Hezbollah Declares War On Israel...

[TheScotsman]

I didn't say Iraqi, why would I, this is about ISRAEL (take a look at the little "subject" line, eh hoser?)

I don't think American soldiers have a damn thing to do with Israel, or Hezbollah, at least not at this point... You are rambling off topic maybe? Or I am I just failing to connect the dots?

If it's about Israel, why are you challenging me about Arabs shooting up Christian schools, and why are you talking about Americans running into Mosques? Did you forget what you wrote?

I know the subject line, I wrote it, and the post you responded to at 1am was about historical Arab-Israeli relations, propounding the argument that it was a two-sided conflict. Did you actually read what you were responding to?

It's a bit ridiculous to state that Americans have nothing to do with Israel, when they're probably your firmest nuclear ally in the world and a major reason for the US imperative to maintain geopolitical control in the Middle East (you may have heard of the Iraq war).

Edit: and where were you going with your point about Arab antiparticles?

Where do you see christian schools mentioned? You miss the point, it was a low-life tactic that even Hamas is trying to back away from, and something the USA, nor Israel would ever do, I challenged you to find me a similar incident with either force, and in the absence of finding either, proving my point that the Muslim Militants are the faction most likely to ignite the fuse on the next conflict there. Right now I know of 7 major conflicts in the world. in EVERY case it's the Muslim inability to get along with their neighbors that sparked, and fuels the conflict.

Israel can't create peace alone. Just how long do you think it will be before they have hauled enough bodies of innocents out of buildings before the Knesset is forced to react? Then some liberal jackass is going to Israel made the first attack... all the while ignoring the prelude to that conflict.

Where do you see American soldiers fighting in Israel? (go read the post, don't try the leftist-loonie tactic of mixing words, you are usually a much better debator than that, and one of the few people I ever find making me rethink my positions on some things.) As I recall, the last American manned patriot battery left Israel, hmmm.... after your bud, Saddam, got his scuds he was flinging at Israel smoked. No, not heard of the Iraq war. War requires the declaration of congress, and I have yet to see such. Did I miss it? (ya, mixing words... it's lame, but I couldn't resist.) Who knows, between outlawing my light bulbs, and banning keyword advertising in Utah, congress does so much that is blatantly stupid, anything can slip through!

[gaia.plateau]

Where do you see christian schools mentioned?

a religious school, starts shooting 17 year old guys reading the bible.

You miss the point, it was a low-life tactic that even Hamas is trying to back away from, and something the USA, nor Israel would ever do, I challenged you to find me a similar incident with either force

Did you?

Show me some American troops running into a mosque full of juveniles, and opening up while chanting a "Hail Mary". I'll be here waiting, and thinking you the fool in the mean time.

Right now I know of 7 major conflicts in the world. in EVERY case it's the Muslim inability to get along with their neighbors that sparked, and fuels the conflict.

You mean like the Serbs and Albanians? Wait, damn, Christians started it. What about the Burmese protesters and the Burmese military government? Wait, damn, Christians started it. What about the Christian-Animist rebels and the Muslim government in Darfur? Wait, damn, Christians started it (take your pick from the rebels or the British colonials that planted the roots of the conflict). What about the United States military in Iraq? Wait, damn, Christians started it. I could keep going with this, so I will. What about the Columbian aggressors in Ecuador and Venezuela? Wait, damn, Christians started it. What about the riots in Kenya? Christians started it. The decades-long war in Uganda between the LRA and national army, just now in the middle of peace talks? Christians started it. WWI, Christians started it.

Even look back a bit, if you like. WWII, Christians started it. Vietnam, Korea, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan, and now I'll begin to wind this down because it's just too bloody easy. Look at the conflict in question between the Israelis and Palestinians, which is most significantly caused by British colonial and post-colonial policies? Christians started it.

So every conflict you can think of was started by crazy, unreasonable Muslims, eh? I guess you weren't thinking of the nearly 2 dozen I just mentioned.

Israel can't create peace alone. Just how long do you think it will be before they have hauled enough bodies of innocents out of buildings before the Knesset is forced to react?

You still haven't read the post you started responded to, eh? Here, I'll make it easy.

Israel has always said yes to "land for peace" deals.

They agree to them when they lose territory, but not when they win it.

Click the second link. Israel hasn't honoured the peace agreements since day 1. It takes two to tango.

Where do you see American soldiers fighting in Israel?

Where do you see me saying they're fighting in Israel? More rightist-fascist tactics of mixing words. A significant reason that American soldiers are fighting in Iraq is because of Israel, and there have been globally-acclaimed scholars arguing both sides of this coin - some say that one reason for the Iraq war was to help Israel gain geopolitical power in the area, and some say that it was to keep Israel in check. I tend to agree with the latter.

(ya, mixing words... it's lame, but I couldn't resist.)

it seems to be working so far (note sarcasm), why stop now? Edited March 7, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[azcoyote]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, GP, but not their own facts. Especially aspiring journalists.

