Wall a huge failure

[SezMe]

I'm not sure I'm following this. Are people saying that Israel shouldn't be stopping Palestinians from working in Israel while some Palestinians are crossing into Israel disguised as guest workers with the intent to commit suicide bombings?

This is one action by Israel that strikes me as legitimate. If Mexicans were coming into California commiting terrrorist attacks I think I'd be pretty much in favor of shutting the border down.

Of course I'd be pretty much opposed to setting up American settlements in Mexico to be defended by the American army. And I'd be pretty much opposed to building a wall through Mexican villages to protect the American border, but I'd be pretty unhappy with the government if it didn't close the border with Mexico if Mexicans were coming in and blowing themselves up on buses.

Further, I predict that the next attack on USA soil will be done by terrorists who snuck across the USA/Mexican border. When that information comes out, you better get out of the way as the USA slams that door shut. After, of course, the damage is done.

 

[Jim Bowen]

Ariel Sharon’s "guilt" was in not anticipating that the Lebanese might want to take revenge for the recent slaying of Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel as well as the years of brutality the Lebanese had received at the hands of the PLO.
Denny Crane

It seems that you are using a fair amount of wishful thinking here. When are you going to admit that Israel is guilty of anything and it is not just the Palestinians who have something to answer for?

Jim Bowen

 

[zenith-nadir]

It seems that you are using a fair amount of wishful thinking here. When are you going to admit that Israel is guilty of anything and it is not just the Palestinians who have something to answer for? Jim Bowen

Quite the ironic statement since I have yet to see you address 30+ years of Palestinian terrorism - on an international scale - as the cause for Israel's position towards Palestinians.

 

[a_unique_person]

Quite the ironic statement since I have yet to see you address 30+ years of Palestinian terrorism - on an international scale - as the cause for Israel's position towards Palestinians.

You fail to address the terror that is experienced under a military occupation. This can include such ordinary everyday events as having to pass a fully armed and operational tank, or schoolgirls having a full automatic rifle clip emptied into their body.

 

[zenith-nadir]

You fail to address the terror that is experienced under a military occupation. This can include such ordinary everyday events as having to pass a fully armed and operational tank, or schoolgirls having a full automatic rifle clip emptied into their body.

There was terror before the 1967 war. The occupation came about because of terror launched from the Gaza, Sinai and West Bank AS Syrian planes bombed Israeli civilians from the north, Egyptians blockaded Israeli shipping in the south and the combined forces of Syria, Jordan and Egypt mobilized for attack.

See, I go over and over this so many times and it is so well documented that it is almost embarassing that you still deny it. The Palestinians are occupied because they got caught in the middle of a war that Syria, Jordan and Egypt LOST.

But those who are informed on the subject know that you are an apologist for terrorism, refuse to accept history as written and rewrite history so that it fits into your world view. And I am cool with that because I know history, documentation and evidence are on my side.

 

[a_unique_person]

There was terror before the 1967 war. The occupation came about because of terror launched from the Gaza, Sinai and West Bank AS Syrian planes bombed Israeli civilians from the north, Egyptians blockaded Israeli shipping in the south and the combined forces of Syria, Jordan and Egypt mobilized for attack.

See, I go over and over this so many times and it is so well documented that it is almost embarassing that you still deny it. The Palestinians are occupied because they got caught in the middle of a war that Syria, Jordan and Egypt LOST.

But those who are informed on the subject know that you are an apologist for terrorism, refuse to accept history as written and rewrite history so that it fits into your world view. And I am cool with that because I know history, documentation and evidence are on my side.

so stop whinging about Israelis killed by bombs, they lost too. It's a simple principle, stick to it.

 

[zenith-nadir]

so stop whinging about Israelis killed by bombs, they lost too. It's a simple principle, stick to it.

I've forgotten more about Israel than you will ever know sitting infront of your computer monitor 10,000 miles away in Australia. I recommend you go to Israel and see for yourself that Israelis don't dress in KKK robes and bomb vests or parade in the streets firing their AK-47s in the air chanting "Death to Islam".

