Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: funkedup on April 11, 2003, 08:31:35 PM
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030411/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_62
I coulda told ya that long before he got himself shot.
-
you guys are pretty cold hearted. the guy got himself basicly killed trying to save children that were getting shot at by the isrealis. once again this proves that these dirt balls use way to much force when dealing with protestors. We need to next go in and enforce UN sanctions in isreal.
-
Feel better now Funk?
-
Well at least he doing the job he went there to do. I really wish the jews and arabs would settle this thing and stop causing trouble for everyone and getting young americans and british (of all sorts) killed.. :(
-
This thread gave me an idea for a research project. Thanks, Funked!
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
This thread gave me an idea for a research project. Thanks, Funked!
-- Todd/Leviathn
Intriguing, what do you have in mind?
-
He's going to test for brain function on all people who work as human shields for terrorist groups.
"In Search Of..."
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
you guys are pretty cold hearted.
I know I am big but I'm only one guy.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Feel better now Funk?
Yes I had a nice laugh when I read the headline. I didn't realize at first that it meant there was a change in his condition. Laughter is the best medicine.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Intriguing, what do you have in mind?
Well, we hear all the time how America's actions in the Middle East serve to radicalize the Arab public, "breeding" new terrorist recruits.
But to my knowledge, nobody has done any research on the radicalizing effects of terrorism on the American public -- or on democratic populaces in general. It probably wouldn't be incredibly difficult to dig up scientific polls that record ideological scores and particularly views toward pacifism, humanitarian aid, etc. over time. You can then compare the mean scores for various ideological and policy indicators before and after key terrorist events.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
At some point you'd think people will learn to leave the tanks ALONE.
it's not a game.
If you are going to attack the tanks, fine attack them, otherwise stay the hell away from them, they are machines made to kill.
-
your going to crucify the guy for trying to get some kids out of the crossfire. what a bunch of sick in the head rednecks.
-
how do you think the kids got *in* the crossfire.
Originally posted by Frogm4n
your going to crucify the guy for trying to get some kids out of the crossfire. what a bunch of sick in the head rednecks.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
your going to crucify the guy for trying to get some kids out of the crossfire. what a bunch of sick in the head rednecks.
Frog i can't believe i'm gonna say this but i agree with you man.
There is no way to justify shooting an unarmed man that was trying to help some kids.
As a Jew I am ashamed of the Israeli army and there actions on this one.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
At some point you'd think people will learn to leave the tanks ALONE.
Words of Wisdom
-
All you guys need now is a tent and three rings since the MC is now here.
-
Are the Israelis and the Palestinians ever going to learn to coexist peacefully? Seems doubtful to me. Maybe it is time for some heavy handed redistribution of real estate, in such a manner as to reduce the potential for conflict. The US is currently the "bad boy" on the block. What have we got to lose?
-
Originally posted by Torque
All you guys need now is a tent and three rings since the MC is now here.
Why do you and Frogboy keep making comments about "you guys". I made the wisecrack. Nobody has really backed me up on it. RC51 criticized me, Grunherz said the guy was doing his job, and that rat DMF hinted that I have become "radicalized". The closest I have got to support is Kanth's comment about staying away from the tanks.
If you see this as a "bunch of rednecks" backing me up, or some circus where I am performing to cheers of the crowd, that's not reality - it's your paranoia.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
and that rat DMF hinted that I have become "radicalized".
Did I say that? :D
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Dirty communist traitor!!! :D
-
cut israel off without a dime. we owe them nothing.
you park a tank in my town square how long till i just accept it?
you gonna have to measure that one in generations.
-
The redicolous point is, that they fighting about a ****ing piece of freaking desert.
Godamn religion.
-
Originally posted by fffreeze220
Godamn religion.
Now thats funny. :D
-
Funked, maybe , or at least I hope, language barrier has made me misunderstand what you wrote.
If the sense is what I think and you have made laugh of the death af a young boy in such a cinical way, only because he thinks different than you , let me express my biggest disappointment to you.
My bitter disappointment is doubled by the fact that reading on this BBS I had the idea you were a rational and sensible person (oh I know that BBS knowledge of persons is not that much, but everyone makes his own ideas).
Now, probably you will tease me saying what you care about my opinion; no matter..... had to say this cause I real feel disappointed.
Still hoping in a misunderstanding....
-
While I can sympathize with the families of the protesters who have been killed in Israel I think their efforts are misguided.
How many of them do you see trying to step in front of terrorist bombers? Huh!? Answer me that!
I mean, IF they were REALLY open-mined about the situation they would give the bombers equal opportunity...
...
Regards, Shuckins
_____________________________ ___________
To set the cause above renown,
To love the game beyond the prize,
To honor, while you strike him down,
The foe that comes with fearless eyes;
To count the life of battle good
And dear the land that gave you birth,
And dearer yet the brotherhood
That binds the brave of all the earth.
Sir Henry Newbolt
-
Hmmmm... its not right that someone is aiding/protesting in an environment where terrorists hide amongst civilians that encourage their behavior. It adds a certain numb overtone to the whole situation.
Especially when you consider that most of the time the terrorists are targetting the civilian population in Israel.
I'm not a real big fan of Ghandi, but have to say the Palestinians could learn a lesson from him on how to get the world to stand up and back you.
MiniD
-
DMF... I think you have a point. Big cities are the centers for aberant social behavior (liberalism) in the U.S.. they screw up allmost every election and are the centers for all busy body laws..
NY is probly slightly less liberal now.... I bet a few suitcase nukes in LA and Chicago would de liberalize those cities too.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
While I can sympathize with the families of the protesters who have been killed in Israel I think their efforts are misguided.
How many of them do you see trying to step in front of terrorist bombers? Huh!? Answer me that!
I mean, IF they were REALLY open-mined about the situation they would give the bombers equal opportunity...
What - you mean give the Palastinians tanks too?
-
wonder if they would be called terrorists if the palestines started "relocating" isreali familys under gunpoint to make room for muslim settlers.
-
Originally posted by stegor
[BIf the sense is what I think and you have made laugh of the death af a young boy in such a cinical way, only because he thinks different than you , let me express my biggest disappointment to you.[/B]
It's not a misunderstanding, just a tasteless joke by me. I can see why somebody would not find it funny, and I apologize for the remark.
I don't have a problem with the way these activists think. They can think whatever they want. I disagree with their actions - acting as human shields for terrorists.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
wonder if they would be called terrorists if the palestines started "relocating" isreali familys under gunpoint to make room for muslim settlers.
There's constantly so much inaccurate rhetoric about this subject that it's mind boggling... ;) I think a lot of people post without ever having studied what the issue is about, or simply post to feel part of their particular clique's side, as a lot of people do here with most board issues.
To begin to understand the origins, you need to rewind back to yet another effective U.N. move in 1948, which they failed to back-up its own mandates, so instead of it being 12 years as with Sadam Hussein, it's been 55 years and still counting.
"The United Nations proposed the creation of two states in the region - one Jewish, one Arab. The Jews accepted it gratefully. The Arabs rejected it with a vengeance and declared war. Arab leaders urged Arabs to leave the area so they would not be caught in the crossfire. They could return to their homes, they were told, after Israel was crushed and the Jews destroyed. It didn't work out that way. By most counts, several hundred thousand Arabs were displaced by this war - not by Israeli aggression, not by some Jewish real-estate grab, not by Israeli expansionism.
In fact, there are many historical records showing the Jews urged the Arabs to stay and live with them in peace. But, tragically, they chose to leave.
