Perhaps for the better?


    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    And whatever dumbass rationale we had for taking Texas sure doesn't make any sense given the current land of Texas. I don't see the US saying "Our bad Mexico, you can have it back"
    Once upon a time, Mexico and the US were in a war. The war ended and conflicts ceased to be. Peace was achieved. Years passed. The year is 2013. There is peace.

    Once upon a time, Israel and Palestine engaged in a war. The war continues and conflicts exist. There is no lasting peace; only, perhaps, short periods of declining intensity of conflict. Years passed. The year is 2013. There is war.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Because whatever the original reasons were, there is now a new and VERY important reason to keep the territory under a pro-Israeli government: A lot of Israelis live there now.
    Indeed? Then I suppose there is a reason for Israel to simply utilise its position as a regional power and continues to occupy Palestine until there is no Palestine - not that anyone is going to stop it anytime soon. And as Israel expands its territory, so can Israeli come to the newly conquered lands and claim it for themselves - not that anyone is going to stop them anytime soon, as history has shown.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Allies who are increasingly distancing themselves from Israel and with the only ally who might have bothered to put a significant number of boots on the ground suffering from "Shooting arabs" fatigue.
    Perhaps, but it changes nothing when it comes to current distribution of potential power. And even Arabs themselves are too busy squabbling over what little power they can get, so from my point of view they are not nearly as dangerous as one could perceive them based on numbers alone (numbers of states, people, military personnel etc.).

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    We could easily have said the exact same thing right before the Six Day War.
    Israel won the war...


    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    They can't win a military conflict, that much is for certain. But they just have to keep making it too bloody. See exactly what happened to the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Not as bloody as Israel has made it for Palestinians.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    The issue with the UN is that it is basically "the popular kids in high school". They make fun of people behind their backs and try to organize a shunning, but they also can't really do anything if someone with power ignores them. That's why it isn't about UN sanctions for North Korea: It is about convincing China to say "you so crazy" to Lil Kim. Because the UN can tell all the people who already don't like someone to ignore them, but unless they actually convince the people who DO "like" a nation, it is pointless.
    I agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    "They started it" is a pretty weak argument. It is weak with kids and it is equally weak with nations.
    They DID start the war, no matter whether that is a weak argument for something. And war is something different than kids fighting. This analogy you use, where you compare kids who fight and wars, I find lacking in many ways, as I have explained in some other post(s). We shall simply disagree about this then.


    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    So Israel is forcing them to murder women and children?

    What's more important, winning or being "right". Because maybe the Palestinians could "win" by raping and murdering every woman in Israel, but you'll understand if I would drive down to DC and petition my politicians to nuke the fuck out of them at that point.
    Israel has killed far more Palestinian civilians than Palestinians Israeli civilians. Is Israel forced to occupy Palestine? You may argue, for certain reasons like Israeli starting to live in newly conquered lands, that it is, but then what can Israel expect?

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    So they are bored and wanna kill people? And if you can't kill your actual enemies, kill the random people on the street. Gotta use them bullets somehow.
    The statements your quote is directed to are meant to show possible parallel with the US nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although I admit I have not elaborated it enough. The US bombed the cities - who was, if not civilians, a primary target?

    It seem that at one point in a war civilians do become legitimate targets, as you have stated yourself:

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Don't get me wrong, I actually fully support our use of the nukes to end the war quickly and with minimal bloodshed..
    And with the Palestinian guerrilla not being able to effectively counter Israeli military, Israeli civilians are the next target, whether they are for or against the actions of their government.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    That's just it. They aren't giving up their homeland or possessions. If they have been living in a military camp for the past few decades, even a shitty apartment is better. And if they live in a shitty apartment, it doesn't matter if they put an Israeli postal code or a Palestinian postal code, they'll still get their Victoria's Secret catalogs.
    Perhaps. But let us not be naive and think that a Jewish state/State for Jews would care much about the well-being of those with much differing beliefs and everything that goes with those beliefs (attitudes, actions - and I do not mean conflicts, etc.).

