Israel and the middle east.

@Ali phil,

Do you know about the policy of injuries?

Last time of asking.

---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 06:37 AM ----------

kennethamy;166374 wrote:

I said that the intentional targeting to children in something the IDF (or any civilized institution) does not do.

This is actually an example of begging the question. The IDF is not a civilised institution. The evidence is stacked against this sort of circular argument. They do intentionally target civilians including children. The most cursory research will provide you with a veritable glut of examples.

But in order to understand why "they are a civilised institution and wouldn't do that because it's not the sort of thing a civilised institution does" is begging the question you'd have to actually indulge in a bit of honest debate and/or research.

But you'd rarther just accuse others of begging the question - it's easier.

It's very obvious the the Isreali military relies heavily on a reservist/conscript national service that includes a good few nationalistic hotheads encouraged by a procedure of shoot first ask questions later - from which children are not exempt.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;166378 wrote:

encouraged by a procedure of shoot first ask questions later - from which children are not exempt.

Now, I myself think that is an excellent policy given the past behavior of the Palestinians. I hope it is not a new one, since it seems to me one they should have put into place a long time ago.

It seems to be mad to do things which ought to get you shot, and then complain about being shot because you do those things. But then, of course, I am not a Palestinians. They seem to think differently. (If "think" is the proper term to apply to what they do).

0 Replies

@Ali phil,

What did Doctor Thabet Thabet do that meant he ought to get shot?

Oh yeah, he advocated peace. You're clearly just prejudiced to the point where you believe every single Palestinian is dedicated to the destruction of Isreal, and that's a fantasy you can only perpetuate by ignoring that the number of innocents killed by the occupation forces far outweighs those innocents killed by terrorists from Palestine.

Deliberately killed at that.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;166402 wrote:

What did Doctor Thabet Thabet do that meant he ought to get shot?

Oh yeah, he advocated peace. You're clearly just prejudiced to the point where you believe every single Palestinian is dedicated to the destruction of Isreal, and that's a fantasy you can only perpetuate by ignoring that the number of innocents killed by the occupation forces far outweighs those innocents killed by terrorists from Palestine.

Deliberately killed at that.

I didn't say he ought to be shot? Not every single one. But just anyone at random.
The numbers, by themselves, have no significance whatsoever. Israel cares for it citizens, and protects them by building defensive walls, and maintaining strict check-points. Obviously, there would be no occasion or need for these unless there was a need for them. The Palestinians go on hunting expeditions, and then, in the face of inevitable consequences, they don't give a damn.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166408 wrote:

I didn't say he ought to be shot? Not every single one. But just anyone at random.

So any random Palestinian is fair game in your eyes?

---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 08:20 AM ----------

kennethamy;166408 wrote:

The numbers, by themselves, have no significance whatsoever.

I think they do, clearly the greater the number of civilian casualties the greater the gestalt anguish that results. That's probably the biggest reason why the Palestinians did not vote for overtly violent nationalists prior to the second intifada, but have done since.

The West Bank security wall - for what its worth - isn't something I'm personally bothered by. It does save lives rather than end them. I don't think it's just, really, I think it should be at the border rather than through the middle of country, but I think it's an acceptable compromise in the face of the situation.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;166426 wrote:

So any random Palestinian is fair game in your eyes?

---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 08:20 AM ----------

I think they do, clearly the greater the number of civilian casualties the greater the gestalt anguish that results. That's probably the biggest reason why the Palestinians did not vote for overtly violent nationalists prior to the second intifada, but have done since.

The West Bank security wall - for what its worth - isn't something I'm personally bothered by. It does save lives rather than end them. I don't think it's just, really, I think it should be at the border rather than through the middle of country, but I think it's an acceptable compromise in the face of the situation.

So any random Palestinian is fair game in your eyes?

No, although.....

I think they do, clearly the greater the number of civilian casualties the greater the gestalt anguish that results

Must admit, never heard that term. Is it from the Arabic. It is obfuscating enough. Sure, if more people are killed, more anguish is likely to occur. But how is that relevant to what we were talking about?