Fifty-five years later, the sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of those refugees are all-too-often still living in refugee camps - not because of Israeli intransigence, but because they are misused as a political tool of the Arab powers.
Those poor unfortunates could be settled in a week by the rich Arab oil states that control 99.9 percent of the Middle East landmass, but they are kept as virtual prisoners, filled with misplaced hatred for Jews and armed as suicide martyrs by the Arab power brokers.
This is the modern real history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes. When there were title deeds to be purchased, they bought them at inflated prices. When there were not, they worked the land so they could have a place to live without the persecution they faced throughout the world."
I'm not Jewish and I've done a lot of reading on this subject without a vested interest in either side. IMHO, I don't think the statements above are far off how the world got to where it is today with this issue. With a continued impotence of the U.N., I hold out little hope for peace there until reason, common sense and some patterns of civilized behaviour begin to appear in the region.
Regards,
Badger
-
Badger, I'm glad you're the real expert. How about you give us an education so everyone here can argue the issues in a better manner.
1) Where did all the Palestinians that now reside in the West Bank and Gaza areas originally come from?
2) What areas are the "Occupied Territories" and why were they named so?
2a) Why are the Israeli settlers called "settlers" and the Palestinians not called "settlers"?
3) When was the first Israeli bulldozing of a Palestinian home/residence?
4) When was the first Arab suicide bombing of Israeli civillians?
5) What is "Greater Israel"?
Glad to have a real expert aboard to educate us, thanks.
-
Tanks were stationary. People (bringing kids with them) approached tanks, knowing they were hostile, armed and present.
Pretty hard to see it your way.
Originally posted by GScholz
I don't think you understand that it is the tanks that won't leave the people alone. Not the other way around.
Rc51.
-
Originally posted by Badger
To begin to understand the origins, you need to rewind back to yet another effective U.N. move in 1948,
Regards,
Badger
Badger,
I salute you for posting this history of the crisis. It is indeed true that so many people focus merely on the present without any understanding of how the situation began.
Even though the Israelis MAY be a bit justified in their refusal to give up territory they conquered after winning a war they didn't start, they (and we) should look not at what is technically "justified," but at what will solve the problem. The suicide bombers will probably never stop, and that Israel uses that as a pretense to never progress further on peace accords is a chickensh*t excuse. Isarael needs to unoccupy the lands it rightfully conquered and give them back, resettle their own citizens back within the original U.N. borders, and allow a Palestinian State, even if bombings continue. Once they do that, then they can reasonably expect the suicide bombings to stop and we should then back them fully. But, all that aside - Islamic Extremists will always find a reason to hate us. Even if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is settled agreeably by both sides, terrorism against the U.S. will continue.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
"The activists wanted to set up a protest tent on the road in an attempt to block incursions into the camp, said Hamra and Khalil Abdullah, a Palestinian who works with the group but who is not a member.
translation: the protestors wanted to go set up a tent.
Along the way, the protesters were joined by several children, the witnesses said.
They allowed children to join them heading towards the tanks.
When the group was about 200 yards away from three tanks, soldiers opened fire from a tank-mounted machine gun, the witnesses said."
When they got close enough to the tanks, the tanks shot them.
And you think the tanks were after them?
-
Right, and the people are the ones approaching the tanks, making the tanks 'not alone'.
not the other way around.
Originally posted by GScholz
Nope. This is what I said.
-
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - A 21-year-old British peace activist was critically wounded Friday as he tried to get two children out of the line of fire in the Gaza Strip (news - web sites), witnesses said.
Thomas Hurndall suffered a head injury and was declared brain dead after arriving at Rafah Hospital, said Dr. Ali Musa.
Witnesses said Israeli troops firing from a tank struck Hurndall as he other activists in a pro-Palestinian group approached an army position on the edge of a Gaza refugee camp.
The Israeli army had no comment about Friday's shooting but said it would investigate.
Hurndall of Manchester, England, was the second activist wounded in a week. A third member of the group, the International Solidarity Movement, was killed a month ago while trying to stop an Israeli army bulldozer.
Palestinians have long complained that Israeli troops are using excessive force against civilians, and the mounting casualties among foreigners were expected to draw renewed attention to Israeli army practices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Israel has said Palestinian gunmen often use civilians as shields and thus endanger them.
Friday's incident began when about a dozen members of the peace movement, including foreigners and Palestinians, walked toward Israeli tanks on the outskirts of the Rafah refugee camp, near the border with Egypt, said Khalil Hamra, a photographer on assignment for The Associated Press.
The activists wanted to set up a protest tent on the road in an attempt to block incursions into the camp, said Hamra and Khalil Abdullah, a Palestinian who works with the group but who is not a member.
Along the way, the protesters were joined by several children, the witnesses said. When the group was about 200 yards away from three tanks, soldiers opened fire from a tank-mounted machine gun, the witnesses said.
Hurndall and another foreign activist tried to get two children out of the line of fire, Hamra and Abdullah said. "Thomas (Hurndall) grabbed one of their hands and as soon as he did that a tank fired at him, hitting him in the head," Hamra said.
The photographer said the children were not throwing rocks at the troops and that he saw nothing that would have provoked the troops.
Rafah has been a flashpoint of clashes between Israeli troops and Palestinians.
A few blocks from where Friday's shooting occurred, American activist Rachel Corrie, 23, was killed March 16 while trying to stop an Israeli army bulldozer.
Witnesses said the bulldozer ran her over and then backed up. The army said the driver did not see her and that her death was an accident. Corrie, a student in Olympia, Wash., was the first member of the group to be killed in 30 months of fighting between Israelis and Palestinians.
Last week, Bryan Avery, 24, from Albuquerque, N.M., was shot in the face while walking with a fellow activist in the West Bank town of Jenin. Witnesses said he was wounded by army fire. The army said it was firing at gunmen in the area and was not aware it hit Avery.
Also Friday, the army said it had eased checkpoint restrictions in the West Bank town of Jericho after local police turned in a stock of weapons that included explosives and an anti-tank rocket.
Palestinian Cabinet member Saeb Erekat disputed the claim, saying he hadn't heard of a weapons handover and that checkpoint restrictions has been relaxed for months.
In other developments:
_Israeli human rights activists vowed to fight a military decision to banish to the Gaza Strip a Palestinian man who has been in jail for eight months, accused of crimes for which he was never charged or tried.
Dalia Kerstein, head of the Jerusalem-based Center for the Rights of the Individual, said Saadi, from the West Bank town of Jenin, had been imprisoned without trial since last June.
_ An army publication said the Israeli military is building a mock-up of a security fence between the West Bank and Israel. Work on the 180-mile fence itself began a year ago, but only a few miles have been completed.
The weekly "Bamahane" said the mock-up, at a base in central Israel, is a replica of the security fence, which is designed to keep Palestinian attackers out of Israel. It said the mock-up will cost $150,000 and be used for training army units that will patrol the fence.
*********************
Seems they were using a peaceful protest means ala Ghandi.
Remember this is on Palestinian territory.
Real funny about the guy getting shot trying to protect the kids as the a soldier opened fire (w/ tank mounted MG-prob a .50 cal) as the group aproached about 200 yards away. :rolleyes: Did you even read your own linked article?
Tasteless, yes.
Those that claim they were caught in the "crossfire", please show me where this group or someone behind this group opened up and shot at the Israelis? Crossfire is when opposing combatants fire on each other from relatively opposite sides. To get caught in crossfire, one has to be between the combatants.