Here's is where you have veered off track with your facts:

There has been a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine since biblical times. There was a substantial Jewish population in modern times from 1875 on. At the juncture, country was very sparsely populated although nomadic Bedouin clans that migrated through the area seasonally with their flocks.

Not to say there were no Arab villages. But it was a poor, rural, largely unpopulated and undeveloped brown land. Until the Jews came. Jews attempted to restore zion, as they are commanded to do by their religion - to heal the world. Forests were planted on barren hillsides, orchards planted, irrigated agriculture was established and the place turned green.

Many Arabs from Jordan, Syria and Lebanon migrated into Palestine to take jobs in Jewish enterprises, and were employed chiefly as laborers. They did help build the nation they came in time to consider as theirs. But they were paid fairly for their work - far in excess of what could be earned in their home lands. But they have no justifiable claim to any land. Not then, and especially not now after becoming such distinguished murderers and assassins.

Americans should remember that one of our most loved leaders, US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, was cut down by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian who was outraged at US support of Israel. Our top law enforcement official shot in public in the prime of his life. I wonder if he really acted alone.

I'm certainly glad you will admit Palestinians started the violence. For the record, it started up mainly in the '20's and '30's and became a severe problem during WWII, following the alliance of Nazi Germany with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. No Israeli army was around at the time to defend civilians, much less to seize additional lands. The Brits did everything they could to appease the the Arabs. So where are those damn good soldiers when you need them. Your timeline is decades off. My facts are correct here.

The Nazi pact the grand mufti - chief moslem cleric - in Palestine is a historic fact. Palestinians were Nazi sympathizers from the start because they wanted independence from Britain and deliverance from their "Jewish Problem" In consideration for spying and sabotaging British interests during the war, the mufti was assured they would not be invaded by Germany and left to run their own affairs. Additionally, Germany was to implement the "final solution" in Palestine.

The mufti traveled with the Germans to the Balkans where he helped raise a muslim volunteer force to round up Jew for extermination in axis occupied arab countries. Real Nice guy.

Following WWII many Nazi war criminals found sanctuary in Arab lands and achieved some position, especially in Egypt where Nazi propaganda masters translated their specious Jew bashing trash from German into Arabic. The same old canards Jews have been baited with for centuries.

With the taint of being nazi conspirators and collaborators on them, Palestinians have long way to go before they can claim any kind of moral high ground. They picked the wrong side in WWII and they lost. What's happened since derives directly from that poorly considered and amoral decision. So let's just back it up shall we. I believe an apology is in order here. Or are you a nazi sympathizer too?

[gaia.plateau]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, GP, but not their own facts. Especially aspiring journalists.

Here's is where you have veered off track with your facts:

There has been a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine since biblical times. There was a substantial Jewish population in modern times from 1875 on. At the juncture, country was very sparsely populated although nomadic Bedouin clans that migrated through the area seasonally with their flocks.

We get a wee bit venomous when our perceptions that we know everything are shaken and shattered, don't we?

Well, if you recall I made a point of mentioning that it was "my understanding", I don't think that qualifies as "inventing facts"; mind you I did give a source for my understanding and you've not for yours. I guess it depends on your definition of "presence"; after the fall of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, didn't the vast majority of Jews flee the Babylonian-conquered area? To reiterate, my understanding is always vulnerable to cross-wires and misconceptions, as are everyone's when not viewing peer-reviewed and scholarly-published source material at the time of recollection.

Jews attempted to restore zion, as they are commanded to do by their religion

Well now, we might just have different translations of the Torah (yours could be in Hebrew, for all of me), but I've always read (peer-reviewed, academic sources) and been professed to (scholars of theology, history, politics and otherwise), that the Torah commands Jews to endure until the emergence of the messiah, who will lead them to reclaim Zion. Maybe you should cross reference your own opinions/facts on that... naturally the Zionist factions agree with you that it is the right and duty of Jews to take back Zion themselves, but that is their interpretation, not the word, of the Tanahk. And some 700,000 Orthadox Jews concur with the facts I've learned, this is just the most radical faction of them that 2 seconds of searching found. Note that 200,000 Orthadox Jews, the great majority of them Rabbis, attended Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "anti-holocaust conference" (as called by the US right-wing media and others), as traditional Jewish teachings effectively consider Zionist efforts to go against the will of God.

Many Arabs from Jordan, Syria and Lebanon migrated into Palestine to take jobs in Jewish enterprises, and were employed chiefly as laborers. They did help build the nation they came in time to consider as theirs. But they were paid fairly for their work - far in excess of what could be earned in their home lands. But they have no justifiable claim to any land. Not then, and especially not now after becoming such distinguished murderers and assassins.

Let me test the integrity your attitude toward land rights, if you'll indulge me. Do you believe that all Western corporations and settlers should give back the land they bought/stole from the indigenous peoples of Africa and South America? Should all European-descended Americans, Canadians and Mexicans give their land back to the aboriginals? For their land was outright stolen, and is being lived on by the descendants of their invaders, and so cognitively they have as much or more right to it than do the Zionist Jews to Israel. I'll wait for your response on this before pursuing the point further.