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    "And with Palestine not showing willingness to drop the issue of disputed territories, the conflict is very much locked in its course for the foreseeable future, I think"
    Then we agree - the conflict is very much locked in its course for the foreseeable future, it would seem.


    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Except that they aren't. Lots of Palestinian civilians are living happy lives.
    Perhaps. And lots of them do not, not that Israel should care.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    So the fact that I live in the US right now makes me responsible for subjugating the Native Americans by not giving their land back?
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Yes, there is always an aggressor. but after enough exchanges, it becomes REALLY hard to say that one side is innocent.
    I am not talking about "innocence". I am talking who "started it" and who, generally speaking, assumes what position in a war.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    And you say Israel are the aggressors. An Israeli who just had his family murdered by a Palestinian guerilla who "wanted to kill something" might disagree with you.
    I have not and will not equate the role of Israeli civilians and Israeli government (and by extension the Israeli military) and neither should You.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Let's pretend I am French for a moment (Oui oui monsieur, I shall go eat my baguette and wear my beret). And I decide to go shoot a random German in the head. The Germans started it. They are the aggressors. I am a victim!
    I have not and will not equate the role of one side's civilians and its government (and by extension the side's military) and neither should you.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Yeah, Israel won. They were attacked, they retaliated, they won. The difference is that they didn't then go back home after beating the shit out of their neighbors for the second time in less than forty years.
    The Six-Day war was started by Israel, though hostilities between Israel and its neighbours existed before. Sill, it does not change what is now - an occupation of Palestine.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    I hate to say it: But when you don't have much, you don't have many responsibilities. it is much easier for a poor homeless guy to move to a new city than it is for someone with a family and a mansion.
    Really? I disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Not really. Superior numbers can still overwhelm.
    Can, but what are the odds? The Six- Day war showed how superior numbers are (so much) inferior to technological superiority.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    And to be a bit cynical for a moment (not like I am EVER cynical :p): If you show camera footage of Israeli soldiers with their sexy ass guns (Have they adopted the TAR, or are they still experimenting?) murdering ten or twenty arabs armed with half-broken AKs a piece, Isreal will lose.
    Except I was not talking about man-to-man fighting with nothing but guns. I was talking about: airplanes, warships, tanks, artillery, and why not, nuclear weapons (does Israel have them? I do not know, but I would not be surprised if it does).

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Because even if those enemy combatants just got done raping and murdeirng a bunch of children, all the world will see is a slaughter and "ethnic cleansing"
    Sorry, I do not understand this bit (but no need to elaborate).

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    If he stops a war and minimizes the suffering, I think that is a pretty good justification.
    Except he will neither stop the war nor "minimise" the suffering, but we have been through all this before, so we shall simply disagree about who is in a better position to bring peace.
    Last edited by Nahru; 21-09-2013 at 02:17 PM.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Xercies View Post
    I have nothing much to add, except that my eyes have been opened by various people I follow that talk about this stuff that unfortunately this arguments, especially from a lot of people in the West that support Palestine just because probably they look like the underdogs in a great sports movie, are very anti Semitic.
    The Jewish religion is based on a load of myths about a homicidal and genocidal maniac. Who cares that certain Israelis have thrown gas bombs in schools, WWII has given then a free pass to what the fuck they like apparently. That anti Semitic enough for you?

    Ultimatly the whole problems stems from religions based on outdated rubbish.
    Last edited by Lone Gunman; 27-07-2013 at 02:26 PM.

  13. #73
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    196
    The funny thing is that even the so called palestines that were lucky enough to have israeli IDs don't want to give them up in exchange for a palestine state.

    Why would they exchange freedom of thought and speech for religious propoganda? why would they exchange progress and education for encouraged ignorance? why would they exchange the values of life for the values of death?

  14. #74
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Gunman View Post
    The Jewish religion is based on a load of myths about a homicidal and genocidal maniac. Who cares that certain Israelis have thrown gas bombs in schools, WWII has given then a free pass to what the fuck they like apparently. That anti Semitic enough for you?