The kids weren't "playing" with the tanks, they were mearly joining the group late probrably not really knowing why they were there.
In this instance, there was no indication of this group being other than a peaceful protest.
The Israeli army were the only ones that actually opened fire out of intimidation I'm sure for if they really thought they were threatened for their lives, they would have shot up that whole group. Seems they "sacrificed" one individual for the intimidation message. Hard to imagine a headshot being accidental (probably a sniper was deployed in the area).
In this instance I have to find the fault lies with the Israeli military. At 200 yards, the group isn't even close enough to hear verbal warnings. At 200 yards, what unarmed protestors can be perceived as a threat to a tank?
That group didn't think the Israeli army would open fire, especially at that distance.
I call that guy a hero for trying to save some kids with no regard to his own safety. Looks like he paid the ultimate price for it.
Anyway I look at it, to think this guy getting shot is funny in any way is sick, sorry.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Glad to have a real expert aboard to educate us, thanks.
Thanks, but no thanks... ;)
These Internet boards have so many people hiding behind masks of anonymity with some pretty dysfunctional characters and out of control egos, as evidenced by reading the huge amount of threads focused on the war. On-line forums are not the best place to hold rational discussions and expect reasoned and courteous interaction. You hit it on the head when you used the word "argue". People argue constantly on here, but I doubt there's very many that ever bothered to read and digest the substance behind what they insult and flame each other about. ;)
Besides, you shouldn't be influenced by others, so the best way to learn is to form your own conclusions as I did, by reading as much as you can find. I found the key for me was to start back at the beginning of the modern conflict, then work forward to present day. That's why I suggested 1948 as a good starting place and it won't take you the rest of your life to gain a pretty good understanding of the issues. :D
I'm not an expert, just someone who's spent four decades listening to the propaganda spewed by both sides. I got tired of everyone else professing to be an expert, so I chose to begin reading as much material as I could find to gain a better understanding of how this mess started, but more importantly, what kind of reasonable compromise could possibly be reached.
Unfortunately, Anwar Sadat (http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/1977.html)[/url], the last Arab leader who achieved some form of peace on March 26, 1979 (http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00if0)[/url] was murdered by his own people, so I doubt you'll soon find others stepping forward to be catalysts for peace in a similar fashion. It is interesting to note that this agreement between Israel and Egypt has survived his death and those two countries have essentially been at peace since then.
My only point was... don't believe much of the noise you read on any Internet boards about most social, political or business topics, outside of course combat aircraft and flight sims, which is what the focus of this particular site is about. Toward that end, there are some really experienced and knowledgeable people posting on those topics.
Regards,
Badger
-
Originally posted by rc51
Frog i can't believe i'm gonna say this but i agree with you man.
There is no way to justify shooting an unarmed man that was trying to help some kids.
As a Jew I am ashamed of the Israeli army and there actions on this one.
rc51,
In this instance sir, I am glad you're an American ~S~!
-
Originally posted by Badger
Thanks, but no thanks... ;)
These Internet boards have so many people hiding behind masks of anonymity with some pretty dysfunctional characters and out of control egos, as evidenced by reading the huge amount of threads focused on the war. On-line forums are not the best place to hold rational discussions and expect reasoned and courteous interaction. You hit it on the head when you used the word "argue". People argue constantly on here, but I doubt there's very many that ever bothered to read and digest the substance behind what they insult and flame each other about. ;)
Badger,
Fair enough. It's too bad that too many here tend to attack the messenger and not argue/debate/discuss the issues.
~S~!
-
As a jew I know that israel must learn the art of GIVE and take.
thay can't have it there way all the time.
And using there army to kill inocent kids is WAY out of line .
No way in hell to EVER justify that. NEVER.
-
I suggest you read Hitech's post Funked.
-
It's not funny, what can I say tho, some people approached someone who is heavily armed. It doesn't matter what their intentions were, they bear the risk of getting shot.
Does it make it right? nope.
But the fact is, if you aren't near someone with bullets you won't get shot.
I don't understand the idea of approaching a foreign hostile army with no weapon and expect them to not shoot you because you are peaceful, I wouldn't personally take that chance.
Are they supposed to shoot unarmed folks walking around? nope, but you know what? They did.
The whole situation with suicide bombers and people encroching on each others land, I don't understand..
why can't they just either duke it out or leave each other the hell alone.
I'm not there and I don't get it.
I'm not justifying what happened, I don't believe he or the children were a threat to the tanks. I'm simply saying that if they would stay away from the tanks and people with guns, they won't get shot.
Children should be no where near that area, they aren't old enough to make the decision to take that risk.
I would have considered the guy more a hero if he'd made the children get the hell away from the tanks, because they have bullets and aren't friendly.
Originally posted by SaburoS
The kids weren't "playing" with the tanks, they were mearly joining the group late probrably not really knowing why they were there.
In this instance, there was no indication of this group being other than a peaceful protest.
The Israeli army were the only ones that actually opened fire out of intimidation I'm sure for if they really thought they were threatened for their lives, they would have shot up that whole group. Seems they "sacrificed" one individual for the intimidation message. Hard to imagine a headshot being accidental (probably a sniper was deployed in the area).
In this instance I have to find the fault lies with the Israeli military. At 200 yards, the group isn't even close enough to hear verbal warnings. At 200 yards, what unarmed protestors can be perceived as a threat to a tank?
That group didn't think the Israeli army would open fire, especially at that distance.
I call that guy a hero for trying to save some kids with no regard to his own safety. Looks like he paid the ultimate price for it.
Anyway I look at it, to think this guy getting shot is funny in any way is sick, sorry.
-
The kids parents need to take some responsibility in this as well.
They indeed has no business near the tanks in the first place.
But what kind of man opens up with a machine gun on kids?
-
I truely don't know..I can't understand the mentality behind it at all.
Originally posted by rc51
But what kind of man opens up with a machine gun on kids?
-
A man with orders to do so.
It gets you out of anything, that. I wonder how they can live with themselves though. Unless you look at it as though you are killing worthless animals, or are too stupid to think or use the bottle to forget.
-
Kanth,
The Israeli military were in an area they shouldn't be, that's why the peaceful protest group was approaching.
We're not talking of a Palestinian group approaching a military group in Israel. Heck, I'd rather the Palestinians use peaceful protests w/out the fear of getting killed, rather than they resort to suicide bombings.
That soldier that took aim and fired on an innocent civillian is no better than the suicide bomber attacking innocent Israeli civillians. The difference is that this soldier is free to keep doing the same to other innocent civillians.
I'll bet that the Israelis invetigating this incident will not find fault with the military and the soldier will stay in his position. No justice, unfortunetly.
BTW, the explosives as used by the suicide bombers wont destroy a tank. Might damage the engine if he laid on the engine compartment. Might mess up the track links and a roadwheel or two if right next to it.
No valid excuse for opening fire on an unarmed, peaceful group at any distance, IMHO.
-
I'm not arguing any of this with you.
I'm saying that if they stay away from those tanks they won't get shot by them. Simple logic, no right, no wrong.
As far as the particulars, I think I described what I thought about this incident in an earlier post.
Originally posted by SaburoS
Kanth,
The Israeli military were in an area they shouldn't be, that's why the peaceful protest group was approaching.
We're not talking of a Palestinian group approaching a military group in Israel. Heck, I'd rather the Palestinians use peaceful protests w/out the fear of getting killed, rather than they resort to suicide bombings.