Regarding your assertion that Palestinians are murderers and assassins, did you perchance read the article in the very first post of this thread, about Israeli murderers and assassins? Crumbling double standards are a bitch.

No Israeli army was around at the time to defend civilians, much less to seize additional lands. The Brits did everything they could to appease the the Arabs. So where are those damn good soldiers when you need them. Your timeline is decades off. My facts are correct here.

What facts? All you've done is present "what seems true to you", where as my "incorrect facts" have been well documented in academia, and properly sourced by yours truly. He who is most adamant in his own opinion is not the equivalent to he who has the correct information. You're free to throw out "no, you're wrong, I'm right" all day, but I'm the one who has presented evidence.

The mufti traveled with the Germans to the Balkans where he helped raise a muslim volunteer force to round up Jew for extermination in axis occupied arab countries. Real Nice guy.

So because of one Arab aligned with Hitler, the entire state of Israel is justified in operating its own concentration camps and ghetto (not to mention their Holocaust against POWs one in '67, following the 6-day-war) against Palestinian civilians?

Following WWII many Nazi war criminals found sanctuary in Arab lands and achieved some position, especially in Egypt where Nazi propaganda masters translated their specious Jew bashing trash from German into Arabic. The same old canards Jews have been baited with for centuries.

The Brits did everything they could to appease the the Arabs.

Such as? They were largely displaced tens of thousands of innocent Israeli civilians, many of whom died from exposure and dehydration. The only thing done by the Brits to appease the Arabs was handing off the decision to give Palestine to the Jews, to the UN.

[gaia.plateau]

With the taint of being nazi conspirators and collaborators on them, Palestinians have long way to go before they can claim any kind of moral high ground. They picked the wrong side in WWII and they lost. What's happened since derives directly from that poorly considered and amoral decision.

No one is saying that the Palestinian factions in question are privy to "moral high ground", but that doesn't mean it's okay for the Zionists to treat them as inhuman, either. In WWII certain Palestinians supported Germany because they were looking out for their interests (security for what they perceived to be their deserved land), in the exact same way that the Zionists supported the Allies because they were looking out for their interests (security for what they perceived to be their deserved land).

You're trying to play up one group of religious extremists to simultaneously be victims and heroes, while playing down another group of religious extremists to be heathens, assassins, murderers and war criminals. I'm neither defending one nor attacking the other, I'm telling you that this kind of attitude is extremely naive, and more than a little dangerous.

I believe an apology is in order here. Or are you a nazi sympathizer too?

Sir I am neither a Nazi sympathizer nor a Palestinian sympathizer, what I am is someone committed to objectivity, nondualism, and truth. Your dishonest attempt to polarize me into defending the Nazis is not going to work, and it's no different than your government accusing other country's of being on the side of terrorists for not supporting the illegal invasion of Iraq.

You've either ignored or denied the hundreds of atrocities committed by the Israelis, while concurrently exaggerating the hundreds of atrocities committed by the Palestinians. While I have presented dozens of sources and pieces of evidence to support the counter-balance to your extreme bias, you have presented nothing but your own opinions and conclusions.

If you really want to apologize to me, you can do so by replying to...

Israel has always said yes to "land for peace" deals.

They agree to them when they lose territory, but not when they win it.

the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is not a valid test case because Israel is continuing its "occupation" and despite having withdrawn its settlers, there are still ground forces

and...

Just to defend the "other side" in the discussion you've proposed, when the Arabs win against the Israelis, you see fair compromises and the establishment of peace. When the Isralies win against the Arabs, on the other hand, you see outright butchering of POWs and civilians. Look at the Gaza strip today, where the Israeli's are effectively running concentration camps, spreading propaganda, and making Palestinians wear the equivilent of the star of David.

The bottom line is that you can't have peace with blame. We found that out after Versailles.

Had to post this in two parts; it had more than the max. for quotations

Edit: PS I loved you in Stakeout 2. Edited March 7, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[oolatec]

Israel builds a wall to protect themselves = crime of the century

Egypt builds a wall to keep Palestinians out = the world yawns

[oolatec]

Re: Gaza Strip. Israel pulled out of their months ago, and what did they get in return? A rise in rocket attacks... + 500%.

And I don't remember the last time Arabs gave any sort of concessions to Israel. Just name one please.

And when have they beaten Israel at anything? 1967? 1973? Nuh uh. All the surrounding Arab nations joined forces to attack (in an attempt to utterly destroy Israel, and erase it from existence many a time), and each time they failed miserably. Israel had no choice but to keep much of the land it won when war was declared on them.

[gaia.plateau]

Israel builds a wall to protect themselves = crime of the century

Egypt builds a wall to keep Palestinians out = the world yawns

Egypt's wall is to protect itself from dangerous influxes of refugees, and it's a significantly controversial issue right now. Edited March 8, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[gaia.plateau]

Re: Gaza Strip. Israel pulled out of their months ago, and what did they get in return? A rise in rocket attacks... + 500%.

