|
We are going into war!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :( (pg. 19)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yoepus |
You raise many interesting aspects of this conflict. And I will try to answer them in time.
And I am glad that you are debating with me sanely, I think admitly we are both teaching each other new stuff as we discuss these matters. However, let me address Sharon first.
Firstly I will say this statement; Sharon has not been convicted a criminal in Israel. Therefore he has no bar from serving in the government. Israel is a democracy. Israeli freely elected Ariel Sharon to repersent them as their PM. Agree with this or not it is the will of the people. And if you believe in the right to self-determination you have little say in this case, Israel's chosen its leader.. and you can't do much about it, its their will you can't go tell them no, he's a criminal.
Ok, now getting that out of the way I will say this. Sharon is a very shaddy fellow with some very dark incitents in his background. Many Israelis did not believe he was the best canidate to elect for PM, but they were so outraged with Barak's failure that they had little choice but to vote for the head of the Likud.
Now forgetting about his history, imagine he is blank slate since he got into office. I think he still has respected the ideals and contracts established by previous governments and respect any agreements Israel has previously signed. Also I think his current way policies are quiet calm in comparison to his primary opponent, Netenyahu who does not have such a shady background. But thats just opionion. Ok anyway to the arguments.
My personal opinion is that I give him the benifit of the doubt; this is for a couple reason, it is not totally clear of his involvements in his past. There is intense propoganda skewed primarly by Arab and Arab supporters against this man. I do not think they even give this man half a chance. The fact is I have read a little about Sharon, and if you read just the propoganda from one side it makes it so clear cut I would have to agree with you. But I will post some content I found from other sites here which altough they might be skewed from an Israeli stand point will help you understand why I am indeed unsure and unclear of what exactly happened when where and why and therefore give Sharon the benifit of doubt.
| quote: |
Kibya – 69 Arab Civilians killed
In recent weeks, numerous publications have revisited a 50 year-old operation by the 101-Paratroop units at the West Bank Jordanian village of Kibya. In October 1953, an Israeli mother and her two children were murdered in their sleep in their moshav. Within days, a combined force, co-commanded by Sharon, was sent to Kibya to retaliate. As the force approached the village, hundreds of Kibya residents were seen fleeing. The force believed that all residents had fled. According to the official IDF Encyclopedia,1 the soldiers found a young girl in one house and an elderly man in another. They were quickly chased away. Soon thereafter, IDF sappers blew up dozens of Kibya houses. No one knew that 69 civilians were hiding inside the homes. Their deaths were not deliberate.
The civilian casualties shocked the world and Israel, itself. As described by Ze'ev Schiff, Israel's leading military analyst, the Kibya action resulted in a new policy, "that any future retaliatory actions be reserved to military targets."2
1 Tzahal BeChaylo, Volume 4, "Tzanchanim," page 33 – 34, Rivivim Publishing, 1981.
2 A History of the Israeli Army, by Zeev Schiff, page 224, Straight Arrow Books, 1974
4. Sharon's Career in the IDF
|
| quote: |
'Regarding the Bulldozing of Houses'
As commander of the Southern Command, Sharon was responsible for fighting terrorism emanating from the Gaza strip. In 1970-71 he methodically destroyed the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza, utilizing the experience he gathered in 20 years of fighting terrorists. Rather than sitting back and waiting for terrorist attacks, Sharon ordered his troops to take the fight to the terrorists' own turf, putting them on the defensive.
|
I can try and find more info.. I am sort of clueless about the above incident honestly.
| quote: |
Sabra and Shatila
By the end of June 1982, Israel's army surrounded the remainder of the PLO army in Beirut. For the next few months, PLO head Yasser Arafat negotiated his withdrawal, and at the end of August, Arafat and his forces withdrew from Lebanon. Intelligence reports indicated that the PLO left behind large stocks of materiel as well as hundreds, possibly thousands, of terrorists who had gone "underground." Their removal remained an important objective in order to allow the new government of Lebanon to rule effectively. Basher Gemayal, the new president of Lebanon, and Sharon had agreed that the mission would be carried out by elements of the Lebanese Army and Lebanese Christian militias.
On September 14, Gemayal and 25 of his followers were killed in his Beirut party headquarters by a terrorist bomb planted by a Syrian intelligence agent. Israel prepared to celebrate the Jewish New Year; Lebanese Christians planned revenge for Gemayal's death.
Israeli political and military leaders had reiterated on numerous occasions to the leaders of the Christian forces the necessity to avoid civilian casualties. But the urge for vengeance and the Lebanese tradition of sectarian atrocities were obviously stronger than the Israeli admonitions. On September 16, 1982, while Israeli troops were stationed outside of the Sabra and Shatila neighborhoods, Christian militiamen entered the camps and murdered hundreds.