That soldier that took aim and fired on an innocent civillian is no better than the suicide bomber attacking innocent Israeli civillians. The difference is that this soldier is free to keep doing the same to other innocent civillians.
I'll bet that the Israelis invetigating this incident will not find fault with the military and the soldier will stay in his position. No justice, unfortunetly.
BTW, the explosives as used by the suicide bombers wont destroy a tank. Might damage the engine if he laid on the engine compartment. Might mess up the track links and a roadwheel or two if right next to it.
No valid excuse for opening fire on an unarmed, peaceful group at any distance, IMHO.
-
Then how can there be war criminals?
Originally posted by Dowding
A man with orders to do so.
It gets you out of anything, that.
-
That soldier that took aim and fired on an innocent civilian is no better than the suicide bomber attacking innocent Israeli civilians
Worst that a terrorist!
He is a professional soldier and should have the morality to know better not to mention the training to tell the difference between a mad suicide bomber and a child!!
-
"The United Nations proposed the creation of two states in the region - one Jewish, one Arab. The Jews accepted it gratefully.
Sorry, wrote a long reply and lost it, so my reply will be even less coherent than usuall.
The Jews accepted it grudgingly, with Ben Gurion accepting it as a stepping stone to a Jewish state in the whole of Palestine, by force of arms if neccessary.
It's interesting to note the Arab objections to the UN plan:
"... the question of creation of a Jewish State cannot be taken without two other connected problems; that is, the question of immigration and that of foreign subsidies. A Jewish State would, of course, be master of the immigration into Palestine. It might decide that immigration would be without limits and the economic argument, which would be that it is impossible for a very large number of people to live in a very small territory, would become void if the Jewish State can still reckon with foreign financial support. Therefore, with the doors of the country wide open to immigration, and financial support from outside, the Jewish State would become extremely populated. Therefore, it might not be 1 million, but 2, 3, 4 million, since it would not depend on its own economy or its own produc- tion. As soon as it goes beyond a certain limit in numbers, it is no longer a State where Jews can come and be safe but it becomes a bridgehead against the Arab world. This is what we absolutely want to avoid."
and the Egyptians:
""... the Egyptian Government certainly views with grave concern the establishment of Jewish colonies near the Egyptian frontier. That is only an indication of the first step towards the execution of Jewish ambitions towards Sinai which is already mentioned in the different proclamations, and certainly the Egyptian Government has taken measures against this danger which is getting nearer and nearer to the Egyptian territories;..." "
They were wide of the mark, weren't they?
The British submission:
""The right of any community to use force as a means of gaining its political ends is not admitted in the British Commonwealth. Since the beginning of 1945 the Jews have implicitly claimed this right and have (sic) supported by an organized campaign of lawlessness, murder and sabotage their contention that, whatever other interests might be concerned, nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of a Jewish State and free Jewish immigration into Palestine. It is true that large numbers of Jews do not today attempt to defend the crimes that have been committed in the name of these political aspirations. They recognize the damage caused to their good name by these methods in the court of world opinion. Nevertheless, the Jewish community of Palestine still publicly refuses its help to the Administration in suppressing terrorism, on the ground that the Administration's policy is opposed to Jewish interests. The converse of this attitude is clear, and its result, however much the Jewish leaders themselves may not wish it, has been to give active encouragement to the dissidents and freer scope to their activities ...""
Arab leaders urged Arabs to leave the area so they would not be caught in the crossfire.
Try and find some evidence for that. You won't find any serious historian who supports it, or any evidence to back it up.
There have been in depth studies of the BBC listening serivce's archives, but they show nothing of the sort, just broadcasts uring Arabs to stay in place, and calling those who flee cowards.
It doesn't make sense to encourage your own people to become refugees anyway. They block roads you need to advance along, deny you support and shelter in forward areas, and place strains on logistics immediately behind your army.
It didn't work out that way. By most counts, several hundred thousand Arabs were displaced by this war - not by Israeli aggression, not by some Jewish real-estate grab, not by Israeli expansionism.
Certainly by Israeli expansion. Haifa and Jaffa, the largest Arab town in Palestine, were both shelled and occupied by Jewish irregulars, before partition, despite being assigned to the Arabs under partition.
Those poor unfortunates could be settled in a week by the rich Arab oil states that control 99.9 percent of the Middle East landmass, but they are kept as virtual prisoners, filled with misplaced hatred for Jews and armed as suicide martyrs by the Arab power brokers.
Firstly, why should other Arab countries take them in? They had perfectly good homes to go to in Israel.
Secondly, would you apply the same principles elsewhere? Europe should take in all the Kosovans, Bosnians and Croats so the Serbs can keep their ethnically cleansed lands? Perhaps the Poles could have been absorbed by the rest of the Slavs, giving Germany it's Lebensraum?
Thirdly, the most hate filled, the most troublesome Palestinians, are those who live in the West Bank and Gaza, which is ruled by Israel. They already have homes.
At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes.
Deir Yassin? Even if the sources you seem to have read don't admit to a massacre, it's a simple fact that after capturing the village, all the inhabitants were bussed to Jerusalem and dumped, and the village razed.
Ramleh and Lydda were both cleansed at the express orders of Ben Gurion, with thousand of Arabs rounded up and shipped off.
-
I assumed the shooting was an accident ... apparently many posters are assuming it was intentional.
What is the truth?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Hmmmm... its not right that someone is aiding/protesting in an environment where terrorists hide amongst civilians that encourage their behavior. It adds a certain numb overtone to the whole situation.
Especially when you consider that most of the time the terrorists are targetting the civilian population in Israel.
I'm not a real big fan of Ghandi, but have to say the Palestinians could learn a lesson from him on how to get the world to stand up and back you.
MiniD
Yeah, Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall Humpty Dumpty just laughed at them all....
(http://www.trialofhenrykissinger.org/images/trialcover_small.jpg)
-
Ya'll reckon this fella just looked up from dozing on his tank and said "hey! there's a buncha civilians and kiddos! I haven't fired this here machine gun in a week of more. How about I just open up on em and see if it still works!"
Yeah, thats what happend. Allot of you people, as well as this young Brit, are stoges. You'll believe anything you read hear or see.
For example. There was a rather famous photo going around Euro and Arab showing US troops being approached by some fellas with white flags, and another showing the US troops searching apparent bodies of the Iraqies...still clutching there little white flags. After some searching, they found the photographer who took the photo's. He said that there were a series of photo's showing the surrender, and the search of the guys. The arab and eyetalian papers had taken two of the photo's, omitted the rest, slapped an iflamitory headline on it and published it.
Of course, to a world of people who believe it just because it written in a newspaper or seen on TV, its just another example of the EVIL US of A.
You dont think this tanker fella saw em comin? You don't think he scoped em with his binocs? You don't think he was in contact with superiours? You reckon them Jews is smart enough to put a radio in a tank eh?
I'm in a tank in a hostile area near a refugee camp full of radical suiciders. I see a buncha people walkin toward my tank draggin and carrying bundles and sacks, maybe a few poles(you did say they was going to pitch a tent). I get told to shoot, I shoot.
Whats the effective range on a modern soviet RPG? This guy will probably get reprimanded for letting them get to close.
Wake up people.
You wanna re-hash the whole shebang, make a new thread. This one is about how really stupid some people can be.
Pretty soon were going to have students from Berkley murder bombing people here at home "in solidarity" with the Palestinians.
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Ya'll reckon this fella just looked up from dozing on his tank and said "hey! there's a buncha civilians and kiddos! I haven't fired this here machine gun in a week of more. How about I just open up on em and see if it still works!"
