Gee, I'm tired.......too tired to deal with replying to you LDD. However......refreshed....my mind with be at 100% efficiency and the Queen's English, with be used with full force.......and here I was being mildly humorous.......yawn. Nite.
Printable View
Gee, I'm tired.......too tired to deal with replying to you LDD. However......refreshed....my mind with be at 100% efficiency and the Queen's English, with be used with full force.......and here I was being mildly humorous.......yawn. Nite.
Democracy, in and of itself, is no guarantee of freedom. Dictators and regimes know full well how to run a nation that has only known dictatorial control into voting to restore it. Part of that problem is that pure democracy is a terrible way to run things, almost worse than a dictatorship, and usually guaranteed to result in one eventually.
Representative democracy, however, is the best way to do things IF you want to prevent the oppression of the majority over the minority, and prevent the voting in of regimes who will take that 'mandate' and turn around and take away the freedoms democracy is intended to bestow.
Just because Gaza voted in Hamas does not mean we have a free democracy. In fact, the first order of business was to execute anyone associated with the losing faction. But don't let that stop you from declaring it a victory for democracy, President Carter.
Pasa
lol.... did I mention that I do not believe that freedom exists ????:tong:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2
I believe that there is not freedom as we like to see freedom.....and that freedom on the level that many want it, is actually dangerous to the average human.....
in order for the human race and cultures to survive, they need to create and have boundaries that curb actions and words, to stop themselves imploding
a example is the fact that we are free to vote for a government, and free to choose to vote or not.... but we are limited by the people that we can vote for, and in turn they are limited in what they can and will do for the people that voted them in
Was the voting in of Hamas the same as the voting in of Hitler i.e. by people who were desparate to have their voices heard and who had been oppressed under the then existing system?
In many respects both the Germans and Palestinians would not just accept their fate decided by a neighbour.
In the interwar years, there were French raiding parties into SW Germany looting in the name of reparations while hiding behind the Maginot Line; at the end of WW1, the Germans had accepted peace through armistice not surrender.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Cynic.
There is of course the argument that democratization is the ameliration of mob rule and that it prevents the odd lynching of the overbearing. However, so long as there is deposing via the ballot box there is no need for such extremism. We substitute shame for murder for so long as it works e.g. Mussolini. It does seem to work reasonably well.
The greater number of western democratically elected govenrments do not withhold human rights. Rather the opposite tends to be true and our societies tend to be more progressive and 'understading'. Now when it comes to 'democracy' in e.g. parts of Africa, S.America and the far east, well that does tend to have an unusual flavour.
.
not a cynic.... I just hate politicians and politics lol
honestly based around a centuries long overview.... in my opinion, we have taken 2000 years of going backwards under the illusion of going forwards, to almost be back where we started.....
originally, you fucked who you want ( in the bed and on the war fields ) but generally you were allowed to be who you were.....then we added politics, lol.....
2000 years later, we are finally starting to reach the point where you can be who you are ( lgbt rights ) and we are going backwards again, as groups fight for their rights and seek to have their way accepted while infringing on the rights of others.....something that counters equal rights....
( in nz, in auckland, our biggest city, the celebration of xmas in the city streets by way of xmas decorations and lights, has been stopped as its offensive to muslims, tho its a big part of christian / non christian celebrations )
I tend to view changes in society as the same, but instead of war, we have peaceful conquering, as diversity comes to the forefront....and under the guise of equal rights, many groups lose their individuality.....
the voting in of hitler and hamas is no different to the electing of bush and obama...... they all speak a message that gets attention..... ( or they use other means ).....
thats democracy at work......
I am gonna say something thats gonna sound very bad indeed....
in NZ, it took a atheist childless woman that did not believe in marriage ( she married cos it was considered a good look politicially ), to get nz LGBT the right to marriage......
most of the nz government argued against the lgbt having rights.....
the female called helen clark, was head of the labour party, refered to as the *communist * party in nz.. and regarded as a dictatorship type government ....as they will look after themselves first and screw nz over ...( in fact they did that, its estimated that it will be 2025 before nz gets out of the shit from 9 years of a labour led government.....)
thats why I said that in some cases a dictatorship style can at times, be better than a democracy
I find it interesting that the people who put forth an argument about whether a society is a democracy frequently refer to "true" (or direct) democracy as a beacon. Apparently, there are many types of democracy and determining who may vote is a factor. Now, in contemporary democratic countries we are referring to forms of "representational" democracy and rarely this "true" democracy that some (very few) get hung up on. There is the last to the post type of democracy where the number of votes per riding determine which candidate will represent that riding in a government. Another type involves not only electing members per riding but factoring in the total number of votes cast per political party and then allotting the remainder of seats based on the the percentage cast by all per political party. It might be argued that is "true" democracy rather than direct democracy. Other forms of democracy determine who may vote as a citizen. Land ownership may come into play or voting by hereditary forms of democracy. We could go on but why?