The international outcry was echoed within Israel, and in response to the Israeli outrage and grief, a commission of inquiry was convened. The Kahan Commission found that Israel was indirectly responsible for not foreseeing the possibility of Christian violence. Senior military officers and Defense Minister Ariel Sharon were singled out. Their dismissal was recommended and carried out.
During the current election campaign, the Barak camp blamed Sharon for the IDF's 18-year stay in Lebanon. In fact, the original attack on the PLO infrastructure in Lebanon was approved by senior Labor Party members, as well. Moreover, the withdrawal from Lebanon could have been carried out by Labor Prime Ministers prior to Barak.
Today, Sharon has called for the release of all secret documents presented to the Kahan Commission. He insists that he would be vindicated if they were released. |Back to top|
|
I don't know much about the last paragraph, the text seems to be a year old so I am clueless to if they did it or not, or what has hampared that.
Anyway I found the following very interesting. Especially after visiting the link included in the text. The thing is he was a Leabonese man himself and a person close to the guy who organized the massacre and wrote a book about it. If you visit the site you see Leabonon has restricted the book, but the cool part is he then made the whole thing available online for free so if you ever get a few hours you can read the book, I might do it one day, out of curiousity. Again though I don't know how true or unture this is.
| quote: |
Sabra & Shatila: Was Israel "Set-up" by Syria?
The commander of the Lebanese forces who carried out the Sabra and Shatila massacre was a Lebanese named Elie Hobeika. According to a new book, "From Israel to Damascus," written by Hobeika's bodyguard, Robert Maroun Hatem, codenamed "Cobra," Hobeika was a Syrian double agent, and the massacre was aimed at discrediting Israel and Ariel Sharon.
[Details of the book can be found at the website:
www.israeltodamascus.com Excerpts follow:
"Sharon had given strict orders to Hobeika to guard against any desperate move, should his men run amuck. They were to behave like a real dignified, regular army not like "chocolate soldiers" and coordinate with the Israeli command. Their mission was to exert pressure an the Palestinians to drive them all out of the camp, and pick out the PLO agents left behind after the evacuation of the Palestinians in August, 1982. They were rallied at the Cite Sportive and held prisoners. After inspection the civilians would be sent back to their homes. However, Hobeika gave his own instructions to his men: "Total extermination ... camps wiped out."
It was Maroun Mashaalani's men, undaunted by their regular and immoderate use of heroine and cocaine who perpetrated the most ghastly slaughters in the camp …. The minute General Ariel Sharon had been informed that something odd and unwanted was going on, he summoned his commanding officers and Hobeika.
The Israeli officers were jealous and filled with rage, blaming Hobeika for actually ordering the massacre of Palestinian civilians. Hobeika coldly retorted that it was because of the darkness he could not tell who they were. General Sharon, being too fat to climb up the flight of stairs, waited on the second floor to see Hobeika and have it out with him personally. The minute he saw him he roared out: "You were not supposed to do this. I didn't ask you to commit massacres. If I wanted, I would have done so with my tanks. You'll pay for this blunder…"
I was Hobeika's field man always present on the premises with my chief wherever he went. I can state under oath, that General Sharon would never have lit up the area the way he did had he planned for any butchery. He would not have cleaned up the Cite Sportive to house all the Palestinians pending their return to their homes after verification. He would not have placed his tanks and armored cars all around the camps to capture the remaining armed Palestinian agents. One thing was certain, the Syrians had their men within the ranks of Lebanese Forces leaders.
Reflecting back on the events of my life, all the facts led me to believe that Hobeika was the man, who in 1982, provoked the Sabra and Chatilla massacres.
|
It basically sums it up for you. The fact is that he Sharon has also apologized many times for the bad incidents he had been directly or indirectly involved in, and you have to understand being a general in Israelis not an easy task especially when you compare it to the tactics they fight against. Again, the truth is I have no clue what has happened, and attribute the fact that he is a politician and has surivied politically with in Israel so long to show that indeed it leans more in favor of his credability. Again I can understand if someone takes the other position, but I am sure only a real honest court of law can establish and confirm his guiltiness or innocense in anyone of these incidents.
When I have some time I will try and reply to your other comments/questions.
Yoepus
As soon as you have your goals set, someone moves the posts.
|
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_bastard
Izzy, you still seem to have an element of confusion over where I stand here, I think, so I'll try and make it as clear as can be.
...
