Israel smears itself, just at the PA does. You can't build a wall keeping people from their land and then blow them up without smearing your own image.
If the Arab world is helping people to smuggle arms, they are doing a poor job of it. Then again, why are you comparing pistols with precision guided missles?
Sharon and GWB are war mongers. Arafat is a power hungry nut case surrounded by fanatics. If these wankers are in charge of resolving the issue, there can't be an end to the conflict. The media keeps reporting the death of every single person in Israel to the whole world and totally ignores the chaos on the other side. Is it because the media is owned by semites? Or is it because the rest of the world is in total peace and harmony and only the middle east conflict is important?
You offer simplistic causes for a fictional situation.
The media doesn't report on every death of a jew and ignore that palestinian side. One could argue the opposite actually. Regardless, you explaination for you faciful view, is that it's either a Jew controlled media or a non-realistic, blissful utopia that is causing the ignorance. Obviously, you put more stock in the Jew controlled media. Nice touch. You and bunge will get along well.
bunge: are accusations of worldwide jew controlled media enough for me to assume anti-semitism, or am I just crying wolf again...I know he didn't actually use the words 'hate' and 'jew', so maybe he really isn't
Tulkas, I am not racist. If you were to watch the mainstream international news channels, you would wonder why people need a body count from the west bank on a daily basis when they don't get coverage on local security problems that are more relevant to them? Again, if you go through the coverage shown internationally, it is biased. I agree that the terrorist tactics adopted by the Palestines is not civilised and it must be stopped and condemned. But there are better ways of doing it than publicising innocent victims while continuing to worsen the situation through military action. I don't see any need for Israel to come to an amicable solution. They are immune to international pressure and their buddies in the US of A veto any discussion that gives displeasure to Sharon.
Stop feeding Israel with arms and financial aid. It will force them to come to a compromise with the Palestines. Israel has no need for any amicable settlement with the Palestines as long as they have the upper hand. Neither Arafat nor Sharon wants peace.
Much too logical and effective to be even considered by anyone with real influence.
Tulkas, I am not racist. If you were to watch the mainstream international news channels, you would wonder why people need a body count from the west bank on a daily basis when they don't get coverage on local security problems that are more relevant to them? Again, if you go through the coverage shown internationally, it is biased. I agree that the terrorist tactics adopted by the Palestines is not civilised and it must be stopped and condemned. But there are better ways of doing it than publicising innocent victims while continuing to worsen the situation through military action. I don't see any need for Israel to come to an amicable solution. They are immune to international pressure and their buddies in the US of A veto any discussion that gives displeasure to Sharon.
If one were to accept your original premise, that being that Palestinian deaths are ignored by the media, while Jewish deaths are individually, even overly reported on, then one must wonder about your reasons given for the disparity of coverage. It couldn't be that people in the west relate more to the affects of terror targeting civilians, or that a bus blowing up, loaded with college kids has more 'sensationalistic' appeal to the media than the genarl chaos in the Palestinian areas. You imply that it must instead be credited to a worldwide jewish conspiracy or plot, through their worldwide control of mass media. You also mention another option, but only as a 'not really plausibe' fallback, automatically leading to an assuption of the first reason. The implication of a worldwide jewish conspiracy has it's roots in some of the most racist propaganda available. To say that spewing that sort of accusation isn't racist is a bit of a cop out. You stated your beliefs, now atleast stand up for them.
Much too logical and effective to be even considered by anyone with real influence.
Mainly, I think, because, logical as it may be, it would inevitably, lead to the destruction of the State of Israel. Besides, cutting off funding and arms wouldn't necissarily force Israel to negotiate differently with the Palestinians. They would still have superior forces, both in training and equipment. The only thing that would really change would be Israel's longterm vunerability to external forces. Something always convienently ignored when this topic comes up.
