TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Intifada 2002
Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »

Ideally, they should focus on Jerusalem and then split the territories 3 ways to accomodate Jews, Muslims and Christians. Since the Jews identify as Israeli and the Muslims and Christians HAVe to be Palestinian, then the Israelis would bitch about Palestine being 2/3 of the land area - only furthering the conflict. Not to mention the logistics of kicking Israelis out of their homes...This solution will not come easy if ever. Despite the fact that Israel has only existed people have warred in the 'holy land' for thousands of years...its not gonna stop with a piece of paper.../

quote:

Originally posted by cweb One thing I hate to read is that Sharon or Bush or whoever tell Arafat to stop the terrorists but the israeli army destroyed the police station, etc. How moronic is that statement.

How moronic is this post?
The Israelis destroyed the infrastructure after Arafat did *absolutely nothing* to stop and prevent further violence himself, and only instigated it.

When they understood that Arafat won't control the situation, they took the matter into their own hands -- to defend their country, which is something I understand and support fully.

bloody hell, why doesnt isreal just do the right thing and give back palestine?

you guys havent been reading the other threads

man some of the stuff written on here is depressing, as if you merely think about this issue for a second, decide and belive what you've concluded on is correct.

trancaholic,

quote:

I seem to remember some Israeli going bezerk in a mosque some years ago. Shooting the worshippers.

i can name you a wacko from each society in the world, lets face it they're born onto this world. but you cant argue that, lets see since passover (four weeks) we've had more suicide bombings than one can count on his fingers and probably all your toes as well. whats your point?

quote:

Additionally, I'll have to inform you that the occupied territories were never part of the land U.N. gave to the Jews. On the contrary U.N.-resolutions have ordered Israel to withdraw from these areas - something Israel to this day have refused to do entirely.

REFUSED!?!? why must you lie. how do you explain the oslo accords or camp david? i suggest you read a recent interview with Dennis Ross http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50161,00.html he says (and im assuming you know who he is) that there was an offer for an east jerusalem as a capitol to palestian and that they would have 97% (!) of the west bank and gaza.
is it to much to ask that before we give palestinians a country we ask for gaurenteed peace and security in return?


let me show you some more absurd comments

quote:

bloody hell, why doesnt isreal just do the right thing and give back palestine?

ya um "give back", like there was ever a palestinian country to begin with.
i personally belive that the palestian people deserve a country, as one said here basicly everyone in the world belives this. a country of palestian was offered in camp david 2000. however i do not think having a palestinian country right now with its current governing body is the correct thing to do. on the other hand you got palestine, where a signifigant amount of people belive that israel shouldnt even exsist. hmmm ....

as of more things you need to think about, since the oslo accords of 1993 till the first incursions by the IDF after the intifada started (end of 2000) 40% of the west bank and gaza (including towns of jenin, bethlahem, nablus...) were under complete autonomuos control by the Palestinian authority, israel DID NOT occupy those lands, the PA had COMPLETE civil and security control over those areas.... hmm guess that throws out the whole "those terrorists are doing it because they are occupied" theory.

quote:

you know why that is? that is because Isra�l has trashed all the infrastructure in the Palestinian territory, roads are trashed, telephone lines (internet) is trashed.....everything just throw a nuke on both countries and it will be over....lol

seems like arafats cell phones are working just fine, i wonder why he isnt calling a stop to all of this.
about your last comment, ya, it's all going to be over huh?

quote:

ps: hell-copter; why do you have an apache helicopter as your icon thing? Why not a nice isreali cobra? you guys don't have apaches.

yes we do

cweb let me get to you... ya sharon is to blame for all of this, right? have you not thought of the fact that the mere reason he is prime minister right now is because of the palestinians? funny, eh? by allowing disgraceful acts of violence agianst inocent civilians in israel. and dont tell me the cause for that was sharons fault, it happened for months while barak was in power and the intifada was alread on. sharon was voted into action by the will of the israeli people, who wanted a man who would act more strongly to erradicated that terror.

quote:

I do believe as well that Arafat is somewhat a terrorist, at least he was back in the 70s and i cant really believe a human can change so fast.

lets look at the past 2 years buddy.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast...nces/index.html
check it out for yourself, connections that yasser knownly paid the martyr brigade for their illegal activities. theres a link there where you can actually see the documnets themselves. there are many more of those documents on the IDF webpage but somehow i feel you are a conspiriast who belives a democratic country would "make up" those documnets.

quote:

One thing I hate to read is that Sharon or Bush or whoever tell Arafat to stop the terrorists but the israeli army destroyed the police station, etc. How moronic is that statement.

have you seen the list of weapons found at arafats compound? many of which are illegal and not allowed to have been held by him. same goes for the police stations, yes the same ones that pay and harbour terrorists, whose police men shoot at israeli forces. eugene made a good point on this one as well.

quote:

Originally posted by The White Rabbi bloody hell, why doesnt isreal just do the right thing and give back palestine?

