Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 5/24/11 07:59 AM, satanbrain wrote: look at your news, or unbiased news if yours hid it.

I do. It says you have lots of allies outside of the US. You are wrong.

Why? If your 'allies' asks you to give up everything to the point when you can't defend yourself, they are not worthy of having.

Except that's not what they've done. Also I've defined what a "false dilemma" is already.

Would you like to watch Obama's speech to aipac?

I did. He wants you back at 1967 borders. Thoughts?

The most important one that aid israel and the only one that will send forces to help defend it.

Moving the goal posts now.

So but what they say, they want israel to become a palestinan state. palestinan "refugees" will move into israel and then israel will become a palestinan state.

That's not what they said when they talked about peace.

Despite the "mixture" "Jewish populations in general are as genetically close to each other as fourth or fifth cousins", it is jewish whether you want it to be or not.

But why should a non-homogenous country identify itself as "of" or "for" only one of the ethnicities represented within it? How is that fair and right?

So because palestine is not their homeland they'll move into israel? But then, why is this land must be given in the first place?

That is not what I said at all. Try reading my statement again. The point whizzed right by you...again.

dictionary definition? At least one?

I've defined the term nation for you. But let's see what I get for Israel:

"a republic in SW Asia, on the Mediterranean"

First definition.

Which are?

I've stated them, you ignore them. Why should I spend the time listing examples you'll just make up excuses for why they don't count?

Which are what again? Weapons meant to kill only israelis?

I explained, medical supplies, food, other items that were either halted outright, or slowed. There have been numerous complaints, which you have dismissed.

It's not hard at all, onlt takes some minutes.

Bullshit. You don't know that at all because you don't even know how the inspection method works.

It wouldn't and i mean by that that even unethical things can be taught.

Indeed. But just because you teach an someone an unethical position, it does not always mean they'll accept it.

Following your theory that they will all turn terrorist if not given what they wish without effort, massive bombardments can be used. Or even nuclear rockets.

That's not my theory at all. I'm just saying you can't end terrorism by trying to kill all terrorists.

These terrorists will come by foor right? So if the are is mined they will die once they pass. There are many effective machines for killing.

How do you know they'll always come on foot?

Fantasize you can stop terrorism by aiding it?

Except that's a lie.

No it isn't mostly IDF forces, they're almost all civilians. The idf soldiers are named and not all the civilians are, that's the difference.

So if they aren't naming all the civilians...how can I know how many civilians are dying actually? If there aren't documented names and shiz...how can you say it's more civilians then IDF?

"The Israeli Military Prison is a prison for guarding soldiers who committed crimes during their service. It is estimated that 15,000-18,000 Israeli soldiers (not to be confused with Palestinian detainees) go through an Israeli military prison or detention center every year."

I wasn't simply talking about soldiers. I was talking about all and various criminals. Which is why I said you can't send every criminal to a military prison.

How can they crime if they sit in prison?

You do realize there are criminals who still run an operation from prison right? Happens all the time. Sometimes with the help of staff. Corruption.

We also have evidence based on their actions, which are terrorizing civilians.

But I'm saying we have to at least consider, if we accept that statements are credible evidence. The idea that they may entertain peace, that's all I'm saying.

when did they say that it has nothing to do with the jews? When they tried to bomb a synagogue?

When did they try to bomb a synagogue in the US? I've only seen them go for bigger, non-religious targets. Please source.

Most of the extremist islamic terrorist are.

Most is not all. So by your admission an extremist islamic terrorist can have non-jewish targets.

Based on the history and logic.

Based on ignorance of how world politics work.

Because they wish to have arab countries ruled by sharia, which will actually be by their own priests?

Saying they wish that is one thing. Trying to do it is another. Iran does not want the shitstorm that a direct attack on Israel would get them. The US has just been dying for an excuse to attack them. Same for the others. To attack Israel means they force the world to respond military and potentially oust them from power.

That depends if US and NATO won't be facing other armies and couldn't leave to israel.

Believe me, they'd find a way. NATO is an allied force supplied by multiple countries, America would find the bodies and the support to send, I have no doubt.

They have freewill, if they mistake thinking that only hamas is the option it's their fault.

They have free will sure. But I'm just saying isn't it better to change their minds then reinforce the perception?

Hamas rules gaza, or used to rule only gaza. which isn't occupied.

Occupation is not rule. You keep making that mistake. Gaza is occupied under the definition of the term.

Killing terrorists who are trying to kill us?

Oh, because you've ONLY killed or harmed terrorists?

If by "pussies and idiots" you mean people who think they must be wrong for not losing, then yes.

You are such a fool...why research when you can just declare you're right? Bullshit.

Which by your theory is a terrorist.

I've never said that. Don't blame me because you have horrible reading comprehension.

Hamas...

I'm not saying your the same. I'm saying you merely argue the same way.

Freedom to raise even more extremist regime?

Show me evidence that's what's happening. Because we're seeing tentative steps towards real democracy and freedom.

The article tried to prove it and failed, i just used the evidence i found in there.

No, you cherry picked the "evidence" that seemed to support your point and ignored the rest. That's dishonest debate at it's finest.

and risk a failed operation? (Which was never heard about by the way).

That's how the intelligence community works. Your ignorance continues to astound,

The US was only 55% sure bin laden was where he was, does that mean that the one who gave them the information was lying?

That is not my example. My example is I tell you something is in a place, you go to that place and the thing is not there...is it not logical to assume I lied? Especially if I do this multiple times?

Fatah rules unitedly with hamas, they're part of the governing. There weren't elections but they still the part of the leadership.

There were in Gaza. My understanding this was more an effort to present a more "united" Palestine.

Can you explain why the conquered it and didn't occupy? Because they were stronger?

Conquest is taking control of a territory and then ruling it. Occupation is having a strong military prescence and an objective, but leaving an independent government in place. Though sometimes that government is a puppet for the occupier.

A palestinian state.

That isn't what they claimed here, certainly if they're sincere about peace they don't. But like you I doubt that sincerity.

So you are claiming the palestinans are more extremist than hamas?

No. I'm claiming Hamas is lying when they say they want peace and is just trying to improve their image with the rest of the world.

Bin laden had some of

But not all.

---

At 5/24/11 07:30 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I do. It says you have lots of allies outside of the US. You are wrong.

But we aren't ought to have these allies because we have US, your congress seems more pro-israeli than the president and they are approving or disapproving military aid.

I did. He wants you back at 1967 borders. Thoughts?

But he didn't say it has to be 1967 borders, besides, democrats don't want to us to return to 1967 borders.

That's not what they said when they talked about peace.

That's a demand they are not willing to give up.

But why should a non-homogenous country identify itself as "of" or "for" only one of the ethnicities represented within it?

Because it is a nation state. A nation state of the jewish nation.

How is that fair and right?

How is that fair and right having a palestinian land which will represent only the palestinan ethnicity? And if it doesn't represent them, why they need this country at all? Why can't their nation be landless if it's supremacist to own any land?

I've defined the term nation for you.

I still want a dictionary definition, since i don't know of any definition to "nation of israel" besides israelites.

"a republic in SW Asia, on the Mediterranean"

It doesn't mean the nation of israel is all the citizens in israel.

I explained, medical supplies, food, other items that were either halted outright,

Never halted outright.

or slowed.

Checked for a few minutes.

There have been numerous complaints,

Lies by terrorists who failed to smuggle weapons.

Indeed. But just because you teach an someone an unethical position, it does not always mean they'll accept it.

There are always a few exceptions, but if the army is harsh enough, the ethics (or unethical doctrine) it teaches are accepted.

That's not my theory at all. I'm just saying you can't end terrorism by trying to kill all terrorists.

You can reduce the threat and the number of innocents harmed, if terrorsits never give up, should we stop defending ourselves and die?

How do you know they'll always come on foot?

I assume that once their vehicles are ruined, which is not hard at all when using tanks, they'll come by foot.

So if they aren't naming all the civilians...

They don't, or didn't while it was reported, know their names.

how can I know how many civilians are dying actually?

Look at the numbers shown near every terrorist attack.

If there aren't documented names and shiz...

There are documented numbers.

how can you say it's more civilians then IDF?

Becaues more civilians dies than IDF soldiers.

I wasn't simply talking about soldiers.

I was talking about soldiers and how to deal with their crimes, that's how you discipline them.

You do realize there are criminals who still run an operation from prison right?

I assume most of the soldiers are not crimelords.

But I'm saying we have to at least consider, if we accept that statements are credible evidence. The idea that they may entertain peace, that's all I'm saying.

We really should consider what they are saying, they admit they want to kill jews and that they want to have a peace with a state they do not recognize as a jewish state. They also clarify they want palestinian refugees to come into israel.

When did they try to bomb a synagogue in the US? I've only seen them go for bigger, non-religious targets. Please source.

"A British minister said Saturday that the bomb, found in a package destined for a Chicago synagogue, was "viable," and could have exploded and brought down the UPS plane that was carrying it. " Chicago is in the US if i am not wrong.

Most is not all. So by your admission an extremist islamic terrorist can have non-jewish targets.

It doesn't mean they don't want to everyone else they consider heretic, i am saying that our actions cannot change theirs.

Iran does not want the shitstorm that a direct attack on Israel would get them. The US has just been dying for an excuse to attack them. Same for the others. To attack Israel means they force the world to respond military and potentially oust them from power.

That's why they first need arab countries to be ruled by sharia, iran actually, and then they would've enough forces and resources to attack.

Believe me, they'd find a way. NATO is an allied force supplied by multiple countries, America would find the bodies and the support to send, I have no doubt.

They also sent support to egypt, if egypt is ruled by sharia it will be directed against them.

But I'm just saying isn't it better to change their minds then reinforce the perception?

They want to attack us because of who we are, not because of our actions. How can we change their minds? Suicide and show them we support the same goal?

Oh, because you've ONLY killed or harmed terrorists?

And human shields there was no other way but to harm.

You are such a fool...why research when you can just declare you're right? Bullshit.

Because european countries' appeasement policy is what prevented WWII, wasn't it?

I'm not saying your the same. I'm saying you merely argue the same way.

I argue that if their citizens choose hamas, they'll be disappointed when their terrorists fail and they never have their own country.

Show me evidence that's what's happening. Because we're seeing tentative steps towards real democracy and freedom.

Christian-Muslim affair tests Egypt's revolution.

That's how the intelligence community works. Your ignorance continues to astound,

and they managed hid the fact that some innocent person, which is likely important since he was hidden, was killed.

That is not my example. My example is I tell you something is in a place, you go to that place and the thing is not there...

How can you be sure the person is not there? If it's closed and you only partially sure the person is there, you don't know if the one who told you that was lying or not.

There were in Gaza. My understanding this was more an effort to present a more "united" Palestine.

One that doesn't want to end the conflict but end a country?

Conquest is taking control of a territory and then ruling it. Occupation is having a strong military prescence and an objective, but leaving an independent government in place. Though sometimes that government is a puppet for the occupier.

Taking control and ruling is now legally owning, the fact the land was conquered doesn't give any empire a real right on the land.

That isn't what they claimed here, certainly if they're sincere about peace they don't. But like you I doubt that sincerity.

That's the only interpretation there is to not acknowledging a jewish state and demand moving of palestinians to israel.

No. I'm claiming Hamas is lying when they say they want peace and is just trying to improve their image with the rest of the world.

If they killed all the jews in israel and it would be an only palestinan land, or even part of another arab state they could've peace with "israel".

---

At 5/26/11 01:33 AM, satanbrain wrote:

I explained, medical supplies, food, other items that were either halted outright,

Never halted outright.

Yes, filtered so that they just have enough food without plunging into widespread starvation.

There have been numerous complaints,

Lies by terrorists who failed to smuggle weapons.

Those pesky terrorists launching Coconuts onto Israeli civilains.....