I think the inability of the PA to reconcile not having access to such and such holy sites simply underscores an equally pertinent religious obligation to eliminate all Jews off the face of the earth ("wipe them into the sea", as it has been said) that is irreconciliable. There can be no peace or agreement under these conditions until these nomadic Palestinians are utterly destroyed. Their own fellow Arabs in neighboring countries won't accept them, they are unable to negotiate a peaceful outcome amongst the international community, and they are unwilling to relinquish or moderate their existing "incompatible" idealogies, so that leaves them with few options. It's sad to say, but that is the bottomline. I don't expect they will come around on their idea to irradicate all Jews, so that leaves few options left. The fact that Israel (with their superior military resources) has not exercised the inevitable endgame in wiping out these "homeless" Palestinians (innocents and terrorists, alike) in one fell swoop, indicates to me which side is the real monster here.
Mainly, I think, because, logical as it may be, it would inevitably, lead to the destruction of the State of Israel.
First off, I don't agree with this assertion - mainly because Israel is a nuclear power with second-strike capabilities. So, a military defeat by any country but one of the other large-scale nuclear powers is inconceivable (OK, maybe Pakistan too).
That is, if an enemy force is not prepared to see their own country reduced to radioactive waste - and against an enemy like this, the US umbrella is not going to help.
However, if you (or the Israeli govt) believes that negociations do not bring any more stability or security, there is no real point in negociating at all, is there? Maybe the conflict needs to get that bloody and ugly that both sides run out of steam...
First off, I don't agree with this assertion - mainly because Israel is a nuclear power with second-strike capabilities. So, a military defeat by any country but one of the other large-scale nuclear powers is inconceivable (OK, maybe Pakistan too).
That is, if an enemy force is not prepared to see their own country reduced to radioactive waste - and against an enemy like this, the US umbrella is not going to help.
Depends on if they are willing to make that sacrifice, I guess. The population and leaders in the area aren't always known for well reasoned actions. Often, actions are based emotion and/or religion. One could argue that Israel has enough nukes to atack and therefore deter and small number of opponents. But, obviously, they lack the numbers to hit back and everyone with nukes, which would make attacking Israel, all out again, risky, but perhaps calculated.
Quote:
Originally posted by Smircle
However, if you (or the Israeli govt) believes that negociations do not bring any more stability or security, there is no real point in negociating at all, is there? Maybe the conflict needs to get that bloody and ugly that both sides run out of steam...
Who said there negotiations do not bring anything? I never, so I hope you aren't trying to put words on my mouth to argue against. However, I do think negotiations are they best way to solve the issue...but handicapping one side during negotiations would be unfair.
Depends on if they are willing to make that sacrifice, I guess. The population and leaders in the area aren't always known for well reasoned actions. Often, actions are based emotion and/or religion. One could argue that Israel has enough nukes to atack and therefore deter and small number of opponents. But, obviously, they lack the numbers to hit back and everyone with nukes, which would make attacking Israel, all out again, risky, but perhaps calculated.
Estimated numbers are 60 - 200 nukes and a stockpile of C-weapons of unknown size. Even with a 10% failure rate, this is enough to take out every major city in the region. I fail to see how you deter an "emotional leader" who is willing to sacrifice some 250mio people *at all*.
Quote:
However, I do think negotiations are they best way to solve the issue...but handicapping one side during negotiations would be unfair.
The very same could be said of favoring one side over the other for decades.
Maybe Israel could build some gas chambers to accellerate the process a bit?
Take a step back and think about what you just wrote. Please.
You don't like the implications, so you immediately rule out the obvious solution. Nor did I mention anything about gas chambers, so take your idea misrepresentations and shove it, please. Now if they carpet bombed them into oblivion, that would be the "proper" way (as far as "proper" can be applied to the matter) to exercise the "solution". You should give them due credit for NOT having done so to date. It is a war the Palestinians want, and the Palestinians are not equipped to do it properly. So their only proper options are to pledge unconditional peace or be destroyed. That is the way things work in the darkest depths of human civilization. It's not pretty to look at, but that is the bottomline. We are stuck in this prolonged situation because we wish to avoid that implication. So we pay dearly over the long run, instead of paying dearly once, but no more afterward.
