The Middle East part 2

[mp_phonix 0]

How did the 8 soldier were killed in Lebanon Today ?

2 in the ambush on the HMMV jeeps, another 2 were kidnhapped

4 - a whole tank crew,  killed by a side charge that has been placed for the chansing forces that will try to chase the kidnhappers

2 - A sniper waited near the destroyed tank, shot 2 soldier that were trying to extract the bodies

And guess what ? I know exactly what bernadotte is going to reply on this . .just wait and see, somt that happend about a month ago . .

[Nemesis6 0]

The fact that they thought the guy was forced made them upset, very upset, because that was what jews experienced during WWII.

Don't pretend you know how Jews or Israelis react. You don't. And don't tell us why they react as they do when you're clearly just making up shit to support your outrageous comparison of Israeli treatment of possible terrorists to the killing of over 6 million Jews during WW2. But I sense a subtle critique of Israel's checkpoints among what you're saying. Checkpoints are a neccesary evil. Why are they neccesary? Because the Palestinians are very eager indeed to send suicide bombers, be they children or adults, to blow up Israelis or Jews in general. The fact that the Palestinian government is two terror groups doesn't really help. The soldiers probably want to cut those guys in the checkpoint some slack, because almost everyone crossing through is a civilian. Now, what happens when, say, they cut them some slack and just see if they can't find a way to get someone through that, in one case, had a metal hip(as I recall) - The metal detectors goes off. The person in question, a woman, pled them to let her through because she had a metal hip. They took her to be examined, and when they get close... Well, it resulted in some poor Zaka guy having to clean up blood, gore, and limbs.

Meanwhile, in Gaza and Lebanon, people are celebrating.

[Garcia 0]

And again you haven't paid attention. And you guys claim others don't read post properly

Quote[/b] ]And don't tell us why they react as they do when you're clearly just making up shit to support your outrageous comparison of Israeli treatment of possible terrorists to the killing of over 6 million Jews during WW2.

Seriously, you're blasting out so much bullshit about something that never happened.

1: Nobody ever compared Israeli treatment to WWII treatment of jews. It was a statement that mp_phonix made which was compared to WWII.

2: I never did the comparison, it was Bernadotte.

And tell me what, if the violin thing was no big deal, why did they investigate it?

Quote[/b] ]But I sense a subtle critique of Israel's checkpoints among what you're saying.

Obviously you sence a lot of strange BS. I've never said anything about checkpoints. I'm just trying to force the meaning of Bernadottes post into your heads, because you guys just seem to misunderstand every single post made here which says anything else than "Go Israel", and then you twist it into some plain BS and claim people said something they never did. Soon Bernadotte is Hitlers offspring because he said "happy holiday"...

[Nemesis6 0]

1: Nobody ever compared Israeli treatment to WWII treatment of jews. It was a statement that mp_phonix made which was compared to WWII.

2: I never did the comparison, it was Bernadotte.

And tell me what, if the violin thing was no big deal, why did they investigate it?

Quote[/b] ]But I sense a subtle critique of Israel's checkpoints among what you're saying.

Obviously you sence a lot of strange BS. I've never said anything about checkpoints. I'm just trying to force the meaning of Bernadottes post into your heads, because you guys just seem to misunderstand every single post made here which says anything else than "Go Israel", and then you twist it into some plain BS and claim people said something they never did. Soon Bernadotte is Hitlers offspring because he said "happy holiday"...

#1 - Bernadotte brung up that picture and compared it to something that happened during the holocaust.

#2 - see first first five words of #1

The reason I'm talking about checkpoints is because that's where it happened, and reality needed to be presented, along with an example of what would happen if one was to follow EU or the U.N's proposed way of handling checkpoints... And that example had already happened, FYI. Come to think of it, both of those would have the checkpoints removed...

But let me see if I can turn this around - Hmm, Jewish violinists... Palestinian violinists, couldn't be... you're saying... One flaw - The man was not forced to do anything, unlike the Jewish ones during WW2 if that's what you mean. And the place you got that picture from is as far away from reality as you are. It, like you, believes that the man was forced even though it has been proven that he wasn't.

[Jinef 2]

Christ, where did Avon go? At least she was actually entertaining in her debates. I was an Anti Semetic, Jew Hating Terrorist Sympathiser. These debates are just boring.

Come on, start slagging each other off!

Btw, I see little real comparisons to the events of the 1940s and today. In the 40s it was pure genocide, today it is border disputes leading to terrorist acts, a rebel movement and an occupying army.