I don't judge the two as evil. I would be inclined to think that the Israelis have committed fewer attrocities, certainly. However, they have done enough wrong to lose my support.
In short, I don't judge them (the murderous actions of the IDF and the suicide bombs of the Palestinians) as equal evils, but I judge them both as disgusting and I cannot support either side. I really can't think of a clearer way to put this, so I hope it makes sense this time.
|
thats is what i understood from you last time and i tried to show you that the israelis didnt commit enough wrong to lose support, but even if they have, seeing as you just said they are not equaly evil and that israel has commited less atrocities. dont you think it is moraly imparitive to pick the "better" side as to take a step in the right direction? what if palestine were to win this battle? this would lead to show that by doing nothing the the more evil side should be rewarded.
| quote: |
It would seem you find my suspicion of the IDF excessive, yes?
|
i think the situation israel is in calls for excessive action, my personal belief
now as for the quote you gave from amnestiy, that pissed me off cause apparently it shows they have not done their research and are hastly blamed sides.
i am going to quote some arguments in there and show you that we can totaly justify the israeli action as non terrorist, maybe i can get you to understand the postition israeli is in to which result in the actions they take. maybe even convience you enough that they are not evil enough to lose your support
| quote: |
Ambulances, including those of the ICRC, have been consistently shot at. Such attacks on the fundamental principle of medical neutrality are flagrant violations of the Geneva Conventions.
|
i want to get to this one first.
i want you to read this link
http://www.idf.il/english/announcem...02/march/27.stm
now i am assuming you can accept what was written. who flagrantly violated the Geneva Conventions first? what amnestey sees is an israeli reaction. if the palestinians dont regard the medical services under amnesty conventions why should israel, i mean what should israel do, just let this continue happen and do nothing about it? i just proved amnesity is flat out wrong and that israel did NOT break geneva convention, they have the right to shoot back if the other side abuses that rights
| quote: |
In the camps curfews were imposed
|
the quote that yoepus put from the geneva convention says this is acceptable.
"Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons do demand."
notice we arent even evacuating them, just saying they cant go outside at certian times
| quote: |
More than 600 Palestinian homes have been systematically demolished, making thousands homeless, the vast majority children.
|
somewhere in there it also blames israel of searching palestinian homes. oh no let me cry. im sorry i have no sympathy for the palestinians who hide illegal arms of weapons in civilian homes. what do you want israel to do about this? agian israel is taking a response to a illegal breach committed by the palestinians.
as far as house demolitions go, i dont have time but i can prove that some house (the ones destroyed by israelis) were ones used by terrorist to smuggle weapons back and forth and a stage where palestinians planned attacks on innocent israeli citizens.
| quote: |
More than 100 checkpoints throughout the West Bank and Gaza have not stopped suicide bombings.
|
ya but it sure as hell would be worse if we didnt have them, you can agree with me here its alright
| quote: |
The closures of towns and villages deny freedom of movement and appear to be set up to harass, collectively punish, intimidate and humiliate the Palestinian people.
|
appear to be? lol why dont they do their homework and find out really why they are there. in reaction israel to what has done this.
thats as far as i wanna go with the amnesity, if they showed this much blatant missunderstanding then i see no reason to credit the rest of that quote.
btw i want to showing you why yoepus was so outraged as you may have missed it. he gave the fact that by the quote he took from geneva convetion it showed israel had to right to evacute the area, thus meaning any peace rally going into those areas was agianst the rules and might be precieved as otherwise. you basicly ignored that whole thing. he gave you a just reasoning and you blindly point back at israel asking why they did it. agian who broke the trust first, the people who were there who werent allowed into the area or the people firing warning shots at the ground. furthermore you called the israeli firing of warning shots illegal come on boy where the hell is that true! you cleary said:
"Nowhere in any of those articles does it legitimise the deliberate shooting into the direction of civilian crowds"
nowhere there does it say you cant! if it doesnt say its illegal then by golly IT IS legal. especially when there are militants firing from within those civilian crowds.
to even further prove why yoepus was outraged, was the fact that he proved that israels current incursion into the occupied territorries was NOT illegal by quoting geneva as saying:
| quote: | | "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations" |
the armed attack being the suicide bombings, not only that but then you go and say it applies to peacekeepers:
"First quote is irrelevant. It's about armed people attacking UN personnel"
lol it says United Nations MEMBERS as in Member nations.
also the fact that you never mentioned anything about the account of my best friends inncedent and continue with thinking that investigations dont take place...
i can see too how one might think you are under the influence of mind altering substance. |
|
|
| dj_mdma |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
I'll try and get first crack at it:
It all stems from pre-1948 and the british mandate British offer Arabs all of Mandate for their help in support of the war of WWI.