It seems to me that this argument about whether a country is a democracy is used by those who wish to nullify the votes cast by citizens. The fact is that Gazan's decided to have Hammas as their government. I've seen documentaries where this has been discussed and it is seems that some voted for Hammas as a reaction to Fatta. They voted in a protest vote. This has happened in many democratic countries. The outcome is a surprise when the protest votes bring in a very different and radical party compared to the voting history of the people. Some might say oh they didn't really want that party to win. That does not nullify the results though unless some forms of voting corruption has happened. As far as I can tell, Hammas is a more legitimately democratically elected government than the Karzai government in Afghanistan.
Hammas won democratically. Stop whining and using your distrust of Hammas to excuse your bigotry about arguing whether the Gaza government is a democratic government. Now, get back to the ethics of Israel's actions in this particular situation.
Well, let's see who brought up the fact that Hamas was democratically elected in Gaza... oh yeah, Tenni.
There is no bigotry, they are terrorists. I have openly stated I support Israel, not because I'm an American, but because of their history. I do not believe any group should be systemically wiped off this earth. People offer solutions that they should just move, move where? It's their home. They have the right to defend it. It's easy for people who sit safe and sound in lands that war never touches to spout off their hypocritical bs. Bottom line, until you are living there and living with the fear each day that you are going to watch your children die you have no right to sit and point fingers. But if it makes you feel better to spout your political drivel, then by all means do so. That's what free speech is about.
the ethics of israel ????
lmao.... we are at a impasse......
I see a humanitarian aid mission..... on ships..... I see israel with a blockade
I see the ships sailing under the rule of aid..... I see israel told them to waylay
the ships chose not to stop under the guidelines of international aid laws...
I see israel boarded the ships in order to stop them... I see protestors attacking the soldiers.... I see the soldiers reacting.... and I see death
people can argue it all they want....... they are the simple facts.....
you can add in all the morals and ethics and personal opinions til the cows come home..... and argue pro or anti israel...... or pro or anti the protestors....
at the end of the day, the ships sailing under the rule of international aid laws, had a obligation to stop, regardless of what country they were sailing under or who they thought they were or if the blockade was legal or not....
the international aid laws stated that the ship should have stopped.....
they chose not to.......
if they had waylaid as requested, nobody would have died...... blaming israel for a illegal blockade yadda yadda.... doesn't change the fact that a ship sailing under international aid laws, chose to ignore the directive to stop
btw did I forget to add that the transportation and distribution of aid for a foreign country, is supposed to be done by a international recognized aid relief group, like the red cross...... thats also part of the international aid law..... so thats two aid laws that the protesters ignored.....
now I am not anti protestors..... but I am anti idiots that ignore the very laws that protect them and keep them alive.....
Lessee Tenni, you brought up the idea of democratically elected government. So, it is a fair point of debate, which you now object to. In the courts that's called opening up the door, and your objection would be overruled.
BTW, the phrase 'True Democracy' has a very specific definition: that every person gets a vote. That there is no filter at all to prevent the oppression of the majority.
@Heph not similar to Hitler. He was elected to a representative democracy and then lied to the people. That's different, subtly so, but different. What I'm talking about is things like Hamas being elected in Gaza, the government in Darfur being 'elected', Hugo Chavez being 'elected', hell, even Saddam was 'elected.' When people, especially passionate people who, as Tenni pointed out, have been oppressed vote they do not always vote in their actual best interests, but in how they perceive them at the time.
If Hamas had said "vote for us and we'll kill ever Fatta member we can find" I don't think they would have been elected. Then again, they might have. Who knows. It's not like Palestine has any peaceful political organizations.
Pasa
Pasa & Darling (maybe DD...to go with LDD..lol)
As an American, myself, more specifically Canadian citizen of North American as opposed to a United States citizen of North America, I agree that I brought up Hammas as being democratically elected. To go off on a tangent about what a democracy is is not appropriate to this thread. Simply stated the Gazan people voted in this political party through appropriate procedures. Their government should be acknowledged as legitmately speaking for them. I personally, disagree with the Harper Conservatives representing me as my government as much as some of you want to see what you refer to as a terrorist group (Hammas) as a legitimate government. The Harper Conservatives are my government until voted out or a coalition kicks them out of government because the coalition has more seats in Parliament..(PLEASE...lol) The same applies to Hammas as the legitmately elected government of Gaza. Fatta is the legitimate government of Palestine.
Back to Hammas as the "true" democratically elected government of Gaza, the point is that it needs to be acknowledged. We may not like the terrorist activities that this group has done but they were democratically elected. It certainly is a mess though. I believe that my government has Hammas listed as a terrorist group but what do you do if such a group becomes the leader of a government? You acknowlege them. Most "bad" groups are not democratically elected or at least the ones that I can think of. USSR leaders were elected but there were questions about the lack of candidates. The leaders still spoke internationally for their government.
In this case, we have muddly waters. Israel did not seem to acknowledge which group was democratically elected because they still claim the territory as their own. (both Palestine and Gaza). The people living in both territories are not permitted to vote in an Israeli election(I think?). What are these people then? It seems more likely if you have an open mind we are really discussing Apartheid. Apartheid is defined in post 425. If you examine the Gaza situation in terms of whether some of our governments are supporting an Apartheid Israeli regime or not, it may become clearer for us.
