|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/18/2006 09:29:10 AM · #176 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
[quote=routerguy666] And people like you "try and see both sides". |
Here is an article that is written very eloquently - the author (or "terrorist sympathiser" as we call people who "try and see both sides") is a Rabbi:
//www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00255.htm
People who cannot see beyond black & white need not bother reading it - |
Michael Lerner is hardly a guy who tries to see both sides of the situation and you mislead greatly when you present him as a Rabbi as if that somehow validates him as spokesman for the average Jew.
Lerner has been Israel bashing since the 70's. One of his typical quotes:
"I believe that the Israeli people will never be safe until the Occupation ends and a new spirit of repentance and generosity spreads through the Jewish people, and we are able to atone for the pain we have inflicted on the Palestinian people in thirty five years of brutal occupation, and in forcing so many Palestinians out of their home and not allowing them to return in 1948-49."
So it is not suprising that you admire his essay, given that he shares your opinion that Israel is in the wrong in any given situation.
Should also note that his claim to being a Rabbi is also pretty shady. I'm not Jewish so I lose interest in this guy after a certain point, but if you google around you (you being anyone interested in getting more than what has been selectively spoonfed to you here) can find out much, much more. |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 09:40:21 AM · #177 |
Hey beagle...I think you're getting out of line. Some people are having a decent discussion, sharing their views, and all I see from you is anger and sarcasm. Suck it up and share your opinion, but seriously man, if you're just getting angry and have nothing but sarcasm to add from this point, just get out of the conversation before you make a total dick of yourself.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 09:41:33 AM · #178 |
Originally posted by amber:
Ok...like Kuwait 'invaded' Iraq. And Israel are simply 'entering' Lebanon.
America 'entered' Iraq, but they were simply 'liberating'. Who decides on the correct terminology? |
The winner. The same group who hold court for war crimes.
Message edited by author 2006-07-18 09:45:41. |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 09:44:09 AM · #179 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The 18 month ceasefire that had been respected by Hamas was withdrawn only after the Israeli shelling on the beach. |
This is evidence of how far out of touch I am. I was under the impression that the "shelling" was in fact a buried explosive from Hamas that was detonated by the family mistakenly. Hamas blamed the incident on Israel shelling, but the facts were quite different.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 09:47:55 AM · #180 |
| I swore I would not get into this arguement. but you must realize there are two wars being waged over there. One is the war over land...Which can be solved and then the second over religion..Which will never be solved. It does not matter which side you take. Or who is fighting who today. There has been a war in that region since the beginning of time itself. I think its a war waged just to have a purpose in that region. Israel Claims its theirs, Everybody else claims its theirs. No leadership in the region. Most of the people living there want it to stop but the fanatics on both sides. Simple rule of thumb and reason why all nations fail at some point. Whoever has the biggest most powerful military and allies wins. Its that simple I mean really tkae a look at the rest of the world its the same just with better leadership to control the masses. If they would apply simple Machiavelli principles they would staibolize the region. Maybe... |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 09:49:52 AM · #181 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Hamas blamed the incident on Israel shelling, but the facts were quite different. |
The 'facts', as established by.... the Israeli military? |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 10:35:08 AM · #182 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Hey beagle...I think you're getting out of line. Some people are having a decent discussion, sharing their views, and all I see from you is anger and sarcasm. Suck it up and share your opinion, but seriously man, if you're just getting angry and have nothing but sarcasm to add from this point, just get out of the conversation before you make a total dick of yourself. |
Thanks - I was pretty cross. I suppose all the name calling the, labelling me as one sided, terrorist sympathiser, apologist for terrorism, US hater, anti semite, all because I was "trying to see both sides of the story", made me a little frustrated. By the time that I tried to ridicule the prevalent pro-violence opinion, I felt that it had already ceased to be a decent discussion, or a sharing of views, but quite a significant personal attack.
It was a reasonably healthy discussion (I found it interesting and informative) up until yesterday/last night, but it seemed to escalate with the landing of a lot of personal accusations.
Your post has made me realise that I am probably better off "getting out of the conversation". I should have listened to Jinjit - this is too emotive a subject to be able to properly convey oneself in writing in this format, because one misunderstood word in a single post will lead to multiple accusations of racial hatred (if you criticise Israel, that is - not the other way around).
It has also reminded me of the times when I have discussed the subject with Jewish, Lebanese, Syrian and Egyptian people. There is no tolerance for someone who will put the other side of the argument.
You may all go back to agreeing with each other unquestioningly (to go back to the first post) how "Israel is showing how things should be done." I see now that this thread was not intended for anyone with a different, more moderate view.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 11:00:24 AM · #183 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
You may all go back to agreeing with each other unquestioningly (to go back to the first post) how "Israel is showing how things should be done." I see now that this thread was not intended for anyone with a different, more moderate view. |
You're wrong. Anyone's free to share whatever view they want to share, but sarcasm is for little highschool girls that are trying to make their little boyfriends angry or jealous. Grow up.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 11:28:54 AM · #184 |
Do we have a requirement on literary styles in the rant forum?
Irony (saying what you didn't mean and meaning what you didn't say) might be considered childish, but has been used since the first written records have been made.