You should read the thread before making such statements.

Every other country refuses to negotiate with terrorists or meet their demands as this would open the floodgates, sending out the message that these tactics are effective. Terrorists attacks would rise exponentially with each demand met. If other countries are worried enough about this potential to institute such policies, then Israel should be particularly worried.

quote:

NSA Berbalist You're right there, both sides need leaders to step forward and work this shit out w/o death destaruction, and all that other fun video game shit. Pease

I love this. You can see those who are pro-Palestinian by this simple fact the think; "Throw everything away, lets make a blank state starting now". This would be good, the problem is you need to start the thing every day, no wait, ever hour, no wait, every minute, because the Palestinians can't commit.

Israel's leadership to try and find a solution to this problem: Rabin, Peres, Netenyahu, Barak, Sharon.... (yet to be annouced)
Palestinians leadership to try and find a solution to this problem:
Arafat

Hmm, maybe we can differ the equation by replacing Arafat eh?

quote:

failsafe The palistinians have had their land taken. That isn't disputed one bit. What once was theirs, was given away, albiet by the UN. What do you think would happen if the UN gifted detriot to canada.

I think many would dispute this. Firstly it was not 'Palestinian' land. It belonged to the Turks, and the British took it over. It's called WWI. The Palestinian are not a people (think about it for a sec) and they were never a nation.

What do you think would happen if the British divided North America into two, and one part fought to try and take over the other part (Canada), but the Canadains defended themselves, and latter both became independent democracies?

quote:

cwebAs I said before there need to be two free States with hard frontieres. But Im glad that most people here realise that there are two sides and not just one.

I think everyone here agrees this is the solution, I do and I support Sharon's actions fully. This does not mean I do not believe in a two state solution... I just believe differently in how this should be achieved.

quote:

cwebc One thing I hate to read is that Sharon or Bush or whoever tell Arafat to stop the terrorists but the israeli army destroyed the police station, etc. How moronic is that statement. Oh and i honestly dont believe every "proof" a government give me.

You know the definition of a hypocrite right? (hypocrite: The man who murdered his parents, and then pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan)

This would be the same in this situation, the Palestinians saying they can't stop terrorism because they have no police stations. But they had the police stations, and didn't stop it then, thats why they don't have them now.

For this reason however Israel understands that they only expect 100% effort from the Palestinians, and just some resonable livale results.

An interesting card the Israelis are using in this round of diplomacy. If you listen to the news you would pay attention to this, Israel wants an end to terror (end to Arafat or a crack down finally on his part). Arafat wants an end to Israeli Occupation (or an end to Israel).

So Powell goes to the Israelis and says, "Look we need you to withdraw from the West Bank". But the Israelis will say, "Not until the Palestinians don't commit crack down on terror" (now the Israelis here have a good reason not to believe any commitment if it were to happen, but this hasn't even happened.. so we will spare those arguments for a latter date).

So Powell says "Look they will only commit to crack down on terror if you leave the West Bank". So the Israelis say "Look, we can prove we can commit when we want to, we've left some towns now, and we can leave all the towns when we desire, prove to us the Arafat can do the same".

So Powell goes to Arafat and tells him that, and Arafat will say "Look we can't do anything because Israel is in the West Bank". So Powell goes and relays that message to Israel. And Israel says, "Who said anything about the west bank?? Prove to us that he can do it in Gaza. We have left that place alone, the infrastruture their is intact, he has the ability, if he is serious he will crack down on terror".

And then Powell comes to Arafat and tells him this. And Arafat is stuck, he has to crack down on the infrastructure in Gaza to prove his commitment, but I am sure they will find some excuse for not doing this.. they always do. Just wait and see.

Anyway Astroboy sums it up pretty good (amazing from a country with biased-press):

quote:

astroboy: You should read the thread before making such statements. Every other country refuses to negotiate with terrorists or meet their demands as this would open the floodgates, sending out the message that these tactics are effective. Terrorists attacks would rise exponentially with each demand met. If other countries are worried enough about this potential to institute such policies, then Israel should be particularly worried.

