Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 95
  1. #41
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Kadayi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,482
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Deepest sympathies. This is a super serious matter and Israel, the Palestinians, and their neighbors are perfectly reasonable, rational, and not at all acting like angry two year olds.
    Given how embroiled the world is in the issue I would say it is pretty serious. The US governments continued unquestioning support for the ongoing occupation is one factor that's put them at odds with the Arab world for many years, and in large helped to engender the hatred that lead to events such as 9/11.

    As regards this belittling of both sides, I fear there's a collective failure at work in terms of your thinking. The Palestinian people aren't in this situation by choice, in the same way that the French weren't during the German invasion in WW2. The israelis are very much still in the occupied territories by choice though.

    Isn't that the exact arguments the Palestinians and various Arab Nations are using? That events of the past (Israelis not living there) is an excuse to occupy and annex the territory back from the Israelis? Or wait, do we have an arbitrary cutoff where we are allowed to start caring? Or stop caring? I dunno.
    How is Israel withdrawing back to the international recognized boundaries a bad thing? No ones talking about the Palestinians annexing Israel.

    The point is that there is a historical precedent for this.
    There's also historical precedents for slavery, the subjugation of women and the burning of homosexuals but that doesn't make them any more acceptable in the modern age.

    Maybe it isn't justified (there actually ARE pretty good arguments for why Israel stole the territories... most of which don't apply in this era of missiles and airplanes, but there were reasons that kind of made sense at the time :p), but it has happened.
    But there's no justification for persisting in holding onto them, or building settlements within them. Israel is by far the strongest military force within the middle east by a considerable margin. For all the mock sabre rattling at Iran, Israel already have nuclear weapons and have done for quite some time.

    But screw the two year olds. Let's actually think about the people who live there, not the politicians and war mongers. The Israeli government is rather "modern" in its civil rights issues (barring the standard few "Uhm.. seriously?" issues) . I am not up to date on the Palestinian stance on human rights and what not, but for the sake of argument let's assume they are also pretty much not going to persecute any major groups. Then what is the difference between who is in charge and who isn't? Just a question of which politicians and if they get to call themselves a "Jewish state with lots of Arabs" or "An arab state with lots of circumcised penises" So yeah, I am gonna call them a bunch of petulant children if they are still fighting and going crazy over things that can EASILY be resolved by discussions and peace, not open warfare.
    In all honesty I think you need to do some actual research on the subject in truth Gundato. It's a military occupation, the Palestinians don't have much in the way of rights, nor do they have an equal voice on matters. The Palestinians can have their own elections, but they have no real power to influence things in same way that the Vichy government had no sway over the Germans. It's all very well to propose that they sit down and talk, but that's been attempted plenty of times over the years but it's abundantly clear that the Israeli government has no intention of ever acceding to withdrawing from the occupied territories because of the strong religious convictions that many in Israel hold to about the land given to them by God. If anything the proposals put forward by Israel have generally been ones that benefit them the most in terms of their ambitions by legitimizing the annexation and disadvantage the Palestinians even more. Also circumcision is practiced by Muslims as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xercies View Post
    Really...? That's why in Europe we have a bubbling continuing rage at Muslims for being over here and having the religion, that's why a lot of right-wing parties are getting elected in a lot of places. That's why in Egypt there is a continuing path to Civil War because the Muslims and The others can't seem to decide which government they want and who that government should be run by. That's why we Have Gaza and Israel.
    I think you're mistaking peoples concerns over fundamentalism with concerns with Muslims. Most western Muslims aren't fundamentalists.

    I'm sorry we are slowly getting less violent and I accepted that but our Tribalness is still in display, and if we aren't violent to the tribe we are very suspicious about them and want nothing to do with them and want them out of the country we feel is our tribe.
    Whose 'we' in this dialogue exactly?
    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

    Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes....

  2. #42
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadayi View Post
    Given how embroiled the world is in the issue I would say it is pretty serious. The US governments continued unquestioning support for the ongoing occupation is one factor that's put them at odds with the Arab world for many years, and in large helped to engender the hatred that lead to events such as 9/11.
    There are a LOT of factors that led to the Middle East "hating" the US, many of which have to do with how we handled the aftermath of 9-11. To try to blame it all on supporting Israel is naive at best.

    Also, it isn't really like we can back pedal easily. Right now, Israel is the closest thing the US has to a friend in that region and, as you said, a LOT of the Arab world is pissed. So if we suddenly say "Fuck off Jewistan", that just means we lose a "friend". Not that we lose enemies or gain new "friends".

    Maybe it would be a start to a new era of global piece. Or maybe we would find the one thing that can unite Israel and its Arab neighbors: Being pissed at The USA :p

    As for not being supah serious on the matter: If public opinion in the western world were all that mattered, this would have ended LONG ago. Various politicians (even clayface Kerry himself, as mentioned) are trying to get the children to quit crying and flinging snot at each other for long enough that they might come to some form of agreement to actually benefit the people, not the political beliefs of everyone on the interweb.

    As regards this belittling of both sides, I fear there's a collective failure at work in terms of your thinking. The Palestinian people aren't in this situation by choice, in the same way that the French weren't during the German invasion in WW2. The israelis are very much still in the occupied territories by choice though.
    The Palestinian people "lost the war" as it is. They are allowed to live in Israel (hence much of the issues surrounding the territories) and they are (to varying degrees) allowed to live in neighboring countries. It sucks to be them, but all that this continuing strife and conflict is doing is causing just that, strife and conflict.

    You seem very intent on dropping godwin bombs on this (which is hilarious since that makes Israel Hitler :p). But let's say Germany HAD won, and let's ignore those human rights issues (in all honesty, there is a good chance they would be done with their genocide by now. Err, yeah...) and assume that it was an environment where the French could live and even express French pride, they just no longer lived "in France" but instead lived in "Paris, Germany". At that point: you lost, your nation is gone, but you can still keep the culture alive while acclimating to your new world. Keep up the non-violent protest, but there is no need to blow up buildings or fire rockets at your "german occupiers" because all it will do is result in more suffering and death.


    If you don't like my continued mockery of the situation: Sorry, but I don't believe that might makes right. I don't care how many nukes or guns a country/organization has: If their leaders are acting like children, they are acting like children. And this is pretty fucking childish as all of this continued conflict and strife does NOTHING for the people who live there and only benefits the political groups. And sorry, but I don't really have much sympathy for political groups that continue to cause suffering for their people and their neighbors out of a sense of nationalistic pride/religious belief.