Why you refuse to admit that islamic fundamentalism, such as groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades hurt the Palestinians is a mystery to me. It is because of these groups that a security barrier had to be erected, for they do not target occupying forces they target buses, university cafeterias, restaurants, shopping malls, pool halls, cafes, discos, hotels in Egypt....

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
Then again, if the Palestinian-Arabs would police their own by arresting known terrorists, militants and the ones that support them, if they would stop publicly praising their martyrs, it might show the Palestinian-Arabs in more of a favorable light to the Israelis for once.

Here we have IMHO an example of an attempt to demonise an entire group of people. In this case Palestinian Arabs.

Can I suggest that a rational person would address the perpetrators of violence rather than deliberately lumping innocent people together with them. Time and time again Mycroft apparently sees little problem with eliminating the innocent as mere collateral damage of little concern.

We will shortly see the USA kill many innocent people in Falluja in their attempt to target those tey claim are guilty of terrorism. Like Sharon, it seems that Dub has little concern for the innocent people in Falluja who happen to be caught up in the mayhem through no fault of their own.

Has Mycroft ever considered the simple question - if he don't care about innocent life why should terrorists do what you won't? There is no end to an eye for an eye.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by zenith-nadirIt is because of these groups that a security barrier had to be erected,...

if this was true there would be no need to build the apartheid wall on other people's land - therefore it is not true.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
It seems that you are using a fair amount of wishful thinking here.

Jim, unlike you, I took the time to learn the facts surrounding the Sabra and Shatila massacres. "Wishful thinking" is pretending that an action taken by Lebanese Phalangists was not really done by Lebanese but by Israelis.

The massacre at Damour, however, was undisputedly done by Palestinian-Arabs.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
When are you going to admit that Israel is guilty of anything and it is not just the Palestinians who have something to answer for?

Israel has made mistakes, I don't deny that. It's when you come to the table with crap like the Sabra and Shatila massacre that you demonstrate that your goals are not to learn or inform about the issues, but merely to vilify Israel and the truth be damned.

Looking for "parity" and "equal blame" is not a neutral position. It is itself a bias that clouds your perception.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
Jim Bowen

Denny Crane

 

[zenith-nadir]

if this was true there would be no need to build the apartheid wall on other people's land - therefore it is not true.

Do you even know what "apartheid" means? I would say not and are only parroting the party line.

Can I suggest that a rational person would address the perpetrators of violence rather than deliberately lumping innocent people together with them.

Then in the very next breath;

We will shortly see the USA kill many innocent people in Falluja in their attempt to target those tey claim are guilty of terrorism.

 

[Elind]

Here we have IMHO an example of an attempt to demonise an entire group of people. In this case Palestinian Arabs.

If I may jump in; I think the demonizing is of those who, by their own declarations, want no peace and only to kill. Perhaps you can tell us just how many Palestinians, or Arabs in general, support that vision, and how many oppose it?

Can I suggest that a rational person would address the perpetrators of violence rather than deliberately lumping innocent people together with them. Time and time again Mycroft apparently sees little problem with eliminating the innocent as mere collateral damage of little concern.

As a rational person, perhaps you could describe both how you conclude that the innocent can be removed from the equation, since you know which they are, without simply calling it quits and allowing the terrorists to win if they hide among innocents? Do you think thatthere is no effort to separate the two in the heat of battle, to the extent that it is possible? Who is it that is doing the deliberate lumping again?

We will shortly see the USA kill many innocent people in Falluja in their attempt to target those tey claim are guilty of terrorism. Like Sharon, it seems that Dub has little concern for the innocent people in Falluja who happen to be caught up in the mayhem through no fault of their own.

Actually they have been advised to leave for weeks (months?) now, and to most observers they appear to have done so. The city is virtually empty, except for the innocents who slipped through and are busy bombing elsewhere. What else do you suggest be done? Oh, of course -- call it quits.

Has Mycroft ever considered the simple question - if he don't care about innocent life why should terrorists do what you won't? There is no end to an eye for an eye. [/B]

I don't speak for Mycroft, but in my debates with him I have no reason to believe he doesn't care, and from the sound of you, I think you are just another apologist for terrorists who would give them what they want and assume that they will then try to kill someone else instead.