British offer all of Mandate to the Jews for their help in support of the war of WWI, plus the Jewish Homeland concept. The Jews unlike the Arabs however got this in writing.
The Jews and Arabs could not live with one another, Arabs felt all the area belonged to them and there was a dramatic rise in their population durning this time.
Internal fighting between them. Arabs terrroize Jews, Jews terroize Arabs, and Jews rebel against the British.
British gives away 80% of the mandate to the Arabs (jordan). Fighting continues, and they decide to make a plan (Peel Commision) to split the 20% that is left between the Arabs and the Jews. No one agrees, they both fight. 1948 UN does the same thing. Jews agree, Arabs fight. Jews get more land by winning the war. 1967, Arabs fight again, lose more land to the jews by losing the war. 1973 same concept as above but no substantial territorial gains.
Current crisis: Palestinians (same arabs as in Jordan) want the rest of the land (like in the previous wars). Israel wants peace.
YoepusIt's important to remember that Jesus loves you. Because everyone else thinks your an arsehole. |
I think i get it. The Palestinian land is the Gaza strip and West Bank? It also happens to be "part of Israel" THe two bits of land are on either side of ISrael. So these bits of land (GS and WB) used to belong to Britian. Britian promised to give this land to both sides. I.e it told both the Arabs and Jews they could ahve it all, but ended up giving most of it to the arabs?
So why the fighting? The Palestininas have most of what is rightfully theirs anyway? If they are fighting to claim back what they lost (i was under the impression that it wasn't a lot of land) then perhaps the solution is to "win it back" to put it in crude terms. However, it should be fought lawfully, i.e no suicide bombings in the heart of Israel. What would that achieve? It would only further anger the Jews and wouldn't actually fulfil the original Palestinian aims.
A suicide bombing is bad, but then again so is massive retaliatory military action (all those tanks going into that town (whose town is it?) yesterday)
In a way u could say that this is the British fault for not setting down clear rewards for the two peoples. :)
Also if America gets involved, then it won't be good cos then all the other Middle Eastern countires, which support Palestine, will intervene as well. And what other countires suppport palestine? Iraq and Iran. So things could get ugly.
So is my assumption about the land right cos I',m still not sure :conf: |
|
|
| density |
| quote: | Originally posted by Great Outdoors
DJ-Energy: Sorry to hear about it. I hope this ends soon. We'll all be praying. |
nice of you to be praying for them but this world is round for a reason.. so what effects them, will eventually effect you and all of us!
"the people who dont learn from history, repeat it" |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_mdma
I think i get it. The Palestinian land is the Gaza strip and West Bank? It also happens to be "part of Israel" THe two bits of land are on either side of ISrael. So these bits of land (GS and WB) used to belong to Britian. Britian promised to give this land to both sides. |
Ok you almost got it right. The thing is the land that Britian had to give was all of Jordan, Gaza, and the West Bank, and Israel proper.
They gave Jordan straight off to the Palestinians, this made 80% of the land. Then the UN decieded to give the West Bank and Gaza to the Arabs after Britian was fed up and left. They had a commision to deciede who gets the rest of the land and did it roughly according to the populations of the area (i.e. every there were Arabs and Israelis living together in Israel and Gaza and West Bank). So they conclude Arabs get something like Gaza and West Bank (the orginial UN plan gave the Arab split the country up 50/50 so the Palestinians actually would of had a bigger Gaza, and some more land up north of Israel, and a bigger west bank).
So in 1948 Israel said, "Ok" we will accept this plan, and established its nation on the lands designated to it. Then all the Arabs attacks Israel (they didn't agree to the plan) in hopes of getting the remaining land but failed and Israel actually gained more land from them (pre-1967 borders). Go to this link; http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/maps/index.html
It will help you see how Israel was supposed to be according to the UN partition plan, and after the war of 1948.
Durning 1948 the Arabs had all of the West Bank and Gaza of today, and they continued fighting. 1967 they tried to make another attempt to get all of Israel but they failed, and Israel gained these lands in self-defense.
For some strange reason Israel never annexed the land for the 30 years it held them. From this fact might be a cause of the problem also.
| quote: | | I.e it told both the Arabs and Jews they could ahve it all, but ended up giving most of it to the arabs? |
Yup, your correct there.
So why the fighting? The Palestininas have most of what is rightfully theirs anyway? If they are fighting to claim back what they lost (i was under the impression that it wasn't a lot of land)
Well the Palestinians aren't under their own rule in most of the land, Jordan is ruled by a minority king (Hissimite?) and altought they were offered autonomy in their areas recently (west bank, gaza) by the 1993 Oslo accords, they did little to fight it.