At 5/26/11 01:33 AM, satanbrain wrote: You can reduce the threat and the number of innocents harmed, if terrorsits never give up, should we stop defending ourselves and die?

The problem is the "defending" part. Too many times has Israel demolished houses in the name "counter-terrorism", too many times has Israel destroyed schools, hospitals, and docks with rocket attacks, they seem to be trying to get away with as much as they can. You can hide under the denial blanket of "Counter-terrorism" but that just makes things worse.

At 5/26/11 01:33 AM, satanbrain wrote: Becaues more civilians dies than IDF soldiers.

I'm going to call bullshit on that one.

Iran does not want the shitstorm that a direct attack on Israel would get them. The US has just been dying for an excuse to attack them. Same for the others. To attack Israel means they force the world to respond military and potentially oust them from power.

Bullshit again, in Iraq we thought that if we just toppled the Iraq government and stayed a little stabilizing the Demoracy it should be fine, it wasn't and turned out that the religious tensions burst during the instability causing the Coalition to stay up to this point. Who knows what'll happen in Iran, not to mention the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are bad enough, do we really want a nation that's bigger then both also occupied? It would be the worst case scenario for an overthrow, the US budget too, nuff said, the US would rather raise a mosque in Bin Laden's name then go to war in Iran.

At 5/26/11 01:33 AM, satanbrain wrote: That's why they first need arab countries to be ruled by sharia, iran actually, and then they would've enough forces and resources to attack.

What?

Believe me, they'd find a way. NATO is an allied force supplied by multiple countries, America would find the bodies and the support to send, I have no doubt.

They also sent support to egypt, if egypt is ruled by sharia it will be directed against them.

But I'm just saying isn't it better to change their minds then reinforce the perception?

They want to attack us because of who we are, not because of our actions. How can we change their minds? Suicide and show them we support the same goal?

Nope. They're angry because you're in Palestine, you came in and forced people away from their land to claim your own land during the time when Nationalistic idea's made sense in people's minds, even though in practice and reasoning it makes none. You continue to ruin their lives further and further. If for example there was an idea to integrate the Palestinians into Israeli society for example, and not constantly alienate and antagonize them it wouldn't be as bad, but instead what you have is an equivalent of Bosnia, all sides did atrocoties which people use as motivation to commit more atrocities and neither will stop to realize that they've ruined the country they're in and only making it worse if they don't intergrate.

Oh, because you've ONLY killed or harmed terrorists?

And human shields there was no other way but to harm.

You know what's funny? Israeli's have used human shields, fired rockets into Gaza and West Bank, and elected Terrorists. Are you sure you're not as bad?

At 5/26/11 01:33 AM, satanbrain wrote: Because european countries' appeasement policy is what prevented WWII, wasn't it?

Because say trying to start a World War in the modern stage is a smart idea? There are 5 tiers of war, 5th one being the war that has to be fought over and over againt, the 4th won with lots of casualties, the 3rd won with no casualties, the 2nd the one that's avoided and the 1st the one that never happens, if you're the 1st you're the perfect politician, if you're the 5th you're a barbarian. WWI and WWII was the 5th and 4th tier, the Cold War was the 2nd tier and right now we're trying the 1st tier. A world war is a waste of resources for nothing, everyone loses except for a few.

I'm not saying your the same. I'm saying you merely argue the same way.

I argue that if their citizens choose hamas, they'll be disappointed when their terrorists fail and they never have their own country.

You mean like how the Israeli's also elected terrorists?

Show me evidence that's what's happening. Because we're seeing tentative steps towards real democracy and freedom.

Christian-Muslim affair tests Egypt's revolution.

*sigh*, again that's more of the Christians fault then anything else.

---

At 5/26/11 01:56 AM, Warforger wrote: Yes, filtered so that they just have enough food without plunging into widespread starvation.

Proof?

Those pesky terrorists launching Coconuts onto Israeli civilains.....

Rockets are not coconuts.

The problem is the "defending" part. Too many times has Israel demolished houses in the name "counter-terrorism", too many times has Israel destroyed schools, hospitals, and docks with rocket attacks,

Too many times terrorists were in schools, hospitals, and docks and shoot rockets from these places.

they seem to be trying to get away with as much as they can.

We are trying to defend civilians as much as we can.

You can hide under the denial blanket of "Counter-terrorism" but that just makes things worse.

We don't hide under any blanket, we defend ourselves.

What?

If iran occupied enough arab countries they'll have enough manpower and natural resources to start a war they have any chance to win.

Nope. They're angry because you're in Palestine,

They are angry because we are jews and we are alive.

you came in and forced people away from their land

We have never forced anyone out, after palestinan forces failed to kill us there were people who fled on their own from israel.

to claim your own land during the time when Nationalistic idea's made sense in people's minds,

when people saw the results of sharing everything you have with other people and be poor.

even though in practice and reasoning it makes none. You continue to ruin their lives further and further.

By living?

If for example there was an idea to integrate the Palestinians into Israeli society for example,

There are israeli arabs who didn't fled from israel, if the "refugees" hadn't fled they would now be citizens of israel.

and not constantly alienate and antagonize them

Again, by living?

You know what's funny? Israeli's have used human shields,

Proof?

fired rockets into Gaza and West Bank,

To kill terrorists who kill our civilians.

Because say trying to start a World War in the modern stage is a smart idea?

Letting another world war happen again is better? giving up everything and let the aggressors do as they wish was what cause hitler to trust himself and invade poland. If france and biritan would've interfered sooner the war would be prevented, or at least ended sooner since the german army wouldn't have been so strong.

*sigh*, again that's more of the Christians fault then anything else.

Because if muslims kill anybody it must be his fault, right?

---

At 5/26/11 01:56 AM, Warforger wrote: Yes, filtered so that they just have enough food without plunging into widespread starvation.

I have never heard of any quotas on the approved food items that can be sent.

The problem is the "defending" part. Too many times has Israel demolished houses in the name "counter-terrorism", too many times has Israel destroyed schools, hospitals, and docks with rocket attacks, they seem to be trying to get away with as much as they can. You can hide under the denial blanket of "Counter-terrorism" but that just makes things worse.

We both know that terrorists hide themselves and store weapons in these areas precisely because there's less chance they will be struck.

Nope. They're angry because you're in Palestine, you came in and forced people away from their land to claim your own land during the time when Nationalistic idea's made sense in people's minds, even though in practice and reasoning it makes none.

Who's "you?" This happened decades ago, and the victims and the decision makers are all old or dead.

You continue to ruin their lives further and further. If for example there was an idea to integrate the Palestinians into Israeli society for example

Thats what the Israeli Arabs are, but most Palestinians do not want to be integrated with the Israelis. You remember that issue with building a road on unoccupied land that would make it easier to build that train? Even after the Israeli court ruling that said infrastructure developments had to help Palestinians as well it's still hard as hell to do anything because the Palestinians are so stubborn.

and not constantly alienate and antagonize them it wouldn't be as bad, but instead what you have is an equivalent of Bosnia, all sides did atrocoties which people use as motivation to commit more atrocities

Limiting building permits and setting up checkpoints in the West Bank are not atrocities. The Palestinians respond with violence targeted against civilians while Israel targets those who carry out that violence. The two parties are not equally savage.

You know what's funny? Israeli's have used human shields

In one documented instance, after which the soldiers were prosecuted. Hamas and Hezbollah don't prosecute anyone for using human shields because it is the backbone of their entire strategy.

fired rockets into Gaza and West Bank

In targeted strikes.

and elected Terrorists. Are you sure you're not as bad?

Not the same, even if these people you're thinking of are terrorists in the classic definition (I'm guessing they're people who had some experience in the militia groups and mobs early in Israel's existence) they are not and never were part of a deliberate terrorist organization like Hamas.

All your characterizations of Israel depend on loaded terminology. If detained prisoners are roughed up a little, it's a war crime on the same level of an organized torture program. If there's any doubt as to the amount of force applied to a surgical strike, it's the same as suicide bombing a bus full of civilians. If a strike across the Gaza border kills two suspected bomb makers, it's the same as a barrage of rockets onto Israeli cities. You can't or won't make distinctions (which require firm moral judgments), which is why conversations with you about Israel never go anywhere.

---

At 5/26/11 01:33 AM, satanbrain wrote: But we aren't ought to have these allies because we have US, your congress seems more pro-israeli than the president and they are approving or disapproving military aid.

I'm not suggesting he's anti-Israeli at all. I believe he's very pro-Israeli. It's just that he isn't as pro-israeli as I figured you'd like. Perhaps I shouldn't have assumed as such?

But he didn't say it has to be 1967 borders,

He said 1967 borders as the default and you negotiate from there. The frame work of every peace talk since forever really.

besides, democrats don't want to us to return to 1967 borders.

So? That doesn't mean it won't happen or it'll change Obama's mind. Also Democrats may not be in power after the next election.

That's a demand they are not willing to give up.

When they say they want peace...it seems to me they are at least making it look like they are.

Because it is a nation state. A nation state of the jewish nation.

So fuck everybody else? Sorry, to me it's just prejudicial to me and I don't agree with it.

How is that fair and right having a palestinian land which will represent only the palestinan ethnicity?

If that's all it'd do, I would have the same issue as I do with the way you represent Israel.

And if it doesn't represent them, why they need this country at all?

Because they don't want to be oppressed or harrassed by foreign powers like they have been? They want autonomy,

Why can't their nation be landless if it's supremacist to own any land?

Because I think it's more about being safe and autonomous vs building walls and telling everyone else to keep out. But I admit they could prove me wrong should they actually get their own state. What about that stuff you've spouted that every "nation" should have a right to property? The Palestinians are now somehow different?

I still want a dictionary definition, since i don't know of any definition to "nation of israel" besides israelites.

I've given you dictionary definitions. You ignore them when they're invalidating your personal definition.

It doesn't mean the nation of israel is all the citizens in israel.

Why doesn't it? Why should there be a divide and a process of "second class citizenship"? You really are a supremacist.

Never halted outright.

Tell the human rights organizations that. Or Israel who changed their policies.

Checked for a few minutes.

Never sourced that.

Lies by terrorists who failed to smuggle weapons.

Humanitarian organizations who had shipments halted, and the UN.

There are always a few exceptions, but if the army is harsh enough, the ethics (or unethical doctrine) it teaches are accepted.

Not universally. You're dreaming.

You can reduce the threat and the number of innocents harmed, if terrorsits never give up, should we stop defending ourselves and die?

Not at all. But there are other ways to combat the problem.

I assume that once their vehicles are ruined, which is not hard at all when using tanks, they'll come by foot.

So you're basing beliefs on assumptions? Ever hear what assumption is the mother of?

They don't, or didn't while it was reported, know their names.

You know that how? I think you're just making excuses.

Look at the numbers shown near every terrorist attack.

It's still not bearing out your allegation.

There are documented numbers.

Names help me understand the numbers. Numbers can be fudged. You do it all the time.

Becaues more civilians dies than IDF soldiers.

You're report doesn't seem to be saying that from my reading.

I was talking about soldiers and how to deal with their crimes, that's how you discipline them.

I see where we had the disconnect now.

We really should consider what they are saying, they admit they want to kill jews and that they want to have a peace with a state they do not recognize as a jewish state. They also clarify they want palestinian refugees to come into israel.

As I've said, I think the peace deal is a smoke screen. It's too try and push a more positive image internationally. What you say about wanting refugees to come into Israel also looks potentially troubling as well.

"A British minister said Saturday that the bomb, found in a package destined for a Chicago synagogue, was "viable," and could have exploded and brought down the UPS plane that was carrying it. " Chicago is in the US if i am not wrong.