What is not acceptable is that (A) the Palestinians force the Israelis to build the wall to save their own lives, and (B) then have the gall to complain about it. It is like the old story of the child who murders his parents and then pleads mercy because he is a orphan. That the Palestinians are even taken seriously is a wonder and a shame.

0 Replies

@Ali phil,

You'll find a definition of gestalt in any decent english dictionary.

No to the killing of random Palestinians? Well I'm relieved to hear it, but then what did you mean by "not every single one. But just anyone at random"?

1 Reply

@Ali phil,

Ali;154395 wrote:

Are Israels actions of murder, genocide, oppresion and occupation in the middle east equal to the immorality of the nazis during WWII?
Sounds Almost rediculous, but what makes the killing of the many worse than the killing of a few (not that its a few). Joseph stalin said, 'one death is a tradgaty, a million is a statistic.'

Hi Ali,

Roger Waters, puts it into perspective, fantastically - "The germans kill the jews, the jews kill the arabs, the arabs kill the hostages, and this is the news. Is it any wonder, the monkey's confused?"
Sums it up nicely I think...

Thank you Ali, and have a great day, everyday.

Mark...

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;166484 wrote:

You'll find a definition of gestalt in any decent english dictionary.

No to the killing of random Palestinians? Well I'm relieved to hear it, but then what did you mean by "not every single one. But just anyone at random"?

How about, "gestalt anguish". Is that in the dictionary too?

---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 11:46 AM ----------

mark noble;166485 wrote:

Hi Ali,

Roger Waters, puts it into perspective, fantastically - "The germans kill the jews, the jews kill the arabs, the arabs kill the hostages, and this is the news. Is it any wonder, the monkey's confused?"
Sums it up nicely I think...

Thank you Ali, and have a great day, everyday.

Mark...

The Germans killed the Jews, but the Jews were innocent. But, Arabs like to kill Jews, so Arabs are not innocent. If the monkey does not make that distinction there is no wonder that the monkey's confused.

1 Reply

@Ali phil,

Well most dictionaries don't deal with turns of phrase, but words. The words are there. You'll find anguish under A and gestalt under G.

Try to understand each of the words seperately first - no need to run before you can walk after all.

Then, once you've got the hang of the two seperate terms, try putting them together and seeing if you manage to come up with a meaning, or even a likely impression will do.

If you can't that's OK - just ask me and I'll explain it to you, but I think you should make a modicum (it's under M) of effort for yourself first.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166491 wrote:

The Germans killed the Jews, but the Jews were innocent. But, Arabs like to kill Jews, so Arabs are not innocent. If the monkey does not make that distinction there is no wonder that the monkey's confused.

3,150 years ago the jews extinguished, through the act of genocide, every living man, woman, child, livestock and poultry thereof, between the Jordan river and the Med Sea. They conquered the lands of Palestine and took them for themselves. The romans forced the jewish nation into exile, to foreign lands. In 1948, the allies of WW11 gave them back the lands (palestinian land), that was not theirs to give. The arabs have been forced into ghettoes, the desert, and subsequent depravity. They now have no water, no fuel, no food, no power, no homes and no dignity.

"Arabs like to kill jews"??? What a truly condeming statement of moderately less than 1.5 billion human beings.

I don't take sides, I don't judge either/or. But I do see EXACTLY what is observeable.

0 Replies

@Ali phil,

I don't necessarily find the bible a decent source of history, nor do I think there are 1.5 billions arabs (muslims yes, arabs no).

But yeah, I'm with you on being bewildered by the black and white characterisation of a complex history of mutual grievances.

2 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;166514 wrote:

I don't necessarily find the bible a decent source of history, nor do I think there are 1.5 billions arabs (muslims yes, arabs no).

But yeah, I'm with you on being bewildered by the black and white characterisation of a complex history of mutual grievances.

I think the illegal occupation of Palestine is still relative , its not a historic act, it is a reason to condemn, still. Even more I can not understand the international inaction on the present incursions into Arab land. American politics dictated by the Jewish lobby is at fault and we all sit back and let it happen. We see Goliath daily inflicting pain and suffering and no one complains , its scandalous.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;166514 wrote:

I don't necessarily find the bible a decent source of history, nor do I think there are 1.5 billions arabs (muslims yes, arabs no).

