|
We are going into war!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :( (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| evil_bastard |
Yoepus, I have no objections to you voicing your opinion, what I object to is displaying it as fact.
I'm particularly referring to your claims that "those" Palestinian police stations housed terrorists.
I sincerely doubt you can prove that every police station that was bombed was completely useless in policing terrorists and was an instrument of terrorism itself.
No doubt corruption occurs within the Palestinian authorities, but it is accelerated by the rubble and bullet holes. Those are breeding grounds for corruption. I imagine some of the police force is helping terrorism, just as America has a close alliance with Saudi Arabia, a state with a very shady background regarding terrorism.
However, would you not agree that to bomb literally dozens of police stations is going to do more harm than good, with relation to the policing the Palestinian people?
I certainly think so.
With regards to this point:
"I am fairly sure you are compotent enough to investigate statistics of previous modern wars for yourself and discover the ratios of civilians casualties and contrast it to the current conflict yourself"
Who struck the first blow does go back 60 years, however for the man who blows himself up for an anti-Israeli cause, he is inherently retaliating. His views are created through anger at a country which did something to him or his environment. That is the Palestinians retaliating. So to say that everything the Israelis do is in response to a Palestinian action is wrong. Both sides respond to one another, and I simply do not buy this "we stopped shooting but they just keep attacking" line. I see reports literally every day of a few more Palestinians killed, regularly children, and frequently innocents.
I think the core of your argument is that with enough power, so long as one side takes total control, peace can be restored, am I correct?
However, I think you demonstrated my point by having to cite the atom bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki as your example. Such extreme lengths were needed for one side to win. It would be the same with Palestine. A lot of innocent people would get hurt, and the only way to suppress the anger of an invaded people would be oppressive measures, just as the taliban did to their people and countless other governments have done. I don't go for that, and that's why I don't go for what is essentially an "invasion" of Palestine. I know it will end up in oppression and violence on a grander scale than the unfortunate attrition we see now, and I espescially don't trust the man in charge, Mr Sharon. Particularly in the fragile political area that is the middle east.
If this is in fact not an accurate representation of your viewpoint then please clarify. Fundamentally, I believe where we disagree is whether or not invading Palestine territory, with all the force that requires, would secure either a short term or long term benefit for the maximum number of people. |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
On a sidenote, the assumption is often made that the atom bombs saved a lot of lives in the long run.
I am not so sure.
The war in Europe was over. The full Alliance (or even just America alone) could now deploy the entirity of it's resources, that is millions of men, thousands of ships and tanks, basically half of the world's military might, onto Japan.
Japan is renowned for its lack of natural resources, she was almost dependant on imports. With the naval power of an entire alliance relieved of it's duties in Europe, her links could have been cut off and a defensive perimetre set up.
Off topic I know, but I though this might provoke some thought. |
|
|
| DamnDirtyApe |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
The problem is Israel will not to concede to terrorism by giving the Palestinians political gains when under fire. |
.. and the Palestinians will not concede by giving the Israelis political gains when under fire.
The fact is that Israel is the one that invaded Palestinian territory and refuses to allow the Palestinian people the right to self-determination. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DamnDirtyApe
.. and the Palestinians will not concede by giving the Israelis political gains when under fire.
The fact is that Israel is the one that invaded Palestinian territory and refuses to allow the Palestinian people the right to self-determination. |
Again, 1967 war.. who invaded who? Israel pleaded that the Jordanians stay out of it, and in deed they did not touch them with their pre-emptive strike.
Israel has recongized the Palestinian right to self-determinatin, can the Palestinains now reconginze the Israeli one?? If you say yes, then tell me why have they not amended their charter to include this?
| quote: | Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
|
They will not change these articles, despite repeated pleas by many of Israeli PM, foriegn leaders, and netrual parties, since 1993 - the Oslo Accrods.
Yoepus
A word to the wise ain't necessary, its the stupid ones who need all the advice. |
|
|
| DamnDirtyApe |
| I certainly agree with you on that one. I'm not saying that the Palestinians are innocent victims. But the fact that the Palestinians don't officially recognize the right of Israel to exist doesn't mean that the IDF is justified in bulldozing houses in the occupied territories. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | [b]Originally posted by evil_bastard
Yoepus, I have no objections to you voicing your opinion, what I object to is displaying it as fact. |
Again for the 100th time... My opinion is not fact, it is based on fact.
| quote: | I'm particularly referring to your claims that "those" Palestinian police stations housed terrorists.