It is indeed. But this is an attempted bombing vs. an actually completed plot. Also from your article:

"U.S. officials said they were not yet certain where the bombs were designed to explode or whether the synagogues were, in fact, the intended target"

It doesn't mean they don't want to everyone else they consider heretic, i am saying that our actions cannot change theirs.

But your actions can make them less popular and therefore less relevant.

That's why they first need arab countries to be ruled by sharia, iran actually, and then they would've enough forces and resources to attack.

You totally missed what I said. What I said still applies. Sharia or no, they will NOT brazenly and directly attack Israel because they don't want the consequences.

They also sent support to egypt, if egypt is ruled by sharia it will be directed against them.

Here's something you seem not to be aware of...America supports dictators. If they are convenient, America supports them. We supported Mubarak until it became clear he was on the way out. Where do you think he got most of his weapons from?

They want to attack us because of who we are, not because of our actions. How can we change their minds? Suicide and show them we support the same goal?

I was unclear. I apologize. You can't reason with the hard liners, but you can show the general public you are on their side. Hamas is powerful only so long as the public believes they need them.

And human shields there was no other way but to harm.

So you claim.

Because european countries' appeasement policy is what prevented WWII, wasn't it?

That's a false dilemma. I am not arguing for appeasement. I really don't know the words that are small enough to explain my position to you.

I argue that if their citizens choose hamas, they'll be disappointed when their terrorists fail and they never have their own country.

And I'm saying we should understand WHY those citizens chose Hamas, and if we can, eliminate the reasons that make them do so. Then Hamas loses power and fades away. Understand now?

Christian-Muslim affair tests Egypt's revolution.

Sad and outrageous to me morally. But how exactly does this mean Egypt has no hope of coming out of this ultimately a democracy with strong human rights?

and they managed hid the fact that some innocent person, which is likely important since he was hidden, was killed.

You keep missing the fact that you can "test" different kinds of information in different ways it seems.

How can you be sure the person is not there? If it's closed and you only partially sure the person is there, you don't know if the one who told you that was lying or not.

Again, my example clearly states you are told the person is there, you go there and check, the person is not there. If the person is not there, and this happens several times, it's logical to determine they are lying to you.

One that doesn't want to end the conflict but end a country?

Dunno, we'll have to see how they proceed.

Taking control and ruling is now legally owning,

Right...

the fact the land was conquered doesn't give any empire a real right on the land.

Except it was. You only deny it because your argument falls apart if you admit it. You're trying to work "The Big Lie" theory and failing.

That's the only interpretation there is to not acknowledging a jewish state and demand moving of palestinians to israel.

There is the fact that they could be abandoning their charter, or at least the part that says destroy Israel out of political convenience. As I said, I'm doubting it though. I think this is most likely a ploy, but I can't be entirely sure yet.

---

At 5/26/11 11:32 AM, adrshepard wrote:

At 5/26/11 01:56 AM, Warforger wrote:

I have never heard of any quotas on the approved food items that can be sent.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c ontext=va&aid=21799

Well doesn't seem to be the case.

We both know that terrorists hide themselves and store weapons in these areas precisely because there's less chance they will be struck.

Or Israel lies and does it in the name of counter terrorism....Maybe there could be some cases but I'm just going to guess most are just bullshit, destroying infrastructure just because one guy is firing a few rockets that don't do that much damage doesn't seem to be efficent, surely a sniper would make more sense. On top of this often times the only warning Israel gives to people whose HOMES are about to be destroyed is some phone call, that's it, and so the Palestinians protest this but all protesters are labelled as "terrorists".

Who's "you?" This happened decades ago, and the victims and the decision makers are all old or dead.

The guy who I was talking too wasn't you if you realize that. I was speaking figuratively, as if he represents those people. The problem though with your assumption is that those actions still effect the present and many times weren't very legal or morale. It's like in Bosnia.....

Thats what the Israeli Arabs are,

Who again are discriminated against in Israel....

but most Palestinians do not want to be integrated with the Israelis.

Well yah, same goes for Israeli's and that's probably a reason. I never said the Palestinians were in the right either.

You remember that issue with building a road on unoccupied land that would make it easier to build that train? Even after the Israeli court ruling that said infrastructure developments had to help Palestinians as well it's still hard as hell to do anything because the Palestinians are so stubborn.

Because say forcing them out of their homes is aiding development.

Limiting building permits and setting up checkpoints in the West Bank are not atrocities.

I'm not saying recent atrocities I'm talking about the old ones. Neither forgives the other and seeks to eliminate the other but because of NATO the Israeli's can't. It's the same in Bosnia, the Bosnian Serbs wanted to take land back when re they were once a majority because during WWII the Croatian state committed a genocide against Serbs in those area's, on top of this there's the resentment of Islam due to the Ottoman empire a huge list of factors in general.

The Palestinians respond with violence targeted against civilians while Israel targets those who carry out that violence. The two parties are not equally savage.

Or both just lie and say they were attacking the ones carrying out the violence?

You know what's funny? Israeli's have used human shields

In one documented instance, after which the soldiers were prosecuted. Hamas and Hezbollah don't prosecute anyone for using human shields because it is the backbone of their entire strategy.

fired rockets into Gaza and West Bank

In targeted strikes.

......Which turn out to be more effective and deadly then the actual Hamas rocket strikes, which makes it suspicious where they're deploying rockets that attack a huge area to hit a few guys in a room firing outdated rockets.

and elected Terrorists. Are you sure you're not as bad?

Not the same, even if these people you're thinking of are terrorists in the classic definition (I'm guessing they're people who had some experience in the militia groups and mobs early in Israel's existence) they are not and never were part of a deliberate terrorist organization like Hamas.

*sigh* nope. The guy I'm thinking of was the leader of the Irgun, a Jewish terrorist organization that leveled a huge chunk of a hotel with British delegates in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Be gin

That's basically like Hamas.

Now tell me, if Israel wants peace, why did it elect people like that?

---

At 5/26/11 11:52 PM, Warforger wrote:

I have never heard of any quotas on the approved food items that can be sent.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c ontext=va&aid=21799

Well doesn't seem to be the case.

Uh, that graphic is for cattle feed, not human food. The rest of the translated documents don't say anything about limiting Gazan calorie intake or quotas on approved items. The content of the article is completely bogus, and no wonder "no major news organizations have reported on it" because the released documents contain nothing of substance.

We both know that terrorists hide themselves and store weapons in these areas precisely because there's less chance they will be struck.

Or Israel lies and does it in the name of counter terrorism....Maybe there could be some cases but I'm just going to guess most are just bullshit, destroying infrastructure just because one guy is firing a few rockets that don't do that much damage doesn't seem to be efficent, surely a sniper would make more sense.

Are you deliberately being dense? Rather than believe the obvious notion that groups like Hamas DEPEND on civilian casualties for their campaign against Israel (it's all they have, really, since it's weak militarily and Israeli security is so tight) and therefore will put them in the line of fire for propaganda purposes, you instead decide it's more likely there's a vast conspiracy in the Israeli armed forces to manufacture claims of hostiles just to bomb certain places, and despite the hundreds, if not thousands of potential whistleblowers, none have said anything about it.
Your comment about the sniper is simply absurd. Sending in special forces on an extremely high risk operation with low chance of success (the target could easily slip away in the time it would take to organize and execute such an operation) goes far beyond stupidity when the target can be taken out with a guided missle in a matter of minutes.

On top of this often times the only warning Israel gives to people whose HOMES are about to be destroyed is some phone call, that's it

You mean they've been given more warning by an enemy than has been the case in nearly every conflict in human history? Dear GOD, those Israelis are bastards!

The guy who I was talking too wasn't you if you realize that. I was speaking figuratively, as if he represents those people. The problem though with your assumption is that those actions still effect the present and many times weren't very legal or morale. It's like in Bosnia.....

I know, but it's not just one "Israel" or one "Palestinian." As far as I'm concerned, guilt and responsibility don't span generations. If I'm living on land that was stolen 50 years ago by my grandfather, and both he and the original landholders are dead, that grievance dies with them. If I choose to return it to the descendant of the original holder, that's being generous, not just.

Thats what the Israeli Arabs are,

Who again are discriminated against in Israel....

Not on any official level, from what I've read. Sure, Jews and those who have served in the IDF may have more perks, but that's not the same as discrimation against anyone. There probably are Israelis who personally discriminate against Arabs, but there's not a whole lot the government can do to prevent that, only correct it after the fact.

but most Palestinians do not want to be integrated with the Israelis.

Well yah, same goes for Israeli's and that's probably a reason. I never said the Palestinians were in the right either.

But you suggested a program for Palestinian integration as a possible solution.

......Which turn out to be more effective and deadly then the actual Hamas rocket strikes, which makes it suspicious where they're deploying rockets that attack a huge area to hit a few guys in a room firing outdated rockets

That makes no difference. There's no law saying that the Israelis can't strike back against rocket attacks until someone gets hurt. Israel's responsibility to limit civilian casualties is mitigated by the risks posed to its own forces. Usually they use guided missiles and artillery, which are reasonably accurate. It's the same reason cops don't have to wait for someone to get shot before they can use lethal force to take down a suspect.

*sigh* nope. The guy I'm thinking of was the leader of the Irgun, a Jewish terrorist organization that leveled a huge chunk of a hotel with British delegates in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Be gin

That's basically like Hamas.

No, the Irgun was substantially different, in that it did not seek to kill civilians, and the British were it's primary targets. All this took place over 60 years ago.

Now tell me, if Israel wants peace, why did it elect people like that?

Menachem Begin was elected in 1977, and you're using that to characterize the people of Israel in 2011. Do I need to explain how absurd that is?

Oh, and during his tenure he signed the Camp David Accords with Egypt, in which Israel relinquished the Sinai Peninsula. Begin later recieved the Nobel Peace Prize. But of course you knew that, right?

---

Wow. what a discussion!

I am personally against Palestine and i don't thin Israel is a terrorist country

---

Israel is a terrorist country...but they are on our side so it is ok.

---

At 5/27/11 04:58 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: Israel is a terrorist country...but they are on our side so it is ok.

Combo breaker!

Why did you have to interrupt a perfectly good intellectual discussion? Shame on you!

---

At 5/24/11 05:35 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Sorry, I missed this bit initially.

No, there aren't, unless you can find instances when Israel itself cleared the shipments but held them up for no reason other than to make the Gazans suffer. Israel has the right to let it's own security forces have the final word on what is and isn't legitimate.

I'm having a hard time with how Israel has a "right" to operate militarily in territory it does not actually own. To me it seems like trying to say the US would have the right to go set up at the Mexican border and decide what can and can't go into Mexico. I'm no supporter of giving weapons to terrorists, don't get me wrong. But I'm also no supporter of a regime flexing it's muscle somewhere it shouldn't, especially when there are several complaints (complaints Israel has apparently taken seriously since they changed their policies) about how exactly that regime goes about flexing said muscle.

Protect themselves from what? The IDF?

Uh, yeah.

It's impossible for the Palestinians to defend themselves militarily.

This is true.

Supporting militants whose actions provoke attacks is the worst possible way to safeguard yourself.

But as you yourself just pointed out, they cannot defend themselves militarily. They have a foreign power occupying, in their minds this power has hostilely taken away their property and their rights. They are upset, they are scared, and yeah probably more then a few of them are just plan racist assholes (there's always a few right?). I'm saying you have to look at the situation, and look at the fact that this is not an educated bunch. They have been lied to, beaten down, and put into a position where they feel desperate. Does that make it ok to support militants? No, it does not. But I think it's better to try and understand that mindset and try to change it vs. just doing the sorts of things that reinforce it. Every time you strike at Hamas militarily you don't really weaken them, you make them stronger, because they will just go back and say "see? That is exactly why you need us".

The alternative is to submit to their demands and legitimize decades of terrorism.