It is quite effective here, I would add. Especially if it makes some people notice those posts.
Just simple reasoning and logic may not achieve the same effect. |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 11:43:48 AM · #185 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
You may all go back to agreeing with each other unquestioningly (to go back to the first post) how "Israel is showing how things should be done." I see now that this thread was not intended for anyone with a different, more moderate view. |
You're wrong. Anyone's free to share whatever view they want to share, but sarcasm is for little highschool girls that are trying to make their little boyfriends angry or jealous. Grow up. |
Ridicule by taking a viewpoint to its ultimate logical conclusion is a valid debating technique. Name calling is not. I admitted to being frustrated, which may have come out in my prose - but you choose to criticise me for childishness?
I would remind you that I have put up with the following, which I have tried to refute without retort. Please give me some credit.
Originally posted by theSaj:
âI have seldom heard you condem such actionsâ
âbased on numerous past discussions I believe you to be extremely biased toward Israel and very apologetic to the Islamic extremistsâ
âI also have yet to ever hear you propose a solution for Israel. Until you can provide a workable solution I think you have little right to criticize. You are free too. But it is of low-regard, IMHOâ
âSo I think you claim of 30 yrs without negotiation to be baseless, uninformed and uneducated. And an example of flat out bias.â
âOnly a fool would think there is hope in such at this point.â
âSee LegalBeagle, you're a lawyer. So to you, such designations make a difference. Most of us common people think legal jargon is bullsh!t.â
âLegalbeagle is the type that greatly strengthens and encourages such terrorism by constantly denying history and refusing to condemn such entities so that he can have more fuel for his anti-American sentiments.â
âI find LegalBeagle's anti-semitism to be showing more and more clearly.â
âthis may be more of a European issue where anti-semitism toward Jews is very common and seemingly only moderately addressedâ
âBut the fact you are so biased helps you to accept as valid arguments full of expletives. "
"Your the biggest apologist and so terribly wrong. You're a perfect example of 1930's Brit. Give Hitler what he wants boy. It's all everyone else's fault. Hitler is a nice guy and won't harm you. He's just...well misunderstood.â
âFor a lawyer...you're pretty daft.â
âOne might say this whole damned problem is due to Brits like you who kept compromising for Israel on her behalfâ
âWhat planet have you been on? have you read history?â
âYour world view is tragically skewed.â
âI actually find you to speak with much hatred, especially towards Americans. And I have often found your words to have a very anti-semetic tone. You've repeatedly in a multitude of discussion dismissed evidence.â
âwith so many people thinking like LegalBeagle, it may soon very well be the time that we refer to France as part of the Muslim world.â
âHey LegalBS,â
âDo you get the picture. (Doubt it...I'd probably need an 800gigapixel photo for you to get it.)â
â*cough cough* LegalBSâ
âYou're a constant apologist for them.â
âYou are merely an apologist for the extremists.â |
Oh - edit to add:
Originally posted by deapee:
"get out of the conversation before you make a total dick of yourself"
"Grow up." |
Message edited by author 2006-07-18 11:47:08.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 12:34:28 PM · #186 |
So you are saying none of those quotes are correct?
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 12:40:56 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by amber:
To be fair, you have no idea if I would protect Israel or not. I have always defended Israel, but after the family were killed on the beach, I began to question my unquestioning support. Which I am allowed to do btw.
|
You are correct -- I mistakenly stated my perception of how I thought you would act as assumed fact. Sorry.
Originally posted by amber:
I lived as a child through the Birmingham bombings. I lived all my life with the threat of terrorism and the prejudice caused by my family being Irish. Not once did the UK threaten to bomb Eire, because many IRA terrorists came from there, or got huge support there - especially Co. Cork. Not once did the UK threaten to cut off ties with the USA, let alone bomb it because of the large financial support the IRA received there.
Double standards. |
I'm sorry, no one should have to grow up under conditions like that. Maybe the UK didn't bomb Eire, but I seem to remember hearing about a lot of other shootings and "repression" and people being arrested and held without charge and other shennanigans ... though I guess that was mostly on what was "technically" UK territory.
I don't particularly support Israel's specific actions (see previous post on pacifism), but I support Israel's right to exist, and have yet to see any other country willing to step in and protect it from continual attack.
I'd certainly welcome some other solution, but I don't have one, other than for for the clouds to split over Mecca and the the voice of Allah to shout out the specific instruction that Israel be left in peace.
Message edited by author 2006-07-18 12:41:21. |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 12:44:14 PM · #188 |
Changed my mind... not worth the effort.
Message edited by author 2006-07-18 12:46:59. |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 01:45:37 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I would remind you that I have put up with the following, which I have tried to refute without retort. Please give me some credit.
...
|
Credit? You'll get no credit from me. Those are all people's clearly stated opinions, most of which I agree with, for that matter. As I've said, you've resorted to childish tactics to deliver your views. To me, sarcasm isn't a good way to 'fight' your battles. It's childish, and reminds me of this one girl I dated in 9th grade...or was that 8th grade, I can't remember.
Either way, this post is so off-topic now...which shows me that the discussion has run its course. Heck, we went from debating attacks to taking stabs at people's style.