Really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7270300.stm

Israeli forces have kept up attacks on the Gaza Strip, where they have killed at least 32 Palestinians, militants and civilians, since Wednesday morning. Four Palestinian boys were killed in an Israeli attack as they played in a field in northern Gaza on Thursday.

The Israelis say their attacks are a response to the firing of Palestinian rockets into southern Israel.

Additional info here.

Where're you gettin' your facts broseph?

And I don't remember the last time Arabs gave any sort of concessions to Israel. Just name one please.

Ask and ye shall receive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_Wa...re_negotiations

Israel received Kissinger's threat to support a UN withdrawal resolution, but before they could respond, Egyptian national security advisor Hafez Ismail sent Kissinger a stunning message—Egypt was willing to enter into direct talks with the Israelis, provided that the Israelis agree to allow nonmilitary supplies to reach their army and agree to a complete cease-fire.

The talks took place on October 28, between Israeli Major General Aharon Yariv and Egyptian Major General Muhammad al-Ghani al-Gamasy. Ultimately, Kissinger brought the proposal to Sadat, who agreed almost without debate. United Nations checkpoints were brought in to replace Israeli checkpoints, nonmilitary supplies were allowed to pass, and prisoners-of-war were to be exchanged. A summit in Geneva followed, and ultimately, an armistice agreement was worked out. On January 18, Israel signed a pullback agreement to the east side of the canal, and the last of their troops withdrew from the west side of the canal on March 5, 1974.^[47]

Honestly I think it's a bit superfluous to portray the Jews as victims in this situation... the worst thing that could possibly happen to them already has, and it's this plight that we should be focusing on eliminating. Its name is Howie Mandel.

Edited March 7, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[azcoyote]

Perhaps I have been remiss for not including footnotes for all my facts. Please refrain from blithely dismissing my sources as pure propaganda, lies, etc. All facts are scrupulously checked there. If you have doubts about the veracity of these sources, please bring your questions to them. I think you will get a response!

Here are some links that are germaine to the issued discussed, and some others that are at least related to the discussion. There is also a search feature at the Myths and Facts website and the Jewish Virtual Library that I would commend to anyone sincerely exploring both sides of the conflict.

Myths and Facts Online Index
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...ths2/cover.html

Library Portal:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/index.html

The Mufti’s Conversation with Hitler
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...ory/mufti2.html

The Christian Exodus from the Middle East
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...hristianme.html

Israeli and Palestinian Traditional Narratives of Their History: A ...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...narratives.html

Myths & Facts Online - Jerusalem
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc.../Jerusalem.html

Rewriting History in Textbooks
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...tism/texts.html

Myths & Facts - Human Rights in Arab Countries
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf16.html


Myths & Facts - The Palestinian Uprisings
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf19.html


Let me know what you think.

[gaia.plateau]

Thanks for posting sources...

Now, as to the nature of these sources... they're written by people who get paid to generate support for Zionism in the West, specifically in the US... I would argue that they are not objective. Take this excerpt, for example.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...ti-Zionism.html

Jews who criticize or oppose Zionism are usually Orthodox and maintain that Israel can only be regained miraculously. They view the present state as a blasphemous human attempt to usurp G­d's role, and they work to dismantle Israel.

This is simply ridiculous... to propound that all Jews who oppose Zionism are trying to "dismantle Israel" is propaganda, don't you feel compelled to agree? I have many Jewish friends here in Canada who are Conservative Jews, but generally lean toward the more traditional (though they think Orthodox Jews tend toward the insane). Many of my Jewish friends, especially those who are highly educated, don't believe that Zionism is spiritually or politically justified.

This is just the first library page I opened, looking for heavy bias, and now as I read further, I noticed that about 9 in 10 articles are based around defending Zionism. I've read articles written by AICE members before, for classes and etcetera, and they've been some of the most biased pieces of literature I've encountered. Seriously, some of the stuff those guys spout off as "factual information" is so brutal that I've seen entire classrooms burst into laughter in the discussion of it.

Regardlessly, the majority of the points you've made I have accepted as being historically accurate, and I've never personally argued against the Zionist movement or the Jewish state of Israel, nor the history of violence by Palestinians and Arabs against the Israelis. At the same time, however, and I think more important to the salient issue here, is that both Israel and Palestine have explicit policies of violence toward one another, and that makes them both 100% wrong, regardless of who has accumulated more "evil points" over the past century.

Now the current situation I perceive mostly through what I read in the news, BBC World and Al Jazeera English to be specific, and what I see is this. Both Palestine (aligned with Lebanon and Iran, and loosely aligned with Syria) and Israel (aligned with the US) are still at one another's throats needlessly. Hamas isn't actively seeking peace with Israel, and Palestinians continue RPG campaigns over the border, almost certainly condoned by the government. Hezbollah has declared open war on Israel for the assassination of one of their senior commanders. Israel ostensibly seeks peace with Hamas, even though they continue their military presence in Gaza detaining and butchering combatants and civilians alike, and continue to spread anti-Palestinian hate propaganda within their own borders.