Nah, that seems way too much like a false dilemma to me. I fully believe there are other options. I think revolutions like Egypt and Tunisia show us that an educated populace who realize their leaders aren't working for their benefit show us a potential new route to reform in the middle east. I'm not saying that's a fait accompli, we don't know for sure yet. But I think the option exists, hence why I charge false dilemma here.

No country is going to waver in the face of aggression, especially when its survival isn't threatened in the slightest.

If Israel isn't really threatened...then why is the argument I keep hearing them make "defense"? Especially people like satanbrain who would have me to believe terrorists are constantly after him and will burn Israel to the ground any day now.

If Hamas renounced terrorism, then it'd be far less humiliating for Israel to make concessions.

They seem to be wanting it both ways...so I doubt they're going to ever fully renounce. Personally, I want to see Hamas gone, but realistically it's never going to happen as long as the average Palestinian thinks Hamas gives them some benefit.

He is better, government and society aside, by virtue of how his country fights wars.

Oh really? Have you read his arguments? I'm talking to him personally, not him as representative of Israel. I am speaking solely on the arguments of satanbrain, not Israel in general.

Unlike Hamas, Israel does not deliberately target civilians to "send a message." It tries to focus its power against those directly responsible for hostilities.

Except when it shoots at, and blows up buildings that credible evidence is obtained there was never any terrorists hiding in amiright?

That doesn't mean the Gazans should be protected from every single consequence of war, though, like economic stagnation from the blockade.

The blockade of questionable legality? That blockade?

If they truly do have a voice in the government but the conflict continues, then their suffering is the price of pride.

They have a voice yes, but my question is how informed is that voice. If you aren't given all the information to vote in a proper way, how can you vote properly? Everyone in America has the right to vote, but does everybody vote in a responsible and correct manner with full understanding of the situations and each candidate? Nope. That's the double edged sword of democracy: Everybody gets to vote, whether they should or not.

Not in any meaningful sense of the word.

Then why is it pretty much an accepted conclusion that it is?

Most of the criteria for occupation don't make sense when applied to very tiny countries almost totally geographically surrounded by an enemy state.

Here's something that says the opposite. If the link doesn't work, let me know. I think it should.

Even in a state of peace, Israel would still technically control Gaza's utilities since it doesn't have enough power and water plants. In war, it's perfectly legal to vigorously defend one's borders on both sides, and attempt to blockade the enemy country. Gaza doesn't have any aircraft so it doesn't have any airspace to be occupied to begin with. It's a perfect illustration of how outdated international laws of conflict are.

Under the law as stands, Gaza is occupied. You can't just pick and choose what laws to obey, certainly they can be changed, but as it stands now, Gaza is occupied. Also I can find no active declaration of war by Israel as it pertains to gaza. They've declared it an enemy entity, but the last war I can find documentation of is the three week war in the winter of 08-09. Do you have something else that shows a more active state of war occurring at present?

Legal arguments are totally academic. They never have and never will be respected enough to decide any conflict of worth, especially when the sides are so incredibly lopsided.

So...the law doesn't matter...I don't know how to argue with anybody who says rules and laws don't matter.

---

At 5/26/11 08:41 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I'm not suggesting he's anti-Israeli at all. I believe he's very pro-Israeli. It's just that he isn't as pro-israeli as I figured you'd like. Perhaps I shouldn't have assumed as such?

The congress is and the congress approves/disapproves aid.

So? That doesn't mean it won't happen or it'll change Obama's mind. Also Democrats may not be in power after the next election.

The republicans don't support 1967 borders and understand it weakens us.

When they say they want peace...it seems to me they are at least making it look like they are.

They do want peace, just not with a jewish state.

So fuck everybody else?

What do you mean by that?

Sorry, to me it's just prejudicial to me and I don't agree with it.

Nation : "A nation can refer to a sovereign state,[1] as for instance in the member states of the United Nations,[2] or to a community of people who share a common language, descent, history, and, although not necessarily, a common government."

If that's all it'd do, I would have the same issue as I do with the way you represent Israel.

So they don't have any problem that jewish settlers would be part of their citizens, do they?

Because they don't want to be oppressed

How they are oppressed? By recieving free tons of aid without needing to do anything?

or harrassed by foreign powers like they have been?

So we don't want to be, that's why we reclaimed our own land.

They want autonomy,

Like every nation should.

Because I think it's more about being safe and autonomous vs building walls and telling everyone else to keep out.

You can't stop terrorists if there is a free pass, there are still terrorists who try to infiltrate israel.

But I admit they could prove me wrong should they actually get their own state. What about that stuff you've spouted that every "nation" should have a right to property?

The question was rhetorical, they do have a right to their own land.

The Palestinians are now somehow different?

Like us, they have a right to their own country, just that it is jordan. Where 70% of the population "incidentally" are palestinian.

Why doesn't it?

Because they are not part of the nation who has a right on the land.

Why should there be a divide and a process of "second class citizenship"? You really are a supremacist.

It's not second class citizenship, they have citizen rights.

Tell the human rights organizations that. Or Israel who changed their policies.

These terrorist-supporters who knowingly support terrorists?

Humanitarian organizations who had shipments halted, and the UN.

the turkish IHH is a terrorist organization, the other ships weren't hatled because they weren't terrorist flotillas and their contents were passed.

Not universally. You're dreaming.

At least in israel.

Not at all. But there are other ways to combat the problem.

You can use unconventional weapons but i wouldn't suggest that.

So you're basing beliefs on assumptions?

They won't stop if their vehicles are destroyed (and if they do we wouldn't need to face them), so if they use aircraft it would be destroyed even more easily so their only option is to go by foot.

Ever hear what assumption is the mother of?

creeds?

Names help me understand the numbers. Numbers can be fudged. You do it all the time.

Can't names be fudged? If they were lying they could lie about the names and seem more credible.

You're report doesn't seem to be saying that from my reading.

Read it again, more citizens died than soldiers.

But your actions can make them less popular and therefore less relevant.

They want to kill us because we are jews, i'm not fantasying we could ever change their minds after their propaganda has done that to them. If someone joins them, it's his fault.

Sharia or no, they will NOT brazenly and directly attack Israel because they don't want the consequences.

They use hamas, hizbullah and, soon, the muslim brotherhood to attack us.

I apologize. You can't reason with the hard liners, but you can show the general public you are on their side.

If the general public believes we jews should die because they are jews i don't think their minds will be changed again, the teens who served wehrmacht didn't even talk to their american capturers.

Hamas is powerful only so long as the public believes they need them.

Need them to kill jews.

That's a false dilemma. I am not arguing for appeasement.

Then what are you talking about? Weakening ourselves with actions that anger the population?

And I'm saying we should understand WHY those citizens chose Hamas,

I say i don't care why they are doing this. It's their fault, not mine. If the UN cared enough it would teach them in the schools it built that terror is not the way to achieve peace. The same applies for fatah, now that they are ruling together with hamas they should have some influence in gaza.

But how exactly does this mean Egypt has no hope of coming out of this ultimately a democracy with strong human rights?

If they start butchering chritistian it isn't exactly protecting human rights. And this:
"Ishaq Ibrahim, a researcher at the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, a watchdog entrusted with the protection of minority rights in Egypt, welcomed the integration of former Jihadists in Egypt's political arena, saying that political participation could steer these movements away from violence. But the parties still needed to convince Egyptian society that they don't intend to change Egypt if they come to power and turn it into an Islamic caliphate, he said.

"These movements still need to reassure society, and especially minority groups such as Copts, women and liberal movements, that they will respect the constitution and laws even if they become a political majority," Ibrahim told The Media Line. "So far, they have failed to do so.""

You keep missing the fact that you can "test" different kinds of information in different ways it seems.

Couldn't bin laden hiding place be tested? Why was the US only 55% sure he was there?

Again, my example clearly states you are told the person is there, you go there and check, the person is not there.

Then you get a failed operation and can accidentally kill someone important, that will be published.

Except it was. You only deny it because your argument falls apart if you admit it.

I deny it because israel was never given up, admitting this lie would be as giving up the right on israel.

There is the fact that they could be abandoning their charter, or at least the part that says destroy Israel

Could be, could be for almost 25 years.

out of political convenience.

They are saying this to appease more extremist terrorists than themselves?

---

Egypt: No one will block opening of Rafah crossing
"Hundreds pass from Gaza to Sinai as border opened to pedestrians after 4 years; Egyptian envoy to Gaza rejects Israeli concerns move will lead to weapon smuggling; Kadima slams Netanyahu for development. "
Now your lying reports should show "improvement" in the palestinans' health and life quality. They couldn't claim anymore there is any "siege" on gaza, but i wonder what the terrorist flotillas would do now.

---

At 5/27/11 09:14 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I'm having a hard time with how Israel has a "right" to operate militarily in territory it does not actually own. To me it seems like trying to say the US would have the right to go set up at the Mexican border and decide what can and can't go into Mexico.

I don't see how those ideas relate. If the US and Mexico were in conflict, then sure, the US could stop and inspect shipments coming into Mexico as part of a blockade. My original point was Israel is not unreasonable to demand it conducts the inspections itself, regardless of whether foreign groups say it's safe.

But as you yourself just pointed out, they cannot defend themselves militarily. They have a foreign power occupying, in their minds this power has hostilely taken away their property and their rights...

By your reasoning no war should ever end, because the populace would just keep fighting to the last man. Survival will ultimately trump pride and indignance. While the people in Gaza aren't in danger of being annilhilated or enslaved, they are miserable, and the costs of relief are comparatively low (the Israeli terms for ending the blockade are pretty reasonable). I don't understand how they can't see that Hamas is the biggest obstacle. Are they so loyal to Hamas or so hateful of Israel that they would rather suffer under a blockade than make any concessions?

The alternative is to submit to their demands and legitimize decades of terrorism.

I think revolutions like Egypt and Tunisia show us that an educated populace who realize their leaders aren't working for their benefit show us a potential new route to reform in the middle east. I'm not saying that's a fait accompli, we don't know for sure yet. But I think the option exists, hence why I charge false dilemma here.

Sure, but those were grassroots revolutions. Besides, I can't think of any better way to strengthen Hamas than to lift the blockade, giving them the chance to say "See? Your faith in us was rewarded and we have succeded in defeating the Israelis." No one there is going to say, "Gee, those Israelis are real humanitarians for letting us import and export everything again. We should reassess our hostility to that country."

No country is going to waver in the face of aggression, especially when its survival isn't threatened in the slightest.

If Israel isn't really threatened...then why is the argument I keep hearing them make "defense"? Especially people like satanbrain who would have me to believe terrorists are constantly after him and will burn Israel to the ground any day now.

Well, satanbrain is a nut who gives Israel supporters a bad name. The defense they refer to is that of their daily life, which rocket attacks disrupt. I meant "survival" to mean the existence of the nation as a whole.

They seem to be wanting it both ways...so I doubt they're going to ever fully renounce. Personally, I want to see Hamas gone, but realistically it's never going to happen as long as the average Palestinian thinks Hamas gives them some benefit.

That's true, but the blockade has backed Israel into a corner. It can't lift it now without appearing weak and giving a serious propaganda victory to Hamas, but maintaining it forever just makes Israel look bad. If I were Israel, I would saturate the Gazans daily with the Israeli terms to remind them of what their suffering is about.

Unlike Hamas, Israel does not deliberately target civilians to "send a message." It tries to focus its power against those directly responsible for hostilities.

Except when it shoots at, and blows up buildings that credible evidence is obtained there was never any terrorists hiding in amiright?

Given the terrorists' strategy, I'm willing to give the IDF the benefit of the doubt. Israeli society is open enough that any deliberate effort to increase direct civilian casuatlies would come out eventually, which suggests that the IDF is at least trying to limit the deaths of bystanders.

Not in any meaningful sense of the word.

Then why is it pretty much an accepted conclusion that it is?