I'm probably partially responsible, although I stayed out of it as long as I could. And to be completely honest, the only reason I posted on the start of this page was to tell you that you were getting out of line and trying to save you face. And like I said, I didn't 'call you names' -- I simply told you that you weren't getting anywhere as far as making your point clear.
--
Anyway, whatever...fight your battle how you see fit. Talk bad on my country if you wish. The fact of the matter is that I'm not doing anything to help anyone whose neighbors or families are being bombed, shot, raped, kidnapped, or murdered and neither are you. So we both suck.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 02:00:43 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
So you are saying none of those quotes are correct? |
What do you think: I condemn the unjustified violence on both sides. I object to people supporting only one side blindly. I support interventionism where it is justifiable, but would vastly prefer it to operate within the international rule of law, rather than outside the principles we have worked so hard to establish for ourselves. I support and defend the existence of Israel (within borders close to the established position in 1949). I have travelled reasonably extensively in the area, I am familiar with a number of its cultures and traditions, I have studied its history (ancient and modern).
However, I disagree with continued Israeli occupation of the disputed territories, criticise what I perceive to be a tendency towards dramatic escalation of conflict by Israel, and argue that the area needs to find a political solution in order to defuse the tension, rather than a largely military one. I think that as a nation state, Israel has a greater prospect of initiating the change for peace than the splintered radical cells that surround it.
I do not think that justifies the level of abuse and misrepresentation that has been made against me.
I do not accuse people who think that the Israeli response is proportionate, or who think that the Arab states have brought this on themselves for their weak security policies and their racist rhetoric, of being Zionist Supremacists - I disagree with them, but can do so by (hopefully) reasonable and rational debate. In the end I would not end up hating them for their views, though I may disagree with them. For example - GeneralIE has been an interesting voice, and I disagree with him in some important aspects of this debate, but I would hope that we could still have a beer together without any awkwardness.
I am normally pretty resilient about these things. However, I get the feeling that there is some real animosity being stirred up against me by certain others, and people seem to think that it is acceptable behaviour.
Message edited by author 2006-07-18 14:01:54.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 02:05:23 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Either way, this post is so off-topic now...which shows me that the discussion has run its course. Heck, we went from debating attacks to taking stabs at people's style. |
Maybe it started going off course when I was called a Hitler fan-boy. I believe that is the traditional marker.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 02:17:43 PM · #192 |
| Hitler had some good ideas. He just should have worked with the Jews instead of killing them. |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 02:18:27 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I don't particularly support Israel's specific actions (see previous post on pacifism), but I support Israel's right to exist, and have yet to see any other country willing to step in and protect it from continual attack.
I'd certainly welcome some other solution, but I don't have one, other than for for the clouds to split over Mecca and the the voice of Allah to shout out the specific instruction that Israel be left in peace. |
I agree that it is hard to see a solution now.
Given that the last peace negotiations achieved a reasonably steady peace for 18 months, with the promise of the moderates in the Israeli cabinet committed to the roadmap for peace (the Israeli movement towards border re-alignment that I have consistently supported), I am still a little surprised at a pacificist regarding two or three minor border issues in the last month justifying/being allowed to escalate to "setting Lebanon back 20 years" and abandoning the peace process that has been working.
In the circumstances, Lebanon and Israel are going to duke it out for a bit. I guess we will have to wait and see which nation's god (or military backer) is the first to speak out against its own side's violence towards the other.
Failing that, there is the nascent proposal from the UN for an international peacekeeping force to be sent to the region. That will take time to put together, but in my mind is a highly desirable short to medium term solution.
Message edited by author 2006-07-18 14:20:36.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 03:05:25 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
How many Jewish quarters have you visited in the Middle East? They are called "Mellahs". One exists in pretty much every major historical city throughout the middle east. I have visited them in cities from Aleppo to Damascus to Beirut to Marrakesh to Cairo. 50 years ago they were full of Jewish people, much in the way that the Christian quarters are still full of Christians, living in a well established but slightly uneasy peace with their neighbours." |
Nice way of saying "ghetto", also very similar from what I hear, that France does with many of it's impoverished immigrants.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
The Mellahs are occupied by only a handful of Jews nowadays, if any, following the growth in tension and the simultaneous transition of a people from the cities of which they formed a part to the new state of Israel. I am not being biased: Israel both emptied the Mellahs and resulted in a tension. I am not blaming Israel in some way, but I am making an observation. |
So we have periodic "emptyings" and harm to these Mellahs. We have eradication of the European "ghettos". Millions dead. Purges throughout the middle-east and european east. Did this increase after 1950. Yes...
But this has been going on for centuries....
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Read your history books. Read about the Velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia, the Revolution of Roses in Georgia, the Peaceful revolution in East Germany, just to name three very recent examples. |
a) none of those involved a secondary power as the controlling entity (occupier), unless you count the Soviet Union. For which I am not sure I could consider those peaceful revolutions. Billions expending on war machines and numerous wars in third party states.
b) all involved the support of a strong third party, (namely the U.S. & Europe) providing assistance
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
How on earth do you reach that conclusion? Okay - I will try and explain this in more simple terms: when Israel captured land from Egypt, there was huge tension and massive resentment. |
Um...are you insinuating that there was not huge tension and massive resentment prior?