Is it really too fucking hard to just withdraw the Israeli settlements and form a state of Palestine? Why is that not feasible?

[Nemesis6 0]

By the way, Bernadotte - I noticed that you're really just repeating what the website that brought that picture said. You don't form arguments, you just repeat you read. You can't argue against me on that one. That's what you did and I have proof, so don't try to go around the subject there.

That doesn't qualify as discussion in my opinion.

By the way, Jinef, you make 'rebel' sound so noble. Only problem is - There's a difference between a 'rebel' and a terrorist.

[Jinef 2]

Are you completely moronic?

I said:

Quote[/b] ]terrorist acts, a rebel movement and an occupying army.

In English, this means that I acknowledge there are terrorist acts commited by Palestinian factions.

However, that does not void the fact that there have been actions directed solely at military target that are occupying Palestinian territory, indicating a rebel movement.

Do not argue semantics with me mate, you'll lose.

[Nemesis6 0]

Terrorist acts performed by a 'rebel movement'... It's obvious where your sympathies lie when you call murderers rebels. It's also obvious that you have quite a temper when people say something you don't agree with, judging by your opening sentence.

[echo1 0]

By the way, Jinef, you make 'rebel' sound so noble. Only problem is - There's a difference between a 'rebel' and a terrorist.

Your opinions? One mans terrorist is one man's freedom fighter, now, I dont support Suicide Bombers killing civilians, but then again, the Israeli army has done some bad shit too

[Jinef 2]

I do indeed have quite a temper.

What usually sets off my temper is insurance companies, politicians and when people openly endorse violence and killing.

I myself do not like the idea of killing people, strange in our society, and especially on these forums, I know. However I was socialised to believe that violence rarely solves problems, it just establishes dominance and delays any solution. If it was not for people like you there would be a far happier middle east than there is today. Your mindset enables violence and killing to occur. It is a callous and ignorant mindset that justifies violence with an idealic 'greater good'. I do not blame you for your mindset, it is a strong part of western society; a society founded off violence and dominance.

Here is some basic comprehension. Please quote whatever source you like in answering my questions, as long as they are relevant.

QUESTION 1: Why is a Palestinian state with secure borders not feasable?

QUESTION 2: Do you feel your attitudes to the conflict will help resolve the conflict in due course?

Edit: Removed superfluous and ill-written question.

[Jinef 2]

I will make this very clear so there is no contention.

My sympathies lie with the dead, and their living relatives.

Some basic definitions:

My = Me, Myself And I.

Lie = To align with one entity.

The Dead = Dead people, of any race, religion or nationality.

Living = The opposite of dead.

[SPQR 0]

I will make this very clear so there is no contention.

My sympathies lie with the dead, and their living relatives.

Some basic definitions:

My = Me, Myself And I.

Lie = To align with one entity.

The Dead = Dead people, of any race, religion or nationality.

Living = The opposite of dead.

Be more carefull, some people could understand that :

"My sympathies for the suicide bombers and their relatives, and despising the israelian woundeds"

[Nemesis6 0]

Why do you like violence and killing?

Here is some basic comprehension. Please quote whatever source you like in answering my questions, as long as they are relevant.

QUESTION 1: Why is a Palestinian state with secure borders not feasable?

QUESTION 2: Do you feel your attitudes to the conflict will help resolve the conflict in due course?

But you do blame me for my "mindset" since you believe I like violence and killing, which I find disgusting of you to assume.

But I'll answer your questions -

#1 - Because, all throughout history, what has been known as "Palestine", have been nothing more than a proxy for Arab aggresion against Israel. The Arabs themselves have had plenty of chances to create a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. Jordan, Syria, and Egypt have historically proven that they do not care about the Palestinians, as they have throughout several wars launched against Israel never even thought about creating a Palestinian state. Instead, all of them have gobbled up land that was originally "Palestinian" by defination. Jordan did it, Egypt did, and Syria did it. But let's move away from the faults of their fellow Arabs. Why can't they do it themselves? Because peace isn't what they're after. Palestine is. Now this is the point where it gets historical - The British actually DID make a Palestinian state. It was first called Trans-Jordan. Then, when they got East Jerusalem, the name was changed to Jordan. This page provides a detailed historical account from before 1923 to 1982, and even before that.

#2 - I believe it already has. Would Israel follow the U.N and the EU's advices, Israel would be destroyed. To me, the U.N is nothing more than a proxy for, among some things, aggression that the Arabs have found out is hard to carry out physically. So they take out politically under the guise of, for example "human rights abuse". Israel is fighting terrorists with a terrorist government that have full-out declared that they do not recognize Israel and they that they won't in the future, either. Killing the terrorists is the only viable option left.