Because most of the people making those conclusions have little to no stake in the matter. In their view, any suffering is bad, and the reasons for it or the consequences of easing it don't matter.

Here's something that says the opposite. If the link doesn't work, let me know. I think it should.

For one thing, Israel doesn't control "all access" to Gaza, just most of it.
Also, this document doesn't discuss exactly what would constitute "control" of Gaza infrastructure. Wouldn't Israel still technically control water and electricity if it came from outside Gaza's borders? Controlling fuel and imports/exports are the logical results of a blockade, entirely different from an occupation. I'm not sure what it means to control "radio and tv frequencies," either. I know Hamas has its own radio station in Gaza, and I know they have shut down several others that were apparently sympathetic to Fatah.
Israel reserves the right to take military action because it does not accept Hamas as a legitimate government, but a terrorist group. I don't think there has to be a formal declaration of war against criminal entities; it's assumed they are conflict.

Even in a state of peace, Israel would still technically control Gaza's utilities since it doesn't have enough power and water plants. In war, it's perfectly legal to vigorously defend one's borders on both sides, and attempt to blockade the enemy country. Gaza doesn't have any aircraft so it doesn't have any airspace to be occupied to begin with. It's a perfect illustration of how outdated international laws of conflict are.

Under the law as stands, Gaza is occupied. You can't just pick and choose what laws to obey, certainly they can be changed, but as it stands now, Gaza is occupied.

Under those definitions, yes, Gaza is occupied. But the common meaning of occupation isn't based on those definitions. For instance, the occupation of Gaza is vastly different than the German occupation of France in WWII, but "occupation" is a loaded word with its own set of implications. Those associations do not hold true for what is happening in Gaza, and I think there should be a distinction in non-academic or non-legal discussions. It's the same thing for words like "torture" or "illegal" or "kill."

Legal arguments are totally academic. They never have and never will be respected enough to decide any conflict of worth, especially when the sides are so incredibly lopsided.

So...the law doesn't matter...I don't know how to argue with anybody who says rules and laws don't matter.

Laws that are never enforced don't really matter. It ceases being a law when there's no penalty for breaking it. It becomes more of a suggestion that can be ignored.

---

At 5/27/11 11:16 PM, satanbrain wrote: The congress is and the congress approves/disapproves aid.

You really seem to think the congress acts totally independent of the President? How about you look at the basics of US government and we can come back to this.

The republicans don't support 1967 borders and understand it weakens us.

Yeah, that one has never been properly explained to me because you have one of the best militaries on earth and the Palestinians have some shitty rockets and have to resort to suicide bombings. It's hard for me looking at that to see Israel as "weak" in that situation. Also 1967 borders have been pretty much the default position for BOTH parties when they had a sitting President working on the process.

They do want peace, just not with a jewish state.

I think you're more then likely correct. However this statement at face value means we have to at least think about the possibility of a position shift on their part.

What do you mean by that?

You're saying Israel is a Jewish Nation state. It is for the Jews, by the Jews. This implies that everybody else is not as important and simply lives there at the pleasure of the Jews.

Nation : "A nation can refer to a sovereign state,[1] as for instance in the member states of the United Nations,[2] or to a community of people who share a common language, descent, history, and, although not necessarily, a common government."

That's one definition yes. There are others that are less prejudicial. America is a nation, a melting pot nation that favors no ethnicity over another implicitly in it's doctrine. There are other forms of nation then the one definition you keep spouting.

So they don't have any problem that jewish settlers would be part of their citizens, do they?

I'm not sure. Certainly they don't favor the idea of Israel building settlements and then claiming them as sovereign, that is a markedly different issue.

How they are oppressed? By recieving free tons of aid without needing to do anything?

Oh please, tons? Really? The harrassment of the blockade? Israel's settlement building? You can't honestly sit there and say Israel are complete white hats here.

So we don't want to be, that's why we reclaimed our own land.

Which isn't really what you did as I keep pointing out, but ok. Also if the Jews didn't want to be harrassed anymore, I'd have to think they would have done a few things differently when re-establishing Israel after the Brits gave them the territory.

Like every nation should.

Depends on the case I think. For the most part I think we agree on this though.

You can't stop terrorists if there is a free pass, there are still terrorists who try to infiltrate israel.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the average palestinian citizen who we agree is not a terrorist, do we not?

The question was rhetorical, they do have a right to their own land.

Ok, then why can't they have that land in the West Bank and Gaza where they'd lived happily until the Israeli's came back?

Like us, they have a right to their own country, just that it is jordan. Where 70% of the population "incidentally" are palestinian.

So because a majority is Palestinian...they should go to Jordan? Uh oh, this is a bad argument. Because by this logic Israel should not have been rebuilt because the majority at the time of establishment of Israel.

It's not second class citizenship, they have citizen rights.

But by what you spout it's not really "their country". They live there at the pleasure of the Jews.

These terrorist-supporters who knowingly support terrorists?

You've never proven this, so knock it off already.

the turkish IHH is a terrorist organization, the other ships weren't hatled because they weren't terrorist flotillas and their contents were passed.

Oh really? Wanna back that up. I'm sure I can find some complaints from non-terrorist entities who've had difficulty.

At least in israel.

Again, you're dreaming.

You can use unconventional weapons but i wouldn't suggest that.

False dilemma. Why is everything weapons and killing with you? Especially when you lie and say you're open to other methods.

They won't stop if their vehicles are destroyed....

So yeah, you are.

creeds?

"All fuck ups".

Can't names be fudged? If they were lying they could lie about the names and seem more credible.

They can, but if I have names I can check into death records and make sure they died when and where the report says they did. Common sense son.

They want to kill us because we are jews, i'm not fantasying we could ever change their minds after their propaganda has done that to them. If someone joins them, it's his fault.

But can't you not combat the propaganda and try to re-educate the people? They join because of ignorance, or misplaced desire for revenge in the majority of cases. Take that away, and you cripple them.

They use hamas, hizbullah and, soon, the muslim brotherhood to attack us.

I'm calling bullshit until they have a state declaration war against you. It's all paranoia till you have some facts.

If the general public believes we jews should die because they are jews i don't think their minds will be changed again,

Huh? I thought you and I agreed the general public weren't terrorists or necessarily sympathizers earlier? Were you lying then? Or is it you just can't bring yourself to find any common ground with me?

Need them to kill jews.

Need them to keep them safe. Again, we agreed the average palestinian isn't a hard line terrorist.

Then what are you talking about? Weakening ourselves with actions that anger the population?

Not at all. Again you present a false dilemma by saying it's either an A or B proposition. I've laid out what I'm talking about many times, you just keep ignoring it for false dilemmas.

I say i don't care why they are doing this. It's their fault, not mine.

Lovely attitude.

If the UN cared enough it would teach them in the schools it built that terror is not the way to achieve peace.

School can teach you one thing, home life something different. You think we have racists in America because schools are teaching them racism?

The same applies for fatah, now that they are ruling together with hamas they should have some influence in gaza.

Some, but how much? Hamas needs the "Jewish Boogeyman" to keep power. They don't want peace because if peace is achieved they have to run on their record (which is shit). Also I imagine any alliance with fatah is going to be tenous at best and if they try to take that boogeyman away from Hamas, they'll freak and split off again because they can't hold power without blaming all the ills of the land on the Jews. I do however agree that if fatah or hamas are serious about peace, then the indoctrination of hate must stop immediately.

---

If they start butchering chritistian it isn't exactly protecting human rights. And this:

Except that's not a government sanctioned act. That is a civilian act and you can't expect these prejudices to be wiped out overnight.

"Ishaq Ibrahim, a researcher at the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, a watchdog entrusted with the protection of minority rights in Egypt, welcomed the integration of former Jihadists in Egypt's political arena, saying that political participation could steer these movements away from violence. But the parties still needed to convince Egyptian society that they don't intend to change Egypt if they come to power and turn it into an Islamic caliphate, he said.

I think this is a good cautious approach. He is saying you can't push them to the fringes and take their voice, or you strengthen their malovelence and potential to do harm. You try to bring them in, but understand it must be with conditions and restrictions and they must play ball with the rest of the team and move Egypt towards prosperity. Or are you going to honestly try and tell me you think this qoute means Ibrahim is twirling his black mustache like a cartoon villain and screaming "Jihad! Jihad!"?

"These movements still need to reassure society, and especially minority groups such as Copts, women and liberal movements, that they will respect the constitution and laws even if they become a political majority," Ibrahim told The Media Line. "So far, they have failed to do so.""

I agree with him. Also this shows me that the top people in Egypt are at least publicly trying to show a responsible stance on rebuilding their government into something much better and more palatable to the rest of the world.

Couldn't bin laden hiding place be tested? Why was the US only 55% sure he was there?

Because intelligence has it's limits? Because perhaps their informant had credibility problems? The point is they tested the info and they got the jack pot. Also 55% is still a majority (just not an excellent one). You really think you hear about every intelligence operation conducted ever? Even the botched stuff? Keep on dreaming buddy.

Then you get a failed operation and can accidentally kill someone important, that will be published.

Or you get a failed operation, nobody dies, nobody leaks the info, and the public never knows. This happens ALL the time! Why is that so hard for you to get?

I deny it because israel was never given up, admitting this lie would be as giving up the right on israel.

Except it was. We've been over it. But obviously you'll never accept that fact so let's just agree to disagree and move the fuck out of this particular quagmire already.

Could be, could be for almost 25 years.

Things change. Do I honestly believe they have changed here? Nope. But the statement was made, depending on actions going forward we can then make an educated determination about whether we're right that they're full of crap, or we both got it wrong.

They are saying this to appease more extremist terrorists than themselves?

You don't understand what I'm talking about at all. Because you really don't understand how politics work. I really don't feel like explaining it either because you want black and white "this is always why thing Y proceeds from thing X" and what I'm telling you is that is not always the case, many things wind up done in politics for very specific situational reasons and sometimes that's why what looks good in say, 1975, may come back to become a major goddamn disaster in 2011.

---

or too little

---

At 5/27/11 10:27 AM, adrshepard wrote: Are you deliberately being dense? Rather than believe the obvious notion that groups like Hamas DEPEND on civilian casualties for their campaign against Israel (it's all they have, really, since it's weak militarily and Israeli security is so tight) and therefore will put them in the line of fire for propaganda purposes, you instead decide it's more likely there's a vast conspiracy in the Israeli armed forces to manufacture claims of hostiles just to bomb certain places, and despite the hundreds, if not thousands of potential whistleblowers, none have said anything about it.

.......None? Other then Israel like having the highest human rights violations according to the UN, other then Israel having so little support in Palestine etc. etc. I have yet to see ANY clear footage of "terrorists" firing missiles from buildings, all that is ever linked too is terrible blur. On top of this you have no real clue what's going on there because you're not there, the only news network that gets to the West from the Palestinians perspective is Al-Jazeera, while the more technologically advanced and developed nation can easily bring news to you in favor of itself.

Of course peaceful protesters are terrorists in Israel's eyes as well, often times people flood the roof so that Israel doesn't fire a missile at them and then Israel does it in the name of counter terrorism. That kinda gets suspicious at times don't you think?....

Your comment about the sniper is simply absurd. Sending in special forces on an extremely high risk operation with low chance of success (the target could easily slip away in the time it would take to organize and execute such an operation) goes far beyond stupidity when the target can be taken out with a guided missle in a matter of minutes.

That's retarded. "Hurr hurr ok we're going to just destroy every building in Gaza n those terrorists can't fire at us nothing wrong with that at all". Gaza is occupied, why you would need to fire missiles at all in territory YOU control is rather suspicious

You mean they've been given more warning by an enemy than has been the case in nearly every conflict in human history? Dear GOD, those Israelis are bastards!