I sincerely doubt you can prove that every police station that was bombed was completely useless in policing terrorists and was an instrument of terrorism itself.
No doubt corruption occurs within the Palestinian authorities, but it is accelerated by the rubble and bullet holes. Those are breeding grounds for corruption. I imagine some of the police force is helping terrorism, just as America has a close alliance with Saudi Arabia, a state with a very shady background regarding terrorism.
However, would you not agree that to bomb literally dozens of police stations is going to do more harm than good, with relation to the policing the Palestinian people? |
No I would not. These police stations have clearly been shown throughout the years to do more harm then good. They do not enforce the law with in their own Palestinian people, they do not arrest militants and terrorist, they do not disarm the populace. These are all steps which were indicated in the Mitchell plan.. which was followed by cease-fire attempts and the Police force had enough to stage a crackdown.
The fact is that indeed almost every single Palestinian police station has been collaborators, sponsoers, instigators, or have turned a blind eye to terrorism. This fact allows Israel legal opprotunity to dismantle this apparatus as they have violate the Oslo Accords. Furthermore, this allows the own Palestinian people to uprise agains their dictator (again I am under no delusion that they will). You must remember 90% of the terrorist incidents where by Arafat's own forces, this means the same forces that have access to these facilities. Furthermore you can see evidence of the deep link between the 'police' and terrorism from the Karine A incident. And there refusal to arrest one another (assuming again it was 'some corruption) since then upon heated request by the international community.
And even say the police were indeed doing their job part of the time, the fact that they devote MOST of their time, stations, and resources
provides them as legitimate targets. If you are in doubt, read the topic of this thread.. "We are going into War", that is what this is, it is a War. A peace can not be established in war unless all sides agree to ceasefire and negotiate. Israel has tried this, again I point you to the past 15 days and the ceasefire since the Zinni mission.
| quote: | | Who struck the first blow does go back 60 years, however for the man who blows himself up for an anti-Israeli cause, he is inherently retaliating. |
I'm sorry, is it just me? Or does every see you are not making any sense here?
| quote: | | His views are created through anger at a country which did something to him or his environment. That is the Palestinians retaliating. |
Maybe he changed his environement? Perhaps it is time the Palestinians learned an interesting concept called 'responsability' if they would adhere to it as the Israelis do this mess would have been avoided.
| quote: | | So to say that everything the Israelis do is in response to a Palestinian action is wrong. |
I don't get it.. You tell me that the Palestinian cause is 'good' because they are retaliating for losing a war which they forced upon Israel?? HUH???
| quote: | | Both sides respond to one another, and I simply do not buy this "we stopped shooting but they just keep attacking" line. |
To bad... you have dozens and dozens of ceasefires offered by the Israelis who have shown if not 100% restraint, 90%. The Palestinians have never showed more then 10%. I have never heard Yassar Arafat go on TV and state in Arabic "Suicide Bombings are bad for our cause.. you are screwing over our people every time you kill yourself with innocent people". Why, is it so hard to say?? Why is that? Can you answer to me, why as a leader he does not stop his own people from commiting these murderous, sub-human ploys??
I will tell you why.. because he supports and funds such ploy. The money sucidie bombers get from Iraq and other funds.. who do you thihkn administers this? Not only do the families of the subhuman get money, but so does the PA every time someone kills himself like that.
| quote: | | I see reports literally every day of a few more Palestinians killed, regularly children, and frequently innocents. |
Wow, I see reports of many fatalities across the world as well. Just today someone died in my city in a car accident.. In Israel over 300 innocent civilians die every year because of car accidents. Perhaps they should examine the bodies first and see how they died?? The kid dies because he fell off the roof.. 'it was an Israeli sniper I swear'... 'show us the body'... 'no no Israelis are evil.. bad'.