Pasa
It may be very common where you live to use the term "true democracy" but I've never heard it from anyone who was not of a certain persuasion from the USA. Most, if not all, google references connect with US sites discussing their country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2
''ok...... for a start, I see multiple points of view.....thats why my posts are the way they are ..... I do not look at things in terms of right or wrong, black or white..... I look at things in terms of everybodies point of view...... hence I rarely sit in the forums and tell people they are wrong, or fundmentalist pro zionists etc......''
I think that others may see things in your posts, which you may not. To me, you come over as seeing things in black and white and fundamentalism, well, fundamentalist views are seen everywhere, in every subject. Like you....i call it as I see it.
''I posted the international humanitarian aid laws and then copied and pasted the part pertaining directly to the protest ship......because it applied to that ship.... then asked you to clarify your stance that it was piracy and war..... I was asking what international law you had read that I had not, that classed it as piracy and a act of war.....''
...and I told you that having read that document, I could see other sections and sub-sections, which which seemed to be appropriate, where the attack on the aid ships was concerned. No doubt there are many other international laws, which could be deemed ''appropriate'' under the circumstances.
I think and believe, it was piracy and an act of war and a cowardly act, carried out, at night, by heavily armed troops. OK!
''I have the opinion that a person that has served in the forces will have a understanding of a soldiers thinking, and way of doing things, .... thats something that you generally do not find in civilians... as they never find themselves rappelling down ropes and attacking ships.... soldiers do.....
a civilian may understand the aspects of protest and dealing with force while protesting, that is why I acknowledged darkeyes opinion... she has the experience of dealing with that aspect.....
unless you have looked down the barrel of a loaded gun, or pointed a loaded gun at a person.... most people have no idea what can go through a persons head, they can only quess''
I guess this means, that really and truly, it should only be people who have served in the forces and fought in wars, that decide when a country needs to go to war, or who should be fought. Yet, it can never be so. Civilians, whether they have served in the armed the forces or not, are elected to be our reprentatives in government and it is those civilians who will vote upon the idea of going to war and send professional soldiers to fight those wars.
And here I quote something, which I heard the actor, Steven Berkoff, recite. I don't know who wrote it.
''Wars are fought vicariously, by others, who do not wish their houses to be despoiled''
It's not good enough, to say, that only a person of this or that experience, can understand something, because this is real life and we don't all go through the same experiences, but we can still try to understand, something of what another human being has suffered, or gone through.
''as for what israel has or has not done, they are no different to any other country.... so i do not see them as any different .....''
No, they are no different and the country should be treated as ''just another country,'' and criticised when it does wrong. However there are folk and certain countries in the west, who do not seem to believe that this arrogant country should be criticised.
''the same with al queda.... they are no different to many other groups.... so i treat them no different.....''
Once upon a time certain people involved in Al Queda, were helped by certain countries in the west......armed....just as were Iraq and Iran. Then, they become the enemy. To many countries, Israel is the enemy, and many people are able to understand why, even if not agreeing with this stance.
''it is people that support or oppose them, that see the difference with them and apply the differences to them and other groups.....''
One person's terrorist, is another person's freedom fighter. Pre 1948, the Jewish agitators, in the then Palestine, were seen as terrorists. Many of those people went on to lead their country, after it had been created by the UN.
''I am happy to agree to diagree.... but it will not stop me asking questions and learning how others think......''
Good.
I think you need to explain further....what you mean in your reply to Heph in post 437......but that is merely, my humble opinion, of course.
''I will break it down for you''
I thank you.........
''most countries will protest their own boundaries, but criticize other countries for doing the same thing.... or act in a manner that is contradictory....things like the detaining of civilians without right to trial or due course of justice.....''
Understood, understandable and also already known. We are human and therefore, do not always behave, as nations, with goodwill or generosity, or any care for our fellow human beings.
''( in nz, we held a person for 7 years at the request of the us, their own crime was to take pics of tourist locations, but they were held in detention as a suspected terrorist even tho they had no connection to any terrorist groups... yet the us frowns on other countries doing the same thing )''
How very odd, how unlawful that seems and how rather strange. I would have expected more from New Zealand. Ah, well!
''I support basic human rights.... but not equal rights.....''
Do you mean human rights and equal, depending upon situations.....as with indigenous populations, who may live a very different life, war situations, where the protection of the state has to come first...etc, etc, etc??
''a example is australia and the treatment of the aboriginals, they took a group of them, and put them in a housing complex.... and wondered why the hell they destroyed the place..... the answer is cos the aboriginals could not relate to the way we live, they had a different way of life, and when removed from that, they developed issues like alcoholism.....''
This is something that I am fully aware of, having read articles and watched many a documentary. To house a nomadic people, to try to restrict their movement, is/would be cruel, no matter what the race of the people.
Did you know the Australian Aboriginals, along with Native Americans, Inuit people, some Polynesians and a few others, have a genetic intolerance of alcohol? I have often wondered if the same, might also be true of Celts. However, I am not aware of any study, in this area.