That wasn't the point. The point was Israel is just destroying infrastructure for no clear reason at all.

I know, but it's not just one "Israel" or one "Palestinian." As far as I'm concerned, guilt and responsibility don't span generations. If I'm living on land that was stolen 50 years ago by my grandfather, and both he and the original landholders are dead, that grievance dies with them. If I choose to return it to the descendant of the original holder, that's being generous, not just.

That's your opinion, your opinion doesn't matter when it comes to deciding other peoples opinions, to all of them the grievance carries on and both sides use the "BUT MAH ANCESTAS WUH HURRR LONGS TIME AGOS"

Not on any official level, from what I've read. Sure, Jews and those who have served in the IDF may have more perks, but that's not the same as discrimation against anyone. There probably are Israelis who personally discriminate against Arabs, but there's not a whole lot the government can do to prevent that, only correct it after the fact.

You mean like other then those Arabs living in inferior slums?

But you suggested a program for Palestinian integration as a possible solution.

Because many Palestinians would love to have peace with the Israeli's and many Palestinians don't, same with the Israeli's.

That makes no difference. There's no law saying that the Israelis can't strike back against rocket attacks until someone gets hurt. Israel's responsibility to limit civilian casualties is mitigated by the risks posed to its own forces. Usually they use guided missiles and artillery, which are reasonably accurate. It's the same reason cops don't have to wait for someone to get shot before they can use lethal force to take down a suspect.

Here's the problem, they make even more civilian casualties! Surely if they were trying to limit them they wouldn't have to fire missiles into territory they occupy?

No, the Irgun was substantially different, in that it did not seek to kill civilians, and the British were it's primary targets. All this took place over 60 years ago.

Yes, their most famous attack being the attack on British delegates by bombing a hotel, who may I add ARE CIVILIANS.

That and you know what the Irgun believed? They believed in cleansing the land of Palestinians and whiping them out of Canaan.

Now tell me, if Israel wants peace, why did it elect people like that?

Menachem Begin was elected in 1977, and you're using that to characterize the people of Israel in 2011. Do I need to explain how absurd that is?

Oh, and during his tenure he signed the Camp David Accords with Egypt, in which Israel relinquished the Sinai Peninsula. Begin later recieved the Nobel Peace Prize. But of course you knew that, right?

Yes I did. You know why he did that right? Two reasons 1. Sinai wasn't part of the Zionist Israel 2. They got rid of an enemy in a future war, as in they hold territory like West Bank and the Golan heights as bargaining chips for those countries to establish peace because being invaded from all sides is not a good situation and they could only go so far in the wars they did go through. As in it was a strategic move. That still does not forgive his ideology or what his organization did and got away with.

---

At 5/29/11 12:32 PM, Warforger wrote: .......None? Other then Israel like having the highest human rights violations according to the UN, other then Israel having so little support in Palestine etc. etc.

Gee, the whole "whistleblowing" concept is a bit too much for you?
I guess you believe that every one of the nearly 200,000 IDF soldiers is a bloodthirsty savage who would unquestionably slaughter a Palestinian in cold blood for no reason, and not one of them would ever say anything about it to anyone, making it the single largest ongoing conspiracy in the history of mankind.

Of course peaceful protesters are terrorists in Israel's eyes as well, often times people flood the roof so that Israel doesn't fire a missile at them and then Israel does it in the name of counter terrorism. That kinda gets suspicious at times don't you think?....

Provide a documented example.

That's retarded. "Hurr hurr ok we're going to just destroy every building in Gaza n those terrorists can't fire at us nothing wrong with that at all". Gaza is occupied, why you would need to fire missiles at all in territory YOU control is rather suspicious

You see, aviewskewed? This is inevitably what happens when people start throwing around loaded words. After a while, people like Warforger don't even know the difference anymore.

You mean they've been given more warning by an enemy than has been the case in nearly every conflict in human history? Dear GOD, those Israelis are bastards!

That wasn't the point. The point was Israel is just destroying infrastructure for no clear reason at all.

No, you specifically criticized Israel for "only" telephoning Palestinians near the target before launching a strike.

That's your opinion, your opinion doesn't matter when it comes to deciding other peoples opinions, to all of them the grievance carries on and both sides use the "BUT MAH ANCESTAS WUH HURRR LONGS TIME AGOS"

Forgive me for assuming you knew an iota of world history. If you did, you'd understand that the vast majority of peoples who were the first to live in a geographic area have been pushed aside, absorbed, or wiped out. Yet the Iroquois have been pretty peaceful lately. And the Saxons, and the Phoenicians, and the Babylonians, and the Aztecs, and the Celts, and the Byzantines, and the Minoans.

Not on any official level, from what I've read. Sure, Jews and those who have served in the IDF may have more perks, but that's not the same as discrimation against anyone. There probably are Israelis who personally discriminate against Arabs, but there's not a whole lot the government can do to prevent that, only correct it after the fact.

You mean like other then those Arabs living in inferior slums?

Identify the mechanism of how official Israeli government policy produces this.

Here's the problem, they make even more civilian casualties! Surely if they were trying to limit them they wouldn't have to fire missiles into territory they occupy?

I can't even begin to respond to this. I'm thinking of all the possible lines of thought that could lead you to say this nonsense, but all of them orignate from some unfathomable level of ignorance and misinformation. I'm just at a loss.

Yes I did. You know why he did that right? Two reasons 1. Sinai wasn't part of the Zionist Israel.

It had Israeli settlements, which Menachem forcibly removed for the sake of peace with Egypt, an enemy whose army Israel could easily defend against. He SURRENDERED land with ISRAELIS living on it and you still claim he was a radical terrorist with no desire for peace? Justifiably condemn him and Irgun for what thejavascript:BBSPost.Save();y did prior to 1950, but that part of him was apparently long gone before he took public office.

In short:

Now tell me, if Israel wants peace, why did it elect people like that?

Menachem Begin was elected in 1977, and you're using that to characterize the people of Israel in 2011. Do I need to explain how absurd that is?

---

At 5/29/11 03:25 PM, adrshepard wrote: Gee, the whole "whistleblowing" concept is a bit too much for you?
I guess you believe that every one of the nearly 200,000 IDF soldiers is a bloodthirsty savage who would unquestionably slaughter a Palestinian in cold blood for no reason, and not one of them would ever say anything about it to anyone, making it the single largest ongoing conspiracy in the history of mankind.

.........What the fuck? I did not say anything of the like.

Of course peaceful protesters are terrorists in Israel's eyes as well, often times people flood the roof so that Israel doesn't fire a missile at them and then Israel does it in the name of counter terrorism. That kinda gets suspicious at times don't you think?....

Provide a documented example.

Rachael Corrie I think?

You see, aviewskewed? This is inevitably what happens when people start throwing around loaded words. After a while, people like Warforger don't even know the difference anymore.

Considering Israeli troops patrol the area it gets a bit suspicous.

No, you specifically criticized Israel for "only" telephoning Palestinians near the target before launching a strike.

Why would they need to do this strike if there were no rocket attacks at the time? Surely if they can telephone a resident that they should evacuate their homes then they're in no urgent situation.

Forgive me for assuming you knew an iota of world history. If you did, you'd understand that the vast majority of peoples who were the first to live in a geographic area have been pushed aside, absorbed, or wiped out. Yet the Iroquois have been pretty peaceful lately. And the Saxons, and the Phoenicians, and the Babylonians, and the Aztecs, and thI e Celts, and the Byzantines, and the Minoans.

Ok cool, nothing you have said right there had anything to do with what I said. Again, my point is that your opinion doesn't matter, the fact is that the grievances ARE carried on through generations because that is what the people believe. Nothing you say is going to change that. Forgive me if I thought you could read.

You mean like other then those Arabs living in inferior slums?

Identify the mechanism of how official Israeli government policy produces this.

You think an obvious policy would show? Again that would be a strategic blunder....

Anyway there's this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citize ns_of_Israel#Economic_Status

Yes I did. You know why he did that right? Two reasons 1. Sinai wasn't part of the Zionist Israel.

It had Israeli settlements, which Menachem forcibly removed for the sake of peace with Egypt, an enemy whose army Israel could easily defend against. He SURRENDERED land with ISRAELIS living on it and you still claim he was a radical terrorist with no desire for peace? Justifiably condemn him and Irgun for what thejavascript:BBSPost.Save();y did prior to 1950, but that part of him was apparently long gone before he took public office.

Easily defended against? Is that a joke? The only reason Israel looks so good militarily is that it chooses its battles and it plans and prepares for them, one of that is that it should avoid war as much as possible and AGAIN use the land they captured as bargaining chips to keep the neighboring countries out of the next one like say the Golan Heights for Syria. If Israel just went to war everytime it wanted it would've been crushed like a bug hands down, I mean hell later wars ended up in stalemates not clear victories, but because they set clear goals, attacked clear targets, and planned a defense for the attacks, Israel has managed to defeat its Arab enemies multiple times.

A good example of another nation like it would be Prussia under Bismarck, while Bismarck was a smart man, managing to mold Germany into a great power, the king often wasn't and he was sad when the Prussians fought the Austrians and defeated them because while in short term it was good, in the long term it strained relations with a potential ally. On top of this they didn't try to takeover all of Austria because they knew it would waste their resources.

AGAIN! it wasn't in Zionist claims and it was a strategic move more then any other.

In short:

Now tell me, if Israel wants peace, why did it elect people like that?

Menachem Begin was elected in 1977, and you're using that to characterize the people of Israel in 2011. Do I need to explain how absurd that is?

Ok, other then the Irgun being celebrated in Israel and absorbed into the IDF?

---

At 5/29/11 01:12 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Yeah, that one has never been properly explained to me because you have one of the best militaries on earth and the Palestinians have some shitty

That can reach everywhere in israel.

rockets and have to resort to suicide bombings. It's hard for me looking at that to see Israel as "weak" in that situation.

We will be weak because hamas will be reinforced by iranian forces and/or hizbullah. Video.

I think you're more then likely correct. However this statement at face value means we have to at least think about the possibility of a position shift on their part.

Here is their position: "Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's statements on Saturday night that he opposed any Israeli civilian or military presence in a future Palestinian state was met with scorn by cabinet ministers on Sunday.", so they want palestinans to live in israel and jews not to in palestine? That only means they want all of israel.

You're saying Israel is a Jewish Nation state. It is for the Jews, by the Jews.

It is for the jews but everyone who is a citizen have citizen rights in israel.

This implies that everybody else is not as important and simply lives there at the pleasure of the Jews.

This implies that everybody else doesn't have right on the land but since he will not be evacuated he is a citizen.

That's one definition yes. There are others that are less prejudicial.

But that's a definition, isn't it?

America is a nation,

Was it aleays a nation, or is it a political nation based on belief in accepted values?

a melting pot nation that favors no ethnicity over another implicitly in it's doctrine.

Because everyone agreed it will be so.

There are other forms of nation then the one definition you keep spouting.

Ethnic nations have always existed, ethnic nations can choose to share their land but you can't force them.

Oh please, tons? Really?

Yes, really.
:The harrassment of the blockade?
Egypt removed the blockade on weapons from it's side, it's completely open now.

Israel's settlement building? You can't honestly sit there and say Israel are complete white hats here.

We are building in our own land, you have admitted it is legal and that it is moral to reclaim your own land. Even if someone stronger once took it.

Also if the Jews didn't want to be harrassed anymore, I'd have to think they would have done a few things differently when re-establishing Israel after the Brits gave them the territory.

Die so they could never be killed?

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the average palestinian citizen who we agree is not a terrorist, do we not?

But there are too many terrorists and the delay of a few minutes is not hurting human rights as much as not protecting citizens.

Ok, then why can't they have that land in the West Bank and Gaza where

In gaza they have their land. Judea and samaria are israeli lands.

they'd lived happily until the Israeli's came back?