LB, let's face it...you're biased to the nth degree. You focus on the resentment and tension created by Israel taken hold of land without any mention of the fact regarding the attacks on Israel. The fact had the surrounding nations not endeavored to invade said land would not have been lost. So really, the issue at hand is the "tension & resentment" of the Egyptians post-War with no regard to the prior state.
"My point was that if Israel destroys the land, or refuses to give it back, it is not likely successfully to wring the concessions it is demanding."
I saw none of this point made in the first posting.
"Please point to a time when I have suggested something equivalent to accusing all Muslims of being child haters for encouraging their children to be suicide bombers (one of your gems). "
Please, find said quote...as that is not what I have said. I have said, that I am much more able to understand the actions of the Israelis defending themselves and their families than I am able to understand the use of Palestinian children to strike and harm Israelis. The first is to me one motivated from defense, regardless of whether the means are right or wrong. The latter is motivated for revenge. When you decry Israel killing your children while at the same time using your children as bombs. I find myself unable to understand you. This does not include every Palestinian. Most simply want the opportunity to work and provide for their family.
But if I have to choose between two groups, I am going to choose the one that I can understand and relate too. Furthermore, in no way do I want to understand or relate to a group that uses it's children as weapons of revenge against it's enemies. To me, the number one reason to harm another being is to protect my wife and family from harm by said individuals. To use my wife and children to harm said individuals is to me a sickened behavior of the lowest order. And something I care not to understand.
"I do not care for the administration's seemingly unquestioning support (against world opinion) for Israel."
And I do not care for much of Europe's and U.N. unwillingness to oppose the regimes that support the groups that constantly perpetrate such attacks and provocations.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Erm - such as every time when Israel and surrounding nations were brought to the table and a period of sustained peace followed? Or is it "always" the fault of the Arabs (because they are dirty child haters?). |
Um...actually, there has been fair progress regarding relations between Israel & it's neighbor states of Egypt & Jordan. And there have been economic benefits to both parties for it.
I do not speak of every Arab. Just of the extremist militants and those regimes which support & encourage them.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Sounds like scaremongering (the "evil Islam spreading across Europe"). |
Hmm...I've read reports about sharia law in certain parts of Europe being implemented. Even the consideration of seperate courts being authorized to enact sharia law. So in that regards, I do see it spreading and being pandered too.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I condemn all the violence of the militants (Hamas and Hezbollah and others). I condemn Iran's position, and strongly believe that it must not be allowed to develop the bomb. |
So what are you going to do about it?
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I strongly support the establishment of control throughout the region as I have said several times and you choose to ignore. But I cannot support the destruction of a nation state by another acting unilaterally in pursuit of a militant organisation. |
I take it to mean U.N. forces? But the U.N. has a fairly poor track record in the region. As militants have fired while standing next to U.N. forces. So that offers little hope of accomplishment.
U.N. forces seldom are willing to do the deed. Just ask a million Rwandans. Or at least the hundred who died while staring at U.N. peacekeepers begging for help.
"The UN is not perfect, but it does involve and represent nations. Are you going to be the one to decide which nations are "good" and which are "bad"?"
I believe in order to vote a nation should be of a caliber that endeavors to ensure basic human rights and provide a minimal aspect of Democracy. This is not to say there won't be failings. But the basics should be clearly striven for.
If one cannot accept such regards as requirements, nor the requirement of elements of Democracy - then what regard is an organization such at the U.N. which endeavors to solve matters via democratic principles. As such, I believe the U.N. allows dictators to take advantage of it's democratic foundations while not being accountable to those principles. When a tyrant can point to U.N. Resolution xxxx and claim a need for action because it was voted on...while said tyrants populace has no similar right. Then I do not have respect for said system.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Just want to protect that gem by recording it. More "votes" because you have more states than there are countries in Europe. Europe does not get a "vote", because it is the world's most anti semitic area. Plus all the (presumably American) people you know originating from India agree with you, so you have the support of one of the most populous states in the world (presumably, because they are not American, they still only count for one "vote").
I am not sure how to respond to that one - you have me flummoxed. |
a) in part it was response to your statements putting America alone as a single vote and Europe as dozens of votes. To which I countered that the U.S.A. is in fact a union of 50 nation states.
b) I pointed out that I personally do not feel Europe is unbiased on the matter
c) I addressed even if we counted the U.S. as a single opinion. That we are not alone. And that India has often showed support for Israel. And most of the Indians I have met visiting the U.S. have echoed such feelings. That was said to show (a) that the U.S. is not alone. 1+1=2 and (b)
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Originally posted by "theSaj":
It may also be the fact that most Americans have difficulty taking seriously any government who's citizens wear Speedo's. But that may be coincidence and have no bearing on direct causality. |
???? what does this mean?
|
Satire my dear LB, satire.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
An excellent quote, and as I recall, they were referring to Iran. And yes, Iran does need to stop instigating s**t all over the region |
You are correct, the reference was only to Syria. Not that it makes much difference. I agree. They really do need to stop instigating crap.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Please let me know how Basque (I think you mean) seperatists are treated as second class citizens? |
My bad, I mis-replied. That was supposed to be a statement on terrorism elsewhere and those who wanted their independence.
