Israel is proud to present: The aggressor-victim

[IDB87]

It's not a "little quip" to say that the ISI were instrumental to the rise of the "Taliban" nor that the US (and the UK) have consistently allied themselves with and praised Pakistani regimes despite its support for terrorists. It's the plain, ugly truth.

OK, progress. You at first said Pakistan, now you are saying the ISI. There -is- a difference between the two, kind of like the CIA and the United States. Some could say the CIA does its own thing, often times against the interest of the United States.

The fact that we support nasty regimes is not news to anyone here. BUT, the sidelining of fundamentalist agents in the ISI and the Army is good news to me.

I don't know (and nor do you) but it is a tactical act just as much as launching a drone against one's political rivals, their relations, neighbours and passers-by is.

It is a tactical act for those who plan, arm, and indoctrinate the bombers. For the bombers themselves, it is an act of nihilism only brought on by religious fervor. You would have a point about the drone, if the drone was a living being, and instead of keeping it in the air, we drove it into religious ceremonies and groups of civilians on a regular basis.

In before "We do that already!!"

It wouldn't be so bad discussing this if you just admitted you were a nihilist.

What do you think the drone operators are thinking when they press ENTER?

We're discussing suicide bombings. If you wish to discuss the mentality of drone operators, you can start a thread on it.

What do you think Likud terrorist predecessors were thinking as they planted bombs aimed at civilians?

Probably the same thing Hamas and the IRA were thinking. What's your point? I've already told you I think they are all terrorists.

Do you not agree that political party born out of terrorism is a preferred route, especially if the violence STOPS?

 

[WildCat]

It's not a "little quip" to say that the ISI were instrumental to the rise of the "Taliban" nor that the US (and the UK) have consistently allied themselves with and praised Pakistani regimes despite its support for terrorists. It's the plain, ugly truth.

So what policies do you recommend wrt Pakistan?

I don't know (and nor do you) but it is a tactical act just as much as launching a drone against one's political rivals, their relations, neighbours and passers-by is.

Who's doing this?

What do you think the drone operators are thinking when they press ENTER?

What drone attacks are you referring to? Your imaginary ones against "political rivals"?

 

[Thunder]

It's only dead Jews, after all.

 

[Pardalis]

@ Pardalis:

Are you feeling shy about answering questions again?

I asked you a question in august, and I'm still waiting for your answer.

 

[stokes234]

Yes, there are neo-nazi holocaust-deniers here as well, but (a) if anything, they should count as members of the "left" as far as the views about the Jews / Israel / Islamic terrorists are

Are you saying that supporting the palestinians over the israelis makes you left wing?

, and (b) even if you count them as members of the "right", the others on the "right" on this forum universally shun them, as oppose to those on the left, where wanting the Jews thrown into the sea is seen as an unfortunate quirk, perhaps, but not something serious enough to exclude someone from the company of the "human-rights-protecting progressives".

It's only dead Jews, after all.

Could you provide some independant sources showing the numbers of israelis killed by palestinians, and numbers of palestinians killed by israelis? And perhaps include the number of homes destroyed, number of people displaced, and percentage of land claimed from each side?

I am of the opinion that attacking civilians is always a bad thing, that palestinians firing rockets into israel is abhorrent as well as counterproductive, but also that there would likely be far fewer attacks in the long run if israel stopped expanding into palestinian territory. Sadly, the reliogious aspect of the conflict probably prevents any rational solution based on land ownership from succeeding, since it would only take one further rocket from palestine to capsise the whole thing.

 

[Thunder]

Yes, there are neo-nazi holocaust-deniers here as well, but (a) if anything, they should count as members of the "left" as far as the views about the Jews / Israel / Islamic terrorists are,

hmmmm.......

 

[Pardalis]

Could you provide some independant sources showing the numbers of israelis killed by palestinians, and numbers of palestinians killed by israelis? [...]that palestinians firing rockets into israel is abhorrent as well as counterproductive, but also that there would likely be far fewer attacks in the long run if israel stopped expanding into palestinian territory.

And this expansion kills how many people exactly?

 

[Thunder]

And this expansion kills how many people exactly?

translation:

"Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem do not kill people, therefore they are no big deal and folks should pay them no mind."

 

[stokes234]

And this expansion kills how many people exactly?

Directly, probably very few, if any at all. But the resultant homelessness and following poverty probably contributes to a fair amount of ill health, shorter life expectancy and lower overall standard of living, for the displaced people and for the people living in the areas that need to accomodate them.

 

[Pardalis]

translation:

"Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem do not kill people, therefore they are no big deal and folks should pay them no mind."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

[Pardalis]

Directly, probably very few, if any at all. But the resultant homelessness and following poverty probably contributes to a fair amount of ill health, shorter life expectancy and lower overall standard of living, for the displaced people and for the people living in the areas that need to accomodate them.

So we agree the terrorist attacks does not help in any way to improve their lives. They should use democratic means to protest and claim their rights.

 

[Thunder]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I guess this means that we agree, that the settlements ARE a big deal and folks should be very concerned about them.

Otherwise, its not a strawman, right Pardalis?