Yeah, thats what happend. Allot of you people, as well as this young Brit, are stoges. You'll believe anything you read hear or see.
For example. There was a rather famous photo going around Euro and Arab showing US troops being approached by some fellas with white flags, and another showing the US troops searching apparent bodies of the Iraqies...still clutching there little white flags. After some searching, they found the photographer who took the photo's. He said that there were a series of photo's showing the surrender, and the search of the guys. The arab and eyetalian papers had taken two of the photo's, omitted the rest, slapped an iflamitory headline on it and published it.
Of course, to a world of people who believe it just because it written in a newspaper or seen on TV, its just another example of the EVIL US of A.
You dont think this tanker fella saw em comin? You don't think he scoped em with his binocs? You don't think he was in contact with superiours? You reckon them Jews is smart enough to put a radio in a tank eh?
I'm in a tank in a hostile area near a refugee camp full of radical suiciders. I see a buncha people walkin toward my tank draggin and carrying bundles and sacks, maybe a few poles(you did say they was going to pitch a tent). I get told to shoot, I shoot.
Whats the effective range on a modern soviet RPG? This guy will probably get reprimanded for letting them get to close.
Wake up people.
You wanna re-hash the whole shebang, make a new thread. This one is about how really stupid some people can be.
Pretty soon were going to have students from Berkley murder bombing people here at home "in solidarity" with the Palestinians.
Well gee, since you are just so much more intelligent than the rest of us, how about you tell us what REALLY happened. I guess you'll rely on a source other than what you read, heard, or saw.
As to your statement of:
"Pretty soon were going to have students from Berkley murder bombing people here at home "in solidarity" with the Palestinians."
and
"You wanna re-hash the whole shebang, make a new thread. This one is about how really stupid some people can be."
You look in the mirror before you posted that?
How about you wake up.
-
first mistake any government makes is when they use the military to police civilians. you cant blame an army for doing what its been trained to do, kill.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
You look in the mirror before you posted that?
No, but I could feel the grin plastered from ear to ear. :D
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Pretty soon were going to have students from Berkley murder bombing people here at home "in solidarity" with the Palestinians.
Lizard, in that case I'll start a new career as a hunting guide. Bezerkeley is real close by and there's lots of cover and concealment up in the hills. I'll be Marlin Perkins and Lazs can be Jim Fowler.
-
Kanth - the one who makes the order becomes the war criminal. The soldier gets away with it.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Sorry, wrote a long reply and lost it, so my reply will be even less coherent than usuall.
Thanks for the feedback Nashwan...
Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree. :D
From your profile I don't know who you are and as I said to Saburo, there's little point in trying to discuss it on this venue, which often sees 14 year olds argue with 60 year olds about the meaning of life. ;)
However, I would appreciate the source of all of your cut-n-paste quotations if that's convenient? Thanks.
I can only tell you that I've spent over 40 years reading independent material including the all of the actual UN minutes. I'm not Jewish and have no personal agenda in regards to either side. All of what I've read points more to a simple solution of the Palestinians being used by Arab countries as continued pawns for their political needs. It could be solved in a week if Israel, Syria, Lebanon, (a new Iraq), Iran and Jordan got together and really wanted to create a Palestinian state though compromise. The word compromise doesn't seem to be in anyone's vocabulary at the moment, so the violence continues.
If you'd really want to continue a serious discussion, I'd be happy to furnish references and a phone number, so perhaps we could chat on the phone about it. My private email address is in my profile.
Regards,
Badger
-
Funked, I cant believe you posted this thing ... I cant believe these kind of things are allowed even in an Off-Topic forum.
-
I find it interesting he was shot right in the head by a tank...
-
im still wondering how you accidently run over somone with a bulldoser. or conversly let yourself be run over. several years around construction sites with lots of loser drunks/drugies and no one got killed by one. or even close.
they got weelie bars on cats in lsrael?
-
However, I would appreciate the source of all of your cut-n-paste quotations if that's convenient? Thanks.
Most of the quotes come from http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb8525607d00581829/d442111e70e417e3802564740045a309!OpenDocument
which is quoting from the speeches made at the sessions.
Ben Gurion's letters and speeches are quoted in a whole rash of books published after the Israeli archives were opened to researchers.
Another site with an interesting perspective is http://www.etzel.org.il/english/
which is a history of Irgun. It's not an impartial site, it was written by a former member, but after reading it you will realise that it was not a case of Jews simply defending themselves, but just as much a war of agression.
I'm not Jewish and have no personal agenda in regards to either side.
I have no connection to either side, and you can guess my nationality from my avatar.
All of what I've read points more to a simple solution of the Palestinians being used by Arab countries as continued pawns for their political needs.
Certainly that's true to some extent, but the real problem is between Israel and the Palestinians, not the surrounding Arab states.
If you'd really want to continue a serious discussion, I'd be happy to furnish references and a phone number, so perhaps we could chat on the phone about it. My private email address is in my profile.
I'm not that much of a fanatic, honest.
I've found that people rarely change their views on this matter. My post was merely to correct some factual innacuracies, like:
At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes
It didn't work out that way. By most counts, several hundred thousand Arabs were displaced by this war - not by Israeli aggression, not by some Jewish real-estate grab, not by Israeli expansionism.
That's quite clearly not true. Find any source that says Deir Yassin was not attacked, even if you don't believe in the massacre, I haven't seen anyone dispute the village was attacked, the inhabitants removed by force, and the village destroyed.
Hundreds of thousands of Arabs were displaced, mainly by fear of the war, but many were deliberately removed by the Israeli government.
And certainly Israel sought to expand it's borders beyond the areas allocated to it by partition. They launched offensives against several Arab towns, and drove a wedge through Arab territory to Jerusalem, which also wasn't allocated to Israel by partition.
You could also read http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestine for a different perspective.
-
How dare we force our Western forms of protest on the middle east! Are we not suppose to be tolerant of others cultures? Why,... the peace protester should have strapped a bomb on his body and handled the situation like a true Palestinean.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
How dare we force our Western forms of protest on the middle east! Are we not suppose to be tolerant of others cultures? Why,... the peace protester should have strapped a bomb on his body and handled the situation like a true Palestinean.
If the "peace protester" used violence then he'd no longer be peacefully protesting.
A "true" Palestinian is to suicide bombing what a "true" American is to Bombing Federal Buildings like Tim McVeigh. In both cases they are but a fraction minority consisting of the most radical fringe group.
What percentage of the suicide bombers were Palestinian anyway?
Are the Palestinians occupying Israeli territory or are the Israeli's occupying Palestinian territory?
By all means keep making light the death of another. It's so becoming of you :rolleyes:
I guess it's a cardinal sin to do so only if the views are against yours.
-
**********************
Time to act somewhat civil .
With all the tensions in the world today, we need our community to realize that we are an international community.
With that, an understanding must be reached, that the various people from around the world may not agree with any given position voiced in this forum.
We are sensitive to that and make every attempt to allow discussions to run their course. As with anything regarding politics or religion we expect heated debates, but there are boundaries and lately they have been crossed.
I do not care if you are never a customer of mine again, there are some things that are not debatable. Laughing at the death of any human being is not acceptable behavior. Anything that crosses over the line of basic decency will not be tolerated. If you have to ask what that means, then you should not be posting in this forum, at this time.
We purposely let behavior be much more slack in the O'Club than any other place on this board, but it is time to bring it up a level gentlemen.