You can see though they are very forceful about getting it all in the words they preach to their children, and in the charters of the Palestinian organizations. So right, they aren't content and they want it all.
| quote: | | then perhaps the solution is to "win it back" to put it in crude terms. However, it should be fought lawfully, i.e no suicide bombings in the heart of Israel. What would that achieve? It would only further anger the Jews and wouldn't actually fulfil the original Palestinian aims. |
Hmm sort of lost you hear, the Palestinians could fight off the Jews, but this is what they are doing now. They have little weapons but they use them. If they just really really wanted the West Bank and Gaza they could have used some more useful none-violenet methods to achieve their aims.
Israel has no plan to reconquer the Palestinian people because they hate Israel so much bascially. Altough in a recent poll 46% would like a transfer of Palestinians (meaning they do want Israel to conquer the area annex it, and those Palestinians who don't like it are welcome to leave).
| quote: | | A suicide bombing is bad, but then again so is massive retaliatory military action (all those tanks going into that town (whose town is it?) yesterday) |
The Israeli's are the ones with the tanks, they have gone into about 7 West Bank downs already and plaed them under seige, so I don't know which town exactly you saw.
I would however state that if you are going to invade the area (and this is what Israel is doing in this campagin, not retaliating but in an effort trying to dismantle the terrorist regiem just like the US is doing in Afghanistan) it is better to do it with massive overwhelming force (Powel Doctorine), it has been proven in recent conflict to save more lives from both sides if one side brings everything they got and finish it quick.
| quote: | | In a way u could say that this is the British fault for not setting down clear rewards for the two peoples. :) |
Yup basically, you guys never were the brightest when it came to these thigns.. Cyprus, India - Pakistan, Greek - Turkey, Iran...
| quote: | | Also if America gets involved, then it won't be good cos then all the other Middle Eastern countires, which support Palestine, will intervene as well. |
Well the thought is US intervention to 'police' a ceasefire, i.e. be the Palestinian police as they rebuilt and thwart terrorist if they still operate. I don't think many countries would oppose this. They would oppose it if Israel did it though.
| quote: | | And what other countires suppport palestine? Iraq and Iran. So things could get ugly. |
Almost every country in the world 'supports' Paletine. However fierce Allies that might get to be more then just arms supplier in this round are; Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon.
Don't worry though, Israel has already dispatched two air squadrons on 24 hour alert with tactical nuclear missles as a great detterent to them.
| quote: | | So is my assumption about the land right cos I',m still not sure :conf: |
You almost got it.. I hope my extra comments helped you get it down straight now.
Yoepus
It's not that I am anti-social. I just don't like you. |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
Izzy, I have a question. Who do you consider a more impartial, and overall more believable source:
Amnesty International?
The Israeli Army?
Who has more to gain from hiding the truth?
Amnesty International are one of the most respected bodies in international and world politics. The Israeli Defence Force are one of the most controversial organisations in the democratic world, who have a lot of serious allegations to answer for.
You say shooting at Ambulances is justified because they found a bomb in one ambulance?
I guess you could shoot at every home in Crossmaglen because they have found snipers in some?
I trust that Amnesty International are not deceptive in their wording. If they say it is against the Geneva Convention - it is. I see no reason why Amnesty International would say that shooting against an armed ambulance is unlawful. clearly they are referring to indiscriminate firing.
Also, your tackling of that article piece by piece ignores the wider message. Amnesty International claim that in the past 18 months, there have been "grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions which, over the past 18 months, have been committed daily, hourly, even every minute, by the Israeli authorities against Palestinians"
Amnesty International would not say that if they weren't appalled by the actions of the Israelis, and would not make such allegations without serious reason for doing so.
"600 Palestinian homes have been systematically demolished, making thousands homeless, the vast majority children". Your response to this is "oh no let me cry". Sorry but comments like that are going to weaken your argument, and also weaken your claim to hold the moral high ground.
"appear to be? lol why dont they do their homework and find out really why they are there. in reaction israel to what has done this"
Izzy, I'm most confused by your acceptance that Israeli soldiers shoud tell the truth, yet Amnesty International should tell lies or decieve the public. This is a very biased and narrow minded view to take.
It would seem you find Amnesty International a dubious source. I really don't understand this. They are one of the most respected organisations you could find on this subject.
If you can't trust Amnesty International, the UN, and the Israeli Centre for Human Rights, I thinkno matter how many sources I throw at you, and no matters how much evidence is behind them, your faith in the IDF is blind.