 

[Jim Bowen]

Jim, unlike you, I took the time to learn the facts surrounding the Sabra and Shatila massacres. "Wishful thinking" is pretending that an action taken by Lebanese Phalangists was not really done by Lebanese but by Israelis.

Israel has made mistakes, I don't deny that. It's when you come to the table with crap like the Sabra and Shatila massacre that you demonstrate that your goals are not to learn or inform about the issues, but merely to vilify Israel and the truth be damned.
Denny Crane

And so it appears that you deny Sharon having any blame for the massacres being able to occur. Most odd, since you claim to have looked into it.

It is very interesting to note that you admit that Israel has made 'mistakes'. Would you claim that their systematic treatment of the Palestinians, including land grabs, murder of civilians, launching missiles into crowded civilian areas, etc, are all mistakes?

I find it sinister that one side can be considered to be a murderous bunch of fanatics for blowing up Israelis, yet when the Israelis blow up Palestinians, this is considered to be a 'mistake'.

Jim Bowen

 

[Jim Bowen]

Whilst I think about it, considering that there are 5 players that see this debate in one light and 5 that see it/lean in another light, perhaps we could decide it all by a game of 5 aside football? First to 10

Jim Bowen (bags playing in goal)

 

[Elind]

Whilst I think about it, considering that there are 5 players that see this debate in one light and 5 that see it/lean in another light, perhaps we could decide it all by a game of 5 aside football? First to 10

Jim Bowen (bags playing in goal)

and those 10 are who? whom?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
And so it appears that you deny Sharon having any blame for the massacres being able to occur. Most odd, since you claim to have looked into it.

Not at all. In fact, I specifically said his guilt lay in failing to anticipate the Lebanese desire for revenge. He resigned over it, if I recall correctly.

Jim, I notice you have a funny way of arguing. So far in this exchange, all you've offered is one unsupported assertion. When contradicted, instead of finding facts to support your point of view, you make the argument about me by claiming I’m guilty of "wishful thinking" and not admitting of any guilt on the part of Israel. When contradicted again, you criticize me for denying Sharon having any blame despite the fact that you’ve failed to provide any reason for me to believe any other way than what I’ve described.

You’re very short on facts, Jim. Further, you don’t show any interest in facts. If you want to sway my opinion, you need to take your debate skills to a higher level. You need to learn about the issues you speak of and articulate something worthy of being taken seriously.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
I find it sinister that one side can be considered to be a murderous bunch of fanatics for blowing up Israelis, yet when the Israelis blow up Palestinians, this is considered to be a 'mistake'.

That’s because you’re arguing on a gross simplification, Jim. I never said Israel blowing up enemy militants was a mistake, that’s your creation. I don’t think there is anything wrong with Israel attacking militants.

Further, I’ll add that if Hamas and other Palestinian-Arab militant groups were to limit their attacks to the Israeli military, I still wouldn’t agree with their goals, but I would give them credit for not being terrorists and fighting a legitimate campaign. I’d even be understanding if sometimes they killed civilians by mistake, that happens in war.

But they don’t, Jim. They target civilians. They strap bombs to their young and send them to ride busses, infiltrate restaurants and nightclubs.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen Jim Bowen

Denny Crane.

 

[Jim Bowen]

It's funny how you should criticise my posting style, Mycroft, as I've based it on your own. I've noticed that you seldom pay attention to any fact presented to you and you either don't read or discount links presented to you. You also make the debate personal by attacking other people, hence rather than try to raise you up to a better level, I've just gone down to your level.

So, back to business, about these 'mistakes' that Israel makes. Would you agree that the widespread suffering of the Palestinians and unequal access to roads, water supplies, land etc, are not a 'mistake' but deliberate policy on the part of Israel?

Are you perhaps willing to recognise that Israel's military superiority has resulted in the Palestinians fighting back in the only practical way - that of the terrorist, rather than it being a moral choice that they have made, it being one of necessity?

And are you happy to agree that a Palestinian civilian blown up by an Israeli helicopter is just as much a tragedy as an Israeli civilian being blown up by a Palestinian suicide bomber?