Naturally, the Palestinians can make the better move and pledge unconditional peace, but we know they will never do this. So that leaves only one option remaining, and they have chosen it completely on their own. No one else can be blamed for that. No one is in a particularly good position to do "the deed", either, so we are stuck in this limbo indefinitely.
Tulkas, the fact is that there are far more (innocent) Palestinians being killed than Jews. Consistently. Always. That is a fact.
And the media does indeed report on every death of a Jew. Show me a single case where it hasn't.
This imaginary media bias is fuelled by your feeling that the media should NOT object to any murder of Palestinians because they're just getting what they deserve. How dare anyone object!
Yet there is a bias here. Where there is absolutely no one objecting to anyone who denounces say, a Palestinian blowing up a bus with crude home made explosives (those terrorists are truly evil), you have countless people objecting to people who denounce Israel for blasting innocent people in a neighborhood or camp with tank shells and missiles fired from attack helicopters. That, my friend, is why this argument persists.
In my opinion, all acts of violence should be condemned. In your opinion, they should only be condemned if it's a Jew who dies. Which one of us is one-sided here?
hmmm...nope, you did it again..putting words in my mouth.
I said only that the media may pay more attention to Israeli deaths because people in the west feel they are generally more familiar to Israelis than palestinians and that a bus with civilians blowing up has more sensationalism to it than deaths that occur in what is perceived as a war zone, civilian or not.
This is to say, I was arguing against statemnt that the coverage is oneside due to a worldwide control of the media by the jews, not that the coverage wasn't biased in one way or anyother..that wasn't the point at all.
Perhaps you would like to take a go at that..is there a worldwide jewish control of the media?
"crude home made explosives" like it's some grassroots effort. Try "professional made" and you'll have the truth. Not the fiction you push to mitigate the action.
But there is a widespread feeling that Jews are inherently victims, and many people, Jewish and not, pander to that sentiment.
I don't know many people that think they are inherently victims. But, I do know many that feel that is an ingrained, almost cultural hatred or at least bias against jews in many, many cultures.
Many people like to compare what happened to the jews in Europe to what happens against other groups today, but the comparison is limited at best. Palestinians are being killed in a disproportionate number. But, they are engaged in a protracted war over land. The jews in Europe were killed, not over land, but simply for being jews, in far greater numbers. The same sentiment that led to their persecution then is rasing it's head in many ways today...but many (not all) who spread that sentiment today, do so under the guise of being anti-Israel and not anti-Jew. So, while I don't think jews should feel like inherent victims, I do understand their feelings of vunerability and perhaps even a touch of paranoia, especially when they hear many of the same accusations today, ie. a jew controlled world-media, jew controlled world-government.
Oh, yeah, they came from the bomb belt factories...
They are assembled in shacks and apartments. Even if the people who make them have been doing it for years, they are still "home-made".
Not to imply that "home made" explosives are not effective. I mean look at the second largest ever terrorist act on US soil.
Well, you couldn't exactly call them amateur. They do more than make bombs as a hobby or pass time, and they certainly don't lack experience in many cases. Professional doesn't imply mass produced. It simply implies a certain level of competence, and certainly they have gained compotence. So, the term professional is appropriate, regardless of where they are actual applying their trade.
For those that haven't pulled the blinders off yet the bomb makers are trained in this skill. They are pros. They build the bombs and then find some patsy or dead ender to carry them over. Ever wonder why Hamas doesn't carry the bombs over themselves?
I used the word "crude". Debatable, but in comparison with Tomahawks, definitely true in a relative sense.
You are right, Scott used the word 'professional' first, and you then countered that claim with some sarcasm about them being built in factories and then a statement that they were homemade.
Looks like you are both right. They aren't mass produced in the industrial sense of the word, but I am sure they are pretty efficient with what they have. And while they are indeed often assembled in homes and appartments (and shops and garages) they are assembled by professionals, trained and practiced in their art.