''did you know that australia used to issue licenses to kill aboriginals...''
Oh, Yes.....I think a lot of people are aware of that and also how the very early settlers, used to ''hunt'' them.
''now you can not apply equal rights to everybody when each culture and race has a different way of doing things, and require different levels of rights......''
I think that it is fairly obvious that exceptions will always have to be made and for the reasons stated.
''hence you get things like no head coverings in banks but muslim females arguing that they should not have to uncover their heads as part of their beliefs require them to be covered.....''
The covering of heads and bodies is not exclusive to Islam, so it is a cultural aspect of life, which has been turned into, or deemed a very necessary part of the religious belief. Orthodox Jewish women also cover their hair and only allow their husbands to see it. The more wealthy Jewish women tend to wear wigs, which one wouldn't even notice were wigs. I once watched a documenary about a group of ultra orthodox Jewish women, who lived in Jerusalem. These women not only wore wigs, but also shaved their heads.
Cultural behaviour, with a long history, is so often mistaken for religious belief.
''you can not make everybody equal while granting exemptions to the rules for different people and groups... it creates unequality''
That is why we need democracies and governments who will pass laws which treat certain things in a sensitive manner, whilst still ensuring human rights.
''as for dictators and democracy..... in the olde ways, a gathering of chiefs ( in iceland 930 AD I think it was ) was the first parliament....
the chiefs were charged with the responsibility of upholding justice and balanced interaction in their respective tribes.....
so you has a dictatorship answering to a democratic style parliament where disputes and issues were resolved by a group elected by the chiefs.....
now in those days, everybody had a voice in the tribe as a tribe was built around team work''
Yep......sorta know about things like that....history being a passion 'n' all.
''in todays terms, it would be the united nations.... but using countries, not tribes.... but the issue lays with the ruling person / parties of each country.... they now lack the balanced support system of tribal unity.... as there is too many people and opinions and that allows a ruling person / party, to make the rules as they go along.....
and rather than sort it out so the * tribe * works together again as a co-hesive unit.... they go with the majority.......
hence you end up with a splintered society with different groups pushing different agendas.......''
Well ain't that obvious!
Unfortunately...those countries represented at the UN, are full of tribal peoples. With the permanent members of the Security Council, obviosly having joint and individual allies.....everything is always going to get screwed up. Can't see it changing........(no Gene Roddenberry style Federation of Planets type working together......and eventually that had to fail).......we're human!
By the way....what has any of that, got to do, with the Israelis storming an aid ship?
Heph and Tenni...thank you for your interesting and intelligent posts. However, what ever any of us, who are critical of Israel, may say, will not change the opinions of the pro-Israelis. I fear, that for some, it would not matter what Israel did and that is what I find most disturbing.
DD.....do you honestly believe that Israel should never receive criticism? For that is how it comes across.
Israel was created in 1948.....created and a homeland for Jews then existed. There were already Jews living in what was known, at the time, as Palestine. Christians and Muslims and probably people from other religions, lived there too. The land was homeland to those people. People who were part of the indigenous population of the region, or who had lived there for only a few generations. It was home.
With the creation of Israel, many thousands of people became displaced and ended up in refugee camps. Tented camps and I remember seeing film of these when I was a teenager...a young teenager. How was it right to create a homeland for one people and displace another people, from what they considered their homeland???
These Christian and Muslim Palestinians were not nomads, like Pasa suggested in one sentence...and back in 1948...as if that is such a long time ago. Palestinians were uprooted from their homelands...forced into exile and an artificially created land, was then allowed to bring in, as immigrants, Jews from across the world. Jews, whose ancestors had left the Middle East generation, upon generation before, the ancestors marrying into local communities, as does happen and so, as Fran rightly stated, although Jewish, their bloodline is less semitic than the Palestinian people who became displaced.
Jews in the UK, certain parts of Europe, including the UK and many other countries, where these Jewish communities, lived in perfect harmony, with other people, already had homelands. They were already Americans, British, etc. It is perfectly understandable, that those Jews, left in places like Germany and Poland and other Eastern European countries, which had seen the genocide, felt that they wanted to be in Israel instead of what had once been home. However, not even the genocide and persecution of one people makes it right and correct to create an artificial state and thereby displace another people, namely the Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim.
Israel has been attacked and defended itself well. It has proven, that it is a country, however it was created and deserves to be recognised.....but what about the displaced Palestinians? What about there right to a homeland?
Israel is a state, in the Middle East, in Asia, populated by mainly European Jews and surrounded by countries populated by both semitic and aryan peoples. It's an artificail and unnatural creation and yet it exists and should be recognised as doing do, by all other countries. But, I somehow think, that if it had not been for the importing of European, American etc Jews and the support and financial aid of the country's biggest fan and also financial aid from wealthy jews and jewish organisations, the country might not have lasted too long.