    Ultimatly the whole problems stems from religions based on outdated rubbish.
    Your life must be pretty simple i bet.

  15. #75
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by burningpet View Post
    The funny thing is that even the so called palestines that were lucky enough to have israeli IDs don't want to give them up in exchange for a palestine state.

    Why would they exchange freedom of thought and speech for religious propoganda? why would they exchange progress and education for encouraged ignorance? why would they exchange the values of life for the values of death?
    Yes, why would they willingly put themselves into a concentration camp? I don't remember many Jews volunteering for internment.
    Last edited by Nalano; 28-07-2013 at 01:36 AM.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  16. #76
    Network Hub Nahru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by burningpet View Post
    The funny thing is that even the so called palestines that were lucky enough to have israeli IDs don't want to give them up in exchange for a palestine state.
    And why it is funny? There are multiple potential reasons why that is the way it is, not merely your implication that it has something to do with Islam. For example, Palestinians living in Israel - where exactly would they go, and how would that be beneficial to anyone, should they discard their Israeli citizenship? By living in Israel, and having at least some sort of income, or a good source of income, they can be of more use to their fellow Muslims not living in Israel than if they would chose otherwise. Even if they would not chose to help any of their fellow Muslims, at least they would be no burden (financially, logistically etc.) to Palestinians of Palestine. Not to mention that they could not really make much of a difference should they leave Israel.

    The rest of your post is based on misconceptions about Muslims as well as Islam, which explains the first sentence of your post.

    Quote Originally Posted by burningpet View Post
    Why would they exchange freedom of thought and speech for religious propoganda?
    Freedom of thought? I did not know that one needs permission to think. Freedom of speech? As far as I know, the lack of freedom of speech in most of today's predominantly Muslim countries has nothing to do with Islam, but "bad Muslims" having the power of authority - and using that power to suppress the rights of others.

    Quote Originally Posted by burningpet View Post
    why would they exchange progress and education for encouraged ignorance?
    Islam encourages progress and education. Not that dictators in a position of power do.

    Quote Originally Posted by burningpet View Post
    why would they exchange the values of life for the values of death?
    This part is too ambiguous for me to understand...

    ...

    I understand that you, just like so many others, have little or no good reason to be... accepting of Islam. It is difficult to blame you in light of all the extremism that pervades the Muslim societies today - extremism which, to my knowledge, has either nothing or very little (result of misinterpretations - based on ignorance and arrogance) to do with Islam. But then again, there is Internet today, with its own extremes in presenting various views, but I think that today (21st century) is by far the best time in the history of mankind when one can most easily obtain necessary information about what one is interested in. The irony is great though - it seems that for many (majority?) having easy access to information is not that important, because many are simply willingly ignorant of that information (and I am not necessarily any better than those I believe to be a majority).
    Last edited by Nahru; 21-09-2013 at 02:18 PM.

  17. #77
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    Yes, why would they willingly put themselves into a concentration camp? I don't remember many Jews volunteering for internment.
    I am talking about the suggestion of connecting the west bank with the other palestine zones that are within israeli borders, as accepted by the U.N. if anything, it would free them from the isolation they are forced into. but, they will never want that.

    And why would they accept such a thing? why would they choose to be goverened by religious fanatics that their toleration toward women is nothing short of barbaric, let alone homosexuals or anything that doesn't suit their code of behaviour. why would the common people that just want to live in prosperity would choose to live in a dark place, speech and thought controlled place, whereas now they can just go to some of the best universities in the world and protest against their own country and even have benefiting conditions so that they could actually get accepted into them on the expense of much smarter and higher achiever israelis (they get a pretty high factor - their grades can be lower by 20-30%). they have free health care. they have free electricity. they have free infrastructure. they don't pay taxes. they don't pay rent. they have a strong currency. why change that?

    Nah, they dont want a state, they want the state. the state of israel, with all its advantages. but, they can never have the state of israel without the israelis. without the israelis the state of israel is just another muslim country. and we all see how good they turned out to be.