It is a war the Palestinians want, and the Palestinians are not equipped to do it properly. So their only proper options are to pledge unconditional peace or be destroyed. That is the way things work in the darkest depths of human civilization. It's not pretty to look at, but that is the bottomline.
Fine by me, but then don't start bitching just because the other side blows up pregnant women or does target landings of 767 in skyscrapers.
You believe you can solve a conflict this serious by brute force, you are in for a nasty surprise - no military force whatsoever can "win" against terror.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
Israel smears itself, just at the PA does. You can't build a wall keeping people from their land and then blow them up without smearing your own image.
And yet people still make stuff up...wonder why?
Originally posted by talksense101
If the Arab world is helping people to smuggle arms, they are doing a poor job of it. Then again, why are you comparing pistols with precision guided missles?
Sharon and GWB are war mongers. Arafat is a power hungry nut case surrounded by fanatics. If these wankers are in charge of resolving the issue, there can't be an end to the conflict. The media keeps reporting the death of every single person in Israel to the whole world and totally ignores the chaos on the other side. Is it because the media is owned by semites? Or is it because the rest of the world is in total peace and harmony and only the middle east conflict is important?
You offer simplistic causes for a fictional situation.
The media doesn't report on every death of a jew and ignore that palestinian side. One could argue the opposite actually. Regardless, you explaination for you faciful view, is that it's either a Jew controlled media or a non-realistic, blissful utopia that is causing the ignorance. Obviously, you put more stock in the Jew controlled media. Nice touch. You and bunge will get along well.
bunge: are accusations of worldwide jew controlled media enough for me to assume anti-semitism, or am I just crying wolf again...I know he didn't actually use the words 'hate' and 'jew', so maybe he really isn't
Originally posted by talksense101
Stop feeding Israel with arms and financial aid. It will force them to come to a compromise with the Palestines. Israel has no need for any amicable settlement with the Palestines as long as they have the upper hand. Neither Arafat nor Sharon wants peace.
Much too logical and effective to be even considered by anyone with real influence.
Originally posted by talksense101
Tulkas, I am not racist. If you were to watch the mainstream international news channels, you would wonder why people need a body count from the west bank on a daily basis when they don't get coverage on local security problems that are more relevant to them? Again, if you go through the coverage shown internationally, it is biased. I agree that the terrorist tactics adopted by the Palestines is not civilised and it must be stopped and condemned. But there are better ways of doing it than publicising innocent victims while continuing to worsen the situation through military action. I don't see any need for Israel to come to an amicable solution. They are immune to international pressure and their buddies in the US of A veto any discussion that gives displeasure to Sharon.
If one were to accept your original premise, that being that Palestinian deaths are ignored by the media, while Jewish deaths are individually, even overly reported on, then one must wonder about your reasons given for the disparity of coverage. It couldn't be that people in the west relate more to the affects of terror targeting civilians, or that a bus blowing up, loaded with college kids has more 'sensationalistic' appeal to the media than the genarl chaos in the Palestinian areas. You imply that it must instead be credited to a worldwide jewish conspiracy or plot, through their worldwide control of mass media. You also mention another option, but only as a 'not really plausibe' fallback, automatically leading to an assuption of the first reason. The implication of a worldwide jewish conspiracy has it's roots in some of the most racist propaganda available. To say that spewing that sort of accusation isn't racist is a bit of a cop out. You stated your beliefs, now atleast stand up for them.
Originally posted by Smircle
Much too logical and effective to be even considered by anyone with real influence.
Mainly, I think, because, logical as it may be, it would inevitably, lead to the destruction of the State of Israel. Besides, cutting off funding and arms wouldn't necissarily force Israel to negotiate differently with the Palestinians. They would still have superior forces, both in training and equipment. The only thing that would really change would be Israel's longterm vunerability to external forces. Something always convienently ignored when this topic comes up.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Mainly, I think, because, logical as it may be, it would inevitably, lead to the destruction of the State of Israel.