To me, it is wrong to support a country just because of what it's people may have suffered in the past. Where is the homeland for Gypsies, a people still oppressed and loathed and often their name given to any group of itinerant travellers. I always correct people, when they call Irish itinerant travellers (tinkers), or New Age travellers, Gypsies. I know a lot of people with Romany Gypsy, ancestry and like Jews, they are a race.
The Palestinians are Arab.....a race...a people....displaced, against there will....given no homeland.....there land taken by Jews, even after it was not meant to happen...even Jewish settlers deciding that they have the right to ''invade'' Arab sections of Jerusalem and build homes. They have seen their land taken...a wall built acoss it...they have been excluded from areas. Don't you think that they have a right to be angry?
What did the UN and it's member nations care about the Palestinians. Nothing at all. 1948 saw a people displaced and in 1967 and long after, many were still living in tented communities. That is wrong.
Things have to be put into perspective. You may believe Hammas to be terrorist, others in this world....especially Palestinians, who see no one really giving a damn about them... do not. There are many people and many countries, who think that the state of Israel, sometimes behaves in a terrorist, anti-semitic and anti-freedom manner. It doesn't mean that those countries and people don't want there to be a state of Israel.
Terrorism has always existed. Terrorists sometimes become leaders of a country with a democratic system of government...sometimes a dictatorship....but dictators fall. The mainland UK suffered terrorist attacks for years as did Northern Ireland, from the IRA. Eventually (and even now things are not perfect), terrorism was seen, not to work. The terrorists were a minority, when compared to the thousands of people, who wished to live peacefully. What a shame people with Irish ancestry, who sent money to Ireland, didn't understand, for the most part, where the money was going and what those terrorists used to do. So many things, which happened, probably didn't get reported in foreign lands.
I would never support terrorism.....by rebels or the state...where innocents are hurt and killed. If the Palestinians commit attrocities, it should be condemned. If israel does the same, it should be condemned.
This is the 21st century and to support a country, just because it's race may have been persecuted for centuries, does not make sense to me. The past we cannot change and we know that the persecution and eradication of any people is wrong. The present can be used to make a different future, but not if the bad behaviour of a state in found acceptable, merely because of history.
The threat as you put it is a quasi military response to a military threat.. but from the Israeli Government's point of view and many in Israel their response is a military response to a threat.. thats being fair.. not hinting that israel alone are responding to a threat..that is much less than fair..Quote:
Originally Posted by mdvbi
...and so.. you are one of those who think all this site should talk about are bisexual issues.. shagging.. sucking.. licking..porn.. who fucks who and why.. bisexuals (of which I am not one, although my partner most certainly is) are a cross section of all political and moral views.. they have much more to offer this world than just issues on sex and sexuality.. it does us, the LGBT movement no favours if all we can talk about are issues which are immediately pertinent to our sexuality.. debates on issues such as abortion, paedophilia, rape and the likes of what does one do to make anal sex easier or does one swallow or spit or like facials are important to many.. arguably all. But we have minds and many of us, I would argue most of us like to use them and it is important for the world to know not just what our views are on sex and sexuality, but also the greater issues of the day.. Gaza being but one.. it is important to show that we are not simply sex mad perverts as many seem to think, but are every bit as compassionate and rounded individuals as any in straight society.. that is the value of debating the great issues which concern our world.. we are much much more than sex mad and that we are not depraved.. and we fail ourselves if we do not show that face to the wider world.. and being a bisexual site.. are you also of the opinion that straight people of whom there are many on site, or gay men and women (of whom I am one) should not contribute to .com? Because that is another consequence of your argument. We have more in common than we do not and we discard allies at our peril..
Snogs Fran and says welcome back me love :)
Well, let's see Canticle I could be a right bitch and break down every little thing you said like you do other people and then say it has nothing to do with this thread, but I'll just say I stand by what I said, it's easy to point fingers when you don't face anything coming close to what they do just to live each day. So keep reading all the news and logging on to sites to state your opinions but remember that there are real people involved on both sides and hypothetical rhetoric will never solve any problem least of all the one in Gaza.
And if you don't believe Hamas are terrorists, then just invite them to your next family get together. They love the "infidels" as well.
Welcome back Fran and what an excellent retort. Hope you had a good time last week.Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeyes
I was watching a report on CBCnewsworld over a statement that has been made by the NDP deputy leader. She stated that Israel has occupied the territory since 1948. This has caused quite the to do with demands that she resign. Her follow up statement was that she has always believed in a two state solution between Israel and Palestine.
I do wonder if that is what we are ranting on about. Some seem to accept only one country and that is Israel. They are willing to tolerate that some people in this territory do not have human rights nor voting rights in Israel. Is this really about whether you support a two state solution or one state solution?
Canticle practices moral equivalence. Because she opposes the creation of Israel, anything done to Israel is justified. Any wrong done is justified with 'they shouldn't have been there im the first place.'
The argument goes further to say that from the Palestinian POV they are freedom fighters. She neglects that thos fighters kill children in elementary schools and never select military targets. It further neglects that Israel has offered Palestine peace. They have rejected it every time. When this is pointed to Can'ticle she falls back to her primary argument against Israel's right to exist.