Lastly, you and Yoepus have effectively used UN sources to prove yourselves worng, and then get frustrated when I highlight this.
We could try putting his sources to the rest of the board, or even professionals, to see if these actions are condoned by these acts, or condemned. Remember, in accordance with a UN ruling, those tanks didn't have the right to be there, let alone police the area, fire shots in the direction of an unarmed crowd, and threaten the media.
That you call these warning shots, and then call it an evacuation, is funny. Warning shots are designed to disperse crowds. An evacuation is designed to remove them from the area, without specific directions of where to go.
Warning shots are supposed to be fired into the air, not inches in front of unarmed protestors, because that's dangerous, and could injure nine of them.
Lastly, I find it unbelievable that you remove responsibility from these men for injuring unarmed people. What did these people do to warrant being injured? If you watch the video, they ran away at the first shot, and the newscrew left on foot, their hands in the air.
Are you now telling me the Israeli troops are not legally responsible for their actions in injuring a cooperative unarmed crowd?
Who's responsible then? Arafat? A ghost? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Inspector_Morse |
This thread has got out of control. Well, to be honest I've never been able to do more than skim over the surface, due to time constraints, which is quite frustrating, and possibly part of the reason behind my rather irrational vitriol aimed at Yoepus in particular.
I'm sorry if I unfairly labelled you as a brute, but when you purposefully come across as more extreme than you perhaps are, then it's not entirely my fault.
I'm also sorry if you feel you're banging your head against a brick wall. I think all contributors to this thread feel like that, and continue to keep posting not in a vain effort to convert others, but as an assurance to likeminded people that they're not alone. That's certainly a large part of my motivation for continuing to post.
I am led to question your compassionate overtures when your avatar depicts an Israeli tank, a weapon of destruction irrespective of the motives of the military and political leaders.
I've just imparted to a friend that I'm posting on a trance music forum about the crisis in the Middle East, to which we both chuckled. I'm reassured that I can still see the surreal nature of this entire thread.
It's also a bit frustrating to have people assume I am, or I should, take sides between murderous terrorist Yasser Arafat and murderous terrorist Ariel Sharon. Nothing is 'black and white', and this is no closer. One could bang on for hours about the futility of using conventional military means to defeat a guerrilla enemy, about the inherent contradiction of labelling Arafat an oppressor then victimising Palestinians, about the more fundamental absurdity of going to war to ensure peace, about the bias in British news towards the Arab cause (I say this with hessitation, since as a resident of Britain I am infected by that message, and therefore cannot, with the best will in the world, be objective), about the similar pro-Israeli bias of the American media (of which I have been exposed to just a bit), about how restraint is not something either side should be expected to be praised for, about how long it's been since I used a full stop.
Anyway, good old death loving Dubya's waded in (cynics would suggest to prepare the ground for an attack on Iraq) so everything should be hunky dory now.
I'm sure there were millions of things in the five pages I just haven't bothered to read, due to time scarcity, that I may have wanted to address, but it. The whole affair is depressing. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| quote: | Originally posted by Inspector_Morse
This thread has got out of control. Well, to be honest I've never been able to do more than skim over the surface, due to time constraints, which is quite frustrating, and possibly part of the reason behind my rather irrational vitriol aimed at Yoepus in particular.
I'm sorry if I unfairly labelled you as a brute, but when you purposefully come across as more extreme than you perhaps are, then it's not entirely my fault.
I'm also sorry if you feel you're banging your head against a brick wall. I think all contributors to this thread feel like that, and continue to keep posting not in a vain effort to convert others, but as an assurance to likeminded people that they're not alone. That's certainly a large part of my motivation for continuing to post.
I am led to question your compassionate overtures when your avatar depicts an Israeli tank, a weapon of destruction irrespective of the motives of the military and political leaders.
I've just imparted to a friend that I'm posting on a trance music forum about the crisis in the Middle East, to which we both chuckled. I'm reassured that I can still see the surreal nature of this entire thread.
It's also a bit frustrating to have people assume I am, or I should, take sides between murderous terrorist Yasser Arafat and murderous terrorist Ariel Sharon. Nothing is 'black and white', and this is no closer. One could bang on for hours about the futility of using conventional military means to defeat a guerrilla enemy, about the inherent contradiction of labelling Arafat an oppressor then victimising Palestinians, about the more fundamental absurdity of going to war to ensure peace, about the bias in British news towards the Arab cause (I say this with hessitation, since as a resident of Britain I am infected by that message, and therefore cannot, with the best will in the world, be objective), about the similar pro-Israeli bias of the American media (of which I have been exposed to just a bit), about how restraint is not something either side should be expected to be praised for, about how long it's been since I used a full stop.