[Jinef 2]

I apologise for accusing you of such a thing. That question was left in the post accidentally and was out of context. I removed it while you were replying to it.

Good answers, standby while I come up with some reply.

[Jinef 2]

#1

Your argument is based in truths however you disregard several important events and opinions. I cannot agree with the history portrayed by your source.

I offer this site for further reading. It's axis is fairly neutral, advocating neither Israel nor Palestine, and portraying them as both in the wrong, if anything.

From the media sources I receive and my understanding of humanity, I do not see how the majority of Palestinians if given the choice of living under peace, or live under warfare; would choose warfare. I know you will disagree, however without being there and talking to them, and without relying on heavily biased media sources, the logical approach is to agree that like any other body of people the Palestinians want peace.

#2

It is quite futile using hypothetical statements in a debate. It just delays the opponent as they have to create a response like this:

"If the British Empire had the SA-80 rifle 300 years ago then potatoes would cost $6 each!"

Seriously, the UN has proved itself quite useful in many places throughout the world. It is to be far improved for sure, however it is on the right track. As for the middle east, it is quite impotent. Israel is too powerful a world player to let a democratic organisation like the UN to meddle in it's affairs too much. Just like the United States.

Quote[/b] ]Killing the terrorists is the only viable option left.

I am afraid that is a truly horrific option. Goverments tackling terrorism (Nice alliteration huh, I should be a speech writer) around the world have found time and time again that when you kill one terrorist, 2 replace him/her. It creates an exponential growth in support for the terrorist's cause and on a large scale the only way to stop it is to kill everyone.

This is why in the classic military victories of old, like Troy, Babylon etc. The attacker once inside the city would kill every single male, then rape and kill many women, and chuck the babies down the wells. Fantastic strategy, unfortunately not viable in today's world.

QUESTION 3: Do you see the fundamental problem in killing every single terrorist?

QUESTION 4: How long do you think Israel can support the current level of occupation?

Edit: It took me an hour, on and off, to write this. Pitiful. Yet an indicator of reading time and thought processes.

[Nemesis6 0]

QUESTION 3: Do you see the fundamental problem in killing every single terrorist?

QUESTION 4: How long do you think Israel can support the current level of occupation?

About the website you referred to: A lot of sections, but I saw one initial thing that I didn't like: It referred to Abu Mazen as a moderate. He's not.

#3 - There are a lot of them and they keep coming thanks to wonderful countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria(AKA: The Insugent Hub), Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc, all those lovely Islamic countries where they even persecute themselves - Like the Ahmadiyas in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

#4 -If you mean the occupation of the West Bank, I don't know. But I think it's fair that Israel keeps part of it.

By the way: Tell me what you disagree with in the source I cited.

[Bernadotte 0]

By the way, Bernadotte - I noticed that you're really just repeating what the website that brought that picture said.

I remember the Israeli reaction to the violinist incident very well.  And as Garcia stated, it was controversial enough in Israel that the IDF investigated it.  You've provided all the evidence we need on that point, thanks.  

You can't argue against me on that one. That's what you did and I have proof, so don't try to go around the subject there.

No need.   Thanks again for the proof.  

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I am so gonna nail you on that one. Where to start...?

Ok, first, the IDF did not ask that man to play his violin. The IDF initially claimed that they got the man to play the violin, to verify that it didn't contain explosives. Remember the Sbarros pizzeria bombing of 2001? The terrorist who carried out that attack used a guitar case for transporting the bomb. They did not force him. He did so on his on accord. Check the IDF's report for yourself - http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=23001

Nailed.

Looking forward to my weekly Zionist cheque, as always!

Just judging by logic

As mentioned a man can hide a bomb in a guitar box, but to hide explosives inside a violin is probably a bit too complicated. The body shape is uneven, space is very limited and there is a big see through hole in a the middle! Consequently you wouldnt have to play it order to see whether it is filled or not, you would simply have to lift it up, shake it or just look inside through the hole in the middle. Job done, next one in line!

Comparing it with events in Concentration Camps is a bit far but it certainly is meant to discriminate. BUT, maybe the guy was asked to play out of yoke and he agreed! After all the media was present!

Quote[/b] ]

QUESTION 3: Do you see the fundamental problem in killing every single terrorist?

I dont understand why the Israelis are so resistant to this question. In all the years they should have learned just one thing: Terorism is a Hydra!

[Bernadotte 0]

This page provides a detailed historical account from before 1923 to 1982, and even before that.