I see now you were referring to second class citizens. As for that, I understand there are a lot of issues in France regarding the impoverished (many immigrants from Muslim countries) not having free and open access to jobs, etc.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
the teacher needed to take this into hand. |
And they never did. So who is to act? And how?
In my own case, I had one teacher make fun of my speech impediment before the entire class. Do you expect me to trust said teacher to act on my behalf?
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Which would you have preferred: a strong teacher, or the right to fight the bullies and *make* them respect and fear you? Which one of you is the bully in your preferred scenario? |
Personally, I'd have preferred the strong teacher. After that, I'd have preferred the option to defend myself without repercussions. Next, I'd prefer to have defended myself with equal repercussions to both parties (myself and the bully).
As for which one of us is the bully, as I never thru the first punch the bully was the opposition.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Sanctions that would justify an international force forcibly removing nuclear weapons capability from Iran. |
Well, by the time the decision was made (if ever made) to use force. Said weapons would likely be relocated out of Iran. Then we'd have to lay sanctions elsewhere. And repeat process. Then finally, we could roast marshmallows over the embers of our ruined cities.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
You don't get it, do you? I support violence where it is necessary and proportionate and legal. Absolutely, ultimately Iran must not get the bomb. |
You don't get it. I oppose sanctions cause it does nothing to harm the leadership, and only brings misery to the common people. If your stance is such. Then let's skip the sanctions and go to the next step.
Do you believe such leaders care about their poor dying? They do not. They will still feast on delicacies while the common man watches his wife get sick and his child die of malnutrition.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Don't understand first question. |
Of course not...you're a lawyer. I've repeatedly referred to the issue where Israel made a number of (land & authority) concessions and refused to make further concessions until the PLO changed their charter document to remove the stated requirement of the destruction of Israel and it's people.
IMHO, it is much more difficult to relocate entire towns and villages and to surrender a hard asset than it is to simply remove a line that says "We want to kill you!" Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to accept an endeavor of good faith when one refuses to cease their exclamation of total eradication of the other party.
But, you seem to completely be removed from such issue and have nothing to say. Though I've mentioned it about a 1/2 dozen times. *shrug*
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
It is hard to make a strong argument for it in practice given the relative wealth of Israelis and surrounding nations |
Here is where your true colors shine. As do many of the Arab extremists. Your real issue and reasoning of support comes down to this. You view the Israelis as wealthy and the Arabs as impoverished. And you judge and condemn the Israelis for their greater success in the region. So do many of the Arabs. However, the Arabs have had much greater resources. Their oil revenues could have allowed far greater success than Israel has achieved. But their methods and actions differ greatly, as do the results.
And no, that was completely unrelated to my Question 1.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Are this "hostiles" the same individuals as those who entered into the peace process, or different people? As you say, the process is sometimes deliberately "derailed". |
Sometimes seperate but many times one and the same. Yasser Arafat was a great example. He'd talk peace to the Israelis and then go back to the Palestinians and express that it was merely a stop-gap and the goal of Israel's destruction remained.
Often times, it was a two faced card.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
What? Is anyone ever "settled" by this interpretation? |
In other words, if you go back to the 1700's you find very minimal population in the area. Most all of the population growth occurred in the 1800's and 1900's. (Yes, the whole world's population has grown over that period. But the relative density as related to the surrounding areas also greatly increased over that period.) Most of whom are called Arabs or Israelis are immigrants. With only a handful of either side having claim to being indigenous and displaced.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Political negotiations had almost succeeded in the release of the Hamas hostage. These have now failed. |
Really, last I had heard was a statement that there was no way they would be released. Shortly thereafter the attacks were launched. Looks to me more so that negotiations failed.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Apologies: my shorthand - the strikes are often retaliatory, but pre-emptive in scale (ie escalate the position). |
Thanks, that does clarify. And I don't have much issue with that. I was hit with but a textbook. I threatened with retaliation of a desk.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
October 2002. |
That's actually pretty cool. But would you inform said Beduin that you do not believe him to be a native of said region?
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I think that you started to answer your own question here: just substitute "millennia" for "centuries". And "Assyrian" for "Syrian". And, I'll give you the etymology of "Palestine" - "Philistine" (although that people was absorbed into the Syrians/Assyrians three or so millennia ago, and you appear to accept that they have existed in the area for a long time. |
As have the Jews. And yes, I will even grant that the Jews were once and occupying and invading force circa several centuries B.C.
As such, I don't see such as a great value in modern debate, except to show eligibility of both parties. And as you have said, the original Philistines/Palestinians were absorbed into Assyria/Syria. Mind you, the Babylonians have Iraq. The Persians Iran. You then have Syria, Jordan, Suadi Arabia and a multitude of others. A vast and overwhelming majority of the land in the region.
And said groups to which we discuss advocate a zero land policy for the Hebrews. And you seem quite okay with that.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Maybe we are talking at cross purposes: you regard the Israeli lands captured in the 1960s as validly held spoils of war? |
No, not really, but I have no sympathy for a mugger who loses his wallet to his victim. And if the mugger pleads he was robbed during a robbery attempt I have little consolation from him. Especially, when the robber has tried mugging the victim on several occasions and on many of those occasions the victim did give back much of the wallet's contents.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I have been forced to this position because I cannot accept the blatantly one sided views of some blindly supporting Israel. |
Oh, I think there are a lot of issues regarding Israel's actions. And I do believe they go overboard at times. But I believe they do so because a vast part of the global community refuses to address the bullies in the region.