    Nahru - try to take that apologetic religious nonsense out of here, please. any religion is bad, but the islam is the worst of them all. a religion so filled with hate, racism and disregard for human life that its a joke you try to defend it on the grounds of my ignorancy.

  18. #78
    Network Hub Nahru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by burningpet View Post
    Nahru - try to take that apologetic religious nonsense out of here, please...
    Alright. I shall not engage in a discussion with you when it comes to religious matters.
    Last edited by Nahru; 21-09-2013 at 02:18 PM.

  19. #79
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,284
    Quote Originally Posted by burningpet View Post
    Nahru - try to take that apologetic religious nonsense out of here, please. any religion is bad, but the islam is the worst of them all. a religion so filled with hate, racism and disregard for human life that its a joke you try to defend it on the grounds of my ignorancy.
    While I am inclined to agree that radical Islam is the worst of the radical religions right now, I do feel the need to point something out:

    Islam itself is a very beautiful religion that DOES promote spiritual AND intellectual development and peace and love. The problem is that it has been corrupted by politicians and warlords who embrace the particularly shitty aspects of it. Imagine a country run by the KKK, and you get a good idea of it.

    Islam itself is no worse than Christianity (admittedly, that isn't setting the bar all that high). So please try to avoid sounding like a moronic bigot by pretending all Muslims are the islamic equivalent of Klan members.

    That being said: While I haven't specifically looked up the policies of the "Palestinian government", based on the acts of the Palestinian "freedom fighters" I suspect it isn't one of the better arab nations.
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  20. #80
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    868
    Quote Originally Posted by burningpet View Post
    And why would they accept such a thing? why would they choose to be goverened by religious fanatics that their toleration toward women is nothing short of barbaric, let alone homosexuals or anything that doesn't suit their code of behaviour. why would the common people that just want to live in prosperity would choose to live in a dark place, speech and thought controlled place, whereas now they can just go to some of the best universities in the world and protest against their own country and even have benefiting conditions so that they could actually get accepted into them on the expense of much smarter and higher achiever israelis (they get a pretty high factor - their grades can be lower by 20-30%). they have free health care. they have free electricity. they have free infrastructure. they don't pay taxes. they don't pay rent. they have a strong currency. why change that?
    See, dude, firstly, you aren't talking sense. Wanting your home back doesn't insinuate that they want to prop up a theocracy that goes about flagellating virgins in the name of Allah. Secondly, as we all know a Jewish state isn't exactly a paradise for non-Jews: As a result, in the state of Israel, people of differing religious traditions cannot legally marry someone in another religion and multi-faith couples must leave the country to get married. All that Israel has served to do is to destabilize the Middle East and repress a people, on the basis of their race and religion despite near universal global condemnation. It's hard to believe that these are the same motherfuckers who keep bringing up the Holocaust while at the same time committing the atrocities albeit on a much smaller scale. So, really, a Islamic State, IF it is ever created, wouldn't exactly be much worse.

    Nah, they dont want a state, they want the state. the state of israel, with all its advantages. but, they can never have the state of israel without the israelis. without the israelis the state of israel is just another muslim country. and we all see how good they turned out to be.
    Nope, they just want their land back. If it turns into a poor, backwater country then so be it, but then the onus would be on them. That isn't something that you should worry about.

    Nahru - try to take that apologetic religious nonsense out of here, please. any religion is bad, but the islam is the worst of them all. a religion so filled with hate, racism and disregard for human life that its a joke you try to defend it on the grounds of my ignorancy.
    Fuck off if you're gonna be a bigot, man. I may be an atheist but I recognize that among the most fucked bunch of religions in the world- the Abrahamic trio- Islam is the most tolerant and peaceful. You'd be a massive cunt to judge an entire people based on the actions of a select few, like me calling Jews a bunch of faggots based on what the Israeli administration has done over the years to the Palestinian people, and their intense lobbying in the US for support of their illegal, terrorist state.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •