TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Israel bombs Gaza...again.
Pages (35): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 »

funny post in

1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8


9


10


shit...I forgot what I was going to say....but it was really funny.

Something to do with walking into a bar?

quote:

Originally posted by Anas Attia Palestinian territories: 3,760,000[1] Jordan 2,700,000[2] Israel 1,318,000 Syria 434,896 Lebanon 405,425 Chile 300,000 USA 67,842[11] Egypt 70,245 Honduras 54,000[3] Kuwait 50,000 Brazil 50,000[4] Yemen 24,000[3] Canada 23,975 (2006 Census)[5] Australia 15,000 Colombia 12,000[3] Guatemala 1,400[3]

I can't for the life of me understand what these numbers are supposed to mean. Where did they come from? Are they counting family lines that haven't lived in the region for several generations as "Palestinian"? By that logic, almost every Jew in the world today is "Israeli".

quote:

If you want visit the following link to see who has taken over that area of land over the past couple of thousand years, doesn't matter who took it over, there is still a people called the Palestinians all throughout the conquests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

I'm loath to accept any Wikipedia article as a valid source for any topic that's even remotely controversial, but since you yourself posted this source, I'd like to dig up a few points that don't seem to jibe with your numbers:

quote:

According to Alexander Scholch, the population of Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews[165]

quote:

According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy,[166] the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs. In 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews.[167]

Hard to believe that the number not only expanded to over 10 million in such a short time but managed to spread itself so thinly across the globe. Even if you accept that, a 19th century population of under 350,000 is hardly an entire civilization.

From the "travelers' impressions" section:

quote:

Alphonse de Lamartine visited Palestine in 1835, "Outside the gates of Jerusalem we saw indeed no living object, heard no living sound, we found the same void, the same silence ... as we should have expected before the entombed gates of Pompeii or Herculaneam a complete eternal silence reigns in the town, on the highways, in the country ... the tomb of a whole people.[170] ... The Dutch scholar and cartographer Adriaan Reland visited Palestine in 1695, made a population census, and came to the conclusion that Palestine was mostly empty with several existing communities of Jews and Christians.[183] ... In 1898, German Kaiser Wilhelm II also visited Palestine. He was appalled at the condition of the country. The Ottomans had stripped the forests for lumber and firewood. The Palestinian Arabs had let an old Roman aqueduct fall into ruin. The ultimate ecological curse was the ubiquitous herds of black goats. For nearly 2,000 years after the dispersion of the Jews, Arabs had allowed their goats to graze unfenced across Palestine. They had eaten the grass down to its roots, and the topsoil had eroded and blown away. The biblical land of milk and honey had become a dust bowl. � Palestine: The Original Sin, Meir Abelson

So far, this isn't painting a picture of a vibrant community with a rich cultural history. It describes exactly as I said earlier - a mixed, tribal, almost nomadic population, scattered sporadically across the land. They grew a lot of wheat and that was about it.

Even on Wikipedia, the facts seem to be on my side, not yours. Yes, there was a region called Palestine. Yes, there were people living there. No, it was not a nation-state in the same way it has been since the mid-20th century. There was no independent central government, no Palestinian flag, nothing.

It's completely fine if you want to talk about the history of the Palestine region, or if you want to talk about today's Palestinian Territories and the State of Palestine, but it's absolutely crucial to realize that these two entities are not the same. When you talk about Palestinians living all over the world - descendants of families who emigrated from the region in the 19th century - these people don't have any closer ties to the present state of Palestine than I do to Poland and Germany where my family came from over 3 generations ago.

Now, land claims aside, because we all seem to more or less agree that they're tangential to the issue...

quote:

You will see that the amount of space available to the Palestinians has shrunk, drastically... even after the sanction in 1947. It is still shrinking.

I haven't seen any evidence to support the claim that it's still shrinking, unless you mean per capita. Israel continues to make more and more land concessions and so the total amount of land available to Palestinians has actually been increasing over the past 20 years.

With respect to the less recent "shrinkage", yes, that's true, Israel is presently occupying more land than the original U.N. partition plan gave them. When you have war, borders change. Early on, the neighbouring Arab countries grossly underestimated Israel's military capabilities and made the very stupid mistake of launching actual military offensives, each time getting crushed. Even without a passing knowledge of military strategy, it ought to be obvious that Israel would have had no way to continue its survival without a military occupation of the hostile areas.

Now a lot of supporters of the so-called intifada maintain that Israel made the first offensive in 1948, but the Arabs had already rejected the U.N. partition plan at that point and were already mounting a major offensive. Regardless, it isn't and never has been customary at any point in human history to return occupied lands after a war, with the exception of a total regime change or severe restrictions (i.e. the USA having its own troops in Japan to enforce the ban on any Japanese military entity). Further still, it's well-documented in each and every war after 1948 that the Arabs (Palestinians, whatever) attacked first.

There's no argument here over whether or not Israel has expanded its borders into Arab (not Palestinian) territories; it most certainly has. But if you're really going to obsess over the recent history of the region as opposed to the real current reasons for the war (specifically, Hamas wanting Israel off the map, period), then you have to ask the question why. Israel has the technology, training, and intelligence to mount a full-out conquest of the region if they so choose; instead, they keep giving more land to Palestine and tolerate rocket attacks every day from the Palestinian state. It's pretty hard to believe that they're doing this for fun.

Can it really be a coincidence that every time Israel evacuates a particular territory, a new wave of rocket attacks start from that very territory? It's clear in hindsight that the military occupations of those regions were to protect Israeli civilians.

But, in the end, this speculation doesn't even matter, because as I mentioned before, the rocket attacks and suicide bombs aren't based on land claims. They're based on the expressly stated intent of Hamas to eliminate Israel at any cost. As long as the Israel and the rest of the west continues to try to interpret it as a land claim, the fighting will never end.

quote:

Originally posted by Anas Attia 1. The war in the middle east, is primary one sided, with a massive power on one end vs a small civilian force on the other. (small isn't the keyword here, its civilian) 2. Israel is building a wall much much bigger than that which was build in Berlin. I'm sure you all remember how happy everyone was when that was taken down. 3. The Palestinian people don't have control of their own land, water and food supplies. They are in a controlled environment run by their oppressors. 4. No media outlets are able to go into this controlled area, as Israel wont let them. Even Israelis living in Israel don't even have the slightest clue at the horrors being administered by their army. 5. Foreign aid to the Palestinians is extremely hindered, as well as postal mail and commerce. 6. The Palestinians virtually have no human rights... Period.

This is one of the most disturbingly one-sided views of the war that I have ever read. Allow me to present you with a reality check:

- Israel's superior technology is used only in retaliation and only against known military targets. Low-tech methods like suicide bombs and molotovs and rockets kill more innocent people than a precision-guided missile. So yes, it is one sided, but not on the side that you seem to think.

- Hamas is not a "civilian" force. They have organization, recruitment, technology, and training. They are a military entity. The fact that they choose to operate amongst civilians and in civilian areas, instead of in uniforms and in remote areas as modern rules of engagement demand, is the part worth mentioning.

- The Palestinian people do have control of their water and food supplies but their government (Hamas) refuses to do anything to maintain them, so Israel does it for them. In many ways it's more like welfare than occupation. If there were even a kernel of truth to what you suggest, all Israel would have to do to win this war or any negotiation would be to cut off the food supply; why don't they do it?

- Israel has banned media access because the Palestinians are fighting (and winning) a propaganda war in the western media. No doubt you'll want to tell us that this is ridiculous and that the media is biased toward Israel, but to somebody with sense, a cursory analysis of a few middle-east articles in the Star or NY Times will quickly dispel that notion. The most poignant example I can think of would be the Jenin "massacre" that most media outlets loudly trumpeted which turned out to be a total lie.

- Foreign aid is hindered because a known terrorist organization (Hamas) is acting as their government. We can debate whether or not Hamas is really acting on behalf of or in the best interest of all Palestinians, but the fact remains that we don't send aid to terrorists. In order to send aid, we have to have some guarantee that the money isn't going to be used for more weapons and training.

- Palestinians have more human rights in Israel than they do or ever did in the neighbouring countries.

quote:

Originally posted by Anas Attia Under your logic... bush..elected..so all Americans want what bush wants.

No.
But in international stage, Bush is the representative of US.

quote:

yohan, not sure what your problem is, but it seems you just like to argue. no basis or evidence to support your claims.

what have I said that makes no logical sense? am I blabbering illogical sentences?