I want a good independent source to confirm the statement above. In the last 15 days Israel has done 100% to restrain itself.
| quote: | | I think the core of your argument is that with enough power, so long as one side takes total control, peace can be restored, am I correct? |
Yes. Look at Iraq (they could have gone into the capital and it would have been peaceful there today). Look at Japan, Look at Germany. Look at Afghanistan.
| quote: | | However, I think you demonstrated my point by having to cite the atom bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki as your example. Such extreme lengths were needed for one side to win. It would be the same with Palestine. |
Dud, you like truly overestimate the military might of the Palestinian people if you truly believe only an atom bomb will take them. I do not agree with you, like you said people value peace and stability. Israel should go in, eliminate terror, reinstitute law and order, setup the schools to teach the truth and real history and not hate, and then in a generation lead the Palestinians into a democracy whereby they elect their own repersentatives and leader as Israel pulls out.
| quote: | | A lot of innocent people would get hurt, and the only way to suppress the anger of an invaded people would be oppressive measures, just as the taliban did to their people and countless other governments have done. |
I am arguing Arafat is the Taliban, his people have no freedom what so ever, and it is because of his rule, his draconian dictatorship and determination agains the peace process.
I am arguning that Israel does the Afghanistan with them, go in, uproot terror and replace the regiem that supports it. Then allow the people to run themseleves (as in Afghanistan) while you provide peace keepers to enforce law and order as they organize their own forces to provide such.
| quote: | | I don't go for that, and that's why I don't go for what is essentially an "invasion" of Palestine. |
Then you are argeeing to the same princple here as Afghanistan, and stating that that shoudl fail as well... it might who knows, but it is worth a shot.. Better then this hell.
| quote: | | I espescially don't trust the man in charge, Mr Sharon. |
Why?? What has he done to earn your distrust?? I know Barak lied under office.. with all the Ultimatums he imposed on Arafat and never followed through upon... Sharon looks very clean right now.
| quote: | | If this is in fact not an accurate representation of your viewpoint then please clarify. |
I am, I believe that terrorism is an evil and must get rid of in this world. I believe that the 3 principles bush stated (and defined in my previous posts) are the plan to rid this world of this evil, and should be open for any coutry to follow.
| quote: | | Fundamentally, I believe where we disagree is whether or not invading Palestine territory, with all the force that requires, would secure either a short term or long term benefit for the maximum number of people. |
Ok then tell me what you think will happen? All I know is that the status quo does not look good, and that no agreement what so ever can come while Arafat is in control. As I have said earlier, we have come to the end of the path and only see the military solution.
Yoepus
"All imaginable inventions have already been invented." |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DamnDirtyApe
I certainly agree with you on that one. I'm not saying that the Palestinians are innocent victims. But the fact that the Palestinians don't officially recognize the right of Israel to exist doesn't mean that the IDF is justified in bulldozing houses in the occupied territories. |
No, of course not, I agree with you a 100%. That is why Israel bull dozes only houses which are used by the terrorist for either arms smuggling (read tunnels), or sniping and launching motar attacks. But believe me, by the time the terrorist use these places, the people who live in their, unless they are die hard fanatics have fled their homes. Being around terrorist is no safe place.
Yoepus
Tell me, I will forget. Show me, I may remember. Involve me, I will understand. |
|
|
| FASTDJMP3 |
Yoepus and Izzy , please stop quoting president Bush (who didn't know that the world and other countries existed before he was elected :rolleyes: ) and/or other gov. institutions (CIA bla bla bla) . Like if the American gov. is a good exemple .
Everybody knows the USA supports blindly Israel because you know why (1-the strong jewish/zionist lobby rules America 2-Israel guarantees a military presence of the USA in the middle-east) .
Telling me Sharon is not the cause of the second intifida shows how much your opinion is biased (oh yeah i'm gonna trust that US senator's report whose political campaign has been financed by you-know-who) .
Give me guys instead REAL facts , why don't u quote what the European Union says ? or Russia , China , and all the other countries ?
Why Israel is not punished when it doesn't respect the UN resolutions and other countries are ?
Lke a TA said (sorry i forgot ur name , but ur from Denmark and u speak english perfectly) : Israel is the spoilt kid in a class-room who does whatever he wants to the others just because he has the protection of the teacher (that doesn't mean the USA are a role model ... not at all) , but once the teacher won't be there again , the spoilt kid will have to protect himself againt all the others .
Why Israel has always refused the UN blue helmets and inspectors who are going to see what REALLY happens ? are they afraid the truth won't be hidden anymore ?