Anyway, good old death loving Dubya's waded in (cynics would suggest to prepare the ground for an attack on Iraq) so everything should be hunky dory now.
I'm sure there were millions of things in the five pages I just haven't bothered to read, due to time scarcity, that I may have wanted to address, but it. The whole affair is depressing. |
:rolleyes: very true, good post! This is what i like to read. People who really think, not blindly judge. Especially people from abroad, receiving all infos from the media, should take their time and look at BOTH sides, before immediately siding with the "underdog" or jumoing at the "evil guy".
@tenor our discussion got boring. Your arguments repeated themselves and got more and more banal, try to read through the other threads here to get my opinion about the conflict, i really dont have power to write it all down once again.
@cweb: you are they typical ehtusiast "peace-activist" who fails to keep distance and runs to help the "weaks". You shouldnt do that...
@all..i think we all know each other's opinions by now. We should leave it this way before its getting outta control/personal/insulting. |
|
|
| Devbert |
It's important to have debate no matter what though.
It allows everyone to share unique ideas and opinions.
And occasionally flame a little :D |
|
|
| Izzy |
OMG evil_bastard i have really been ticked off about your last post, i am as angry as yoepus is at you but i will do my best to keep the insults bottled in me.
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_bastard
Izzy, I have a question. Who do you consider a more impartial, and overall more believable source:
Amnesty International?
The Israeli Army?
|
I do not care who is more impartial, when one side brings up undisputable evidence as to an illegal activity and why it takes on such reactions i can not see your point. not only that using your logic i have completely discredited amnesty enough to the point where i will not take amnesties side. ALL my the points i put forth about amnesity in my last post were backed up completely to show that they are missrepresenting the sides. my god when you say
"Izzy, I'm most confused by your acceptance that Israeli soldiers shoud tell the truth, yet Amnesty International should tell lies"
it completely frustrates me about you. firstly you have not given A single case where the IDF has lied but more importantly god damnit i never said amnesity lies in my last post, i said:
"now as for the quote you gave from amnestiy, that pissed me off cause apparently it shows they have not done their research and are hastly blamed sides."
if amnesty where to write out a sentence like:
| quote: | | "Ambulances, including those of the ICRC, have been consistently shot at as a reaction to ambulances being used to hide terrorist and carry weapons. such attacks on the fundamental principle of medical neutrality are flagrant violations of the Geneva Conventions." |
i would come to see them in a more impartial light. to further prove my claim at your illogical thinking you said
| quote: | | You say shooting at Ambulances is justified because they found a bomb in one ambulance? |
my answer is YES! i have heard of other exact cases but even if it was just one, whats to say it has not happened more than just this once and never been caught.
also your pompously arrogant one sided thinking by as saying
| quote: |
I guess you could shoot at every home in Crossmaglen because they have found snipers in some? |
are totally uncalled for and irrelevant.
my god no one in the world and even amnesity has said we shoot at EVERY ambulance. we have PROVEN that israel has just reason to do so on ambulances who warrant suspision.
going back to the amnesity quote you pulled, i want to show you how insulting your views are:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/eur45.htm http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2001/uk11162001.html
read these, now tell me you are not insulted when i say
"look i have presented enough case which shows me enough wrong doing on part of the UK to lose my support of their side and i am neutral when it comes to the views that UK holds vs that of the palestinian authority"
my god boy take you own advise of | quote: |
Also, your tackling of that article piece by piece ignores the wider message. |
step back and see that one side stands for a greater good.
it seems to me like you completely missunderstand us by saying:
| quote: |
That you call these warning shots, and then call it an evacuation, is funny.
|
we said that the evacutation was called for even before the peace protesters were there!!! and showed that israel had the right to do this - meaning the protesters were in there illegaly - justifying warning shots to disperse them... but wait let me show you how insane those protesters are. not only do they have no right of being in there but they do not take the mear fact of a tank turret pointing in their direction is warning enough. man i would have ran away as soon as i saw the turret swing my way. why did they not heed to that warning and let it come to the tank actually shotting at the ground for them to get the point!!! you see that is logical, rational thinking right there.
as if all the above were not enough to warrant suffient anger at you.
your views such us
| quote: |
Remember, in accordance with a UN ruling, those tanks didn't have the right to be there
|
MY GOD in this current incursion into ramallah no ruling has siad those tanks are in there illegaly. god damnit we quoted geneva saying | quote: |
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations" |
where does it say we cant use tanks as a way of self defense!!! are you argueing that no armed attack was taken agianst israel?