Can you answer ONE direct question? Do you condone, or condemn Hamas, specifically to their terrorist actions?

quote:

Originally posted by InfiniteEclipse Fair enough. I see what you are saying. The issue of terrorism however, should be examined with care, on a case by case basis. Terrorism, as accusations from either side, tends to be loosely defined (not by you per say but generally). My trouble is, if an occupied lacks any formal military training or weaponry amidst the absence of technological advancement, should we consider their aggression as defensive or as terrorism. To clarify, consider missiles blindly fired into Israel. The general western consensus holds this to be acts of terrorism. On the other hand, these aggressors simply do not possess the means to advance forward and attack select targets. When is it terrorism and when is it patriotism. This thought really encompasses far more than the current Israel/Palestine conflict, and Chomsky would have a field day.

why does formal military training have to be a part of the equation?
simply put, if you deliberately target civillians, by modern definition, you are committing a terrorist act.

example. if you use a suicide bomber to blow himself up at a military base, that is not a terrorist action. if you use a suicide bomber to blow up a cafe full of civillians, that is a terrorist action

by blindly launching rockets into israel, Hamas is deliberately targeting civillians. that is a no no

there are ways to carry out guerilla/insurgent tactics without deliberately targeting civillians.

Hamas isn't launching rockets into Israel to destroy Israel's resolve, but to piss them off. So Israel retaliates, causing Palestinian casualties. This leads to Palestinian anger towards Israel, ensuring more recruits and support for Hamas.
This, I think, is the reason for the rocket attacks. Clearly there is no military purpose of any sort involved.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer and so are those katyusha rockets being used to fight back Israel,and the fact that Israel is never able to stop them even with all their mighty millitary powers.Lets face it.

Hahah, well put. Are they really using oldass Katyusha rockets?

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan why does formal military training have to be a part of the equation? simply put, if you deliberately target civillians, by modern definition, you are committing a terrorist act. example. if you use a suicide bomber to blow himself up at a military base, that is not a terrorist action. if you use a suicide bomber to blow up a cafe full of civillians, that is a terrorist action by blindly launching rockets into israel, Hamas is deliberately targeting civillians. that is a no no there are ways to carry out guerilla/insurgent tactics without deliberately targeting civillians. Hamas isn't launching rockets into Israel to destroy Israel's resolve, but to piss them off. So Israel retaliates, causing Palestinian casualties. This leads to Palestinian anger towards Israel, ensuring more recruits and support for Hamas. This, I think, is the reason for the rocket attacks. Clearly there is no military purpose of any sort involved.

in 1999 usa, canada, england and pretty much every other "superpower" in the world bombed my country. and out of those lets say 120 days of bombing they dropped bombs on civilian objects at least 50 times. civilan objects such as : civilian train, biggest tv station in the country, hospitals, CHINESE embassy and so on.

my question is how come nobody calls that terrorism?

another question: how come usa stuck their noses in pretty much every single conflict/war in the past who knows how many years and now they choose to do nothing?

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty in 1999 usa, canada, england and pretty much every other "superpower" in the world bombed my country. and out of those lets say 120 days of bombing they dropped bombs on civilian objects at least 50 times. civilan objects such as : civilian train, biggest tv station in the country, hospitals, CHINESE embassy and so on. my question is how come nobody calls that terrorism?

NATO supposedly claimed that the targets destroyed had dual purpose, both military and civillian.

Under international law, if a building or an object can be used for military purposes, it can be targeted and destroyed.

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty my question is how come nobody calls that terrorism?

because people have been brainwashed to believe that North America..namely the US represents all that is Good....and every action that the US has taken is justified.....because CNN says so...

trust me dude..there many of us out there that question these things..there is a whole generation of people that are questioning things..

as for the US sticking their nose into this situation..well...it doesn't benefit them ..and some of the most powerful people in the US happen to have an interest in Israel maintaining power and authority...

quote:

Originally posted by gummybear because people have been brainwashed to believe that North America..namely the US represents all that is Good....and every action that the US has taken is justified.....because CNN says so... trust me dude..there many of us out there that question these things..there is a whole generation of people that are questioning things.. as for the US sticking their nose into this situation..well...it doesn't benefit them ..and some of the most powerful people in the US happen to have an interest in Israel maintaining power and authority...