That's the point, came back. They never imagined the jews will ever reclaim their own land so they were happy, they were wrong.

So because a majority is Palestinian...they should go to Jordan?

No, because their homeland is jordan their land is jordan. They weren't exiled from jordan, they can build their country there happily.

But by what you spout it's not really "their country". They live there at the pleasure of the Jews.

It is not their land, they can try to convince the country to share it's land, it's one of their rights. They live there because there is no reason to evacuate them, they will still live in their homes while being a minority.

I'm sure I can find some complaints from non-terrorist entities who've had difficulty.

The only difficulty they had is that they were investigated, later, since they weren't terrorists, they were released.

Again, you're dreaming.

If you give up too soon discipline the army you'll fail, if your army has commander who care about ethics enough the army will be ethical.

Why is everything weapons and killing with you?

right, let's let the agressors take every land and citizens they wish, let them develop what size of army they want, ignore their statements about killing us and reduce our army. That will surely help us. At least the population wouldn't know about the danger.

Especially when you lie and say you're open to other methods.

What are we supposed to do? Take over their media and try to convice them they shouldn't kill us? If they don't understand this alone, how can we do it?

They can, but if I have names I can check into death records and make sure they died when and where the report says they did. Common sense son.

You can search it by the date and see if number of the people who were killed fit theirs.

But can't you not combat the propaganda and try to re-educate the people?

Before they are defeated? Was that done in germany?

They join because of ignorance, or misplaced desire for revenge in the majority of cases.

So they will suffer because of their ignorance or desire, they'll suffer by losing and "have one more reason" to join hamas.

Take that away, and you cripple them.

How do you take it away before they defeated?

I'm calling bullshit until they have a state declaration war against you. It's all paranoia till you have some facts.

It is a fact that rafah crossing was completely opened, when it is found out they have more rockets and better one it will be because of egypt and iran.

Huh? I thought you and I agreed the general public weren't terrorists or necessarily sympathizers earlier?

I said if, if your theory "terrorism cannot be defeated" is right.

Need them to keep them safe. Again, we agreed the average palestinian isn't a hard line terrorist.

How are you being safe if your protector uses you as human shield and kill civilians (while he could kill "evil soldiers").

Lovely attitude.

We can waste dozens of years trying to figure out and have thousands of civilians killed, oh, we already have that.

School can teach you one thing, home life something different.

Should we take over every home and force them to learn what they learn in school? It is something they should understand, it cannot be enforced.

You think we have racists in America because schools are teaching them racism?

when racists are accused of their racism, are their parents accused or themselves?

Some, but how much?

Enough to convince them to change their minds. If they really want them to change their minds.

Hamas needs the "Jewish Boogeyman" to keep power.

And anyone who believes the jewish boogeyman chose to do so of his own freewill, despite seeing firsthand the atrocities hamas is committing.

Also I imagine any alliance with fatah is going to be tenous at best and if they try to take that boogeyman away from Hamas, they'll freak and split off again because they can't hold power without blaming all the ills of the land on the Jews.

Or that fatah will become the same as hamas, the same as it's "political branch" at least.

I do however agree that if fatah or hamas are serious about peace, then the indoctrination of hate must stop immediately.

I agree with him. Also this shows me that the top people in Egypt are at least publicly trying to show a responsible stance on rebuilding their government into something much better and more palatable to the rest of the world.

How many is the precent of the top people in the egyptian population? I don't doubt their intentions,
but if there are not much people who support these changes there wouldn't be any.

Also 55% is still a majority (just not an excellent one).

But it's not 100%, maybe they need to torture a few more people to even reach this majority precent.

---

At 5/29/11 07:09 PM, Warforger wrote: .........What the fuck? I did not say anything of the like.

Of course you did. I asked how the IDF, with its 180,000 personnel, could prevent any leaks to the media through whistleblowers about it's allegedly barbaric practices. You responded by saying the UN and Palestinians get upset. That doesn't answer my question.

Provide a documented example.

Rachael Corrie I think?

That was bulldozer in what was essentially a construction accident. That is not at all the same. At the worst, the driver screwed up, as members of her activist group said that the IDF had always been very careful not to endanger any of them before.

You see, aviewskewed? This is inevitably what happens when people start throwing around loaded words. After a while, people like Warforger don't even know the difference anymore.

Considering Israeli troops patrol the area it gets a bit suspicous.

You've just reiterated my point.

No, you specifically criticized Israel for "only" telephoning Palestinians near the target before launching a strike.

Why would they need to do this strike if there were no rocket attacks at the time? Surely if they can telephone a resident that they should evacuate their homes then they're in no urgent situation.

A weapons cache or communications center would be two examples.

Ok cool, nothing you have said right there had anything to do with what I said. Again, my point is that your opinion doesn't matter, the fact is that the grievances ARE carried on through generations because that is what the people believe. Nothing you say is going to change that. Forgive me if I thought you could read.

I think I'll choose real-world examples over your screeching insistences about what is true and not true.

You think an obvious policy would show? Again that would be a strategic blunder....

Anyway there's this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citize ns_of_Israel#Economic_Status

You could say the same thing about most minorities around the world. You can't fault the government for that, especially since that section you've pointed out identifies measures Israel has taken to try to improve Israeli Arabs' situations.

Easily defended against? Is that a joke? The only reason Israel looks so good militarily is that it chooses its battles and it plans and prepares for them

So they're ONLY powerful militarily because they have exceptionally skilled commanders and advanced technology. Got it.

AGAIN! it wasn't in Zionist claims and it was a strategic move more then any other.

So those plans to deposit 200,000 settlers into Yamit (according to wikipedia) in Sinai were what, just clerical errors?

Now tell me, if Israel wants peace, why did it elect people like that?

Menachem Begin was elected in 1977, and you're using that to characterize the people of Israel in 2011. Do I need to explain how absurd that is?

Ok, other then the Irgun being celebrated in Israel and absorbed into the IDF?

Celebrated by who? All Israelis? Is it the subject of an official holiday?
Do you know when it was absorbed? 1948! Even a 15 year old fanatical Irgun member would be in his late sixties by now. The group's integration has no relevance anymore.

---

At 5/30/11 08:56 AM, satanbrain wrote: That can reach everywhere in israel.

Haven't you failed to prove this before? I think so

We will be weak because hamas will be reinforced by iranian forces and/or hizbullah. Video.

That video doesn't support your claim that I can see. Iran is busy putting out fires at home. I still don't buy they're ready to attack. I still think you're dreaming.

Here is their position:

Or it actually just means they're a bunch of hypocrites. You've again presented an assumptive false dilemma.

It is for the jews but everyone who is a citizen have citizen rights in israel.

So everybody does just live there at the pleasure of the Jews then? How can there be true equality in such a situation?

This implies that everybody else doesn't have right on the land but since he will not be evacuated he is a citizen.

So it's exactly what I said then. You just restated it a different way because you refuse to agree with me about anything.

But that's a definition, isn't it?

I've never argued the definition isn't a valid one. I just argue it's not the only one like you seem to want to do. I don't buy it's even the most important one, again, as you do.

Was it aleays a nation, or is it a political nation based on belief in accepted values?

It has always been a nation. It meets a definition for a nation. Thus it is a nation. Let's stop trying to act like there are "grades" of nation and some grades are better then others. It's ridiculous.

Because everyone agreed it will be so.

That's what the governing document says, yes. What's your point?

Ethnic nations have always existed, ethnic nations can choose to share their land but you can't force them.

But I can disagree with the idea that they are the only form of acceptable nation and/or the best form of nation.

Yes, really.

Then why are they starving and living in squalor if they're so well provided for?

Egypt removed the blockade on weapons from it's side, it's completely open now.

So one down...but there's still Israel.

We are building in our own land, you have admitted it is legal and that it is moral to reclaim your own land. Even if someone stronger once took it.

You're twisting my words. The land you build in is not legally yours. It's only "yours" if I accept that ancient claims are somehow still valid. Which I don't. So don't sit there and lie and say we agree.

Die so they could never be killed?

Be nicer to the former inhabitants instead of saying "this is for the Jews now, the rest of you can fuck off" hey! Sort of like the shit you keep saying!

But there are too many terrorists and the delay of a few minutes is not hurting human rights as much as not protecting citizens.

That's irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Also it does not "take a few minutes" to inspect these boats. You keep insisting on this claim you've never proven and act like you know about the inspections when you've shown you clearly don't.

In gaza they have their land.

It's just blockaded and occupied.

Judea and samaria are israeli lands.

In your mind.

That's the point, came back. They never imagined the jews will ever reclaim their own land so they were happy, they were wrong.

That's an oversimplified way of putting it. But there is a grain of truth there.

No, because their homeland is jordan their land is jordan.

No, they're homeland is NOT jordan, remember when we defined homeland? Homeland is where you were born. Their homeland is where they were born.

They live there because there is no reason to evacuate them, they will still live in their homes while being a minority.

And in your eyes, not being as important as the jewish citizens. That's a disgusting attitude in my opinion.

The only difficulty they had is that they were investigated, later, since they weren't terrorists, they were released.

Nah, there have been complaints that were much more then that. Let's cut the lying please.

If you give up too soon discipline the army you'll fail, if your army has commander who care about ethics enough the army will be ethical.

I'm sorry, what are your qualifications to be stating this stuff again?

right, let's let the agressors take every land and citizens they wish, let them develop what size of army they want, ignore their statements about killing us and reduce our army. That will surely help us. At least the population wouldn't know about the danger.

That's a false dilemma that ignores much of what I've said.

What are we supposed to do? Take over their media and try to convice them they shouldn't kill us? If they don't understand this alone, how can we do it?

If you don't believe in other methods, don't lie to me and say you do. If you believe the only way to deal with terrorists is to kill them, just be consistent and say so. Don't lie and say you believe there are other methods then backpedal back to your real beliefs is all I'm saying.

Before they are defeated? Was that done in germany?

Not everyone in Germany agreed with Hitler. They just didn't speak out about it because if they did they would have been killed.

So they will suffer because of their ignorance or desire, they'll suffer by losing and "have one more reason" to join hamas.

Right, because that solves the overall larger problem. Wonderful.

How do you take it away before they defeated?

You educate them about what Hamas does to screw them. You try to get them to take their lives back.

It is a fact that rafah crossing was completely opened, when it is found out they have more rockets and better one it will be because of egypt and iran.

Again, I want a state declaration of war. Because sending terrorists rockets (while wrong as fuck) is not the same as open war.

I said if, if your theory "terrorism cannot be defeated" is right.

I didn't say you can't beat terrorism. I just said you don't beat terrorism by killing individual terrorists, more just replace them.

How are you being safe if your protector uses you as human shield and kill civilians (while he could kill "evil soldiers").

I said they have a mistaken belief Hamas keeps them safe. Educate them about the mistake. You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

Should we take over every home and force them to learn what they learn in school? It is something they should understand, it cannot be enforced.

I agree they should understand tolerance. Everyone should. The problem is you can't force it, you can only try to teach it.

when racists are accused of their racism, are their parents accused or themselves?

They are, and then you accuse their family yes because you don't spontaneously become racist. You learn it.

Enough to convince them to change their minds. If they really want them to change their minds.

Why do you believe that? You think all Palestinians think alike?

And anyone who believes the jewish boogeyman chose to do so of his own freewill, despite seeing firsthand the atrocities hamas is committing.

You are pretty much missing my point. My point was you can't change Hamas, unless Fatah is full of idiots, they should know that going in. Hamas has power because they're very good at playing on ignorance and promoting fear. Hitler did the same sorts of things. It's telling people they're problems aren't inflicted because of anything they've done or choices they've made. It's all the fault of some outside force and if they just give the people spouting this the power, the outside force will be eliminated. That is a powerfully attractive notion.