Canticle is against Israel's right to exist. I'd use the A word to describe this in anyone else. But she might report me if I do. All I can say is that her arguments and her logic pattern walk like an anti-Semitic duck.
Pasa
Yes, but exactly opposite of the way you posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by tenni
Some people believe in a two nation solution. Others support a one nation solution: one where Israel is wiped off the map and Jews are exterminated...again.
We can see this because the rationale for Palestine rejecting the peace offered again, and again, and again, is that they will not be satisfied with a solution where Israel exists. It's in the Hamas charter. Like, not even hidden, either. Plainly written, black and white.
So, yes, we are arguing about one state vs. two. And as long as the Palestinians hold that Israel has no right to exist, I will support Israel in whatever they have to do to project force in order to gain security.
Pasa
Since when is it about being fair? There is no moral equivalence. Israel responds to a threat. Period. That threat sided with the attackers in the 6 day war and they lost. They lost their land. Boo hoo. Their own fault there.Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeyes
Now they fire rockets into Israel, blow up public places, put pipe bombs in cars, buses, fire randomly into crowded areas. They don't select military targets. These are not an opposing military force. They are well funded thugs whose idea of resistance is to kill civilians. That's not resistance. That's terrorism. I don't give a damn what the conditions in Gaza are. They are a: their own fucking fault, and b: still no justification for what their actions and choices.
The path to peace is clear. Palestine does not want peace. They could have it all. Peace, rebuilding, schools, hospitals, infrastructure, the works. Israel has offered them a path to nationhood on a silver platter. But, they don't want that. They'd rather be martyrs. I'm ok with that, personally. I'm generally ok with assisting people who wish to be martyrs on their chosen career path.
Pasa
That would be up to you DD. I just do things my way and never to be a bitch. I could never be that kind of person.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckiesDarling
You're quite right.....real people are involved......Palestinian and Israeli.....Christian, Muslim and Jew. I really don't think that Christian Palestinians see people...who are Christian....from other races as infidels....and somehow, I wouldn't think that most of the Muslim civilians, would think that way. They just want to live happily, in peace.
Once again, you mention Israel doing what it has to do, on a daily basis to stay alive. Albeit that there is terrorist activity, I'd reckon on the average Jew in Israel, having a more comfortable life than most Palestinians.
Israel has the capability, to bomb a country to pieces and did that in Lebanon not long ago. The history which has helped cause the present situation in the Middle East is important.
I see you condemn Hammas and other terrorist factions but do not see you condemn some of the things Israel does. Israel is not just defending itself. Israel does do things, which could be considered wrong.
I asked, was it not wrong to displace one people, to create a country for another people. You don't state whether or not, you think that was wrong. I think it was and so do many others.
This is not denying the right of the state of Israel to exist. It is questioning what the UN did, in 1948 and as a result, this has led to the present problems in the Middle East.
By the way...when did I say that Hammas was not a terrorist organisation? What I have said, is that one person's terrorist, is another person's freedom fighter and I also stated that many that have been called terrorists, have ended up ruling democracies. Nothing I stated was hypothetical.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation are, some things are clear....terrorism is wrong, because innocents die....whether that terrorism be committed by an organisation like Al Queda, or Hammas, which has won elections, individuals, with their own agenda, or by a recognised state and we know from recent history, that sovereign governments can commit state terrorism and slaughter there own.
Also, what is wrong (and no one seems to know, how to put right, what the UN did in 1948), is that a people, who had a homeland, were uprooted from those homelands. That was wrong. very wrong. It will always be wrong.
What a very 'Christian' way of looking at things!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2
Those people you claim were displaced had only been 'a people' since 1917, and even then not until 1921 did they start asking to be nationalized. Palestine has never existed as a nation. In fact, several scholars note that Palestinian nationalism only arose as a direct result of Jewish immigration to the area.
In fact, in 1919, Syria claimed the Palestinian people as a part of Arab Syria. "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds." So, if anyone has rejected the Palestinians, it has been Syria.
But, let's look even further back. Before Israel, England ruled it as a part of the British Mandate. Before that it was ruled by the Ottoman Empire. And, most people forget, in 1948 it wasn't Israel who took over the West Bank and Gaza. Jordan and Egypt, respectively after their attempt to destroy Israel failed took over those areas. It wasn't until 5 nations decided to surround Israel and attack it, that Israel took that land as spoils of war.
So...for more than 200 years that area of land has been ruled by someone else. Hell, Israel is the only group EVER to say to Palestine that it would like Palestine to have it's own nation. And they get rocket attacks as thanks.
As for my Christianity, if you, Cunticle, wish to be my judge, you go right ahead. I would be wary, however. My God takes a VERY dim view of people trying to do His job.
Pasa
''Canticle practices moral equivalence. Because she opposes the creation of Israel, anything done to Israel is justified. Any wrong done is justified with 'they shouldn't have been there im the first place.' ''
Yes...surprise...surprise.....I do practice that......but not for what you insinuate. I believe in human rights for all and equality. Is that difficult to understand?