Dale Addink
*************************
Enough said.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I'm not that much of a fanatic, honest. I've found that people rarely change their views on this matter. My post was merely to correct some factual innacuracies, like:
Unfortunately, these links don't correct any factual inaccuracies, but I think you already knew that. :D
I've seen all of the sites and material you linked to before and unfortunately, to post a bunch more that hold opposing opinions just creates an endless circle jerk. They just do what so many board posts on most subjects do, which is to post a lot of opinions that are someone else's. ;)
Proof is in the eye of the beholder and objective sources are the key to making up one's own mind. After reading your links, I do understand why you don't want to discuss it outside of here, but I leave the offer open anytime you'd like.
Thanks for the feedback....
Regards,
Badger
-
Unfortunately, these links don't correct any factual inaccuracies
Most of the links don't, and I never claimed they did. They do presnet an alternative to the story that the Jews wanted to live in peace in a small part of Palestine.
The factual innacuracy that I wanted to correct was
At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes
Do you still stand by that? I didn't think you wanted to, so I didn't present many sources contradicting it, but I can if you like.
Mondediplo at least contradicts it, and I haven't seen any serious sources claiming there weren't at least some cases of expulsion of Arabs. Again, if you want to deny that happened, I can get you more sources.
-
oh man...now Nashwan goes off into another posting spree.
Dammit we have been over this topic dozens of times already nash, I have disproved 90% of your BS before, cant you just drop it? Do we have to go through this time and time again?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Mondediplo at least contradicts it, and I haven't seen any serious sources claiming there weren't at least some cases of expulsion of Arabs. Again, if you want to deny that happened, I can get you more sources.
Are you referring to Le Monde diplomatique, originally published in French as the source of your proof? :D
Again my friend, you're missing the point of what I was trying to say. It's now obvious to me that it's important for you to post here, linking sources that are just opinions. So, here's some opinions that are from the Arabs themselves. ;)
Joseph Farah, an Arab Christian wrote an article in which he quoted Arabs from the time period during which the brutal Israeli expulsions supposedly happened (The World's Collective Amnesia worldnetdaily.com 9/19/02)
"The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agree upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem."
Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph Sept. 6, 1948.
"The Arab state which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees."
The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, Feb. 19, 1949.
"Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honor nor conscience? Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their honor? The Arab states, and Lebanon amongst them, did it."
The Beirut Muslim weekly Kul-Shay, Aug. 19, 1951.
"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
"For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy."
The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953.
"I could go on and on and on with this forgotten or deliberately obscured history. But you get the point. There was no Jewish conspiracy to chase Arabs out of their homes in 1948. It never happened. There are, instead, plenty of historical records showing the Jews pleading with their Arab neighbors to stay and live in peace and harmony. Yet, despite the clear, unambiguous words of the Arab observers at the time, history has been successfully rewritten to turn the Jews into the bad guys.
The truth is that 68 percent of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them never saw an Israeli soldier. Even more importantly, the revised history has given the guilty a free ride. The Arab states that initiated the hostilities have never accepted responsibility despite their enormous wealth and their ability to assimilate tens of millions of refugees in their largely under-populated nations. And other states have failed to hold them accountable.
It's bad enough the Arab states created a small nation of refugees by their actions. It's worse that they have successfully blamed that international crime on the Jews. Today, of course, this cruel charade continues. The suffering of millions of Arabs is perpetuated only for political purposes by the Arab states.
They are merely pawns in the war to destroy Israel. There were some 100 million refugees around the world following World War II. The Palestinian Arab group is the only one in the world not absorbed or integrated into their own people's lands. Since then, millions of Jewish refugees from around the world have been absorbed in the tiny nation of Israel.
It makes no sense to expect that same tiny Jewish state to solve a refugee crisis it did not create."[/b]
Nashwan... see how easy it is? ;)
Anyway, I'm done... no cut-n-pastes from the Internet will ever make anyone's point, yours or mine. I reiterate... the key is to do lots of studying, not some quick "googling", then make up one's own mind. After 40 years of reading source material from both sides, I have made up my mind based upon the preponderance of logic and fact.
Regards,
Badger
-
Are you referring to Le Monde diplomatique, originally published in French as the source of your proof?
Of course not. The article is a review of various sources, all listed in the footnotes.
Again my friend, you're missing the point of what I was trying to say. It's now obvious to me that it's important for you to post here, linking sources that are just opinions.
Actually I never start any of these topics. It's when I see statements like
At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes
that I chime in. If lies like that get posted enough, then sooner or later people will start to believe them.
Nashwan... see how easy it is?
Of course it is, you can find quotes for almost anything. You still haven't been able to find any that say Deir Yassin wasn't ethnically cleansed, though, have you?
I msut say though, that if your case rests on opinion pieces from Arab newspapers of the 40s and 50s, I'd prefer to read some of the history written since the Israeli archives were opened. Benny Morris and Simha Falpan at least base their work on historical documents, even if it is then coloured by opinion.
Dammit we have been over this topic dozens of times already nash, I have disproved 90% of your BS before, cant you just drop it? Do we have to go through this time and time again?
Was that in the thread where you claimed great knowledge of international law, then denied the existence of the Fourth Geneva Convention?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Was that in the thread where you claimed great knowledge of international law, then denied the existence of the Fourth Geneva Convention?
Take your pick moron.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52417
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57032
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54021
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51678
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Was that in the thread where you claimed great knowledge of international law, then denied the existence of the Fourth Geneva Convention?
I have no idea what you're rambling about, but after reading your last post ..... I'm more convinced that you don't either. ;)
It's unfortunate you use your time and obvious intellect so superficially, simply using Internet cut-n-paste sound bites and failing to dig deeper to really learn the subject material. I guess it's just too easy to dismiss a lot of posts by actual Arabs from a time frame closer to the event itself, then to spend hundreds of hours reading the material yourself, or simply say nothing if you really don't know.
Regards,
Badger
-
I have no idea what you're rambling about, but after reading your last post ..... I'm more convinced that you don't either
That was addressed to Hortlund. I quoted article 49 of the fourth geneva convention, which orginisations like the Red Cross, UN, EU, UK and US governments agree applies to Israeli settlements in the territories.
Hortlund, after lecturing extensively on his knowledge of the law, came up with:
Oh, you can trust whoever you want, I still dont think you should trust the internet as a source for complicated legal issues though. You know, I was wrong regarding the Geneva convention (they do not cover occupation at all), I really should have looked it up before posting.
Riddle me this:
What exactly is "the fourth Geneva convention"?
There are five conventions and protocols related to Geneva, they are (in chronological order):
Amelioration of the condition of the wounded on the field of battle
-from 1864
Geneva protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating gas, and for bacteriological methods of warfare
-from 1928
Convention between the United States of America and other powers, relating to prisoners of war
-from 1929
Geneva convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war
-from 1949
Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological and toxin weapons and their destruction
-from 1975
Of these five, two have more than 49 articles.
From the 1929 convention:
Art 49
No prisoner of war may be deprived of his rank by the detaining Power.
Prisoners given disciplinary punishment may not be deprived of the prerogatives attached to their rank. In particular, officers and persons of equivalent status who suffer punishment involving deprivation of liberty shall not be placed in. the same quarters as noncommissioned officers or privates being punished.
From the 1949 convention:
The Detaining Power may utilize the labour of prisoners of war who are physically fit, taking into account their age, sex, rank and physical aptitude, and with a view particularly to maintaining them in a good state of physical and mental health.
Non-commissioned officers who are prisoners of war shall only be required to do supervisory work. Those not so required may ask for other suitable work which shall, so far as possible, be found for them.