This is the fact. We know this;

Arafat is a terrorist (you know it, all of Europe knows it, and every single Arab knows it [they might not say so, but they know it]).
Terrorist are not to be negotaited with (Bush Doctorine).

So it is clear cut, get rid of Arafat.

What is the catch? Arafat repersents the Palestinian people and a political desire, the problem that Arafat is the terrorist and the politician.

We know a solution to the Palestinian problem can only come through politics, not terrorism. Solution:

Rid the Palestinians of terrorism (Arafat).
Talk politics with a politician and not a terrorist (replace Arafat).

Only after these measures are taken can something happen.

Any for all those who think they know the truth since they heard about the stories on the TV. First consider the following: Don't pay to much attention to the 'news', this is easily manipulated and often downplays one end or up-plays another. Listen to the 'opt-eds'. Make sure you witness both sides, the Israelis and Palestinian perspectives. See what the Israelis say for tough questions, see what the Palestinians say. Now after understanding the view points of both sides (giving them equal time in consideration, although surely by this point they will not be morally equivilant in your mind) listen to the news.

Yoepus

If at first you don't succeed, give up. No use being a damn fool.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe Like I said before, it's really not an arguement that can be won or lost. I know I'll probably get flamed, everything I've said will be picked appart, and taken out of context. I suppose that's what I welcome when I post my opinions on an open forum. That's probably why it's so hard to even get these guys to talk. (=

I guess these last lines are targeted at my response to tranzformer. However, I find your post much more coherent and less hysterical than a lot of the others here - perhaps reflecting that you are not an active part of the conflict.
I wasn't out to take his post out of context, merely trying to point out how little concrete he was building his opinion on - something which could be done to most of the pro-Israel posts in this thread. If you look at the "pro-Palestine" posts, notice that none of them claims Arafat is right, that suicide bombings is ok and ultimately that Palestineans are innocent victims. Actually, all they state is that Israeli leadership is not an innocent part in this conflict! No matter how much dirt you dig up on Arafat and how awful statistics on suicide bombers, that does *not* (in my book) legitamize Israels leaderships way of conduct.

Re: you guys havent been reading the other threads

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy trancaholic, i can name you a wacko from each society in the world, lets face it they're born onto this world. but you cant argue that, lets see since passover (four weeks) we've had more suicide bombings than one can count on his fingers and probably all your toes as well. whats your point?

Yet, that doesn't render my counter example false, does it?

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy REFUSED!?!? why must you lie. how do you explain the oslo accords or camp david? i suggest you read a recent interview with Dennis Ross http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50161,00.html he says (and im assuming you know who he is) that there was an offer for an east jerusalem as a capitol to palestian and that they would have 97% (!) of the west bank and gaza.

I know. I just don't think 97% equals 100% (which is what the U.N. has called for), hence the word "entirely" in my post.

Yeah the palis had their police stations back in ... but my problem is that those "democratic" leaders CONTINUE to tell Arafat to stop these attacks. But at this very moment he has almost no instrument to do so...that is the moronic part.

now to the weapons found by arafat. Sorry but I would honestly harbor weapons as well when I know a whole state is probably try to kill me. He has no giant army behind him like Sharon.

And that statement "amazing for a country with a biased press" is like HAHAHA. You dont think your Israeli media is more biased then the Australian one? cmon...

But hey continue your strategy, you will only suffer more deads and the public opinion will change and you are almost alone (other than the US). That will be great for your future!

Im noy gonna post a reply
Because I will only cause a new argument,
I just have one thing to say to cewb:
Human lifes are not something to make fun about.
True, hundreds of palestinians are getting killed,
but did you know that 70 precent of them are terrorists that we are waiting to catch so
that we can make sure that our lifes will be safer in our own country.

Thats all I have to say and I just want to ask you all for something:

This argument will never come to an agreement, we will always share different opinions, we need to learn to respect those opinions even if we dont like them.
By opening threads like this we just take things to a worse level.
If we keep doing this then we will lose our forum eventually and we will lose friends from this forum.
So I'm asking you all to stop please and someone please close this thread.

I Just want to add a little thing
Cewb:
When you say Hundreds are getting killed and no one gives a rats ass,
thats a pure mistake and it is the exact opposite
The world media shows Israel as the bad guy.
Lets say a family of Palestinians got killed by an IDF action.
In 15 minuts it will be all over the news, but when a terrorist blows himself you get a short report about it and thats it.
One more thing: Colin Powell was here yesterday,
This man stands for the palestinians as much as he stands for us, he wants IDF out of the A and B territories,
I would like to enlighten you and tell that the palestinians you feel so sorry for tried to take him out.
You dont believe me?

www.debka.com - DEBKAfile Reports: Palestinian Attack on
Powell Motorcade Foiled Thursday Night


I Rest my case.


EDIT

quote:

Originally posted by cweb He has no giant army behind him like Sharon.

Are you kidding?!?!?!
You have any idea how many terrorists he has standing behind him just waiting to blow themselves up?!
Havent you seen what happend in Ramalla?
Thousends are marching with TNT all over them.

now its getting annoying
When I said Arafat has no army behind him, its meant to be no defense army, understand? Read the context of my statemnt before you just pull the trigger....

70% are terrorists...oh well, who said that, sharon?

Now to the public opinion. Ok, my comment considered the past. I mena there are severals organisation who critic the israeli behaviour long time ago. but the "normal" media just wrote "oh another terrorist attack, those asses" and dont explain the circumstance one bit like Sharon forces the settlement (and sorry those illegal settlers who got killed I dont consider civilizians) or that the palis have less rights in some cases.
Now the reporting has changed, I agree, and Israel is getting bad publicity in the media. But hey, If you smoke through a whole village you will get bad publicity no matter what folk you are.
Add to that, that Israel is considered the only real democracy in the middle east, but honestly they dont act any better than the rest who live there. Israel cant make such barbarians moves because they are considered to the "civilisized world". You are not surprised if a "bandit nation" do something this bad, but a democratic country cant do that without getting some critic.

Arafat has to be gone, but who should replace him?

Sharon, who is not better than sharon by any means, HAS absolutely to go, and he is much easier to replace.

If you heard Peres, you should think something is wrong. His only reason he doesnt retire is because "you dont retire in war".

But all this mess shows once again that the International community is not able to solve serious problems. Ther should have been neutral troops since a very long time, but no...now you have the mess!

I honestly believe we are slidding to a new world war and thats not funny...

You Europeans claim to be "objective" but in reality are as closed-minded and blind in your beliefs as many others.

quote:

If you look at the "pro-Palestine" posts, notice that none of them claims Arafat is right, that suicide bombings is ok and ultimately that Palestineans are innocent victims.

No, there have been claims that the Palestinians are innocent victims, in this and the previous thread. I actually made the point that the Palestinians kill innocent civilians in their suicide bombings, whereas the Israeli army kills terrorists and gunmen who organize street terror.

quote:

No matter how much dirt you dig up on Arafat and how awful statistics on suicide bombers, that does *not* (in my book) legitamize Israels leaderships way of conduct.

Demagoguery at its finest.
If Arafat organized an attack that killed your mother, would you not to want to block further violence from a group of maniacs who grew up with hate and want death for Israel?

quote:

but my problem is that those "democratic" leaders CONTINUE to tell Arafat to stop these attacks. But at this very moment he has almost no instrument to do so...that is the moronic part.

On the contrary, he does, because his bunker is a command center for the Palestinian Authority. As a matter of fact, he organizes new attacks -- that should tell you something about his abilities and his control. And why didn't he stop the attacks before??

And also, cweb, don't think that all those "democratic" leaders are stupid; they understand the situation 1000 times better than you. Just an advice for you to be more critical about yourself and your assessments.

---
EDIT: Don't close this thread; but yoepus, please stop writing those long-ass posts, keep it concise and readable.

Ok I give up on this part with the continuing claim of stop the terrorist, you didnt get my point...

Its right that the suicide bombing kill almost 100% civilzians. But on the other hand its very ignorant to say the Israel force just kill terrorists and gunmen. How about dschenin? all terrorist? a very easy way of seeing the thing.

The problem i have is that not few guys here see this conflict black-and-white.

I do not apologize for the siucide bombings, they are 1000% wrong, bbut on the other hand in my opionion its legitmate to try to explain the reason why they do such things.

Please show me one effective strategy who the palis could use to protest military? They dont have plan to bomb a village to stone-age, they dont have tanks to roll over a town.

You guys just see the suicide bombings and claim that false and bad whatever. but on the other hand some of you support Sharon? Cmon how can someone with a sane brain support this war-criminal? ^Realise that he is not interest in peace by no means, he forces the settlement in the PALISTENEAN regions! he ordered very right-wing and religious fantatics in his cabinet, how is that? he is no better than Milosevic on the contrary!

I agree with Scorchio here. CLose this one. If u wanna discuss do it at least in the old thread. We shouldnt flood the boards with that subject only.

quote:

Originally posted by cweb Ok I give up on this part with the continuing claim of stop the terrorist, you didnt get my point...

Its a bad point, I explained he has complete control over Gaza for instance. Furthermore his condemnation of attacks against innocent today proves he can do more. The next step is to do such condemnations live, or on TV, in Arabic. However, despite all these attempts I don't think Israelis would believe any gestures Arafat does, even if he whole heartedly and geniunely changed his mind about terror and wants peace now. He has lied to many times to the Israelis, nothing he does or says any more can justify him in their minds. This is why I believe he's got to go.

quote:

Its right that the suicide bombing kill almost 100% civilzians. But on the other hand its very ignorant to say the Israel force just kill terrorists and gunmen. How about dschenin? all terrorist? a very easy way of seeing the thing.

No the differance is Israel kills civilians true, but not intentionally. They do not aim their rifles at someone for no purpose and say "oh that guy looks like a civilian, lets kill him". On the other hand you have homicide bombers, who say "Oh there are a lot of civilians over there, let me kill them". Can you see the moral difference? Furthermore you have to differentiate between the aggressor, and those that act in self-defense.
Was America not justified in WWII because it killed more Nazis and german civilians then the Nazis killed Americans? This is the argument you are using. The fact is if the Nazis would have kept to themselves America would not have entered the war, and none of those germans would have been killed. Same can be applied in this war.

quote:

I do not apologize for the siucide bombings, they are 1000% wrong, bbut on the other hand in my opionion its legitmate to try to explain the reason why they do such things.

So you are conceding to terrorism by trying to explain it. They got you there man. Terrorism is never justified. NEVER!

You want to talk politics and finish the conflict about Palestine, no problem, talk politics. If you want to do it by terrorism forget about it.

quote:

Please show me one effective strategy who the palis could use to protest military?

Have you heard of Ghandi? How about South Africa? Classic examples of NONE-violent resistance to a success. The Palestinians never even tried this strategy, they never tried gurellia warfare, and militancy, no they jumped head in to terrorism. I see a problem with this, don't you?

Terrosim is NEVER justifed.

quote:

but on the other hand some of you support Sharon? Cmon how can someone with a sane brain support this war-criminal? ^Realise that he is not interest in peace by no means, he forces the settlement in the PALISTENEAN regions! he ordered very right-wing and religious fantatics in his cabinet, how is that? he is no better than Milosevic on the contrary!

First of all, we don't know about Milosevic.. if you listen to his trial in the Hague he has some very compelling arguments. It seems another conflict Europe got on the wrong side there to me.

Second of all, Sharon is an alleged war-criminal. Newsweek or something like that once called him a war-criminal and he sued them in a US court for slander, they're he proved he can not be called a war-criminal. Second of all, I have no proble with Sharon, however if you guys want to remove him.. sure no problem, it will allow someone that is more right-wing then him (imagine that!) to take office, and he will not have the stupid persona nas stigma associated to Sharon. Namely Bibi Netenyahu.

Thirdly, you might not like settlers, but all they take is land, not lives. If you had to give up something, what would you perfer your land or your life? Can you see the difference?

You want them out, stop terrorism, talk politics. Israel removed the settlers from Sinia when they negotiated a peace treaty with Israel. And you want to hear an interesting story? After the peace-treaty Israel ordered all the settlers in the Sinia to move out of there. But there was one settlement that refused to move out, and decieded to stay. Israel wanting to make good on its word, decieded it would have to forcefully remove the settlers since they would not move. So they contacted the army, and sent Sharon (imagine that), who was incharge of a batalion who went to the settlement, and forcefully removed the settlers back into Israel.

Yoepus
If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished.

Re: Re: you guys havent been reading the other threads

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I know. I just don't think 97% equals 100% (which is what the U.N. has called for), hence the word "entirely" in my post.

The UN does NOT call for 100%. Indeed if it were to call for 100% resolution 242 would say ALL the TERRITORIES. INSTEAD, the UN DOES call for a negotiation between both sides to resolve the conflict.

Second of all, have you heard of a thing called COMPROMISE?
How is a 100% of everything you want compromise exactly? You understand you have two parties here, they can not get 100% of what they want (this would result in a breakdown of negotiations, and a call for war.. hmm imagine that).
If you want a successful negotiation, and most of the time a good negotiation would grant 50% of what one party wants, and 50% of what the other party wants, you have to compromise.

If Israel would give the Palestinians 80% of all the land, no Jerusalem, and no right of return, this would be comparable to a 50-50 compromise.

Yoepus
In a speech today, President Bush chastised both the Israelis and the Palestinians. As usual, Bush was trying to straddle both sides of the fence. But he may have gone a little too far when he started talking about "compassionate terrorism."

Totally off topic but....

cweb
your avatar and what it represents suck big time

just wanted to make that statement. Sorry to disrupt your discusion.

You're suggesting that terrorism is the only form of protest available to the palestinians. They have never tried any other form of protest. In fact they undermine teir own chances at getting what they want - every time a cease-fire is agreed to, in order for negotiations to proceed, it is broken by terrorist acts. Israel is the one who is limited by the conditions of the political climate in the matter:

Condition 1) Negotiations cannot go ahead without a total ceasefire, as negotiating after a terrorist act would only lead to more terrorism.

Condition 2) Every time a ceasefire is negotiated, Palestinian terrorists break it and Arafat says - "sorry I can do nothing about it", even when he still had a police force, and even when he was given the names and suspected locations of terrorists. If he truly can do nothing (which is doubtful), even under such advantageous conditions, then what is his part of the ceasefire agreement?

Condition 3) Even when offered 97% of what he wants Arafat can only reply with hostility. While not 100%, it certainly would have been a good start, considering he has 0% right now. Arafat shows no sign of wanting to negotiate reasonably.

Condition 4) Even when Israel responds by lecting a right-wing leader, Arafat continues to do nothing in response to continued requests to do something stop terrorism.

Condition 5) Terrorist acts continue to increase.

What other choice does Israel have other than to show the terrorists that they mean business.

why does my avatar suck? because he is a "terrorist" oe what?

Ok what could the Palis do:

-somethin like Gandhi? Please show me ONE more person who has done something like this. The normal guy would never protest in this peaceful way even its perhaps the most effective.
-guerilla tactic. yes that could be a possibility but the "terrain" is not that good like say in Vietnam or even In Afghanistan with all those hills. But yes its a possibility.

I do not apologize for these attacks. But hey, if its forbidden to reason why they do this or why they do this that way, then i dont know. You cant just respnd without thinking about the reason, because if you could you should eliminate every time the reason and not the symptoms (ok here thats perhaps a bit difficult).

to the intention of killing someone:
yes the Palis go after civilzians for two reasons i guess:
-they want to shock
- and like i said before its much easier to blow you up in a supermarket than in a military basis (but they have done that as well i think).

on the other hand. If you justifiy a somewhat "massacre" by just pointing out the good intention its just not right. you can kill terrorists man by man or you can roll over a group of people so you kill the terrorits as well. but if you justify this, you copuld justify the 9-11 attack on the Pentagon as well, at least there were military persons perhaps responsible for some mistake back in the middle east, but there were a helluva lot more people hust doing their simple job there.

one thing i wanted to say (it hasnt really something to do with the actual discussion).

The palistenenan folk is basically alone, no support. Its not like every arab country around israel like the palis, on the contrary. they all hate israel but they alkso do not like the palis. the actual politics has to consider that in my opinion because groups OUTSIDE of Israel had put oil in this fire!!!!

quote:

-somethin like Gandhi? Please show me ONE more person who has done something like this. The normal guy would never protest in this peaceful way even its perhaps the most effective.

Check out the history of almost any country's union movement. Read Nelson Mandela's Biography. Checkout the thousands of dissidents in Chile (who underwent horrendous torture and still did not condone violence).

quote:

I do not apologize for these attacks. But hey, if its forbidden to reason why they do this or why they do this that way, then i dont know. You cant just respnd without thinking about the reason, because if you could you should eliminate every time the reason and not the symptoms (ok here thats perhaps a bit difficult).