Now, here's where my opinion comes in. You can't claim that you want peace while illegally and violently occupying the neighbour you seek peace with, and I think that ostensibly seeking peace in this way while realistically propagating violence, is extremely harmful to the peace process. Hamas has agreed to resume peace talks if Israel leaves Gaza, so why don't they just do it? The civilians on both sides of the wall just want to wake up in the morning without the fear of their family being dead to be the first thing into their minds.

http://peoplesgeography.com/2008/01/18/mor...-the-holy-land/ Edited March 8, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[azcoyote]

Thanks for posting sources...

Now, as to the nature of these sources... they're written by people who get paid to generate support for Zionism in the West, specifically in the US... I would argue that they are not objective. Take this excerpt, for example.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...ti-Zionism.html

Jews who criticize or oppose Zionism are usually Orthodox and maintain that Israel can only be regained miraculously. They view the present state as a blasphemous human attempt to usurp G­d's role, and they work to dismantle Israel.

This is simply ridiculous... to propound that all Jews who oppose Zionism are trying to "dismantle Israel" is propaganda, don't you feel compelled to agree? I have many Jewish friends here in Canada who are Conservative Jews, but generally lean toward the more traditional (though they think Orthodox Jews tend toward the insane). Many of my Jewish friends, especially those who are highly educated, don't believe that Zionism is spiritually or politically justified.

This is just the first library page I opened, looking for heavy bias, and now as I read further, I noticed that about 9 in 10 articles are based around defending Zionism. I've read articles written by AICE members before, for classes and etcetera, and they've been some of the most biased pieces of literature I've encountered. Seriously, some of the stuff those guys spout off as "factual information" is so brutal that I've seen entire classrooms burst into laughter in the discussion of it.

Regardlessly, the majority of the points you've made I have accepted as being historically accurate, and I've never personally argued against the Zionist movement or the Jewish state of Israel, nor the history of violence by Palestinians and Arabs against the Israelis. At the same time, however, and I think more important to the salient issue here, is that both Israel and Palestine have explicit policies of violence toward one another, and that makes them both 100% wrong, regardless of who has accumulated more "evil points" over the past century.

Now the current situation I perceive mostly through what I read in the news, BBC World and Al Jazeera English to be specific, and what I see is this. Both Palestine (aligned with Lebanon and Iran, and loosely aligned with Syria) and Israel (aligned with the US) are still at one another's throats needlessly. Hamas isn't actively seeking peace with Israel, and Palestinians continue RPG campaigns over the border, almost certainly condoned by the government. Hezbollah has declared open war on Israel for the assassination of one of their senior commanders. Israel ostensibly seeks peace with Hamas, even though they continue their military presence in Gaza detaining and butchering combatants and civilians alike, and continue to spread anti-Palestinian hate propaganda within their own borders.

Now, here's where my opinion comes in. You can't claim that you want peace while illegally and violently occupying the neighbour you seek peace with, and I think that ostensibly seeking peace in this way while realistically propagating violence, is extremely harmful to the peace process. Hamas has agreed to resume peace talks if Israel leaves Gaza, so why don't they just do it? The civilians on both sides of the wall just want to wake up in the morning without the fear of their family being dead to be the first thing into their minds.

http://peoplesgeography.com/2008/01/18/mor...-the-holy-land/

All that Hamas has to do to get the IDF from pursuing military campaigns in Gaza is to stop the rockets. Peace talks have not produced much peace. Actions reliably communicate Hamas' true intentions. There's really nothing more to it than that. There are no Israeli settlements currently in Gaza. So just shut up about your illegal occupation. It was over many months ago. And this has been brought to your attention in previous posts. Yet you persist in putting this forward as a current grievance. Do you not think the occupation of Gaza is over? Do you think any Israelis still live there? Please address this question directly.

Yes the sources I cited defend the Israeli position. And yours the opposite. Big surprise that. The BBC is notorious for it's anti- Israel bias, and it pretends to be objective. I don't consider it an unbiased source. As for Al Jazeera, that is a state-owned media and cannot be considered truly objective or scholarly. It's a entity that would not exist without the financial sponsorship of an oil-rich Arab sheikdom.

The BBC often reports as fact what they are fed from their sources in the PA and Hamas. Many times they have gone to press with authoritative accounts of events that turned out to be entirely fabricated by their handlers, ie the Jenin "massacre" The Palestinians have a terrific propaganda operation, but they were trained by the best in the business, those germans who fled prosecution after the war and found refuge in Cairo.

So the "journalists" at Al Jazeera and the "scholars" at the Jewish Virtual Library are essentially hired guns. Maybe so. Hence, your sources are no more objective than mine, (and probably much less in my opinion)
They don't exactly pay writers to come up with a pro-Israel angle to anything at Al Jazeera OR the BBC for that matter. The fact that you can elicit peels of laughter from your left wing classmates does not speak to whether or not they are well informed, or whether you are just skilled at entertaining an audience.