If officers or persons of equivalent status ask for suitable work, it shall be found for them, so far as possible, but they may in no circumstances be compelled to work.
Where is your famous article 49:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." ?
DONT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ON THE INTERNET.
For some reason, he entirely missed the fact that the fourth convention of 1949 had four parts, article 49 of part 4 says:
"Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
I guess it's just too easy to dismiss a lot of posts by actual Arabs from a time frame closer to the event itself, then to spend hundreds of hours reading the material yourself, or simply say nothing if you really don't know.
Or to ignore the published diaries of the Israeli leaders at the time. Read what Menachem Begin had to say about partition at the time, or what Ben Gurion had said about partition throughout the 30s.
There was a sizeable part of the Israeli leadership that regarded partition as just another step towards an Israeli state in the whole of Palestine.
-
Nash, we have been over this a hundred times.
You were talking about the "fourth Geneva convention". There is no such thing. There is a fourth protocol to the 1949 Geneva convention, though. There is a difference, at least to us lawyer types. But you know this already because I know I have told you about it in at least three different threads.
Anyway, I thought you were actually talking about the fourth geneva convention when you said fourth geneva convention...silly me huh? Instead you were talking about the fourth protocol to the geneva convention.
If you want to go back into the international law debate...go right ahead, there are several questions in those links I provided that you have forgotten to answer...
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Or to ignore the published diaries of the Israeli leaders at the time. Read what Menachem Begin had to say about partition at the time, or what Ben Gurion had said about partition throughout the 30s.
Irrelevant to the discussion....
It took me a few posts, but now I do understand the game... ;)
You have several relatives on here and AGW... :D
Regards,
Badger
--------------------
Making up arguments that you believe people made, and then attacking those made up arguments is called a "straw man" argument. It is not really an argument, it is a form of masturbation. Like masturbation, it's best not done in public. --- Andrew Hedges
-
You were talking about the "fourth Geneva convention". There is no such thing. There is a fourth protocol to the 1949 Geneva convention, though.
What number does the 1949 convention come on the list?
There are five conventions and protocols related to Geneva, they are (in chronological order):
Amelioration of the condition of the wounded on the field of battle
-from 1864
Geneva protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating gas, and for bacteriological methods of warfare
-from 1928
Convention between the United States of America and other powers, relating to prisoners of war
-from 1929
Geneva convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war
-from 1949
Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological and toxin weapons and their destruction
-from 1975
Fourth?
Regardless, it is called the fourth geneva convention by almost everybody. There is no country called Britain, it is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but if I say Britain, you know what I mean, don't you?
Anyway, I thought you were actually talking about the fourth geneva convention when you said fourth geneva convention...silly me huh? Instead you were talking about the fourth protocol to the geneva convention.
That's how everybody refers to it. You claimed knowledge of international law, so I naturally assumed you too would have heard of it. Find a press release or speech where it is called something other than the Fourth Geneva Convention.
If you want to go back into the international law debate...go right ahead, there are several questions in those links I provided that you have forgotten to answer...
Fire away.
Irrelevant to the discussion....
The views and aims of the leaders of of one of the sides in a war are irrelevant to a discussion regarding the cause of a war?
Is that like saying Osama bin Laden's views are irrelevant to Sept 11th? and the war in Afghanistan? Or Hitlers views are irrelevant to the start of WW2?
If Ben Gurion, who led Israel, and the Jewish forces before the founding of Israel, says that he regards partition as a stepping stone to conquering the whole of Palestine, and then his forces go on to do exactly that, it's irrelevant?
It took me a few posts, but now I do understand the game
What game? When I see someone posting something that is very biased, I usually post something in response, giving the alternative view. Anybody with little knowledge of the subject seeing your summation would come away with a rather incomplete picture.
You have several relatives on here and AGW
I don't think so, I come from a very small family ;)
Seriously Badger, you posted a very one sided summary of the history of Israel, I posted some opposing views.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
What game? When I see someone posting something that is very biased, I usually post something in response, giving the alternative view. Anybody with little knowledge of the subject seeing your summation would come away with a rather incomplete picture.
Seriously Badger, you posted a very one sided summary of the history of Israel, I posted some opposing views.
No, you posted for the sake of posting and apparently argue for the sake of arguing .... perhaps it's some kind of narcissus complex, I don't know, but it's not my problem. I gather from reading Hortlund's posts, you're also an expert on the Geneva convention and other international matters. Are you related to Miko2d?
You sound like an academic that's spent one too many nights hanging out in the library and not enough time in the real world. ;)
What caused me to pause and realize it was purely a game with you and not really serious was the "straw man" approach. That was your downfall and where you tipped you hand. :D
Good try though.... had me going for a while. :D
Regards,
Badger
--------------------
Making up arguments that you believe people made, and then attacking those made up arguments is called a "straw man" argument. It is not really an argument, it is a form of masturbation. Like masturbation, it's best not done in public. --- Andrew Hedges
-
What caused me to pause and realize it was purely a game with you and not really serious was the "straw man" approach.
What straw man approach? Seriously, I can't see where I've "made up an argument that I believe you made, and then attacked it"
I gather from reading Hortlund's posts, you're also an expert on the Geneva convention and other international matters.
No, it was Hortlund who was the expert, in fact he kept telling me he was an expert with almost every post.
No, you posted for the sake of posting and apparently argue for the sake of arguing
I certainly like a good argument, but I don't post just for the sake of it.
Badger, do you really believe your first post on this thread gave a balanced view?
I make no pretence of balance in my own posts. I usually try to present about as balanced a view as the person I'm arguing with. In this case I presented the Palestinian case, because what you posted was purely the Israeli case.
Are you related to Miko2d?
No, but I've argued with him in the past :D
To be serious again, look at when I registered, and how many posts I've made. I don't get in to these arguments very often.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I certainly like a good argument, but I don't post just for the sake of it.
You're not a stalker are you? Or is it just a case of LPI or OCPD? :eek:
What color is white? ;)
Regards,
Badger
Congratulations... I've got more posts with you then I have with anyone else in 4 years on here. :D
-
You're not a stalker are you?
Hey, it was you who tried to trick me into phoning you ;)
Or is it just a case of LPI or OCPD?
Sorry I don't know what LPI is, but a google search teels me OCPD is either an Orange County Public Defender or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and I am not suffering from either of those.
It's Sunday night, I'm bored, and I'm too lazy to get up and do something more interesting.
I'll be going soon, so if you wait ten mins or so you can post and get the last word in. As you seem to have backed off your earlier claims, I doubt I'll be posting here tomorrow.
-
Edit: Back to the point, thanks to Thrawn.... less personalized, if that's possible based upon such volatile material .... ;)
Originally posted by Nashwan
The factual innacuracy that I wanted to correct was
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/b]
Well, I even gave you several contemporary quotes, not revisionist views of history .... from several Arab newspapers and journalists who also feel that this is a valid statement. However, you've minimized those indicating that they're too old or some other reasoning, IMHO simply because they don't fit your preconceived viewpoint of what you think personally. I think this shows bias and not the objectivity you claim... no? :D
Now you've switched to Deir Yassin as a point to continue arguing, apparently about something you've indicated isn't that important enough for you to discuss face-to-face. ;) So, what is your point? You seem to know little about the actual content except to tell me to read diaries and autobiographies, which it doesn't sound like you've read yourself? As I've said... I've spent 40 years reading and talking to real people on both sides about this conflict. I apologize for being strident, but I do get a little short on patience when I see anonymous posters jump in professing intellectual expertise on virtually every topical subject that appears on these boards. Not only that, but it's extremely misleading to real folks on here who actually might be interested in understanding the issues.