i know gummy, but its scary when people like yohan are supposed to be "our future leaders".

lots of people say "emotions cloud your judgement" and they're right. to the extent. but its fucking insulting and mindboggling that those people are so sure they know whats going on in those "far away places" from the comfort of their own home, cnn news that they watch and those books that they read.

non biased my ass. you chose your side long time ago, you just dont have balls to say it out loud.

yohan, i guess chinese let us use their embassy for military purposes???

you're full of shit

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty i know gummy, but its scary when people like yohan are supposed to be "our future leaders". lots of people say "emotions cloud your judgement" and they're right. to the extent. but its fucking insulting and mindboggling that those people are so sure they know whats going on in those "far away places" from the comfort of their own home, cnn news that they watch and those books that they read. non biased my ass. you chose your side long time ago, you just dont have balls to say it out loud. yohan, i guess chinese let us use their embassy for military purposes??? you're full of shit

the chinese embassy account is in a bit of dispute, but general consensus is that NATO screwed up on that one (mistakes seems to happen whenever humans do something)

if you want to talk more on this, feel free to send me a PM

now, back to our regularly scheduled israel vs palestine fun talk

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan the chinese embassy account is in a bit of dispute, but general consensus is that NATO screwed up on that one (mistakes seems to happen whenever humans do something) if you want to talk more on this, feel free to send me a PM now, back to our regularly scheduled israel vs palestine fun talk

theres no talking to you. youre so sure that you know whats going on between israel and palestine just like you were so sure what was going on between russia and georgia just like you were so sure what was going on with kosovo.....

and there's pattern, you always choose the same, pro usa side. so trying to logically argue with you is impossible.

but please, indulge me and answer me this :

quote:

another question: how come usa stuck their noses in pretty much every single conflict/war in the past who knows how many years and now they choose to do nothing?

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty theres no talking to you. youre so sure that you know whats going on between israel and palestine just like you were so sure what was going on between russia and georgia just like you were so sure what was going on with kosovo..... and there's pattern, you always choose the same, pro usa side. so trying to logically argue with you is impossible.

how am I a pro USA if I'm against both Israel and Palestine?
how am I a pro USA if I'm against war in Iraq?

quote:

but please, indulge me and answer me this :

US has been involved in all peace dialogue between Israel and Palestine, even to recent 07 talks held by Bush.

exactly what do you expect US to do? go in with guns blazing?

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty i know gummy, but its scary when people like yohan are supposed to be "our future leaders". lots of people say "emotions cloud your judgement" and they're right. to the extent. but its fucking insulting and mindboggling that those people are so sure they know whats going on in those "far away places" from the comfort of their own home, cnn news that they watch and those books that they read. non biased my ass. you chose your side long time ago, you just dont have balls to say it out loud. yohan, i guess chinese let us use their embassy for military purposes??? you're full of shit

i think people just have a difficult time conceptualizing things that they have not been physically privy to...or maybe i'm giving them too much credit..

it's one thing to watch the watered down news and read the biased reports..but another thing to be sitting in your home and having bombs dropped on your neighbourhood....watching friends/family die..digging through rubble to find your child who is buried underneath..etc...etc...

i think that people are so far removed from what is going on that they have no choice but to form their opinions on what little information they are fed...the thing that angers me is that people have the choice to research and find out the the facts..but they choose not to..so arrogant in their thought processes that they are not willing to be proven wrong..to me those people are just robots...trying to argue and debate with certain mindsets is draining and, a waste of time..the truth is, there are people in this world that do not feel a twinge of sadness when they see others being hurt and killed...they are too busy with their own lives...look at us..we live in a society and age where most people won't even help someone on the street..we look the other way...it's sad..

and let's be honest here..there is a lot of Muslim hate in this world...so, it's not about what is right and wrong..what is just or unjust..it becomes about who people like more..who they view as "good"..who they are TOLD are good..those are the types of people i don't care to discuss these issues with..as their opinions and "knowledge" is derived from a foundation of hate, bias and untruths..