Perhaps there are NO truly unbiased sources out there. It seems everyone has an axe to grind. So when seeking the truth about any controversy, it falls to the individual seeker of truth to fearlessly look at the assertions of both sides and see if they stand up to close examination..

Now you couldn't have read very much from my sources, given the swift response you made to my citations. I know it's hard to read something that rubs you the wrong way, that shakes your heart-felt convictions, but man up and read it anyway. It will create some cognitive dissonance if you do, but that's good for your developing your capacity to weigh things in your mind. You do keep an open mind...or am I wasting my time here?

Now, here's my opinion. If these rockets continue into the summer, I predict Benjamin Netanyahu will become the next Israeli PM - and if you liked Sharon, you're just gonna love BB. It will be a very hot and thirsty summer in Gaza without water or power. You can bet on it. Just keep up those rockets, Hamas, and you will all achieve the martyrdom to which you so ardently aspire. And you will take a lot of innocent, peace loving Gazans with you, whether they want it or not. Will your god really be pleased with you? I have my doubts.

Ever wondered what happens to those once "used" virgins in Paradise ?

WWIII? I don't really think so.

[gaia.plateau]

All that Hamas has to do to get the IDF from pursuing military campaigns in Gaza is to stop the rockets. Peace talks have not produced much peace. Actions reliably communicate Hamas' true intentions. There's really nothing more to it than that.

Ah, so the best solution is to keep playing the blame game, until people stop dying? Historically this has been ineffective, and at this point your infallible Jews have now lost the moral high ground as well, I'm afraid.

There are no Israeli settlements currently in Gaza. So just shut up about your illegal occupation.

if we all close our eyes, hold hands, and say it over and over again, it might become true, but at present time the evidence is what the evidence is, and until you get back from Gaza with a portfolio full of "the real truth" to prove everyone else wrong, I'm going to go ahead and believe the comprehensive journalistic and academic community. I guess you didn't check the dates on those articles, as they're less than a couple of weeks old. And you accused me of being hasty to read your propaganda?

Yes the sources I cited defend the Israeli position. And yours the opposite. Big surprise that. The BBC is notorious for it's anti- Israel bias, and it pretends to be objective. I don't consider it an unbiased source.

You'll say anything to keep your delusion that you know everything intact Anti-Israel, you say?

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1977
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7282948.stm
http://dishonestreporting.blogspot.com/200...e-one-year.html
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/200...t-in-doubt.html
http://mpacuk.org/content/view/2057/1/

When dishonest people don't like what they're hearing, they have a tendency to accuse the speaker of lying.

As for Al Jazeera, that is a state-owned media and cannot be considered truly objective or scholarly. It's a entity that would not exist without the financial sponsorship of an oil-rich Arab sheikdom.

So the "journalists" at Al Jazeera

They don't exactly pay writers to come up with a pro-Israel angle to anything at Al Jazeera OR the BBC for that matter.

Al Jazeera is recognized by many as one of the most objective and accurate news sources in the world, your personal predjudices not withstanding.

Thousands of mourners turned out on the streets of Jerusalem to pay their last respects to eight students killed by a Palestinian man at a Jewish religious school.

The attacker, identified a a resident of East Jerusalem, was shot dead after he opened fire with an automatic weapon in the library of the Merkaz Harav Jewish religious school. <script language="javascript">bodyVariable350="Htmlphcontrol1_lblError";

The shooting has led to a security clampdown across Jerusalem and the West Bank, and follows a series of Israeli raids in the Gaza Strip which left more than 130 Palestinians dead.

Hamas labelled the attack as "heroic", while thousands of Gazans poured onto the streets to celebrate.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DF9...558FE9BAD672%7d

I guess if it doesn't refer to the Palestinians' horns and pointy tails, it's not objective media in your eyes. Why not show me the bias in there?

The fact that you can elicit peels of laughter from your left wing classmates does not speak to whether or not they are well informed, or whether you are just skilled at entertaining an audience.

Read more closely, I said that the author elicited laughter. As effective as quickly scanning over the words that challenge your worldviews and immediately releasing your outrage like noxious gas from an old factory might seem to you, you'd be surprised.

Perhaps there are NO truly unbiased sources out there. It seems everyone has an axe to grind. So when seeking the truth about any controversy, it falls to the individual seeker of truth to fearlessly look at the assertions of both sides and see if they stand up to close examination..

...you couldn't have read very much from my sources, given the swift response you made to my citations...

Here's a good tip... if someone is getting paid to come to a certain conclusion with their research, it's probably not objective. I read your sources in entirity, even though in your hypocrisy, as I've cited aready, you haven't bothered reading mine.

Why are my sources objective, and yours not?

1) I'm drawing my information from 25+ different places, from 4 or 5 different countries, and from all sides of the political spectrum. You, on the other hand, took 100% of your information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a site run by the American-Israeli Co-Operative Enterprise.