    How is Israel withdrawing back to the international recognized boundaries a bad thing? No ones talking about the Palestinians annexing Israel.
    Again, using the UN as a metric for all that is right in the world is pretty hilarious

    And here is the thing: Maybe Israel doesn't claim to control the region, just occupy it (I honestly have no idea what the Israeli government's official stance is as most online sources tend to go with the stance of a bunch of beaurocrats who would elect an Iranian politician as leader of a women's rights commission...), but a LOT of Israelis live there now. But don't worry, if we are all believers that everyone should fight the opposition with tooth and nail and explosions and suffering, those Israelis can become freedom fighters later! :p


    There's also historical precedents for slavery, the subjugation of women and the burning of homosexuals but that doesn't make them any more acceptable in the modern age.
    Got it, Isreal hates black people, women, and homosexuals. Because politicians wanting to draw lines is TOTALLY the same thing as persecuting someone because of their skin color, sex organs, or liking it up the butt (Nothing against lesbians, transgendered, etc. but it is a scientifically proven fact that anal sex jokes make up a significant portion of the internet).


    But there's no justification for persisting in holding onto them, or building settlements within them. Israel is by far the strongest military force within the middle east by a considerable margin. For all the mock sabre rattling at Iran, Israel already have nuclear weapons and have done for quite some time.
    Yes, because the politicians in that region (or anywhere on Earth, really) are intelligent and won't start a war they can't win. And nobody would EVER go too far and start a war over saber rattling (*cough* World War I *cough*)

    And yeah, Israel has a VERY well equipped, well trained, and proven military. But here is the thing: They barely won the six day war, and any prolonged conflict would pretty much result in them going down (and probably glassing a large portion of the Middle East). There are significant arguments to why they want the extra territory that they claimed during the last few wars, and it is up to the Israeli generals and what not to determine if they still believe those are valid. While it is no longer true that that protects their "core" from being attacked, it still gives them buffer space to survive a land war (even today, you need troops on the ground to accomplish anything)

    So maybe they CAN defend themselves and maybe we CAN drill through glass for our oil if they can't. But you'll understand if I would prefer to not just say "Yeah guys, fight it out already".



    In all honesty I think you need to do some actual research on the subject in truth Gundato. It's a military occupation, the Palestinians don't have much in the way of rights, nor do they have an equal voice on matters. The Palestinians can have their own elections, but they have no real power to influence things in same way that the Vichy government had no sway over the Germans. It's all very well to propose that they sit down and talk, but that's been attempted plenty of times over the years but it's abundantly clear that the Israeli government has no intention of ever acceding to withdrawing from the occupied territories because of the strong religious convictions that many in Israel hold to about the land given to them by God. If anything the proposals put forward by Israel have generally been ones that benefit them the most in terms of their ambitions by legitimizing the annexation and disadvantage the Palestinians even more. Also circumcision is practiced by Muslims as well.
    Correction: it has been made abundantly clear that neither side has any intention of being flexible in their demands. Or, if we need to keep with "Fuck X, Y are the innocent ones": It has been made abundantly clear that the Palestinians, who have no real power or leg to stand on are proposing things that give them power for no real reason other than "We lost a war and want a do-over".

    Isn't blindly vilifying one side over the other fun?

    And a political group proposing terms that benefit them? THE HORROR!! THE UNPRECEDENTEDNESS!! WHEN WILL THE MADNESS STOP!!!!

    Didn't know Muslims also circumcised themselves. Kerry should TOTALLY just get on Al Jazeera (I assume they broadcast in Israel too?), whip out his penis, and be like "Guys, guys. None of us have foreskins. Can't we all just get along?"
    ... I would actually vote for Kerry during his inevitable presidential campaign if he did that.


    You say that I need to do some actual research. I say that EVERYONE has to do some actual research. Make an informed decision based on who you think is right AFTER you have read multiple accounts of the events that happened and preferably without just boiling down to "They be crazy religious folk, yo". Because like it or not, this is not a cut and dry situation and there are LOTS of circumstances on both sides. And by making up your mind before doing research, all you do is find a way to villify everything to further fit your desired world view.

    Personally, I don't support Isreal. I also don't support Palestine. I think they are all a bunch of fucking children who are just making things worse for the people who live in the region. But when I see blatantly Pro-X/Anti-Y, I am going to try to add a bit more perspective. If people start trying to justify everything Israel does by playing the "Palestine are a bunch of terrorists and even the other Arab nations hate them", I will add some info on how they really ARE just political pawns in the game being played by the Arab nations while also pointing out things like how the Palestinian people really ARE refugees who got ousted from their home by the Zionists (while also pointing out that a large percentage of them were evicted by their landlords, not the Israelis). Because balance is important. With a balanced view of the situation, people are MUCH more likely to negotiate.
    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. #43
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Xercies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,380
    I think you're mistaking peoples concerns over fundamentalism with concerns with Muslims. Most western Muslims aren't fundamentalists.


    Thats why people after attacks go after most people that look foreign not caring if they are fundemental muslim, muslim or some other religion. There brown they must be bad!

    Whose 'we' in this dialogue exactly?


    Its clear you dodge around actual questions that would be more valid.

  4. #44
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus somini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NEuro Troika Franchulate #3
    Posts
    3,754
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Because politicians wanting to draw lines is TOTALLY the same thing as persecuting someone because of their skin color, sex organs, or liking it up the butt (Nothing against lesbians, transgendered, etc. but it is a scientifically proven fact that anal sex jokes make up a significant portion of the internet).
    So invading countries is "drawing lines" now? Persecuting someone because they name their deity differently is A-OK?
    Steam(shots), Imgur, Flickr, Bak'laag, why do you forsake me?

  5. #45
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Kadayi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,482
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    There are a LOT of factors that led to the Middle East "hating" the US, many of which have to do with how we handled the aftermath of 9-11. To try to blame it all on supporting Israel is naive at best.
    I haven't, in fact the very post you just quoted acknowledges that it isn't the sole factor: -

    Given how embroiled the world is in the issue I would say it is pretty serious. The US governments continued unquestioning support for the ongoing occupation is one factor that's put them at odds with the Arab world for many years, and in large helped to engender the hatred that lead to events such as 9/11.
    But still I appreciate the effort at attempting to claim the opposite


    Also, it isn't really like we can back pedal easily. Right now, Israel is the closest thing the US has to a friend in that region and, as you said, a LOT of the Arab world is pissed. So if we suddenly say "Fuck off Jewistan", that just means we lose a "friend". Not that we lose enemies or gain new "friends".

    Maybe it would be a start to a new era of global piece. Or maybe we would find the one thing that can unite Israel and its Arab neighbors: Being pissed at The USA :p
    What does US interest in the region have to do with whether something is morally right or wrong exactly?

    As for not being supah serious on the matter: If public opinion in the western world were all that mattered, this would have ended LONG ago. Various politicians (even clayface Kerry himself, as mentioned) are trying to get the children to quit crying and flinging snot at each other for long enough that they might come to some form of agreement to actually benefit the people, not the political beliefs of everyone on the interweb.
    If the US government quit abusing their powers of veto to block any affirmative action by the UN regarding Israel then the UN would of sent in a peace keeping force to the region a long time ago and revolved matters:-

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../usvetoes.html

    The Palestinian people "lost the war" as it is. They are allowed to live in Israel (hence much of the issues surrounding the territories) and they are (to varying degrees) allowed to live in neighboring countries. It sucks to be them, but all that this continuing strife and conflict is doing is causing just that, strife and conflict.
    The occupied territories are not in Israel, they're in Palestine. What part of occupation don't you quite understand exactly?