you do not seem to accept any validality of anything we say. yet you call us one sided?!?!?!? my god even we have said injusticies happen within both side (for that matter in all cases of war - as you point out in many cases), but we have given more then ample evidence and views to show that it is neither the WILL nor the WANT of the israeli army to purposely kill innocent civilians. this is where the difference between the IDF and palestinian authority lies, for we have shown and we have proven it is infact the exact opposite with them. seems pretty black and white no?
furthermore with all that has been said in this thread the fact that you still do not see supporting israel as being the better side just for the simple fact that it is a move in the right direction for humanity (remember you said they commit less atrocites and are less evil) completely defies all logic as neutrality and your ethical views of humanity.
evil_bastard - i have almost come to the last straw in dealing with you
inspector_morse, i just want to explain something personal which you probably missed. you said
| quote: |
I've just imparted to a friend that I'm posting on a trance music forum about the crisis in the Middle East, to which we both chuckled. I'm reassured that I can still see the surreal nature of this entire thread.
|
i too find it kinda funny but still i explained in one of my posts why i do this.... you should kinda read over cause i explained pretty well why i post here. its a personal issue that has nothing to do with anyone. a place for me to let out my emotions, thoughts beliefs and arguments into writing. |
|
|
| tenor |
yoepus: good post. thanks for being sensible.
however, i dont see this thread going anywhere. I'll try to summarize my current point of view here:
The cold fact is, that since Israel was created, the reality of Mid-East has changed. People live there, and I recognize the right of Israelis to live in peace and in security. I also recognize that the palestinians have the same right.
Since the Israelis are the stronger side, I doubt that any peace can come around before the Israelis want it - attacking the palestinians will only lead to more retaliation, from both sides. Thus, we will not see peace before Sharon is voted out of the office. Peace will also not come until both sides agree 100% on it, it cannot be forced. The Palestinians (as far as I understand) are ready two have two independent states, by each other - they are (as far as I understand) also prepared to demilitarize the whole Palestinian state and bring in international peacekeeping forces, thus eliminating the military risks to Israel.
However - they have some demands that Israel simply cannot accept, like the return of all palestinian refugees. This is impossible, since the return of 3 million palestinian refugees would make arabs the majority of Israel, which would mean that the reason of existence of Israel would vanish. I have no solution to this problem.
Another problem is Jerusalem. The symbolic value of the town is too big for both sides. Israel wants control of all of the old city, maybe giving control of the muslim quarter to the palestinians, and the palestinians want the control of all of the old city, maybe giving the jewish quarter to palestinians. (At least the case looked liked this during the Camp David negotiations - I find it highly doubtful that either side has changed their mind)
Neither side can really agree on the final borders either. I have no clue as to what they could, or should be - I believe the Israelis would like some little pieces of Gaza Strip, in the areas where there are plenty of Israeli settlers, and have promised some land in exchange. It's also unclear as to what sort of land would be given in return, and whether the Palestinians would agree to that.
One of the few things that I can imagine that could change the balance, is Saddam getting his grubby little hands on nuclear weapons, which would be a disaster. It would require extremely quick changes in Israeli politics, and I'm not sure if even that could save the world from a catastrophe. Hopefully, it doesnt happen, and we wont see too much civilian casualties before these problems are solved in a way that pleases both sides. |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
Izzy, do you SERIOUSLY mean to tell me you think that unarmed Western civilians staging a peace protest in Bethlehem is an "armed attack again Members of the United Nations"??????
You say IDF were entitled to their actons then cite this as evidence? I doubt I'm the only one you've confused.
Earlier on you said you cannot compare Israel with Northern Ireland, now you say you do. Firstly, the allegations made against British forces in Northern ireland are NOWEHRE NEAR the scale of allegations made by the same bodies towards the IDF.
I am keeping this post short, but later on I will provide two sources from Amnesty International, and we shall compare the claims.
Secondly, the UK are not going to war in Northern Ireland. Have I said anywhere thus far that I think UK forces should go to war? And overrun the people of Northern Ireland?
Where have I said this? I'd like a direct quote.
Also, you have not, anywhere, proven Amnesty International wrong.
You keep showing me the IDF's website. They barely even try to defend themselves, most of that site is full of anti-Palestinian propaganda.
Secondly, I trust Amnesty International over the IDF for one very simple reason. The IDF have something to gain from hiding the truth. Amnesty International don't.
Amnesty International are trusted worldwide, except by you it would seem.
I shall address the rest of your comments later, and try and think of an organisation that will raise your eyebrows, because clearly Amnesty International aren't good enough. |
|
|
|
|