Since you insist on link referencing or book referrals to make your point, why not let people here read about Deir Yassin from two perspectives and make up their own minds. Although these two references are only a superficial look at a deeper question, they do give a flavor for the incident. I have spoken to Arabs who were there who would also would find your statements uninformed. I'd be happy to introduce you to them for a telephone conference call so you can ask them what happened, if you'd like to do that.
Deir Yassin - Palestinian Viewpoint (http://www.deiryassin.org)[/url]
The anti-Zionists often mention the phrase 'Deir Yassin' - why? What is it? (http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/deiryassin.html#theant)[/url]
Regards,
Badger
-
Badger, for one that claims to hold opinions based on "logic and fact" you appear to be ingnorant of ad hominim and appeal to redicule. Your posts are nothing more than slighty veiled personal attacks.
You don't argue the validity of the statements made. And passing strange that the only documention you use to back your arguments is, incredibly, a cut-and-paste of someone elses work.
One wonders if you could find something better to do then sit on the side lines and insult people and redicule what they post. But I'm on to you, you love the lights and music. You don't have the intellectual courage to actually "get in the game". But instead you like pass on pearls, feeling all go about your ideas, without actually risking your ideas in open debate.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Badger, for one that claims to hold opinions based on "logic and fact" you appear to be ingnorant of ad hominim and appeal to redicule. Your posts are nothing more than slighty veiled personal attacks.
Edit: My apologies Thrawn/Nashwan .... et al....
I have let the trivialization of an important issue I've spent forty years reading about and discussing with real people (some who were there on both sides) cause me to behave inappropriately, with both Nashwan and others.
Regards,
Badger
-
Actually, it is "ad hominem".
-
"Add Eminem" would have been a worst spelling ...
don't bother with me I'm otw to my weekly
(http://www.aa-intergroup.org/_borders/bannersmall2_31955_064.gif)
meeting :D
-
Viva la France!
and all the 'terrorists' that helped the allies liberate France in
WWII
Remember labeling something 'terrorist' (a nicely made up word from what ... terror bombing?).. remember, it's easy to label something ... but that doesn't make it so. Was the french resistance terrorists?
Viva la Palestine?
-
Well, I even gave you several contemporary quotes, not revisionist views of history .... from several Arab newspapers and journalists who also feel that this is a valid statement. However, you've minimized those indicating that they're too old or some other reasoning, IMHO simply because they don't fit your preconceived viewpoint of what you think personally. I think this shows bias and not the objectivity you claim... no?
No, they are opinion, not fact. Note I didn't challenge your opinions, I just offered some alternative ones.
Those opinions shed some light on what happened, but they are not a comprehensive picture.
I am not denying Arabs fled, many without seeing any Israeli soldiers. I am sure they intended to return if the Arabs had won, but I am sure many intended to return if the Israelis won as well, as long as the fighting had finished.
Now you've switched to Deir Yassin as a point to continue arguing, apparently about something you've indicated isn't that important enough for you to discuss face-to-face.
It's not that the subject isn't important enough, it's that arguing one on one isn't important enough.
People rarely change strongly held views, and almost everything you've said indicates you have no intention of listening to an alternative argument.
Even your apology:
I have let the trivialization of an important issue I've spent forty years reading about and discussing with real people (some who were there on both sides) cause me to behave inappropriately
suggests you have no interest in hearing an alternative view from me.
So, what is your point? You seem to know little about the actual content except to tell me to read diaries and autobiographies, which it doesn't sound like you've read yourself?
Well, in your reading you never seem to have come across some of the quotes I gave, which were from the Arab case to the UN committee considering partition.
My point is that you gave a precis of the events, that placed blame solely on the Arabs. Most of that was opinion and half truths, but you made at least one claim that was simply wrong.
All I did was post an alternative view, and corrected that factual innacuracy. You then challenged me repeatedly, not on the arguments, which you refused to discuss, but my motives for making a single post.
I have spoken to Arabs who were there who would also would find your statements uninformed. I'd be happy to introduce you to them for a telephone conference call so you can ask them what happened, if you'd like to do that.
What exactly are my statements on Deir Yassin? I didn't support or deny the massacre allegations, I merely pointed out a single instance where Arabs were forcibly removed from their land, after you had denied any such icidents took place.
Again, Badger, do you really believe your first post in this thread was a balanced account?
-
How dare you guys hijack this thread? Let's get back on track, making fun of idiot terrorist supporters.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Again, Badger, do you really believe your first post in this thread was a balanced account?
Yes, but since you want to argue a point in public simply for the sake of arguing it, not because it's actually important to you, then there's not much else to say. You wont come out from behind your mask and tell us who you are to demonstrate any kind of real experience value on the subject, so it's difficult to hold an informed public discussion with you.
I'm not an expert in the Geneva Convention or the wide range of other topics you post in with such authority here. However, I do have sufficient background in this particular subject to call you on your BS academic anonymity game .... far too common to these Internet boards.
If you're ever interested in the actual truth, I'll introduce you to an Arab that was there.... now that would be an interesting conversation between you and he. ;)
Regards,
Badger
-
What do you mean 'come out in public and tell us who you are'?
We're all anonymous. You seem to be dodging the debate.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
What do you mean 'come out in public and tell us who you are'?
We're all anonymous. You seem to be dodging the debate.
That's the point Dowding..... :D
You can't hold any kind of reasonable informed discussion on Internet boards where the posters hide behind anonymity, but you already knew that. ;)
Just how could a topical subject like the Palestinian/Israeli conflict be discussed rationally without understanding the credentials of the people who are posting supposedly informed opinions? You could be dealing with pre-puberty types using mom's credit card who simply cut-n-paste from thousands of sites, but have no actual original opinion or original thought. They're simply trolling for attention and love to poke sticks into hornet's nests, then stand back and watch, although I don't think we've ever seen any of those here. ;)
There's no debate to dodge here. Over 40 years, I've attended hundreds of seminars sponsored by both sides and read a wealth of material, as well as interacted with historical personalities on both sides of the conflict. I'm approaching 60 and spent seventeen years serving my country in a wide range of roles. I'm very familiar with the middle east and its peoples. As I said to Saburo, I'm no expert and don't profess to be, but I think it's a simple courtesy for anyone who claims to be an authority on any subject, to at least represent to their readers some credentials and background.
If you're really interested in serious discussion (or anyone else), then I'd be happy to arrange for an independent forum where people would have to have the courage to be real people and engage each other with informed and serious discussion on the subject. I'd be happy to bring proponents from both sides of the conflict (with their credentials) and then we can hold some mature and focused debates about the material issues.
Are you interested enough to want to do that? As Nashwan said... it really isn't that important to him..... but, perhaps there are some people that it is.
Thanks for the feedback.
Regards,
Badger
-
Originally posted by Badger
If you're really interested in serious discussion (or anyone else), then I'd be happy to arrange for an independent forum where people would have to have the courage to be real people and engage each other with informed and serious discussion on the subject. I'd be happy to bring proponents from both sides of the conflict (with their credentials) and then we can hold some mature and focused debates about the material issues.
I would be *very* interested in that.
Talk about it here or via mail?
-
None of that answers my point. What does knowing my real name matter? It's still a handle, and I would still be anonymous. Having a separate forum would make no difference.