    You seem very intent on dropping godwin bombs on this (which is hilarious since that makes Israel Hitler :p). But let's say Germany HAD won, and let's ignore those human rights issues (in all honesty, there is a good chance they would be done with their genocide by now. Err, yeah...) and assume that it was an environment where the French could live and even express French pride, they just no longer lived "in France" but instead lived in "Paris, Germany". At that point: you lost, your nation is gone, but you can still keep the culture alive while acclimating to your new world. Keep up the non-violent protest, but there is no need to blow up buildings or fire rockets at your "german occupiers" because all it will do is result in more suffering and death.
    I haven't mentioned Hitler, the Nazi's or the genocide once. All I've talked about is the occupation of France by Germany as a point of analogy. If you're seemingly too ignorant to comprehend the difference, well there's not much hope for you is there. Also proposing that one should turn a blind eye to the human rights violations that occur as a result of any military occupation as somehow OK, is just tragic on a number of levels.

    If you don't like my continued mockery of the situation: Sorry, but I don't believe that might makes right. I don't care how many nukes or guns a country/organization has: If their leaders are acting like children, they are acting like children. And this is pretty fucking childish as all of this continued conflict and strife does NOTHING for the people who live there and only benefits the political groups. And sorry, but I don't really have much sympathy for political groups that continue to cause suffering for their people and their neighbors out of a sense of nationalistic pride/religious belief.
    You're not mocking it. All you're doing is demonstrating the depth of your ignorance on the subject. I certainly don't claim to be an expert on everything, but I have at least made the effort to read up on the subject and get a broad understanding on things. I get the impression all you've done is listen to Fox News.

    Again, using the UN as a metric for all that is right in the world is pretty hilarious
    Well if one nation didn't continually abuse its veto rights the UN might be more effective. Still at least the UN wants to do things, and more often than not does when required.

    Yes, because the politicians in that region (or anywhere on Earth, really) are intelligent and won't start a war they can't win. And nobody would EVER go too far and start a war over saber rattling (*cough* World War I *cough*)
    Irrational fear is a great rule to live ones life by.

    And yeah, Israel has a VERY well equipped, well trained, and proven military. But here is the thing: They barely won the six day war, and any prolonged conflict would pretty much result in them going down (and probably glassing a large portion of the Middle East). There are significant arguments to why they want the extra territory that they claimed during the last few wars, and it is up to the Israeli generals and what not to determine if they still believe those are valid. While it is no longer true that that protects their "core" from being attacked, it still gives them buffer space to survive a land war (even today, you need troops on the ground to accomplish anything)

    So maybe they CAN defend themselves and maybe we CAN drill through glass for our oil if they can't. But you'll understand if I would prefer to not just say "Yeah guys, fight it out already".
    How is holding the occupied territories of any tactical advantage in a sustained war in this day and age exactly? They're not even really buffers to foreign invasion. If there was ever likely to have been a land war in the region since 1967 it would of already needed to have happened. Satellite surveillance is such now that any attempt at a land war would be foolhardy and Israel has plenty of military allies.

    Correction: it has been made abundantly clear that neither side has any intention of being flexible in their demands. Or, if we need to keep with "Fuck X, Y are the innocent ones": It has been made abundantly clear that the Palestinians, who have no real power or leg to stand on are proposing things that give them power for no real reason other than "We lost a war and want a do-over".
    The Palestinians didn't instigate the war, they're merely victims of it. They simply happened to be the indigenous people living in the land that was annexed by Israel during the six day war. To propose that somehow they got what they deserved and that they should suffer accordingly is quite possibly one of the most repugnant propositions I think I've ever witnessed on this forum ever in truth.

    You say that I need to do some actual research. I say that EVERYONE has to do some actual research. Make an informed decision based on who you think is right AFTER you have read multiple accounts of the events that happened and preferably without just boiling down to "They be crazy religious folk, yo". Because like it or not, this is not a cut and dry situation and there are LOTS of circumstances on both sides. And by making up your mind before doing research, all you do is find a way to villify everything to further fit your desired world view.
    Considering you're the one likening both sides to 'two year olds' and 'Children' without seemingly any actual understanding of... ..well just about anything to do with what's been going on in the region I think you need to listen to your 'advice'.

    Personally, I don't support Isreal. I also don't support Palestine. I think they are all a bunch of fucking children who are just making things worse for the people who live in the region. But when I see blatantly Pro-X/Anti-Y, I am going to try to add a bit more perspective. If people start trying to justify everything Israel does by playing the "Palestine are a bunch of terrorists and even the other Arab nations hate them", I will add some info on how they really ARE just political pawns in the game being played by the Arab nations while also pointing out things like how the Palestinian people really ARE refugees who got ousted from their home by the Zionists (while also pointing out that a large percentage of them were evicted by their landlords, not the Israelis). Because balance is important. With a balanced view of the situation, people are MUCH more likely to negotiate.
    And how exactly is calling them 'children' adding perspective? All you've demonstrated so far is that you don't have much of clue about what's gone on, or why things are the way that they are because you've little if any understanding of the history of region, or much comprehension of the social and political factors. The only way to bring balance to injustice is to tackle the injustice.

    Quote Originally Posted by somini View Post
    So invading countries is "drawing lines" now? Persecuting someone because they name their deity differently is A-OK?
    Seemingly so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xercies View Post
    Thats why people after attacks go after most people that look foreign not caring if they are fundemental muslim, muslim or some other religion. There brown they must be bad!
    Number of terrorist attacks in Europe is pretty minimal in truth. Are there right wingers & nationalists gaining power? Yes. But it's not unusual for those sort of political groups to come to the fore whenever there's a recession, because it's always the case that some groups will look to blame a countries misfortunes on a minority rather than re-access their own actions. This sort of scapegoating is not uncommon. However separation/segregation doesn't resolve the problem, it simply increases it because it allows the belief to overrule the experience.

    Its clear you dodge around actual questions that would be more valid
    No. I want to know who 'we' is, because I'm not too sure who you're claiming to represent there.
    Last edited by Kadayi; 12-07-2013 at 07:30 PM.
    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

    Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes....