But yeah, I'm with you on being bewildered by the black and white characterisation of a complex history of mutual grievances.

What is bewildering about a black and white history of Nazi-Jewish grievances? Most of the world finds it pretty black and white. Including many Arabs, as a matter of fact. (Yes, conflating Muslims with Arabs is something of an error. Think how the Kurds would feel about that!).

---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 01:21 PM ----------

xris;166525 wrote:

I think the illegal occupation of Palestine is still relative , its not a historic act, it is a reason to condemn, still. Even more I can not understand the international inaction on the present incursions into Arab land. American politics dictated by the Jewish lobby is at fault and we all sit back and let it happen. We see Goliath daily inflicting pain and suffering and no one complains , its scandalous.

I am not clear what you have in mind by the occupation of Palestine. Do you consider, for example, Tel Aviv, occupied? So do most Palestinians.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;166525 wrote:

I think the illegal occupation of Palestine is still relative , its not a historic act, it is a reason to condemn, still. Even more I can not understand the international inaction on the present incursions into Arab land. American politics dictated by the Jewish lobby is at fault and we all sit back and let it happen. We see Goliath daily inflicting pain and suffering and no one complains , its scandalous.

Hi Xris,

I guess we also have to add that the media of different countries tell a different story also. You, I and dave observe an alternate version of events through the BBC.

As for the germans and the jews, Ken. Some of The jews that did evaid the ghettoes, or escape from them. Formed partisan groups that merged with the red army and slaughtered unsuspecting germans at every oppurtunity. Mostly in the form of surprise-ambush attacks, hidden mines under railway lines and snipers.
Do you think that was because they LIKED killing germans?

Thank you Chris and Dave (excuse my arab/muslim incorrectitude), and be fantastic sirs.

Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble;166539 wrote:

Hi Xris,

I guess we also have to add that the media of different countries tell a different story also. You, I and dave observe an alternate version of events through the BBC.

As for the germans and the jews, Ken. The jews that did evaid the ghettoes, or escape from them. Formed partisan groups that merged with the red army and slaughtered unsuspecting germans at every oppurtunity. Mostly in the form of surprise-ambush attacks, hidden mines under railway lines and snipers.
Do you think that was because they LIKED killing germans?

Thank you Chris and Dave (excuse my arab/muslim incorrectitude), and be fantastic sirs.

Mark...

Hello.

I agree that this must be seen from both sides, Roger Waters put it fantastically, there is blame on all sides and no blame.

He who winks with the eye, blinks one-sidedly.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166530 wrote:

What is bewildering about a black and white history of Nazi-Jewish grievances? Most of the world finds it pretty black and white. Including many Arabs, as a matter of fact. (Yes, conflating Muslims with Arabs is something of an error. Think how the Kurds would feel about that!).

---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 01:21 PM ----------

I am not clear what you have in mind by the occupation of Palestine. Do you consider, for example, Tel Aviv, occupied? So do most Palestinians.

Yes I do consider Tel Aviv to be occupied territory. Occupied by Israelis, who have no moral right to be there. The Russians occupied Poland at approximately the same time, in your opinion were they there by right of conquest? The Chinese have occupied land since that time, is that illegal or legal in your opinion. I cant differentiate because the world in general and America in particular find it acceptable.

2 Replies

@mark gamson,

mark gamson;166541 wrote:

Hello.

I agree that this must be seen from both sides, Roger Waters put it fantastically, there is blame on all sides and no blame.

.

It is fantastic; a contradiction.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166548 wrote:

It is fantastic; a contradiction.

"One man's contradiction, is another man's agreement"
[CENTER][/CENTER]

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;166545 wrote:

Yes I do consider Tel Aviv to be occupied territory. Occupied by Israelis, who have no moral right to be there.

Res Ipsa Loquitur. But, at least you are being candid. That is what the Arabs believe too, but simply won't say so. That is why all this business about a two State solution is nonsense. Like you, they want to drive the Jews into the sea. And, since the Israelis will not be driven into the the sea, well, draw your own conclusion. Fortunately, Israel has the Bomb.

1 Reply

Israel and the middle east.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know