Btw , Belgium decided to cut their relations with Israel (economically and diplomaticaly) until they remove their tanks from Ramallah and other cities . Soon the other european countries will probably take the same decision . This is a very courageous action taken by a REAL democratic country (not a so-called democratic country where they daily deal with conspiration , where a hidden gov. is the one who decides , where the actual president is idiot enough , where an old president has been killed by HIS OWN institutions , etc ...)
I'm really tired to talk about this , but what pisses me off the most is that there are a lot of Arabs on the forums , and it seems like i'm the only one defending my side by posting in middle-east threads , while our israelian fellows always post and defend their point of view . Where are you Arab brothers ? |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
Yoepus, you made the assumption that all of those police stations housed terrorists and were justifiable targets. You can't prove this, yet you came out with it as if it were fact. That's what I was referring to.
Another such statement:
"No I would not. These police stations have clearly been shown throughout the years to do more harm then good"
This is indeed debatable, it has not been "clearly shown", perhaps in your eyes but it's not a fact. There is corruption in every police force, but to completely remove any police force's base of operations will undoubtedly cause more harm than good. If the building's only importance was to house terrorists, they'd just find another building to plan their dirty deeds. The fact is, any country without any police is going to be rampant with crime and terrorism.
| quote: | | To bad... you have dozens and dozens of ceasefires offered by the Israelis who have shown if not 100% restraint, 90% |
I don't accept this interpretation of events. Almost every day I hear reports of more shootings in the West Bank. The Israeli Defence force havn't the draconian rules of engagement that hinder many Western Armies.
| quote: | | I'm sorry, is it just me? Or does every see you are not making any sense here? |
It's quite simple. These young suicide bombers weren't even alive in 1948, so it's pointless bringing up the past to justify actions 60 years later. Suicide bombers are angry at Israeli use of military force and occupation. You say that it was only retaliation to a previous suicide bombing. They say that that was only retaliation to previous shootings in the West Bank. And it just goes on and on. It's all excuses, made by both sides.
This debate really is getting quite lengthy, so I think we should really get down to the nitty gritty, and accept that each of us has a valid viewpoint and honourable intentions, because at the end of the day neither of us are right. We have the same ideals, we both want peace for the maximum amount of people, but we differ on the best means of getting it - you say that we need to occupy Palestine if need be, I say that the perpetrators of violence are on both sides, and for long term peace both must be stopped.
To get down to the nitty gritty, here is a summary of my thoughts:
I believe a full blown assault on Palestine would not be a wise move. This is probably the most volatile part of the world. You have a complex network of alliances and trading links between the arab states which in turn affect the whole of the oil-dependant world and affect hundreds of millions of lives in the vicinity. I believe that firstly, thousands of civilians would lose their lives in the fighting. Secondly, assuming Israel does occupy Palestine, that resentment would be widespread and would last for a very long time. I believe that given the extremity of emotions in Palestine, with people willing to blow themselves up for a cause, that their prime enemy would have one hell of a hard job policing them. In fact I would go so far as to say that to control them, they would have to excercise exceptionally harsh rules. After all, that guy across the road having a cigarette coud be plotting to blow up a government official's car next week in a suicide attack, but you don't know it and right now he is not doing anything wrong. Therefore, given the widespread resentment you'd have to employ exceptionally harsh rulings on everyone. This would be akin to the tactics of Saddam Hussein or the taliban, and I will never support such tactics. The draconian law enforcement would only serve to anger people further, requiring more harsh rulings.
Clearly, I do not accept that there is noone trying to do anything about the terrorist threat in Palestine. I believe that we need to bolster those that are, rather than dumping rifles into aynone's hand and hope they act like a good boy.
As you can see, I havn't the solutions, but I think to take one side, based only on assumptions and interpretations of veerry questionable evidence, is a risky manoeuvre. Personally, I will not be pressured into hastily "choosing a side" when little reliable evidence is floating about as to which side has real hopes for peace.
I think for long term peace, this is going to require outside intervention - certainly not American, it would appear they are too hated by even the average good and honest Palestinian citizen. 60 years of conflict would suggest that neither Israel nor Palestine has found a way of stopping the shooting.
I hope you can provide a similar summary of your expectations of an occupation and what it will achieve, so that at least we know where each other stand. |
|
|
| Inspector_Morse |
Don't hold your breath for Britain to take a stand, mind. We're too busy deciding which orifice of Bush's to stick our tongue in.