  6. #46
    I was waiting for a thread like this to pop after some shitty event here, we have a lot of those in Israel.
    Anyway I didn't read everything here but I am glad that people are as objective as it can get. I would like to give a couple of points from my pov just for thought.
    Anti semitism and racism exist everywhere in the world an will continue to be.
    As jews in those countries we are a minority that gets picked, after the holocaust the need for a jewish state has risen strongly then before, we are a "jewish" state but there is a status quo that exists and wasn't touched since the countries birth, it doesn't fit everyone that lives here, even the non traditional pork\shrimp\milk eating in the same meal jews like me, yet breaking it and opening up to be an immigrant state will hurt our feeling of security because we will probably turn into a minority again. This is why a merging solution doesn't make sense for us.
    We are occupying the palestinians, but without us if we split right now wouldn't they be worse? we are supplying them with electricity, money, medical aid, many palestinians are working in our borders, we are helping them with the infrastructure that we have built, those things are paid by OUR taxes, some of their schools even teach the children that israel doesn't exist, those schools budget comes from us.
    Would this region be as developed if we never settled here? if we split into 2 countries, wouldn't they just be worse then Iran\Syria\Egypt\Iraq\Afghanistan and others? we are even giving them some political stability by giving them someone to hate :D
    It fits them as it is, they are steering the political pot but they don't want a peace solution, defiantly not a fair one.
    Our leadership is undecisive and weak, after operation "cloud pillar" our government was actually fucking negotiating with a terrorist organization(hamas) about peace terms and not with their weak gov that couldn't do shit about the ballistic missiles sent from their side.
    Also fuck the illegal settlers and the orthodox jews that don't work, they abuse the fact that we are jewish state.

  7. #47
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    10,000
    Quote Originally Posted by hellraiserzlo View Post
    We are occupying the palestinians, but without us if we split right now wouldn't they be worse?
    They'd have self-determination. Most would choose that over everything.

    After all, see: Israel.
    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

  8. #48
    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.

  9. #49
    Network Hub Nahru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Yup, whoever writes the history book is either the victim or coming to the aid of the victims.
    Which, of course, has nothing to do with whether one of the sides started the war. And it has nothing to do with whether one of the sides is, or becomes, the victim, while the other side assumes the position of an aggressor.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Yeah, if two kids start wailing on each other and one gets his ass kicked because the other kid knows Jiu Jitsu, I am not inclined to call either kid a victim. I am gonna call them both dumbasses (or "aggressors" to use the convention :p)
    Analogy - such an overused tool for communicating one's position, I think. And, I think, quite often separated from reality, due to its simplicity. But, regarding the very analogy you used. I suppose it can be considered valid in case that the two kids in question are equally physically strong, or if not, both perceive themselves at least as strong as the other. But here lies the problem - they are often not. But let me put that aside for a moment, as one could reasonably expect, I believe, two kids to start fighting against each other, despite possible other and visible solutions. What about the cases where one of the kids utilises their strength and/or skill to, without provocation, infringes on another kid's integrity and stability? And the other kid, in an attempt to preserve their stability and integrity (of body, of life, or something else like property), decides to utilise the same approach (physical actions), but in a defence. Should those two kids be considered equally wrong (or right) in their actions, as both of them could (and let us presume they do) inflict physical pain and/or damage to one another? If they both do that, despite one of them in defence, then that makes them both equally wrong?

    Now, I know that You said " two kids start wailing on each other", which could simply mean that their starting positions are the same (aggressors) - in which case the defeated kid's position would not merit that much attention, I think (provided, of course, that no great harm has been done). But, I nonetheless wanted to point the importance of something which you did not say, but I am about to use it for further explanation. In case of the warring factions, as far as I know, usually one of the sides is much stronger and is the initiator of assault (though hostilities can be initiated by any one of the sides). An assault which can end in multiple ways, including the occupation of a foreign state. In such a case, I think it can reasonably said that one of the sides (the attacking one) is certainly less "good" than the other, despite whatever actions might be committed by them.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Honestly, I would be interested in seeing a proper tally of who did what. But the problem is that Israel, at least now, is a state with a standing military. Palestine is a loosely defined group. And as anyone who knows even the first thing about guerilla warfare understands: you can sure pad the hell out of the "civilian deaths" statistic by operating your guerilla forces out of residential areas and taking the guns away from the corpses before the cameras get there (no uniforms). And you can cover for those "civilian deaths" by saying "We had no choice but to fire upon that hospital. There was a rocket launcher on the roof, and they were targeting OUR civilians"
    Which all has nothing to do with whether one of the sides really is being oppressed/occupied/annexed. Like I said, perhaps they both do atrocities to each other, but one is, I think, almost always the aggressor, while the other is not. I think that one cannot simply state that all sides of a conflict are equally wrong just because they all do similar actions. One of the sides usually is the attacking side, while the other is the defending side, I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Do I equate the two? No. But I also have a hard time really picking one side that I feel is in the right and I think that anyone who has an easy time is over-simplifying things or operating based on something other than the sheer facts.
    Oh, but from everything you said it is hard to believe that you do not equate the two. Also, what oversimplification? Perhaps the Palestinians have started this mess in the first place. Perhaps they were the first to commit terrible things. But that was decades ago (not that I am justifying them), but in the meantime Israel has become stronger and has used its strength to do terrible things as well. Things which, as far as I know, are greater in scope, and have greatly (a relative term though) offset atrocities committed by Palestinians (not that it necessarily justifies such atrocities).

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Israeli Soldier kills Palestinian Guerilla: Either a heroic defender of Israel killed a terrorist who was gonna rape babies OR Evil Israely Overlord kills innocent freedom fighter
    Palestinian Guerilla kills Israeli Soldier: Heroic defender of Israel murdered by baby raper OR Poor innocent school teacher forced to kill Israeli puppy drowner in self defense
    Another analogy, another oversimplification and equation of things which should not be treated in such a way. If I understand you correctly, both Israeli soldier and Palestinian guerilla (but, for simplicity's sake, let say Palestinian soldier as well) are acting in the name of the attacking side (the aggressor). But such thing cannot be - two sides at war cannot in the same time occupy each other; excluding, of course, the occupation of parts of one's side (example: occupation of several towns by Syrian rebels still does not put them in a position to occupy an entire state). What you are saying, I think, is that both Palestinian territories are being occupied by Israel, while in the same time Israel is being occupied by Palestinians - which is logically impossible I think. Sure, Israel is being targeted by Palestinian warriors, but hardly that it can be considered an occupation of Israel.

    That is another reason why, as I perceive it, you do equate two sides of a conflict.