 

[Thunder]

So we agree the terrorist attacks does not help in any way to improve their lives. They should use democratic means to protest and claim their rights.

The Palestinians should make use of all of the democratic and peaceful means that the Zionists made use of to gain their independence, prior to 1948.




(yes, this IS a strawman)

 

[Pardalis]

I guess this means that we agree, that the settlements ARE a big deal and folks should be very concerned about them.

Yes, but the proper response to them is not rocket and terrorist attacks.

Otherwise, its not a strawman, right Pardalis?

It was a strawman. Now you are backpedaling.

 

[Skeptic]

firing rockets into israel is abhorrent as well as counterproductive, but also that there would likely be far fewer attacks in the long run if israel stopped expanding into palestinian territory.

This theory was put to the test. Since 1993, the Oslo "peace" accords date, every single piece of land turned over to the Palestinians resulted in more attacks on Jews from that area.

It became a "chronicle of a death foretold":

1). Israel leave territory X, is praised for "advancing the peace process".
2). The PLO and Hamas turn X into a terrorist base and lauch terrorist attacks that kill Jews.
3). Israel is advised to give up even more territory because the attacks are because "the peace process is not advancing" (apparently tons of Jews killed by terrorists dodn't count as violation of the "peace process" -- only Jews not giving up territory does).
4). Israel eventually has enough and reoccupies the area, leading to cries and wails that "the peace process will collapse" if such a "cycle of violence" (Jews actually fighting back) continues.
5). Despite the "collapsed" peace process, the number of dead Jews due to terrorist attacks from area X actually goes down (who would have guessed?).
6). Once the annoying Jews had a month or two of fewer terrorist attacks, the world demands Israel "continue the peace process" once more; they had a long-enough rest from terrorist attacks, it's really not fair to not let those folks try again.
7). Israel once more withdraws from area X (though God knows why).
8). Return to stage (1).

There were far fewer rocket attacks on Israel before it left Gaza, as well, needless to say.

If the number of attacks on Jews is the criterion, Israel's obvious course of action to reduce attacks is to expand as much as possible. This in itself is not to say it should do so -- perhaps there are other reasons (e.g., demography) for Israel to leave territory even if it results in more attacks.

But to claim leaving territory will reduce the number of rockets fired is contradicted by all available evidence.

 

[stokes234]

So we agree the terrorist attacks does not help in any way to improve their lives. They should use democratic means to protest and claim their rights.

You're implying that the israeli expansion is a result of terrorist attacks. This makes very little sense. The military occupations can be claimed to be a method of preventing terrorist attacks, but the only way expansion can also be claimed as such is if the expansion is planned to ultimately eradicate the palestinians completely. In which case, I would quite happily side with the palestinians.

If you feel like going out to the middle of a desert and telling a bunch of extremely poor, badly educated religious people that their methods of protest are incorrect, be my guest. I'm of the opinion that the easier solution would be to negotiate with the israeli government to stop expanding into palestinian territory and give back land claimed in the last 7-8 years, and with hamas to respond by condemning outright any further attacks on israel by palestinians.

 

[Pardalis]

The Palestinians should make use of all of the democratic and peaceful means that the Zionists made use of to gain their independence, prior to 1948.




(yes, this IS a strawman)

Uh?

Maybe if you stopped making those strawmen and just stuck with what people actually said, it would be less confusing.

 

[Pardalis]

You're implying that the israeli expansion is a result of terrorist attacks.

Where have I said that?

This makes very little sense.

Indeed. I don't see how you could have read that in what I said. Maybe you should go back and read it again?

If you feel like going out to the middle of a desert and telling a bunch of extremely poor, badly educated religious people that their methods of protest are incorrect, be my guest.

They do have representatives, right? Isn't there something called the Palestinian authority?

I'm of the opinion that the easier solution would be to negotiate with the israeli government to stop expanding into palestinian territory and give back land claimed in the last 7-8 years,

Yes. And who is going to negociate this?

and with hamas to respond by condemning outright any further attacks on israel by palestinians.

Not going to happen.

 

[stokes234]

But to claim leaving territory will reduce the number of rockets fired is contradicted by all available evidence.

Yes, in the short term this will be the case. The number of palestinians who have become dangerous fundamentalists as a result of having a clear, invading enemy is not going to be reduced by israel retreating. In the long run, israel no longer claiming land from neighbouring countries will reduce the number of people converted to believe israel is an evil empire. At the same time, an accord between israel and hamas that saw israel announce that they would stop claiming land and return x amount of claimed land, and hamas announce that they would denounce and oppose any further rocket attacks, would pave the way for this slow process of fewer terrorist converts.

 

[Pardalis]

The number of palestinians who have become dangerous fundamentalists as a result of having a clear, invading enemy is not going to be reduced by israel retreating.

How are you so sure their radicalization is due only to Israel's expansion?

You think that outside influence has little to do with it?

At the same time, an accord between israel and hamas that saw israel announce that they would stop claiming land and return x amount of claimed land, and hamas announce that they would denounce and oppose any further rocket attacks, would pave the way for this slow process of fewer terrorist converts.

You are misunderstanding the issue. Hamas's problem isn't with the settlements, it's with Israel itself, the entire country. They want it to disappear.