Ref the 5 aside football game, Elind, I had my tongue in my cheek on that one.

Jim Bowen

 

[demon]

Ahh - the old rule book again Jim.
That Sharon was not found guilty in a court of law means nothing.
He`s guilty as sin.

Show me the rule book that says that you need a criminal record to be a criminal.

Show me the criminal records of -

- Ghadaffi
- Assad
- Idi Amin
- Himmler
- Heidrich
- Goebbels
- Kissinger
- Reagan

The word criminal can be used prescriptively - as is the Zionist method - reducing everything to paper rather than ethics, or you can just be sensible and make the not enormous jump to saying that Himmler or indeed Sharon or Kissinger was/is, in his behaviour, criminal.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
It's funny how you should criticise my posting style, Mycroft, as I've based it on your own. I've noticed that you seldom pay attention to any fact presented to you and you either don't read or discount links presented to you. You also make the debate personal by attacking other people, hence rather than try to raise you up to a better level, I've just gone down to your level.

Your explanation might make some sense if we has some history to judge you by, but as you’re a relative newb, the suggestion that you’ve "gone down" from any level is unsustainable. You’re still not bringing any facts to the table, and I’ll take your abandonment of the "Sharon is a war criminal" angle to be a concession.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
So, back to business, about these 'mistakes' that Israel makes. Would you agree that the widespread suffering of the Palestinians and unequal access to roads, water supplies, land etc, are not a 'mistake' but deliberate policy on the part of Israel?

No. The widespread suffering of the Palestinian-Arabs is a direct result of the conflict which they continue. Their economy was going pretty strong before this intifada, which they started. The unequal access to roads that you mention is a security measure that’s a direct result of Palestinian-Arab snipers killing motorists. Unequal access to land? Palestinian-Arabs can buy and sell land just like Israelis do, so it’s hard to argue that it’s unequal.

Water is an issue, but it should also be noted that when Israel took over after ’67, they spent billions on infrastructure that, among other things, made clean water available to hundreds of thousands of Palestinian-Arabs that didn’t have it before. Long term water rights is an issue that needs to be negotiated, but that isn’t helped by sending junior off with an explosive belt to kill people now is it?

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
Are you perhaps willing to recognise that Israel's military superiority has resulted in the Palestinians fighting back in the only practical way - that of the terrorist, rather than it being a moral choice that they have made, it being one of necessity?

Nope. We’ve already discussed this, don’t you remember? We’ve already discussed the difference between guerrilla fighting and terrorism and how a successful guerrilla campaign can be waged without resorting to terrorism, and we’ve discussed the alternatives of non-violent resistance. Further, in the last decade there have been four different opportunities to negotiate a successful end to the conflict, that the Palestinian-Arabs have passed on.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
And are you happy to agree that a Palestinian civilian blown up by an Israeli helicopter is just as much a tragedy as an Israeli civilian being blown up by a Palestinian suicide bomber?

Here is one issue where we can agree on. Yes, it is a tragedy whenever an innocent Palestinian-Arab civilian is killed. However, I would also add that when Palestinian-Arab militants do things that place their own civilians in danger, they also take on some of the responsibility when they get hurt and killed. Further, there is a clear moral difference when a civilian is killed incidentally when a military target is attacked and when civilians are the target of an attack, such as in a bombing of a bus or a nightclub.

Now, if you’re done asking me to outline my position, maybe you’re willing to bring something substantial to the discussion?

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
Jim Bowen

Denny Crane.

 

[Mycroft]

Ahh - the old rule book again Jim.
That Sharon was not found guilty in a court of law means nothing.
He`s guilty as sin.

Right, it means nothing to you. Neither do facts. The truth here is you're not disputing my assertions that these massacres that are laid on Sharon were actually committed by Lebanese because you know they are true.

The rest of your post you doing something very similar to what you accuse Zionists of doing, making an argument that's only rhetorical. Hey! If Ghadaffi is a bad-guy who was never convicted of war crimes, then Ronald Reagan and Sharon can be too! Only we're supposed to forget that you haven't actually made a case for Sharon being a war criminal except for your unsuported assertion that you don't like him.