    Another problem is a moral position of yours regarding this matter. you have the right to think whatever you want, and to express your opinion. But when it comes to "every side in a war is equally wrong and bad as every other side", there I cannot agree with you, and consider such stance wrong (as I have elaborated it in this post earlier). I suppose that we shall simply disagree about this.
    Last edited by Nahru; 21-09-2013 at 02:12 PM. Reason: grammar

  10. #50
    Network Hub Nahru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by hellraiserzlo View Post
    I was waiting for a thread like this to pop after some shitty event here, we have a lot of those in Israel.
    Anyway I didn't read everything here but I am glad that people are as objective as it can get. I would like to give a couple of points from my pov just for thought.
    Anti semitism and racism exist everywhere in the world an will continue to be.
    As jews in those countries we are a minority that gets picked, after the holocaust the need for a jewish state has risen strongly then before, we are a "jewish" state but there is a status quo that exists and wasn't touched since the countries birth, it doesn't fit everyone that lives here, even the non traditional pork\shrimp\milk eating in the same meal jews like me, yet breaking it and opening up to be an immigrant state will hurt our feeling of security because we will probably turn into a minority again. This is why a merging solution doesn't make sense for us.
    We are occupying the palestinians, but without us if we split right now wouldn't they be worse? we are supplying them with electricity, money, medical aid, many palestinians are working in our borders, we are helping them with the infrastructure that we have built, those things are paid by OUR taxes, some of their schools even teach the children that israel doesn't exist, those schools budget comes from us.
    Would this region be as developed if we never settled here? if we split into 2 countries, wouldn't they just be worse then Iran\Syria\Egypt\Iraq\Afghanistan and others? we are even giving them some political stability by giving them someone to hate :D
    It fits them as it is, they are steering the political pot but they don't want a peace solution, defiantly not a fair one.
    Our leadership is undecisive and weak, after operation "cloud pillar" our government was actually fucking negotiating with a terrorist organization(hamas) about peace terms and not with their weak gov that couldn't do shit about the ballistic missiles sent from their side.
    Also fuck the illegal settlers and the orthodox jews that don't work, they abuse the fact that we are jewish state.
    Lots of "wouldn't it be"s in your post. And to all such queries one answer is - one does not know. Perhaps it would be worse, perhaps it would be better for the Palestinians, but fantasizing about what would be is a waste of effort.

    With that said, I shall sarcastically say that situation would probably not be much better - but that is merely an opinion not backed with evidence. Also, as Nalano said, the right to self-determination is something much valued by many, and is not easily substituted by material wealth. Whatever your opinion about nonworking settlers is it still does not matter much in the face of Israeli government being behind their settlements.
    Last edited by Nahru; 21-09-2013 at 02:12 PM.

  11. #51
    Well I just wanted to comment on the situation from my pov, I didn't commit to any hard truths.
    I also think that I didn't commit to any side(bs) and gave some food for thought for any "y u no 2 state or just merge?", we are usually portrayed as big bad evil germany occupying peace mongering european country x in ww2.
    The palestinians didn't exist before a jewish state was built, there were bedouin, druze and other arabs that lived here in this region. But besides maybe jerusalem there wasn't much going on here. Also to be taken with a grain of salt cause I am no expert on the subject, but afaik when we had our early thin territory and we expended our borders our neighbor countries like syria and egypt refused to accept arabs that wanted to immigrate and were now living on occupied territory just for the sake of a cluster fuck effect.
    If we were to go now for a two state solution it would be like disconnecting a fatally injured person from life support, could they actually exist independently?
    Also an ugly thing to say but if it wasn't us it would have been someone else sooner or later, and when it's us it's better then egypet\syria or whatever. We didn't expend to lets say burma and decided that we govern them, we built a country where there was nothing, israeli arabs that have been living became israeli citizens with equal rights, palestinians are something completely different, they are as young as israel and they claim all of it to themselves while they have had not contributed anything to it.
    Saying israel gtfo is the same as saying give back america to the native americans, they were there first.
    Hell some of them even live in places that are called indian reservations, what if in those reservations terrorist\resistance movements arose from within and they would start to ask for independence or more territory on the claim that they were invaded, overpowered and are now occupied?
    Last edited by hellraiserzlo; 12-07-2013 at 09:18 PM.

  12. #52
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,333
    Quote Originally Posted by somini View Post
    So invading countries is "drawing lines" now? Persecuting someone because they name their deity differently is A-OK?
    The invasion: Yeah, that is messed up. But that happened in the 60s. It is time to actually look at what is going on, and right now it is largely a question of "who rules the region?". Hell, a better question would be "is it even really still the same region?". Maybe the land is still The Gaza Strip, but the population has changed a lot and there has been at least one (probably closer to two? I forget how a generation is quantified) generation who have grown up in this new world.
    Which brings us back to: At what point does something become "People done did fucked up things during history, let's try to move on?". To use Kad's favorite analogy that is totally not at all trying to imply a g-bomb: World War 2 happened roughly 70 years ago. I work with a French guy and a German guy, and they get along great. The French guy doesn't care that the German guy's grandfather might have subjugated his grandfather, because they both understand that the German doesn't feel that himself. We try to avoid too many World War 2 jokes, but mostly because the French guy is sick of the "France surrenders at the drop of a hat" jokes and the German guy is sick of "We were on vacation!". It isn't a matter of shame or hatred so much as just "I have heard every single one of those jokes"

    As for the second part: Isn't that what both sides are screaming about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kadayi View Post
    I haven't, in fact the very post you just quoted acknowledges that it isn't the sole factor: -



    But still I appreciate the effort at attempting to claim the opposite
    Deepest apologies. I thought you were trying to make a point and not just listing random bad things.




    What does US interest in the region have to do with whether something is morally right or wrong exactly?
    Absolutely nothing. Just like morality has very little to do with security and ensuring the welfare of a people. The US, for better or for worse, wants to at least have a say in the region. Whether that is for oil, a love of hummus, or just attempting to keep the entire region from being glassed, is anyone's guess. Right now, the only real option the US has to keep any form of foothold there (especially now that politics have shifted to a policy of "Yeah... We got rid of your leaders because we didn't like them. Uhm, good luck with the reconstruction, it is too expensive for us to help") is Israel.



    The occupied territories are not in Israel, they're in Palestine. What part of occupation don't you quite understand exactly?
    And Palestine has only been officially recognized by a big bunch of bureaucrats in recent years.


    I haven't mentioned Hitler, the Nazi's or the genocide once. All I've talked about is the occupation of France by Germany as a point of analogy. If you're seemingly too ignorant to comprehend the difference, well there's not much hope for you is there. Also proposing that one should turn a blind eye to the human rights violations that occur as a result of any military occupation as somehow OK, is just tragic on a number of levels.
    Ah, the implied g-bomb. Makes it all much less of an appeal to emotion and hte like.

    And here is the thing. It is a "military occupation" that has been going on for 50 some odd years. Where is the cutoff where we are allowed to stop caring? Are we now gonna start screaming that the US has been violating the rights of the Mexicans in Texas since we annexed the hell out of that hellhole? Please, define the cutoff for where something becomes a part of a nation's territory (maybe not de jour, but de facto) and when we have to plug our ears and just scream "Occupiers! occupiers!"? I am curious, because clearly my differing viewpoint makes me so ignorant that I don't understand the number of years.