First off, I don't agree with this assertion - mainly because Israel is a nuclear power with second-strike capabilities. So, a military defeat by any country but one of the other large-scale nuclear powers is inconceivable (OK, maybe Pakistan too).
That is, if an enemy force is not prepared to see their own country reduced to radioactive waste - and against an enemy like this, the US umbrella is not going to help.
However, if you (or the Israeli govt) believes that negociations do not bring any more stability or security, there is no real point in negociating at all, is there? Maybe the conflict needs to get that bloody and ugly that both sides run out of steam...
Originally posted by Randycat99
There can be no peace or agreement under these conditions until these nomadic Palestinians are utterly destroyed.
Maybe Israel could build some gas chambers to accellerate the process a bit?
Take a step back and think about what you just wrote. Please.
Originally posted by Smircle
First off, I don't agree with this assertion - mainly because Israel is a nuclear power with second-strike capabilities. So, a military defeat by any country but one of the other large-scale nuclear powers is inconceivable (OK, maybe Pakistan too).
That is, if an enemy force is not prepared to see their own country reduced to radioactive waste - and against an enemy like this, the US umbrella is not going to help.
Depends on if they are willing to make that sacrifice, I guess. The population and leaders in the area aren't always known for well reasoned actions. Often, actions are based emotion and/or religion. One could argue that Israel has enough nukes to atack and therefore deter and small number of opponents. But, obviously, they lack the numbers to hit back and everyone with nukes, which would make attacking Israel, all out again, risky, but perhaps calculated.
Originally posted by Smircle
However, if you (or the Israeli govt) believes that negociations do not bring any more stability or security, there is no real point in negociating at all, is there? Maybe the conflict needs to get that bloody and ugly that both sides run out of steam...
Who said there negotiations do not bring anything? I never, so I hope you aren't trying to put words on my mouth to argue against. However, I do think negotiations are they best way to solve the issue...but handicapping one side during negotiations would be unfair.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Depends on if they are willing to make that sacrifice, I guess. The population and leaders in the area aren't always known for well reasoned actions. Often, actions are based emotion and/or religion. One could argue that Israel has enough nukes to atack and therefore deter and small number of opponents. But, obviously, they lack the numbers to hit back and everyone with nukes, which would make attacking Israel, all out again, risky, but perhaps calculated.
Estimated numbers are 60 - 200 nukes and a stockpile of C-weapons of unknown size. Even with a 10% failure rate, this is enough to take out every major city in the region. I fail to see how you deter an "emotional leader" who is willing to sacrifice some 250mio people *at all*.
However, I do think negotiations are they best way to solve the issue...but handicapping one side during negotiations would be unfair.
The very same could be said of favoring one side over the other for decades.
Originally posted by Smircle
Maybe Israel could build some gas chambers to accellerate the process a bit?
Take a step back and think about what you just wrote. Please.
You don't like the implications, so you immediately rule out the obvious solution. Nor did I mention anything about gas chambers, so take your idea misrepresentations and shove it, please. Now if they carpet bombed them into oblivion, that would be the "proper" way (as far as "proper" can be applied to the matter) to exercise the "solution". You should give them due credit for NOT having done so to date. It is a war the Palestinians want, and the Palestinians are not equipped to do it properly. So their only proper options are to pledge unconditional peace or be destroyed. That is the way things work in the darkest depths of human civilization. It's not pretty to look at, but that is the bottomline. We are stuck in this prolonged situation because we wish to avoid that implication. So we pay dearly over the long run, instead of paying dearly once, but no more afterward.
Naturally, the Palestinians can make the better move and pledge unconditional peace, but we know they will never do this. So that leaves only one option remaining, and they have chosen it completely on their own. No one else can be blamed for that. No one is in a particularly good position to do "the deed", either, so we are stuck in this limbo indefinitely.