---

Or that fatah will become the same as hamas, the same as it's "political branch" at least.

It's possible fatah might, but I doubt it. I think fatah has it's identity and ideals and is not going to happily become something subservient to Hamas, or necessarily "fall in line". The fact that there was even a rift to begin with points to that.

How many is the precent of the top people in the egyptian population? I don't doubt their intentions,
but if there are not much people who support these changes there wouldn't be any.

It is going to be a challenge for the government to instate any sort of reforms. It's challenging for any rebuilding government to try and change laws and attitudes that have been held for generations and that can't change overnight. India is a pretty stable country with a lot of western influence yet it still struggles with the legacy of it's "caste system" even though the system has been illegal for decades now. But just because it's challenging doesn't mean it can't happen.

But it's not 100%, maybe they need to torture a few more people to even reach this majority percent.

Even though the article that YOU linked to, and tons and tons of similar research points towards the same general conclusion that torture isn't really effective for gathering information?

---

At 5/31/11 10:51 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: That video doesn't support your claim that I can see. Iran is busy putting out fires at home.

And very successful at it. Because of their military power/

So everybody does just live there at the pleasure of the Jews then?

They live there because evacuating people who already are there is not our way. They do not own the land but they shouldn't be evacuated for this fact.

How can there be true equality in such a situation?

Every citizen can try, legally, to make the country "for all it's citizens" but the fact he wants it to be doesn't make it so.

So it's exactly what I said then. You just restated it a different way because you refuse to agree with me about anything.

Importance is not the same as ownership.

I've never argued the definition isn't a valid one. I just argue it's not the only one like you seem to want to do. I don't buy it's even the most important one, again, as you do.

Can you prove all the nations around the world let everybody share their land and completly ignore their heritage and ethnicity?

It has always been a nation.

Was the american nation a nation 500 years ago?

That's what the governing document says, yes. What's your point?

That only if it is agreed on everyone to share their land, it can be shared. Otherwise it cannot be a democracy and can be ruled only by dictators (who want nations to be quarrelling each other so they could prevent rebellions).

But I can disagree with the idea that they are the only form of acceptable nation and/or the best form of nation.

If someone chooses to share his property, it's his choice. He cannot enforce his opinions on other people. And he cannot expect a nation to give up a homeland that protect it.

Then why are they starving and living in squalor if they're so well provided for?

First you need to prove all of them, and not a few people (like in any place around the world), are starving and living in squalor.Secondly, you need to prove it is because of israel and not because of hamas.

So one down...but there's still Israel.

They can get everything, in every amount through the one that is down. Their "squalidness" wouldn't change by this because there is no "squalidness" and starving in gaza.

You're twisting my words. The land you build in is not legally yours.

Then why weren't the settlements voted illegal?

It's only "yours" if I accept that ancient claims

Who still hold since no one gave up these claims.

Be nicer to the former inhabitants

We gave tons of aid, everyone can aid them with tons of aid. Should we interfere their media and schools now?

instead of saying "this is for the Jews now, the rest of you can fuck off" hey! Sort of like the shit you keep saying!

This is our land, can we just take jordan because we wish it?

That's irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Also it does not "take a few minutes" to inspect these boats.

It takes a few minutes to inspect individuals.

It's just blockaded

Was weapons' blockaded and now not even that.

and occupied.

Never was. If it's occupied, why can't we control their media?

In your mind.

In reality.

No, they're homeland is NOT jordan, remember when we defined homeland?

Remember your definition was wrong?

Homeland is where you were born.

That's only one definition which doesn't coordinate with the claim that the palestinan "refugees" who never born in israel should "go back" to israel because it's "their homeland".

Their homeland is where they were born.

Their homeland is the land they, and no one else, owes. The fact that a stronger (or psychologically fearful) power rules it changes nothing.

And in your eyes, not being as important as the jewish citizens. That's a disgusting attitude in my opinion.

Again, owning something doesn't make you more important.

Nah, there have been complaints that were much more then that. Let's cut the lying please.

Proof of complaints? Proof it's not from terrorists?

I'm sorry, what are your qualifications to be stating this stuff again?

Being able to cognize.

That's a false dilemma that ignores much of what I've said.

That's how WWII wasn't prevented.

If you believe the only way to deal with terrorists is to kill them,

Or arrest them.

Not everyone in Germany agreed with Hitler. They just didn't speak out about it because if they did they would have been killed.

And not everyone in gaza agrees with hamas. Can we change their minds before they are defeated because of that?

Right, because that solves the overall larger problem. Wonderful.

If you want to live and survive, if you fantasize that giving up to terrorists will solve anything they strike you harder.

You educate them about what Hamas does to screw them. You try to get them to take their lives back.

How are we supposed to educate them if they govern their own schools? Take over UN schools?

I didn't say you can't beat terrorism. I just said you don't beat terrorism by killing

You kill when you must and arrest.

individual terrorists, more just replace them.

Their numbers are not infinite. Neither their weapons.

I said they have a mistaken belief Hamas keeps them safe. Educate them about the mistake. You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

They have a mistaken belief they do not see why is wrong despite it's great falsity, can the enemy they believe killing will defend them change their minds?

I agree they should understand tolerance. Everyone should. The problem is you can't force it, you can only try to teach it.

Is the UN not trying to teach it? Are our teachers better than theirs?

They are, and then you accuse their family yes because you don't spontaneously become racist. You learn it.

Then how people who went to a foreign land and met natives became racists? Their parents could nothave taught them about these people.

Why do you believe that? You think all Palestinians think alike?

no, and that is why terrorism can be defeated.

You are pretty much missing my point. My point was you can't change Hamas,

You can destroy it.

unless Fatah is full of idiots, they should know that going in.

Or fatah is lying. Or afraid of hamas.

Hamas has power because they're very good at playing on ignorance and promoting fear.

On people who already are hateful.

Hitler did the same sorts of things.

With a population who has been taught to hate those who killed their saint for hunderds of years. And still, not everyone believed this.

It's telling people they're problems aren't inflicted because of anything they've done or choices they've made.

Only that like hitler, hamas plays on the minds who were brainwashed before.

It's all the fault of some outside force and if they just give the people spouting this the power, the outside force will be eliminated. That is a powerfully attractive notion.

Attractive as thinking that it's all your fault and if you just give the people attacking you the power the fault will be eliminated?

Even though the article that YOU linked to, and tons and tons of similar research points towards the same general conclusion that torture isn't really effective for gathering information?

I am taking about one specific event where torture was effective. Generally, you don't have to resort to torture.

---

At 5/30/11 09:51 AM, adrshepard wrote:

At 5/29/11 07:09 PM, Warforger wrote: .........What the fuck? I did not say anything of the like.

Of course you did. I asked how the IDF, with its 180,000 personnel, could prevent any leaks to the media through whistleblowers about it's allegedly barbaric practices. You responded by saying the UN and Palestinians get upset. That doesn't answer my question.

Erm, I'm saying there's quite possibly something going on....

At 5/30/11 09:51 AM, adrshepard wrote:

Provide a documented example.

Rachael Corrie I think?

That was bulldozer in what was essentially a construction accident. That is not at all the same. At the worst, the driver screwed up, as members of her activist group said that the IDF had always been very careful not to endanger any of them before.

You mean at best, I'm wondering though if that was the case why do Pro-Israeli's tend to need to try to make her out as a terrorist?

You see, aviewskewed? This is inevitably what happens when people start throwing around loaded words. After a while, people like Warforger don't even know the difference anymore.

Considering Israeli troops patrol the area it gets a bit suspicous.

You've just reiterated my point.

Oh whoops, my bad. I thougtht I saw a video of them in it but turned out to be in West Bank.

No, you specifically criticized Israel for "only" telephoning Palestinians near the target before launching a strike.

Why would they need to do this strike if there were no rocket attacks at the time? Surely if they can telephone a resident that they should evacuate their homes then they're in no urgent situation.

A weapons cache or communications center would be two examples.

Um. What? Ok "hey guys move out of that place where your weapons cache is because we're going to blow it up" what's stopping them from like moving out?

Ok cool, nothing you have said right there had anything to do with what I said. Again, my point is that your opinion doesn't matter, the fact is that the grievances ARE carried on through generations because that is what the people believe. Nothing you say is going to change that. Forgive me if I thought you could read.

I think I'll choose real-world examples over your screeching insistences about what is true and not true.

.........What? Ok let's make this clear now.

While YOU may not think that the grievances die after a new generation, the PEOPLE IN CANAAN do and it DOES happen. THIS is simple fact. This is what the Bosnian Serbs feel in Bosnia, again just the same conflict with 3 sides and different people, and this is what the people in Palestine and Israel think. Hell, THATS ALL THAT ZIONISM IS!

You think an obvious policy would show? Again that would be a strategic blunder....

Anyway there's this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citize ns_of_Israel#Economic_Status

You could say the same thing about most minorities around the world. You can't fault the government for that, especially since that section you've pointed out identifies measures Israel has taken to try to improve Israeli Arabs' situations.

Easily defended against? Is that a joke? The only reason Israel looks so good militarily is that it chooses its battles and it plans and prepares for them

So they're ONLY powerful militarily because they have exceptionally skilled commanders and advanced technology. Got it.

No. You don't seem to understand. The only reason Israel looks good is because it only goes to war when the war is inevitable, and then attacks first because if Israel loses any of its own land it's going to cost them greatly. That said that's why Israel doesn't want to constantly go to war, so if they hold Sinai they're holding it as a bargaining chip to Egypt for peace because if they constantly keep going to war they're going to lose and they used Sinai to assure peace with the two nations. Going to war every chance you get is the stupidest thing you can do, which is what Israel does NOT do, as in if you can avert a war it's better then if you went to war.

On top of this the previous war with Egypt the Yom Kippur war ended in a stalemate with Egyptian forces on the Israeli bank and Israeli forces on the Egyptian bank with Egypt going at it solo, so they're learning and Israel won't be able to fight them off forever.

Here I'll point out a nation that went to war because it wanted too and failed epiclly, Russia, Italy and France, look at those great military reputations!

AGAIN! it wasn't in Zionist claims and it was a strategic move more then any other.

So those plans to deposit 200,000 settlers into Yamit (according to wikipedia) in Sinai were what, just clerical errors?

Not Zionist, but to settle the land to surround Gaza with Israeli's. Again a strategic move.

Ok, other then the Irgun being celebrated in Israel and absorbed into the IDF?

Celebrated by who? All Israelis? Is it the subject of an official holiday?
Do you know when it was absorbed? 1948! Even a 15 year old fanatical Irgun member would be in his late sixties by now. The group's integration has no relevance anymore.

......So? They have a museum in Israel, let's see an Israeli post on it

http://jewishmag.co.il/9mag/irgun/irgun.
htm

Hmmmm.......

---

Israel retaliates at protests on their borders by shooting unarmed people.

"We want to prove to the whole world who is using violence. It is obvious. You know who is using violence right now. Look at me. Do I have anything on me? No. We are trained on methods like (those of) Ghandi, like Martin Luther King, Mandela. We believe in that and we are going to stay using our nonviolent methods until the world sees who is the real oppressor," said Sari (Arab)

---

At 6/5/11 06:56 PM, JJdaDJ wrote: Israel retaliates at protests on their borders by shooting unarmed people.

By shooting people who throw stones, infiltrate from an enemy country and tear off the fence.

"We want to prove to the whole world who is using violence.

Terrorists.

It is obvious. You know who is using violence right now. Look at me. Do I have anything on me?

Money from asad?

No. We are trained on methods like (those of) Ghandi, like Martin Luther King, Mandela.

Only like ghandi, who was antisemitic racist.

We believe in that and we are going to stay using our nonviolent methods until the world sees who is the real oppressor," said Sari (Arab)

You mean, until the syrians forget that asad is butchering them.