    You're not mocking it. All you're doing is demonstrating the depth of your ignorance on the subject. I certainly don't claim to be an expert on everything, but I have at least made the effort to read up on the subject and get a broad understanding on things. I get the impression all you've done is listen to Fox News.
    Actually, Fox tends to also try to stay pretty quiet on Israel because of the Jew factor. Lots of Jews are democrats, and Fox hates them democrats :p

    And yeah, I guess actually citing information from around the internet (admittedly, mostly wiki) means I am refusing to read up on anything and that I only watch Fox news. The internet confuses me


    Irrational fear is a great rule to live ones life by.
    It is an irrational fear to believe that the various neighbors of Israel might invade them again? How many more wars do they have to fight in a given century before it becomes rational?

    Also, there are quite a few arguments that Israel only really won (sort of) the Six Day war because of aid from the US, but that involves a knowledge beyond "Bad new nation, bad"


    How is holding the occupied territories of any tactical advantage in a sustained war in this day and age exactly? They're not even really buffers to foreign invasion. If there was ever likely to have been a land war in the region since 1967 it would of already needed to have happened. Satellite surveillance is such now that any attempt at a land war would be foolhardy and Israel has plenty of military allies.
    Which is why I repeatedly said the arguments that were initially made are much less valid, but they are still slightly valid.

    At the very least: It takes time to drive them tanks and troop carriers across those territories, and unless you intend extermination (and even then. Bunkers and caves, yo) you need some boots on the ground. If only to have someone perform the symbolic act of lowering and raising a flag.

    The Palestinians didn't instigate the war, they're merely victims of it. They simply happened to be the indigenous people living in the land that was annexed by Israel during the six day war. To propose that somehow they got what they deserved and that they should suffer accordingly is quite possibly one of the most repugnant propositions I think I've ever witnessed on this forum ever in truth.
    And I have never once said the Palestinian people "deserved" it. But thanks for making my arguments for me. See, this is the kind of crap I am talking about as why it helps to not make one's decisions prior to actually considering the situation.

    The Palestinian people are victims in all this. So are the Israeli people. The Palestinian politicians and the Israeli politicians, not so much.

    And how exactly is calling them 'children' adding perspective? All you've demonstrated so far is that you don't have much of clue about what's gone on, or why things are the way that they are because you've little if any understanding of the history of region, or much comprehension of the social and political factors. The only way to bring balance to injustice is to tackle the injustice.
    Yes, let's tackle the injustice. But rather than do an all or nothing deal, let's actually look at the facts. I dunno, maybe I am just too stupid to understand, but if two people are assholes, I consider them both assholes. I don't pick one asshole and pretend they are a paragon of virtue and that all of their assholishness is the direct fault of the second asshole.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    They'd have self-determination. Most would choose that over everything.

    After all, see: Israel.
    I too am inclined to lean toward this, but I am not really sure if they WOULD have that, seeing as how the Palestinian people have pretty much been puppets since Israel took over their land.

    I sadly suspect it would be a case of giving up one "oppressor" for another.
    Last edited by gundato; 13-07-2013 at 12:04 AM.
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  13. #53
    Network Hub Nahru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by hellraiserzlo View Post
    Well I just wanted to comment on the situation from my pov, I didn't commit to any hard truths.
    I also think that I didn't commit to any side(bs) and gave some food for thought for any "y u no 2 state or just merge?", we are usually portrayed as big bad evil germany occupying peace mongering european country x in ww2.
    No need to apologize for anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by hellraiserzlo View Post
    If we were to go now for a two state solution it would be like disconnecting a fatally injured person from life support, could they actually exist independently?
    Perhaps. But I thought that is something the Palestinians want, at least last couple of years? Also, why would Israel care what happens with other bordering nations, so long as that does not affect it in any negative way? Or are you saying that Israel (or, perhaps, it would be better to use the term Israeli government) genuinely cares for the well-being of Palestinians for the sake of... caring? I think not.

    Quote Originally Posted by hellraiserzlo View Post
    Also an ugly thing to say but if it wasn't us it would have been someone else sooner or later, and when it's us it's better then egypet\syria or whatever.
    Except you cannot know this for sure, now can you? (Though I would say that you are probably right, but see the following sentence) Still, even if you are correct about what would be and the Palestinians, as a nation, would end up under Syrian, or Egyptian, or some other Arab nation's rule, know that for Muslims, at least as far as I know and am concerned, such a situation is still significantly... more approved of, than the situation of being ruled by Jewish, or Christian state.

    Quote Originally Posted by hellraiserzlo View Post
    ... we built a country where there was nothing, israeli arabs that have been living became israeli citizens with equal rights, palestinians are something completely different, they are as young as israel and they claim all of it to themselves while they have had not contributed anything to it...
    Which still does not justify continued occupation of another nation's territory. Also, this stance that just because an area was barren and uninhabited, and someone came and made it habitable and perhaps even sprawling urban area, does not justify the annexation of another's territories. Would, in a hypothetical situation, Israel claim the right to occupy parts of, for example, Saudi Arabia, just because it would bring life to a place where none existed before? I think not.


    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    And here is the thing. It is a "military occupation" that has been going on for 50 some odd years. Where is the cutoff where we are allowed to stop caring?... Please, define the cutoff for where something becomes a part of a nation's territory (maybe not de jour, but de facto) and when we have to plug our ears and just scream "Occupiers! occupiers!"? I am curious...
    Cutoff? And you mention "we"? When it comes to this matter, for many people, there is no cutoff, and cannot be. Know that for a Muslim, as far as I know (and I am pretty certain about this), it is a religious obligation to care about fellow Muslims, no matter when and where they are. As someone who considers himself a Muslim, I am obliged to care about the state the Palestinian people are in, even if I would be on the other end of the galaxy and the conflict has lasted for millennia. I have no such caring for many other peoples, or their problems, but Muslims are a necessary exception if I am to at least remotely consider myself a Muslim. That is the answer you seek, but it is only partial. I understand if you and everyone else in this world, except Muslims, do not care about Palestinians, or any other Muslim and their problem(s), but every Muslim, as I have stated, is obliged to care. That means that 1,5 billion people of the Earth's population should care. Also, that is the reason why "we" can only pertain to, for example, this forum's members (if by "we" you thought it that way, as I think you did), though there is still at least an exception when it comes to me :)

    Conclusion: you may devise cutoff, arbitrary or not, but it cannot be applied to Muslims.
    Last edited by Nahru; 21-09-2013 at 02:13 PM.

  14. #54
    We are caring for them because of two reasons, first by law an occupying country has to take care of the humanitarian needs of it's occupied territory, second some of it gives us control and helps us to slow or hurt their terror\resistance organizing, denying shipments of weapons for hamas and as not a country we can return fire back when ever we are bombarded by missiles without going on a declaration of war, for example egypt got our agreement to send army forces to sinai to take care of the smugglers that were operating there, those smugglers are threatening us.
    When we did this in syria not so long ago, where hamas took over military bases that are near our border and mortars and missiles started to fly by mistake over to our side, we returned fire to where we were shot from but syria started threatening.

    Saudi arabaia is occupied and recognized to belong to who ever lives there, this is not how it was here, also don't forget that jews bought large parts of the land here before a country was declared.