You are allowed to speculate regarding the motivations of Palestinian terrorists, and the concept of jihad just like you can speculate about some countries' eagerness to institute a brutal brand of sharia law. Both IMHO have nothing to do with Islam as a religion or a lack of alternative options, they have more to do with uncivilised cultures with deeply embedded outdated beliefs.

quote:

yes the Palis go after civilzians for two reasons i guess: -they want to shock - and like i said before its much easier to blow you up in a supermarket than in a military basis (but they have done that as well i think).

and:
- they want revenge for the civilians killed or deprived of a free state on their side.

quote:

on the other hand. If you justifiy a somewhat "massacre" by just pointing out the good intention its just not right. you can kill terrorists man by man or you can roll over a group of people so you kill the terrorits as well. but if you justify this, you copuld justify the 9-11 attack on the Pentagon as well, at least there were military persons perhaps responsible for some mistake back in the middle east, but there were a helluva lot more people hust doing their simple job there.

Collateral damage is an inevitability in modern combat, particularly in an urban setting. Think of the damage caused by the most heavily funded and the most proffessional military unit in the world in Vietnam, Kosovo, and more recently Afghanistan (I'm sure the true figures of civillians killed will surface soon).
Besides the Israelis tried to pursuade their best avenue for dealing with the terrorists with o collateral damage (Arafat) for years, to no avail... they simply ran out of options/patience.

quote:

Originally posted by Eugene You Europeans claim to be "objective" but in reality are as closed-minded and blind in your beliefs as many others.

That statement has absolutely no value in this discussion. First of all it's a red herring and secondly you supply no facts whatsoever to back up your postulates.

quote:

Originally posted by Eugene No, there have been claims that the Palestinians are innocent victims, in this and the previous thread. I actually made the point that the Palestinians kill innocent civilians in their suicide bombings, whereas the Israeli army kills terrorists and gunmen who organize street terror.

Ok. There might have been claims like that in other threads, I was focusing on this one. And in this thread I fail to see any such posts, but maybe you can point them out to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Eugene Demagoguery at its finest. If Arafat organized an attack that killed your mother, would you not to want to block further violence from a group of maniacs who grew up with hate and want death for Israel?

I don't know if that's supposed to be a compliment, if it is: Thanks!
On your follow up, I really can't say whether I would go for revenge if somebody killed my mother. I hope not, but I really have to be in the situation before I can know for sure. No matter what I'll do though, killing for revenge is still not (in my book I hasten to add) morally sound.

Re: Re: Re: you guys havent been reading the other threads

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus The UN does NOT call for 100%. Indeed if it were to call for 100% resolution 242 would say ALL the TERRITORIES. INSTEAD, the UN DOES call for a negotiation between both sides to resolve the conflict.

Whether or not the U.N. has given up on Israel to follow resolution 242 completely or not, does not invalidate the resolution and the U.N. still called for 100% compliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Second of all, have you heard of a thing called COMPROMISE? How is a 100% of everything you want compromise exactly? You understand you have two parties here, they can not get 100% of what they want (this would result in a breakdown of negotiations, and a call for war.. hmm imagine that). If you want a successful negotiation, and most of the time a good negotiation would grant 50% of what one party wants, and 50% of what the other party wants, you have to compromise. If Israel would give the Palestinians 80% of all the land, no Jerusalem, and no right of return, this would be comparable to a 50-50 compromise.

Possibly. I'm not making a stance on what would be a fair peace aggreement - I'm way to ill-informed to make any such thing. My statement was intended to counter an exaggeration in another post, not to be a comment on what's fair and what's not fair.

Opinion mode on
Personally, I fail to see why human lives can be sacrificed in order to control some square kilometers of land and some old buildings. Why is this? If he cared in any way, wouldn't Jave/Allah (who's almighty) simply slay all those he didn't want to live in his city?
Opinion mode off

quote:

Originally posted by cweb one thing i wanted to say (it hasnt really something to do with the actual discussion). The palistenenan folk is basically alone, no support. Its not like every arab country around israel like the palis, on the contrary. they all hate israel but they alkso do not like the palis. the actual politics has to consider that in my opinion because groups OUTSIDE of Israel had put oil in this fire!!!!

Thats an ignorant comment. Maybe you should keep up with current events and watch the news. All of the surrounding Arab countries (Lebannon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia,...etc even European countries like France, England, Norway ....) have been having protests about the military offensive that the Israelis have been taking. They all shout for the total destruction of Israel and the the rise of the Palistinian nation. So give me the name of ONE Arab nation that suports Israel and what they are doing. You can't now can you??

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.