I have said that I believe that the artificial creation, of the State of Israel, in 1948, was wrong. How does that have me saying that anything that is done to Israel, is justified. Once again you twist words, to create your own meaning.
''The argument goes further to say that from the Palestinian POV they are freedom fighters. She neglects that thos fighters kill children in elementary schools and never select military targets. It further neglects that Israel has offered Palestine peace. They have rejected it every time. When this is pointed to Can'ticle she falls back to her primary argument against Israel's right to exist.''
I did not say that they were freedom fighters, or that I saw them as such. I said that very often, one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter. A very different thing. I did not say that any terrorists were freedom fighters.
The terrorists kill the innocent and retalliation does the same thing. In Iraq terrorists are killing fellow Muslims, when they set off bombs, innocent men, women and children. There are no winners.
Tell me something....Why should the Palestinians accept peace....on Israel's terms. Anything Israel wants to reject, it does, but apparently this is OK.
And I will fall back on the same argument, about the creation of the state of Israel. Unfortunately, we have no idea of knowing, what the Middle East today, would be like, had Israel, not been created.
Israel exists. Other states must recognise this and a proper homeland must be established for the Palestinians. It wasn't the innocent men, women and children, who lost wars. They are the ones stuck in the middle and the ones to suffer.
''Canticle is against Israel's right to exist. I'd use the A word to describe this in anyone else. But she might report me if I do. All I can say is that her arguments and her logic pattern walk like an anti-Semitic duck.
Pasa''
You are wrong. I hope that the state of Israel will last for a long time and prosper and in due course that there will be peace in the area and all the people will get along with one another. I'm just able to see (as do many), that this state of Israel, that so many jump up and defend, is not perfect and just as likely to do wrong.
I really don't know what the 'A' word would be, but you go ahead and use it....Ah, you mean anti-semitic. How can I be anti-semitic ........I would have to be anti-semitic towards Arabs and people from many other races. Anti-Semitism, though used to describe anti Jewish, views, is not something which can be applied to the Jewish race, alone. Google Semite. It might give you some information. Shem, the son of Noah, might be mentioned.
And Pasa....I never waddle.....I walk from my hips....not my knees. That is how ladies should walk, with a straight back and head held high.
When I was a teenager and into my very early 20s, I used to believe in the cause of Zion. I had this idea, that as a Christian, I had to believe in it. Then, I got older and realised other things. I believe in the right of the state of Israel to exist, now that it does, but I also believe in the rights of the Palestinians, to have a homeland and not one which Israel dictates.
So cut out the cracks about anti-semitism. You have no idea what I believe in, or what I would do, in however big, or small a way, to fight for those beliefs and the rights of others.
I can only go by your words here. You want me to have a different view, quit bitching about the creation of Israel and using that as a way to justify the actions of Palestine.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? No. Terrorists select civilian targets and random targets. Fighters, soldiers, select military and strategic targets. Soldiers fight other soldiers. Terrorists just want to kill things indiscriminately. Don't insult men and women who stand a post honorably by equating them with terrorists. They are nothing alike.
Any attempt to paint the Terrorist organization Hamas as anything but terrorists is based upon a lie. You either support that lie, or you denounce it.
Pasa
There isn't much that can be criticised in Canitcles post #452. Possibly one or two facts missing.
The UN move to set up Israel was spearheaded by the USA for honorable reasons. The pre-existing Palestinians were promised the same land by the British for honorable reasons. The two honorables seem not to have taken each other into consideration.
The Jews resorted to terrorism and violence themselves e.g. the Stern Gang.
Terrorism does work and there are many examples of this around the world. Often the organised defeated country relabels them as an army. The captains of the terrorists often end up in power as government officials e.g. Israel.
WOuld be new Israelis were themselves put into camps by the British to reduce the pressure. Others sought temprary refuge on Cyprus.
.
We know the history........and you are one insulting man. You really are. I have nothing to be wary of, Pasa. No God is going to send down thunderbolts, or exclude me from any heaven, or send me to any hell. Some of the comments you have made, about the Palestinians deserving their fate, are not the sort of thing that I would expect to hear from the mouth of, or see typed by the fingers of a Christain, who loves their fellow humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2
I love my fellow human beings, all of them, good or bad, whatever their race, creed, colour, or sexuality. I would not like to be the kind of Christian, who says some of the things, you have said about the Palestinians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2
Tell me why the Jews in Palestine, prior to 1948, who carried out certain acts, the kind that the israelis now fight, were called terrorists. They didn't they were terrorists, but others thought different and considered those Jewish activists, to be terrorists.
Nope...pretty much everyone considered them to be terrorists. The Stern Gang, who Heph mentioned, even said outright that they were using terrorism.
Go ahead and ignore the fact that the British ruled them at that time. Hell, want to talk about abuse? Holy fuck did you Brits abuse the shit out of Palestine. And didn't even have the decency to take them as a part of the British Empire formally? Rejected their request for citizenship status? Removed their rights to protest? In 2 years the British killed 5k Palistinians and wounded 15k more. And that's in the 40s with 40s technology! Holy shit, good thing the Brits didn't have modern technology.