In fact, I believe the U.S. has chosen to veto any resolution which doesn't include condemnation for both parties. And to me, I view the tally of all your comments to essentially be "this is all Israel's fault". It is quite evident by your statements that preclude no blame on the Arab nations for ejecting the Jews from their lands, but rather choosing to blame it on Israel's existance. Ironically, this is what Europe did. They justified the holocaust by the mere existence of the Jews as a worthy reason.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I do not agree with you: I think that Israel is in an incredibly difficult situation, under regular attack, and sufferring great hatred. Seeing the hatred on Jewish friends' faces for all things Arab, I think that this is a mutual dislike (conversely, you do sometimes have a tendency to ascribe only good intentions to Israel). |
I will admit that I do have that tendency. In part, because I am of the belief that Israel does not have the means to end this conflict but the Arab opposition does. I believe Israel has long been willing to end said conflict but their opponents do not have the desire to do so. Therefore, negotiations will continue to fail.
There is quote..."The violence will end when the extremists love their children more than they hate Israel." That is in reference to a willingness to use their own children if it will harm their enemies. This is not seen on the opposite side of the fence. Israel does not display a willingness to hurt their enemy at any cost.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I would defend Israel's right to exist in accordance with the 1949 boundaries - I think that Israel must move back to those borders in order to be accepted (100%). |
Okay, I am very interested in pursuing this further. If Israel were to withdraw to the original U.N. boundaries. And said attacks did not cease. What would you advocate?
This is very important. Because, if they withdrew to said boundaries what recourse would remain? If such a withdrawal was inadequate - what then?
(I personally do not believe it would be adequate. I in fact do not believe the extremist arabs would be satisfied if the entire state of Israel was withdrawn. They have repeatedly refused to accept the U.N. declared boundaries in the past. Why would they accept them now? And even before Israel existed their were periodic aggressions against the Jews. No "Israel" existed at those times to blame. So what could they give up then? Their Lives? )
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I think that this stands a chance of being respected: the border is internationally provided for. The occupation of the disputed regions were obtained unilaterally and do not represent internationally recognised borders. |
The fact that they were rejected previously leads many to not have much faith in it's present acceptance.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
To my mind, my position would make Israel better protected in the region. |
From a military standpoint it would make it near impossible for Israel to defend itself. There would be inroads that it's enemies could drive right into and Israel could not object until there was an entire army within football fields of all it's territory.
Then, they'd have to trust the "global community" to ensure it's protection. An entity that has on every single occasion over the last 10 decades pretty much failed it. That is asking a LOT.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
(maybe I am more sophisticated and appreciate that the world is a complicated place, maybe I am just missing your unique self professed insight to the absolute truth) |
Likewise....as I believe the world to be extremely complex. And although I think your ideas are nice. I believe that have little chance of coming about in the fashion you prescribed. As such, there should have been more progress when Israel recently agreed to withdraw from several territories with the possibility of further withdrawal if hostilities ceased. They did not. They even increased.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
so I cannot identify who passes your black/white test and who we should be nuking.
|
Just so you know, pretty much everyone fails the black/white test. Everyone comes out pretty black. As for nuking, hopefully, no one. But I believe we need to demand concessions from both parties and not just one.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
the antagonism Israel causes was there initially by its very existence, and subsequently by its actions in occupying parts of the surrounding nations. Are you denying that it antagonises its surrounding states? |
No, I just wonder why Israel is the only one to receive antagonism. The Jordanians took far more land by force. In fact, much of the land Israel took was first taken by the Arabs. Then later captured by the Israelis.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Israel "irritates" its surrounding states. |
When has it not been said that Jews irritate their surrounding. This has been the excuse to kill Jews for centuries. The Romans stated such. The Spanish. The Russians. The Germans. The Arabs.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
The big difference is that the Canaanites/Phoenicians are not united by a persistent religion by which they can unite themselves across several millennia. |
Could it be because those that did not accept Islam or Christianity are now dead with no descendents?
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
or Ariel Sharon went walkabout in the wrong temple. |
I find this so interesting. The wrong temple. Yes, wrong = NOT "muslim". The "Temple Mount". Please note, Islam has no temples, they have Mosques. So what is being referred to. Why, the Jewish temple. Mind you which later had a pagan Roman temple. So that could also be what is referenced.
I find it interesting, a site holy to three (four religions if you actually worship the Roman Pantheon) but only one of those has access to that site. That group has repeatedly destroyed ANY archeology representative of any of the other religions that it finds. Repeatedly restricts access. Mind you they do all this because the temple mount is in Arab hands. Oh wait, they do all this right in the heart of Israel.
Amazing, Israel controls the land, controls Jerusalem, and a Jew cannot even set foot on the temple mount. Yes, some rabbis have expressedly forbidden it because of risk of walking on their holy of holies. While other rabbies desire to go atop of the mount...if not to just walk the edges.