From your reference:  "However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then nor now."  It's like the author has rewritten Mein Kampf and substituted Jew with Arab.

You seem to like references with lots of colours and pictures, so here are a few more...

 

Shortly after this map of Palestine was compiled the State of Israel was founded (1948) and would extend across 78% of the territory within 3 years.  Not only that, but when the dust settled in 1949 Jews made up a majority of the population in that 78%.  Needless to say, one of the UN's first agencies was founded; UNRWA dedicated to the care of Palestinian refugees until they would be allowed to return home.

Israel is fighting terrorists with a terrorist government that have full-out declared that they do not recognize Israel and they that they won't in the future, either. Killing the terrorists is the only viable option left.

Have you ever heard of Abu Shanab?

- One of top 5 leaders in political wing of Hamas;

- American educated;

- Negotiated/signed ceasefire of summer 2003.

In June 2003, he said:

Quote[/b] ]<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>"Israel is too strong to defeat and the Palestinians have no choice but to live with the Jewish state in peace.  Let us be frank. We cannot destroy Israel. The practical solution is for us to have a state alongside Israel."  -- Abu Shanab</span>

When I read that statement I actually started wondering how long it would be before Hamas would kill him.  And indeed, just 2 months later, he was dead.

...Killed when up to 5 Israeli missiles hit his car.  The journalist who had interviewed him in June, later mentioned that everyone knew where Abu Shanab lived; his home was unguarded and, when the journalist visited there, Shanab's 5 year-old daughter had answered the door.  Little wonder that today's Hamas members don't recognise Israel considering how Israel has treated those who did.

[mp_phonix 0]

I think some ppl here that watched occupation 101 to much times . .

[Messiah 2]

Israel ups the stakes against Lebanon... hell, while they're at it, why not attack Iran and Syria

BBC

Blockades on shipping, air travel, missile strikes on transport routes... much as I agree that Israel has the right to defend itself (note i say agree to the right, not to how they're going about it), isnt this all at risk at destabalising the middle east to the point of all out war?

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]#1 - Bernadotte brung up that picture and compared it to something that happened during the holocaust.

Yes, but it was brought up to remind mp_phonix of how strongly Israelis reacted to something that reminded partly to WWII treatment of jews by the nazis. It was never meant to be a comparison of IDF actions to nazi actions, just to show how easy Israelis seem to have to think back on holocaust (which they should), so mp_phonix could have a easier time to understand why Bernadotte brought up genocide when mp_phonix stated he wanted to bomb/burn Gaza and Lebanon.

Quote[/b] ]But let me see if I can turn this around - Hmm, Jewish violinists... Palestinian violinists, couldn't be... you're saying... One flaw - The man was not forced to do anything, unlike the Jewish ones during WW2 if that's what you mean. And the place you got that picture from is as far away from reality as you are. It, like you, believes that the man was forced even though it has been proven that he wasn't.

Just to point it out again, it wasn't the action of the IDF soldier that's important, it's the reaction of the Israeli people, and since your source is the results of a investigation, it cerainly looks like the Israeli people had strong reactions. Wether the guy was forced or not isn't really important in this case, since the point wasn't to show how bad IDF is.

Quote[/b] ]#2 - I believe it already has. Would Israel follow the U.N and the EU's advices, Israel would be destroyed.

Honestly, I don't think Israel would be destroyed. Why?

1: Israel is (or at least was not many years ago) the 4th strongest military power in the world.

2: They have the strongest military power in their back (USA).

(3: USA would probably manage to drag in some other countries, especially UK.)

When looking at 1. & 2., how would they lose? I mean, if you combine the strenght of all the countries bordering to Israel, they would still be weak compared to USA & Israel. And I really doubt USA would sit and watch Israel being under massive attack, seeing that USA have Israel on their budget.

[mp_phonix 0]

Bush talks about the situation in Lebanon {video - israeli news site "Walla!"}:

http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//939933

[Messiah 2]

(3: USA would probably manage to drag in some other countries, especially UK.)

doubtful given recent climates, failings, and the falling popularity of being the US's lapdog... we'd need a bloody good reason to go into Israel again, whatever the circumstances.

[Garcia 0]

(3: USA would probably manage to drag in some other countries, especially UK.)

doubtful given recent climates, failings, and the falling popularity of being the US's lapdog... we'd need a bloody good reason to go into Israel again, whatever the circumstances.

That's why I added the () UK seem to be drawn into USAs wars all the time, but I've noticed that the british population don't really support the british involment in USAs wars much anymore.