    Also this might offend you but from what I know, muslims don't get along with each other better then with other, without common enemies like israel, america and the infidel western world I doubt that the arab nations would have been living happily ever after.
    Note kurdish–turkish conflict, iraqis invasion to kuwait, the anti gov rebellions in egypt, syrias alawite vs shia, it's all tribal warfare and power games between royalty, no peaceful muslim unity worldwide.

  15. #55
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Kadayi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,482
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Deepest apologies. I thought you were trying to make a point and not just listing random bad things.
    They're called factors. Still way to cover your ass hanging out I guess. Let's see what other absurdities you have to offer up...

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Absolutely nothing.
    Then quit framing your statements from that perspective. US regional interest is irrelevant to the discussion.

    And Palestine has only been officially recognized by a big bunch of countries in recent years.
    Corrected for accuracy.


    And here is the thing. It is a "military occupation" that has been going on for 50 some odd years. Where is the cutoff where we are allowed to stop caring? Are we now gonna start screaming that the US has been violating the rights of the Mexicans in Texas since we annexed the hell out of that hellhole? Please, define the cutoff for where something becomes a part of a nation's territory (maybe not de jour, but de facto) and when we have to plug our ears and just scream "Occupiers! occupiers!"? I am curious, because clearly my differing viewpoint makes me so ignorant that I don't understand the number of years.
    I'm fairly sure racial segregation had been going for more than 50 years when the civil rights movement first sprung up. Were people wrong to protest that? Were we in the 1960s would you be shouting down Martin Luther King or Malcolm X and telling the black man to accept segregation as the way of things? What about Apathied in South Africa? Would you be telling Nelson Mandela and the ANC to just accept their subjugation? Where do you draw the distinction?


    It is an irrational fear to believe that the various neighbors of Israel might invade them again? How many more wars do they have to fight in a given century before it becomes rational?
    I think it's highly unlikely given their present military strength and prowess, and even less so if they withdraw from the occupied territories back to the 1967 borders. Doing so has more chance of engendering positive change in the region with respect to Arab/Israeli relations than the present situation is ever likely to achieve.

    At the very least: It takes time to drive them tanks and troop carriers across those territories, and unless you intend extermination (and even then. Bunkers and caves, yo) you need some boots on the ground. If only to have someone perform the symbolic act of lowering and raising a flag.
    Unless someone invents a means to smuggle tank divisions through countries undetected I suspect it's unlikely in this day and age of increasing satellite surveillance that Israel and its allies are likely to be caught unawares by any future attempt at a land invasion.

    And I have never once said the Palestinian people "deserved" it. But thanks for making my arguments for me. See, this is the kind of crap I am talking about as why it helps to not make one's decisions prior to actually considering the situation.
    Really? : -


    It has been made abundantly clear that the Palestinians, who have no real power or leg to stand on are proposing things that give them power for no real reason other than "We lost a war and want a do-over".
    Seems pretty clear to me that you're implying they got where they were through their own misfortunes (erroneous as that assumption is), and somehow should accept their lot.

    The Palestinian people are victims in all this. So are the Israeli people. The Palestinian politicians and the Israeli politicians, not so much.
    Again this application of equality with little regard to the inherent imbalance of occupation.


    Yes, let's tackle the injustice. But rather than do an all or nothing deal, let's actually look at the facts. I dunno, maybe I am just too stupid to understand, but if two people are assholes, I consider them both assholes. I don't pick one asshole and pretend they are a paragon of virtue and that all of their assholishness is the direct fault of the second asshole.
    So the war of independence was wrong?
    Last edited by Kadayi; 13-07-2013 at 11:06 AM.
    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

    Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes....

  16. #56
    Network Hub Nahru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by hellraiserzlo View Post
    We are caring for them because of two reasons, first by law an occupying country has to take care of the humanitarian needs of it's occupied territory, second some of it gives us control and helps us to slow or hurt their terror\resistance organizing, denying shipments of weapons for hamas and as not a country we can return fire back when ever we are bombarded by missiles without going on a declaration of war, for example egypt got our agreement to send army forces to sinai to take care of the smugglers that were operating there, those smugglers are threatening us.
    When we did this in syria not so long ago, where hamas took over military bases that are near our border and mortars and missiles started to fly by mistake over to our side, we returned fire to where we were shot from but syria started threatening.
    I see.

    Quote Originally Posted by hellraiserzlo View Post
    Saudi arabaia is occupied and recognized to belong to who ever lives there, this is not how it was here, also don't forget that jews bought large parts of the land here before a country was declared.
    Yes, but like I said - the occupation continues, and this does not change that when it comes to Palestine.

    Quote Originally Posted by hellraiserzlo View Post
    Also this might offend you but from what I know, muslims don't get along with each other better then with other, without common enemies like israel, america and the infidel western world I doubt that the arab nations would have been living happily ever after.
    Note kurdish–turkish conflict, iraqis invasion to kuwait, the anti gov rebellions in egypt, syrias alawite vs shia, it's all tribal warfare and power games between royalty, no peaceful muslim unity worldwide.
    It does not offend me as it is obvious and is a simple statement of facts. However, once more you assume the knowledge which you have not, nor you can have it, about what would be. I think it would be best to put aside such statements in which one guesses or presumes what would be if something else was.

    Regarding the issues that Muslims have with each other - it is of course unfortunate for Muslims, but such issues have nothing to do with Islam. Those conflicts, as is the case with many of them, are nothing more than a manifestation of stupidity, ignorance, arrogance and lust for the material wealth which does not belong to one.

    I still believe that a two-state solution would be best. The problem lies in border disputes, as well as disputes over Jerusalem. I also think that, due to its economic and military might, as well as all the powerful allies it has, Israel could, if it genuinely wanted, bring peace to the region. But that, among other things, would require Israel to make compromises when it comes to newly found Jewish settlements. Palestinians would also, I think, need to stop making unreasonable demands - but I am not quite knowledgeable about what it is they want, apart from Israel to remove the problematic settlements.
    Last edited by Nahru; 21-09-2013 at 02:13 PM.

  17. #57
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Nahru2 View Post
    Cutoff? And you mention "we"? When it comes to this matter, for many people, there is no cutoff, and cannot be. Know that for a Muslim, as far as I know (and I am pretty certain about this), it is a religious obligation to care about fellow Muslims, no matter when and where they are. As someone who considers himself a Muslim, I am obliged to care about the state the Palestinian people are in, even if I would be on the other end of the galaxy and the conflict has lasted for millennia. I have no such caring for many other peoples, or their problems, but Muslims are a necessary exception if I am to at least remotely consider myself a Muslim. That is the answer You seek, but it is only partial. I understand if You and everyone else in this world, except Muslims, do not care about Palestinians, or any other Muslim and their problem(s), but every Muslim, as I have stated, is obliged to care. That means that 1,5 billion people of the Earth's population should care. Also, that is the reason why "we" can only pertain to, for example, this forum's members (if by "we" You thought it that way, as I think You did), though there is still at least an exception when it comes to me :)

    Conclusion: You may devise cutoff, arbitrary or not, but it cannot be applied to Muslims.
    So you still hate all of Christianity, because during the crusades a LOT of Muslims were slaughtered. Right?