2) Your sources have every reason in the world to lie; the authors are paid to specifically come to the conclusions that will generate Zionist support in the US. This isn't my opinion, it's fact. They're a US political think tank that lobbies for pro-Israeli policy.
http://thinktanks.fpri.org/american-israeli-cooperative-enterprise

3) My sources have no reason to lie. Listen to what you're trying to argue. "Every news agency except for the AICE is engaged in a conspiracy theory against Israel, and reports only lies". Let's call Hookahforum's 9/11 truthers in here, you guys can sit around and make crazy sandwiches together.

...I know it's hard to read something that rubs you the wrong way, that shakes your heart-felt convictions, but man up and read it anyway...

Project much? I have no convictions on the matter; your opinions on the topic can only be called extremist, while mine are entirely malleable, by which I mean that if you were as Pro-Palestinian/Anti-Israeli, I would be arguing many of the points you are.

Now, here's my opinion. If these rockets continue into the summer, I predict Benjamin Netanyahu will become the next Israeli PM - and if you liked Sharon, you're just gonna love BB. It will be a very hot and thirsty summer in Gaza without water or power. You can bet on it.

Why not just nuke them, and be humane about mass-murder? You're clearly anti-UN, as they've repeatedly condemned the brutal crimes against humanity committed by Israel in Gaza, (MUST BE IN ON THE CONSPIRACY!) so wouldn't you agree that we may as well just kill off all humans asap?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/385...8B2E0404125.htm
http://uk.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/i...868601720080302
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7273444.stm

There you have it, proof that Reuters, BBC, and Al Jazeera, internationally recognized as the three most objective and accurate news agencies in the world, are in cahoots with Ahmadinejad and Hitler!!! Elvis might be in on it too, I'll keep you updated.

Just keep up those rockets, Hamas, and you will all achieve the martyrdom to which you so ardently aspire. And you will take a lot of innocent, peace loving Gazans with you, whether they want it or not. Will your god really be pleased with you? I have my doubts.

Ever wondered what happens to those once "used" virgins in Paradise ?

I really hope you're not trying to refer to the hilarious misconception among US braindead pundits and the people who will believe anything, that Islamic fundamentalists believe they will get virgins if they die martyrs. Because then I will feel like all this discussion has been a waste of time.

Edited March 8, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[oolatec]

Palestinians would never dream of using children as propaganda tools and human shields! Never!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NPHB8SSqL4

Those in the video are obviously Jooooz posing as Palestinans to trick the world! Yeah, that's it!

[Johnny_D]

Palestinians would never dream of using children as propaganda tools and human shields! Never!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NPHB8SSqL4

Those in the video are obviously Jooooz posing as Palestinans to trick the world! Yeah, that's it!

Farfor the mouse. Bastian of quality humanatrianism.

[gaia.plateau]

Palestinians would never dream of using children as propaganda tools and human shields! Never!

I never suggested they didn't. Edited March 8, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Johnny_D]

I really hope you're not trying to refer to the hilarious misconception among US braindead pundits and the people who will believe anything, that Islamic fundamentalists believe they will get virgins if they die martyrs. Because then I will feel like all this discussion has been a waste of time.

So what are they expecting when they shout Allah Akbar and pull the cord? What did those lovely lovely beacons of humanity expect when they pulled the cords on the london underground?

JD

[gaia.plateau]

I really hope you're not trying to refer to the hilarious misconception among US braindead pundits and the people who will believe anything, that Islamic fundamentalists believe they will get virgins if they die martyrs. Because then I will feel like all this discussion has been a waste of time.

So what are they expecting when they shout Allah Akbar and pull the cord? What did those lovely lovely beacons of humanity expect when they pulled the cords on the london underground?

JD

The traditional interpretation is 72 angels, who will serve you in heaven, not fuck you. Literally, I believe the scripture explicitly says that you get 72 "grapes", but something definitely gets lost in the translation there. Some translations say "maidens", some say "wives", and some say "virgins", though this latter obscurity was never raised as an issue until after 9/11 and the imperative to slander against Islam in the West. I perceive it as being dishonest and unjust, is all.

That being said, I can't speculate on the more-than-likely-unstable minds and motivations of suicide bombers. For all we can know they might think they're going to get Marshmallow Peeps.

According to classical Arabic usage in the time when the Qur'an was recited by Muhammad, Hur'in is made of two words Hur and In. The word 'Hur' is the plural of both Ahwar (Masculine) and Hawra (Feminine) which literally translates into persons distinguished by Hawar, signifying "intense whiteness of the eyeballs and lustrous black of the pupils." (ref: Qamus ), hence 'the purity' (ref: Tafsir al'Tabari, and Tafsir al-Razi in 3:52). And as for the phrase, "In it is the plural of both 'Ayan' (Masculine) and 'Ainao' (Feminine)",[25] it was used to refer to the beautiful eyes of the wild-cow whose eyes are blond. In general, this word implies 'most beautiful eye' irrespective of the person's gender. Thus, the most appropriate English endering of the compound word Hur'In will be: "Companions pure, most beautiful of eye."[26] and it is applicable to both male and female.[27]

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

And not a single reputable scholar of Islam would concede that suicide bombing qualifies you for martyrdom.