Wrong temple? or wrong management....you tell me?
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
the state and the militants. |
It is well known that Hezballeh and Hamas receive much funding and support from Iran/Syria. So should we not judge those who directly support as well? Sure, so why Lebanon?
Well, how long has Iran been an issue regarding nukes? You've mentioned the issue yourself. And the global community hasn't done a thing. It's been a couple of years already.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
The UK suffered 20 years of bombs, financed by the US, from the IRA and had to accept some degree of it in order to persist with the peace process and not allow it to be de-railed. |
Correct me if I am wrong. But have the bombings stopped for the most part? Didn't the IRA make many concessions and declarations NOT to pursue violence. And in fact, since such accomplishments said violence has nearly ceased.
If this were done, I am sure Israel would have moved further along the peace process. But it never has been done in said region.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
The Egyptians have consistently been Israel's best hope in this regard. |
Very true, in fact, I have heard that Jordan and Egypt have apparently taken a stance against Hezbolleh. It is my hope Hezbolleh will be dealt a significant blow. And then I hope the global community will then, with Hezbolleh greatly diminished, lend great support to Lebanon. I'd very much like to see Lebanon become akin to Egypt and Jordan and accept Israel's existance. I think if a few more nations could do such and that strong enough economic ties can be built then there might be hope for peace, or something close.
But I believe these extremist militias need to be eradicated first.
Originally posted by "amber":
Just a question about language here - Israeli soldiers were 'kidnapped'
and members of the Palestinian govt were 'arrested'. Why the difference in language? |
The Palestinians were arrested in concordance with a violation of said agreement of authority. No such agreement existed regards to the kidnapped soldiers. Furthermore, arrest specifies trial and imprisonment. (I do not believe Israel has the death penalty. I am unsure though.) Israel also has an established court system. Where as those who kidnapped the soldiers have done so with the intention to either "ransom" or "murder" and even if they conduct a trial it will be by an unestablished court. Hence the difference usage.
Originally posted by "amber":
To be fair, you have no idea if I would protect Israel or not. I have always defended Israel, but after the family were killed on the beach, I began to question my unquestioning support. |
Be cautious what you believe. I was very very moved by the films showing the father protecting his son by the oil drum in the crossfire and watching as his son was shot and killed.
I was even more irate when a year ago I was given a link to additional footage that showed they were actually fabricated films to build sympathy for their cause. Perhaps the best one is of the stretched with the dead man being carried by Palestinians to encourage a riot and protest. The ariel reconaissance captured said dead man falling off several times (much to the horror of the surrounding crowd) and getting back on.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
The 18 month ceasefire that had been respected by Hamas was withdrawn only after the Israeli shelling on the beach. |
I don't recall 18 months without an incident in Israel?
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
"the Jews set out to provoke their neighbours to action". |
Well, you've basically said that. Just swap a single word. "Israel set out to provke their neighbours to action." Hence you give your approval for said action. If not approval. You give an apology on behalf of the one side but not the other.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Israel's actions are proportionate |
People don't necessary want to agreement that Israel's actions are proportionate. They're not. Just simply to realize that they have a right to exist and defend themselves. And that they have just as much claim to the land as the Arabs do. The only difference, the Arabs have tons more land claimed as well.
Essentially, you have a multifamily house. Two men lived in it. A Jew and an Arab. Then, the men got married. Had children. The owner of the house moved away and abandoned the property. They had more children. Began to outgrow the house. Then the Arab man attacked the Jewish tenant, with the help of his brothers and cousins in an attempt to get the whole house to himself. The Jewish tenant instead won the fight and the Arab family fled to his brother's home. The Jewish family needed the space and moved into both floors. The Arab man soon found that his brother would not give him room in any of his houses. Even though he owned dozens of homes. Instead, the Arab man was relegated to the basement.
Now, whenever said man walks by he throws stones at the Jewish man in the house. He even sends his children in with matches and tells them to lock themselves inside and try to burn down the house. After putting out innumerous fires the Jewish man bought a rifle and has began shooting.
There is a great analogy of the middle-east.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Nothing extra, just what is there that you write yet are seemingly incapable of seeing:
caused by Israel |
Are you suggesting that I have said that the state of Israel somehow has sufficient consciousness to purposefully irritate its neighbours? It is a state: its existence irritates its neighbours. The irritation is caused by the state's existence. It is a fact. I don't propose to wipe it from the map, but to develop policies in the long term that will result in it being less irritating to its neighbours ... |
Your statements (I've highlighted where I mean) contradict themselves. If the "very existence" of something constitutes the "irritation" as you say, then no "policy" will act as a balm (pun intended) for that sore -- you need to either remove the irritant (the State of Israel) permanently or desensitize/cut the affected nerves. |
Likewise, my mere existance on the playground was fair justification for the bullies to attack me. Ironically, I was in a very similar position to Israel. I was strong enough to defeat the bullies but not allowed to do so or even defend myself without global consequences.
One day, one of those bullies (we'll call him Syria because he was being encouraged by a much larger bully we'll call Iran) decided to attack me while I was with some "friends" (we'll call them the global community).