Originally posted by tonton
Tulkas, the fact is that there are far more (innocent) Palestinians being killed than Jews. Consistently. Always. That is a fact.
And the media does indeed report on every death of a Jew. Show me a single case where it hasn't.
This imaginary media bias is fuelled by your feeling that the media should NOT object to any murder of Palestinians because they're just getting what they deserve. How dare anyone object!
Yet there is a bias here. Where there is absolutely no one objecting to anyone who denounces say, a Palestinian blowing up a bus with crude home made explosives (those terrorists are truly evil), you have countless people objecting to people who denounce Israel for blasting innocent people in a neighborhood or camp with tank shells and missiles fired from attack helicopters. That, my friend, is why this argument persists.
In my opinion, all acts of violence should be condemned. In your opinion, they should only be condemned if it's a Jew who dies. Which one of us is one-sided here?
hmmm...nope, you did it again..putting words in my mouth.
I said only that the media may pay more attention to Israeli deaths because people in the west feel they are generally more familiar to Israelis than palestinians and that a bus with civilians blowing up has more sensationalism to it than deaths that occur in what is perceived as a war zone, civilian or not.
This is to say, I was arguing against statemnt that the coverage is oneside due to a worldwide control of the media by the jews, not that the coverage wasn't biased in one way or anyother..that wasn't the point at all.
Perhaps you would like to take a go at that..is there a worldwide jewish control of the media?
Originally posted by tonton
But there is a widespread feeling that Jews are inherently victims, and many people, Jewish and not, pander to that sentiment.
I don't know many people that think they are inherently victims. But, I do know many that feel that is an ingrained, almost cultural hatred or at least bias against jews in many, many cultures.
Many people like to compare what happened to the jews in Europe to what happens against other groups today, but the comparison is limited at best. Palestinians are being killed in a disproportionate number. But, they are engaged in a protracted war over land. The jews in Europe were killed, not over land, but simply for being jews, in far greater numbers. The same sentiment that led to their persecution then is rasing it's head in many ways today...but many (not all) who spread that sentiment today, do so under the guise of being anti-Israel and not anti-Jew. So, while I don't think jews should feel like inherent victims, I do understand their feelings of vunerability and perhaps even a touch of paranoia, especially when they hear many of the same accusations today, ie. a jew controlled world-media, jew controlled world-government.
Originally posted by tonton
Oh, yeah, they came from the bomb belt factories...
They are assembled in shacks and apartments. Even if the people who make them have been doing it for years, they are still "home-made".
Not to imply that "home made" explosives are not effective. I mean look at the second largest ever terrorist act on US soil.
Well, you couldn't exactly call them amateur. They do more than make bombs as a hobby or pass time, and they certainly don't lack experience in many cases. Professional doesn't imply mass produced. It simply implies a certain level of competence, and certainly they have gained compotence. So, the term professional is appropriate, regardless of where they are actual applying their trade.
Originally posted by tonton
Read again. Who used the term professional?
I used the word "home-made". Check.
I used the word "crude". Debatable, but in comparison with Tomahawks, definitely true in a relative sense.
You are right, Scott used the word 'professional' first, and you then countered that claim with some sarcasm about them being built in factories and then a statement that they were homemade.
Looks like you are both right. They aren't mass produced in the industrial sense of the word, but I am sure they are pretty efficient with what they have. And while they are indeed often assembled in homes and appartments (and shops and garages) they are assembled by professionals, trained and practiced in their art.
Originally posted by Randycat99
It is a war the Palestinians want, and the Palestinians are not equipped to do it properly. So their only proper options are to pledge unconditional peace or be destroyed. That is the way things work in the darkest depths of human civilization. It's not pretty to look at, but that is the bottomline.
Fine by me, but then don't start bitching just because the other side blows up pregnant women or does target landings of 767 in skyscrapers.
You believe you can solve a conflict this serious by brute force, you are in for a nasty surprise - no military force whatsoever can "win" against terror.