I'll say it again: for 200 years this land has been occupied by others. Israel are the only ones who offered them their own land. And they get rockets in their fucking nurseries as a payment?
The fact that Israel hasn't shown ALL of Palestine the way to martyrdom only shows that Israel is a far better nation than the UK is.
Pasa
If you know the history, then why do you keep misstating it? *scratches head*Quote:
Originally Posted by Canticle
I am, indeed, insulting to those who deserve my derision. You want to judge me, and throw my religion in my face? That's fine. Be prepared to get it right back, Cunticle.Quote:
and you are one insulting man. You really are. I have nothing to be wary of, Pasa. No God is going to send down thunderbolts, or exclude me from any heaven, or send me to any hell. Some of the comments you have made, about the Palestinians deserving their fate, are not the sort of thing that I would expect to hear from the mouth of, or see typed by the fingers of a Christain, who loves their fellow humans.
I love my fellow human beings, all of them, good or bad, whatever their race, creed, colour, or sexuality. I would not like to be the kind of Christian, who says some of the things, you have said about the Palestinians.
And yes, as long as the Palestinians reject peace in order to maintain their Jihad, then they get what they deserve. I'm a huge supporter of a two state solution. I'm also in favor of blasting the shit out of Palestine for as long as it wishes to continue the conflict.
I'm a big believer in allowing stupid people to do stupid things to remove themselves from the gene pool. If the Palestinian people wish to remove themselves from the gene pool en masse, I'm all for it. It isn't that I want them to die. I'm just completely for the freedom to be stupid, and the freedom to die for it. Palestine should be given a collective Darwin award.
Pasa
From Wiki
".......Lehi (Hebrew pronunciation: [ˈleχi], Hebrew acronym for Lohamei Herut Israel, "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel," לח"י - לוחמי חרות ישראל) was an armed underground Zionist group in the British Mandate of Palestine.[1] Its goal was to forcibly evict the British authorities from Palestine, allowing unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state. It was initially called the National Military Organization in Israel.[2] The Lehi is also commonly referred to, after its founder, Avraham Stern, as the Stern Group or Stern Gang.[3]......."
.
Also in that wiki is that the Stern Gang openly called what they did terrorism. Further, only one member of the Stern Gang ever went into politics. They got one seat in 1949. That's it. So, to say that Israel was founded upon them, and that they later went on to run the joint would be incorrect.
Pasa
It is not fair to say that the British abused the ...... out of the Palestinians.
The British did grant independance to the greater part of "The Palestine" to form a number of its own countries. Britain did know when to let go rather than bomb the indigenous peoples sensless and try to sell them cola and jeans.
Perhaps one should focus on the fact that it was the rump of "The Palestine" that has caused the problem. Coincidentally this rump was the original land understood to be Palestine historically. The arabs were reluctant to let the land be partitioned and for them to be excluded from their former territory.
Some have seen that as a spreading neoplasia.
.
Sheesh.......you are so unbelievably, unbelieveable. You really are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2
Thank you. I try.
Pasa
It's tough no matter how you call it.
Yes, the establishment/revolutionary effort of Israel in the 1940's included a slightly toned down version of modern terrorism.
Multiple telephone calls warning of a bomb in the King David Hotel vs. unannounced rockets landing randomly.
Ninety something people were killed and about half that wounded; and the King David Hotel bombing was quite (if I remember my history) influential in the British abandoning Palestine and leaving rule to the Israelis.
In addition, the 6 day war raped any non Jewish civilian of property and rights (but sometimes not life). The Israel entry to civilian property was the similar as Jews were treated in WWII Europe; "you no longer live here, gather your possessions and leave now." I don't recall reports of Jews executing Palestinian civilians, but as normal in war, it probably happened.
But coming back up to date.
Iran has no business running any Jewish blockade; it's a purely opportunistic political stage on the part of Iran. These guys should be fired upon entering Israel waters.
Ireland, etc. do so at risk of arrest.
Uh, Ireland and many other nations are clearly on a humanitarian, not political venture. I am pretty sure Ireland has no political aspirations in Israel.
But like the historic naval blockade by the United States of America - of the Confederate States of America in the 1860's... Does an aggressor have the right to blockade?
By referring to Canticle as you do, Pasa.. you throw your religion back in your own face... and the rest of your comments just show that such as it is.. your religion is obviously so important to you that its message of compassion and love for humankind means nothing and is lost on you .. your saviour, Pasa, would indeed be very proud.. but don't worry about it.. I am sure he will forgive you your sins.. not that you give a bugger about saviour, forgiveness or humanity.. not if any of them get in the way of a good macho breast beating...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...ckade-1.296412
Quote:
It contains three main elements: formulation of a blacklist of goods and supplies that will not be allowed into Gaza, particularly items that could be put to use in manufacturing weapons; Israel’s acquiescence to the entry of building materials for UN-sponsored construction projects; and Israel’s agreement to consider stationing European Union as well as Palestinian Authority monitors at border crossings to inspect incoming goods.