It seems a little naive to drop bombs on Palestinians while shouting "Come on you dumb bastards, overthrow him". It's much harder to revolt under fire. Serbian groups opposed to Milosevic were weakened by the Nato bombing of '99, while he was strengthened, and it took a further year or so to depose him. That was a campaign were, once again, we in the west were, basically, lied to, and the truth was quietly allowed to filter out a few months later.
The same process by which Arabs are fed propaganda that Isreal and America are populated by devils worthy of being blown up applies to us all. Our opinions are products of what we see and, for the most part, what we are told.
Evil bastard's comment about people retaliating meant, I think, that people are more likely to be motivated to fly a plane into a building or blow up a cafe by something they witness themselves than by a decades old grievance. The latter might piss them off, but it's the former that forges a terrorist. Northern Irish Catholics I know may be miffed about events such as Bloody Sunday, but since they happened before they were born, they're not involved with terrorism. But if it happened tomorrow, in their communities, there's a much stronger likelihood that they'd despair, and see violence as the last and only option available to them.
History does lie. Even if it didn't, it would never be a direct parallel, and so my Milosevic example is certainly not the only relevant one. But there is a reasonable, I think, theoretical framework for believing that a country under attack is more likely to unite under a leader, and this leader is more likely to be able to deride opponents, in a time of crisis, such as IDF tanks occupying Palestinian neighbourhoods. Witness President Bush, derided as an idiot by large sections of society pre-September 11th, whose approval rating soared after that atrocity. Did the people who opposed him previously say "See, look, Bush is bad for he brings destruction to us"? No, they had to shut up for a bit, since opposition at such a time was futile, and didn't appeal to the people thet purport to represent. And that's what a lot of it is about. Politicians must appeal to their followers, which is why it's very difficult for Arafat to publicly denounce the suicide bombings while Israel inflicts casualties on the Palestinians, and why Sharon comes out with hardline "Crush them!" talk, because it's hard to say "Now, now, let's be reasonable" while Israelis are dying and there are Israelis baying for blood.
But historical sources can paint an inaccurate picture, especially at the time of the event. Which is why the Voice of Palestine was, I gather, able to fan the flames of hatred which lead to atrocities committed against Israel, just as Western media can promote a "Crush them, ing crush the bastards, they're evil, they all hate us anyway, we know better and will show them how to live" mentality. And nothing helps a lie like a grain of truth, such as a terrorist bomb or an Israeli tank on your doorstep.
Some other people have hinted at why such "truth management" takes place on both sides, which I don't wish to bring in here. Just wanted to highlight the fact that it does. I've been "broadly in favour" of too many wars which have turned out to be bollocks to be "broadly in favour" of the one our country is now embroiled in in Afghanistan, and the wider "War on Terror", even though my initial instincts made me that way inclined. It's too early to say "What a top job we've done in Afghanistan, well done lads!", just as fifteen days is too short a time to say "They haven't stopped, so they never will". We were allowed to believe we'd knocked out the Taliban, taken them all to Cuba and were mopping up the country, yet 1700 Royal Marines are off to fight ... the Taliban. Seems like a rather large "mopping up" operation, though I suppose time will tell. It did for the Russians.
I'm rambilng now, and I haven't covered half of the inaccuracies, assumptions and quarter-truths that have poured onto here, but hey, who cares? It's only human life. Apologies for resorting to the generic quotation device, though hopefully it'll be more readable than actual ones, woven as it is into the body of the text. I was frustrated, and trying to provide some levity. |
|
|
| Inspector_Morse |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_bastard
I hope you can provide a similar summary of your expectations of an occupation and what it will achieve, so that at least we know where each other stand. |
Without, let's hope, resorting to quoting every last utterance of EB, as if by discrediting his comments you actually prove something.
Sorry to have a pop, Yoepus, but it's very difficult to read when you do that. |
|
|
| Inspector_Morse |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
All I know is that the status quo does not look good, and that no agreement what so ever can come while Arafat is in control. |
Sorry to break my own guidline, I'll make it only the one quotation.
Just wanted to take issue with this, since as far as I can see the statement is true, but only in so far as Israel will not agree to anything while Arafat is in control. Or is Arafat physically incapable of agreement? Pehaps so.
The use of the word 'control' was a little ambitious, but I'll let that go.
It's fun to patronise. Cheers, Yoepus. |
|
|
|
|