All of those friends stood by and did little. First I declared that I had no issue. This was unsatisfactory. He had an issue....my existance. He continued to threaten me and I chose to walk home. Now as I walked away he pushed me. I still did nothing. I did not retaliate. But the rage was building. I feared...him less so, and my own hands more so. But I did not want to fight. I endeavored to flee. I began to cry. The global community (my friends and acquaintences) backed away. They knew that it was not because I could not defend myself that I cried but I fought a war within.
Syria continued to push me. Iran kept egging things on. I was trying to escape. I allowed myself to bounce off the fence and keep walking. Syria came up behind me and throwing his arms around me, and behind my neck endeavoring to get me in a full nelson. I grabbed him by the head and flipped him over my back.
I then continued walking. I did not want to fight. I tried to get home. The global community followed, watching from a distance but doing nothing to stop. Nor did they condemn Iran as he rode his bicycle.
Syria came back. Spitting in my face and throwing a punch. I could no longer restrain myself. I had been unsuccessful in my escape. I had overwhelmed my opponent once and shown him mercy by leaving him without further action. I had endeavored not to escalate the matter but now I found myself with no choice.
The next punch, I grabbed and I through Syria to the ground. I twisted his arm behind his back and raised it to his neck. I punched him in the side several times as I held his wrist nearly to his neck. He barked like a dog in tears. Then I heard it. The global community jaunting and cheering... "break his arm, break his arm". And I realized how close I was to doing just that. I let him go a once more and ran off. This time he was in too much pain to pursue.
The sum of his attack was pushing, threatening, spitting and some hitting. I had truly delivered much more pain to him than he had to me. Legalbeagle would conclude the entire incident was my fault. a) I existed on the playground b) I used more force than I had received Where as nearly any realistically sane person with half a brain would conclude that I had endeavored to take the high road and had little choice in my actions. Except perhaps choosing to just be repeatedly hit. Of course, everyone knows had I just accepted that then my entire summer would have been nothing but.
This is a true event in my life. The only thing I've done is changed Iran/Syria for the bullies. However, in the case of Israel that have no means to even pursue fleeing. Israel is in fact the Jews last flight of avoidance. In that place, they must use all their strength to continue or cease to be.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 03:10:54 PM · #195 |
Mind you, LegalBeagle and I have a history on this forum, and for all those he lists I could go and find numerous similar comments. Black is black, white is white. I will make no dismissals of the blackness of my words. However, I will only accept mutual condemnation. I am not alone, neither in insult nor in insinuations. So yes, I am willing to except any criticism...just direct it at both me and LegalBeagle. But warning, I will reject ANY criticism which is solely directed at me and me alone.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
âI have seldom heard you condem such actionsâ
âbased on numerous past discussions I believe you to be extremely biased toward Israel and very apologetic to the Islamic extremistsâ
âI also have yet to ever hear you propose a solution for Israel. Until you can provide a workable solution I think you have little right to criticize. You are free too. But it is of low-regard, IMHOâ
âSo I think you claim of 30 yrs without negotiation to be baseless, uninformed and uneducated. And an example of flat out bias.â
âOnly a fool would think there is hope in such at this point.â
âSee LegalBeagle, you're a lawyer. So to you, such designations make a difference. Most of us common people think legal jargon is bullsh!t.â
âLegalbeagle is the type that greatly strengthens and encourages such terrorism by constantly denying history and refusing to condemn such entities so that he can have more fuel for his anti-American sentiments.â
âI find LegalBeagle's anti-semitism to be showing more and more clearly.â
âthis may be more of a European issue where anti-semitism toward Jews is very common and seemingly only moderately addressedâ
âBut the fact you are so biased helps you to accept as valid arguments full of expletives. "
"Your the biggest apologist and so terribly wrong. You're a perfect example of 1930's Brit. Give Hitler what he wants boy. It's all everyone else's fault. Hitler is a nice guy and won't harm you. He's just...well misunderstood.â
âFor a lawyer...you're pretty daft.â
âOne might say this whole damned problem is due to Brits like you who kept compromising for Israel on her behalfâ
âWhat planet have you been on? have you read history?â
âYour world view is tragically skewed.â
âI actually find you to speak with much hatred, especially towards Americans. And I have often found your words to have a very anti-semetic tone. You've repeatedly in a multitude of discussion dismissed evidence.â
âwith so many people thinking like LegalBeagle, it may soon very well be the time that we refer to France as part of the Muslim world.â
âHey LegalBS,â
âDo you get the picture. (Doubt it...I'd probably need an 800gigapixel photo for you to get it.)â
â*cough cough* LegalBSâ
âYou're a constant apologist for them.â
âYou are merely an apologist for the extremists.â
|
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 04:20:51 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
or Ariel Sharon went walkabout in the wrong temple. |
I find this so interesting. The wrong temple. Yes, wrong = NOT "muslim". The "Temple Mount". Please note, Islam has no temples, they have Mosques. So what is being referred to. Why, the Jewish temple. Mind you which later had a pagan Roman temple. So that could also be what is referenced.
|
ermm.... that 'wrong temple' bit was my quote.
As far as criticising you both, all I can say is that you (plural) have far too much time on your hands! |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 01:37:12 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 01:37:12 PM EDT.
|