Oh, and this will really bake your noodle Before WWII, Muslims worshiped Jesus Christ as a prophet of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
Edited March 8, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[azcoyote]

Israel is saving their H bombs for real threats, like Iran. They will never be the first to use that option. Besides, a well managed siege gives your adversary many opportunities to rethink things and to surrender - far more humane than nuking them, don't you think? Look, since 1948 those dedicated to the "liberation of Palestine" have promised to drive all the Jews into the sea.

Hamas' claim to the entire map and their commitment to armed struggle and suicide attacks makes them and those who elect them fair targets in the conflict. When threatened with annihilation, one's only option is to utterly destroy the threat. Nuff said. I'm done here.

[oolatec]

Oh look. The "Moderate" Fatah, and Israel's "partner in peace" Abbas... praise the mass murdering creep... he was a martyr!

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125508

With friends like these...

[Texico]

All I can say is both sides are to blame. The Arabs lost several chances to influence their future during the time of the British protectorate. Yes, they say that the British wouldn't have honored any agreements made with the Muslims, but hindsight isn't 20/20, and the British only got rid of the agreements because the Arabs dismissed them first. Neither side is attempting to end the conflict right now. I'm pretty sure we can agree on that. The Israelis are still patrolling Gaza, and the Palestinians are still firing rockets into Israel.

Also, as I understood it the Arabs have always, and still do, believe that Jesus is a prophet of Allah. According to what you said, because of WWII the Arabs stopped believing that Jesus is a Prophet. I did not find anything to support that in the source you listed after what you said. Now, that might be because I'm buzzed right now, but I'm pretty sure I saw nothing relating to WWII.

That being said, I don't think that the Arabs are correct in saying that they deserve the land which they once had. They sold the land to the Jews, and the Jews kicked them off of the land. This is not the traditional way that the Arabs were used to. The Arabs were used to being tenant farmers on land owned by Arab landowners. The situation in "Palestine" right now highlights the unwillingness of Arabs to adapt to Western customs. Again, while this is understandable it shows that they are not able to live in a "Western" world.

The problem is that the Ottoman Empire cast their lot with the Central Powers. And that's why I feel that Djemal Pasha, Enver Pasha, and Talat Pasha are to blame for the situation that exists now. They are the reason that the Middle East was split up by the Western powers. They cast their lot with the Central Powers and guaranteed that upon their defeat they would be disassembled by the Allied Powers.

However, that is another matter, and you all are debating a matter which has no relevance to the current situation in Gaza and Israel. The only way that both sides would be able to reconcile with each other is if they both discontinue attacks. This will not happen. The belief structures of both chains of command will not allow this to happen. So, what I think should happen is that the Western world should cut all relations to Israel and the Middle East countries should cut all aid to the PLO. Again, this is not going to happen. And this, the ultimate revelation (to me), is why I think the entire Middle East should be destroyed. No people should be allowed to live in the region.

The Jews have been persecuted everywhere they have lived. No people in this world are free from guilt in this situation.

Sources culled from A History of the Modern Middle East by William Cleveland and A History of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani.

Basically, from what I have learned and read, there is no solution to this current conflict. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis will continue to attack each other as long as neither side gets the entirety of what they want. This creates a situation in which neither side wins, unless of course one side completely destroys the other side. I have a feeling that this won't happen, so both sides can feel free to continue this war. Both sides are in the right for the war that is currently going on in the Israeli/Palestinian "territory". The only problem is that the Western countries have too much invested in the future of the country of Israel. It really is the only country truely allied with the Western world.

If the Arabic countries want someone to blame they should blame Turkey. Turkey was in control of the Ottoman Empire, and the Ottoman Empire, under the control of the Pashas of the Committee of Union and Progress are the reason for the situation that exists right now. I'm pretty sure I already said that, but my point has been made. Neither Europe nor the Jews nor the Arabs are to blame for this situation. The Turks are to blame. Edited March 23, 2008 by Texico

[oolatec]

It just sucks that Israel's only real "partner" in this mess is Abbas/Fatah. He's only a "moderate" to the Western world, but when speaking to his own, it's still the typical "Death to Israel" bullshit.

[gaia.plateau]

It just sucks that Israel's only real "partner" in this mess is Abbas/Fatah. He's only a "moderate" to the Western world, but when speaking to his own, it's still the typical "Death to Israel" bullshit.

Yeah, that's true, like, except, you know...

THE GLOBAL
NEOIMPERIAL HEGEMON Edited March 10, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[oolatec]

I wonder how many Hezbullah doctors would perform life-saving surgery on Israeli kids...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080312/ap_on_...stinian_surgery

[TheScotsman]

I wonder how many Hezbullah doctors would perform life-saving surgery on Israeli kids...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080312/ap_on_...stinian_surgery

None, never, nowhere, nohow.

But they would condone attaching remote control bombs to retarded women, and blowing them up in the market.