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan how am I a pro USA if I'm against both Israel and Palestine? how am I a pro USA if I'm against war in Iraq? US has been involved in all peace dialogue between Israel and Palestine, even to recent 07 talks held by Bush. exactly what do you expect US to do? go in with guns blazing?

peace talks???? goddamn, some good peace talks, bombing countries back to the stone age (thank god they didnt had balls to to against russia). why dont they send troops to uphold peace??

every single person with one gram of brains is against war in iraq so thats a no brainer (pun not intended).

and you're not against both palestine and israel, even a blind person can see that.

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan exactly what do you expect US to do? go in with guns blazing?

i would expect them to strong arm Israel into complying with the dozens and dozens of UN resolutions...last time i checked the US was a part of the UN?

but..they'd much rather supply them with arms...

and the US went into Iraq guns blazing for what again???

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty peace talks???? goddamn, some good peace talks, bombing countries back to the stone age (thank god they didnt had balls to to against russia). why dont they send troops to uphold peace??

couple of problems with that
1. there is no peace to uphold in Palestine
2. Peacekeepers are generally selected from countries seen as 'neutral'. Yanks are seen pro Israel, therefore not acceptable
3. Yanks arent welcome as peacekeepers in most parts of the world, let alone Palestine.

Muslim extremists would have a field day, if US ever sent troops to Palestine. (Lebanon in early 80s comes to mind)

quote:

and you're not against both palestine and israel, even a blind person can see that.

ah yes. I lie to myself all the time. bad habit really

quote:

Originally posted by gummybear i would expect them to strong arm Israel into complying with the dozens and dozens of UN resolutions...last time i checked the US was a part of the UN? but..they'd much rather supply them with arms...

UN is worthless as instrument for world security of any kind.

what good would be to slap Israel with resolutions, if hamas will keep provoking Israel?

let's say US strongarms Israel into withdrawing from Gaza strip.
so next time Hamas flings a rocket into Israel, what do you expect US and Israel to do?

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan couple of problems with that 1. there is no peace to uphold in Palestine 2. Peacekeepers are generally selected from countries seen as 'neutral'. Yanks are seen pro Israel, therefore not acceptable 3. Yanks arent welcome as peacekeepers in most parts of the world, let alone Palestine. Muslim extremists would have a field day, if US ever sent troops to Palestine. (Lebanon in early 80s comes to mind) ah yes. I lie to myself all the time. bad habit really

and all them 3 points stopped them from going to iraq?

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty and all them 3 points stopped them from going to iraq?

what does iraq have to do with israel-palestine conflict?
do you understand exactly what a peacekeeper is?

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan what does iraq have to do with israel-palestine conflict?

honestly, i dont know so ill say nothing. but :

1. there was no war to fight in iraq
2. peacekeepers are generally selected from countries seen as 'neutral'. yanks are seen anti iraqi, therefore not acceptable
3. Yanks arent welcome as peacekeepers in most parts of the world, let alone iraq

but that didnt stop them there. why should stop 'em here??

quote:

let's say US strongarms Israel into withdrawing from Gaza strip. so next time Hamas flings a rocket into Israel, what do you expect US and Israel to do?

so they shouldnt even try??? thats a weak ass argument

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty honestly, i dont know so ill say nothing. but : 1. there was no war to fight in iraq 2. peacekeepers are generally selected from countries seen as 'neutral'. yanks are seen anti iraqi, therefore not acceptable 3. Yanks arent welcome as peacekeepers in most parts of the world, let alone iraq but that didnt stop them there. why should stop 'em here??

the reasons why yanks invaded iraq would be rather incomparable to yanks getting militarily involved in israeli palestinian conflict

there is no benefit to anyone really. it would only escalate the conflict even further

quote:

so they shouldnt even try??? thats a weak ass argument

it makes no sense to strong arm one side of the conflict, if the other side is not going to play ball

quote:

Originally posted by gummybear the truth is, there are people in this world that do not feel a twinge of sadness when they see others being hurt and killed...they are too busy with their own lives...look at us..we live in a society and age where most people won't even help someone on the street..we look the other way...it's sad..

The greatest flaw in humans is that we do feel for others that we really have no emotional attachment to other then they are also human. Its our inability to control these emotions that will be the eventual downfall of humans and the eventual destruction of an Earth that can support human life.

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