    This is the kind of mentality that keeps hurting humanity. At some point, people need to let the hate go and try to move on and make their lives better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kadayi View Post
    I'm fairly sure racial segregation had been going for more than 50 years when the civil rights movement first sprung up. Were people wrong to protest that? Were we in the 1960s would you be shouting down Martin Luther King or Malcolm X and telling the black man to accept segregation as the way of things? What about Apathied in South Africa? Would you be telling Nelson Mandela and the ANC to just accept their subjugation? Where do you draw the distinction?
    So now I am a racist?

    Again, there is a difference between deciding who owns what region and if people are property.


    I think it's highly unlikely given their present military strength and prowess, and even less so if they withdraw from the occupied territories back to the 1967 borders. Doing so has more chance of engendering positive change in the region with respect to Arab/Israeli relations than the present situation is ever likely to achieve.
    Except that the Arab culture is one where social status and perceived power is very important. That is one of the reasons why people were pretty pissed when Obama gave a minor bow while shaking hands (the other reasons are all really stupid). So for Isreal, who basically exist on the grounds of "You want some, come get some. We'll mess you up", showing ANY weakness just gives more fuel for the fire.

    Because Isreal can pretty much take out any one (or even two) of their neighbors, but three or four (you know, like the last few wars...) and there is a good chance of a lot of death on all sides.

    So from the perspective of minimizing suffering: Keeping the territory and keeping the various skirmishes and guerilla battles relatively centralized, rather than having near constant incursions on their border (like before the six day war) may actually be beneficial. I, unlike you apparently, am not privy to every bit of military intelligence and so can only base my assumptions on human nature and history.

    Unless someone invents a means to smuggle tank divisions through countries undetected I suspect it's unlikely in this day and age of increasing satellite surveillance that Israel and its allies are likely to be caught unawares by any future attempt at a land invasion.
    Where did I say anything about stealth and being caught unawares?

    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?

    In a land war, land is good for the defender. It gives you time to organize defenses and room to fall back. The more of it you have between your capital/major population center/whatever, the better.
    And again, unless your goal is the complete extermination of a people (and even then), you need boots on the ground. You can't just keep firing missiles and dropping bombs.


    Seems pretty clear to me that you're implying they got where they were through their own misfortunes (erroneous as that assumption is), and somehow should accept their lot.
    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.

    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"

    So the war of independence was wrong?
    I assume you mean American Independence (if not, please specify, since there have been a LOT of those).
    There are actually many arguments that it WAS bad and largely unjustified. And there was a LOT of blood spilled.

    At the time, the British mostly viewed the colonies as a place to offload people and get some crops and tax revenue, not a land to exploit (they were busy exploiting other lands :p), and a lot of the things that pissed off the American colonists were actually somewhat justified (even the infamous "No taxation without representation"). Of course, there were also reasons FOR the Americans to want to rebel.

    But here is the thing: Stuff in history is good and bad. People can always second guess everything. Hell, I suspect there are even arguments that stopping certain genocides might actually have resulted in MORE deaths due to the ensuing wars. And then there are the people who (rightfully, in my eyes) call the people proposing those arguments monsters.

    Hell, look at the use of the atomic bomb to end the Pacific Front of World War II. I don't think a single (reasonable) person on the planet will disagree that nukes are scary and horrible things. But there is the big argument that it actually resulted in fewer casualties overall, which is actually probably very true based on how that theatre had been going. But the question is: The nukes killed civilian population centers, whereas the war would have mostly killed soldiers. Is it still justified?

    We can go with "an eye for an eye" and decide to retroactively punish the US for it. Or we can move on, try to learn from it, and actually avoid what would have been World War 3 through the fear of using nukes (hint: we did the latter with a small bit of the former :p)

    Again, I cite children. Two kids in a car are going to keep hitting each other back and forth. One (or both) kids will have the argument "He/she started it!" and both kids will just keep retaliating until someone says "For crying out loud, I don't care who started it, I'm finishing it" and telling them to stop smacking each other.

    After a certain point (and that point DOES seem to vary from person to person, and obviously is affected by how close to something you are), you need to just acknowledge: History happens. Some is fucked up, some is good. Rather than focus on getting vengeance for the fucked up parts, let's just try and make the now good. Because our kids live in the now, and we are supposed to be trying to give them a better world, not a bloodier one.
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  18. #58
    Network Hub Nahru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    So you still hate all of Christianity, because during the crusades a LOT of Muslims were slaughtered. Right?
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    This is the kind of mentality that keeps hurting humanity. At some point, people need to let the hate go and try to move on and make their lives better.
    I agree.

  19. #59
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Nahru2 View Post
    No.
    .
    So what makes the Christians special? They invaded and messed up the region multiple times and they actually DID (attempt) ethnic cleansing, whereas the Isarelis are just saying "This is our land. Some of it we own fair and square, other parts of it fell off a truck. We threw your asses out a few decades back, but now you can live here, but you are living in Israel, not Palestine, bitches"? You said that you would still view this as an occupation for millenia, but it has been less than a thousand years since the most recent crusade (I assume, I can't be arsed to double check. I always used relative dates, not years) and the relationship between Christianity and Islam is as close to "live and let live" as is possible with two groups of Believers.
    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. #60
    Network Hub Nahru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    485
    First, regarding this part:

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    You said that you would still view this as an occupation for millenia
    You misunderstood me. I said,

    As someone who considers himself a Muslim, I am obliged to care about the state the Palestinian people are in, even if I would be on the other end of the galaxy and the conflict has lasted for millennia.
    This particular statement of mine (quoted above) is merely a response to your query about (paraphrasing) "when are we supposed to stop caring?". Which means - I am never supposed to stop caring about Palestinians (let me presume that all of them are Muslims), because they are Muslims and I am thus obliged to care about their well-being and problems they face (problems which they may have caused themselves in the first place; not that I would justify such cause). Nothing more I meant with that particular statement of mine.

    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    So what makes the Christians special? They invaded and messed up the region multiple times and they actually DID (attempt) ethnic cleansing, whereas the Isarelis are just saying "This is our land. Some of it we own fair and square, other parts of it fell off a truck. We threw your asses out a few decades back, but now you can live here, but you are living in Israel, not Palestine, bitches"?
    Know that I have not stated that I hate Jews. So, nothing special about Christians.

    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    ...it has been less than a thousand years since the most recent crusade (I assume, I can't be arsed to double check. I always used relative dates, not years) and the relationship between Christianity and Islam is as close to "live and let live" as is possible with two groups of Believers.
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Nahru; 21-09-2013 at 02:14 PM.

Posting Permissions

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