The Gaming Den

wrote:Again with the reading comperhension. Unfortunate. I've invested a lot of of effort into that lentghy post.

Well I ignored your post, and will continue to, I'd tell you why but we're keeping it civil.

PhoneLobster at [unixtime wrote:1154697606[/unixtime]]
Well I ignored your post, and will continue to, I'd tell you why but we're keeping it civil.

So, basically you don't care what the bastards on the other side have to say for themselves? I understand. It's always easier to argue with someone who isn't actually there to point our your... mistakes. As for incivility, there's always PM's, you know.

BTW, if anyone on the opposite side feels like telling me, why (as they believe)

Israel entered Lebanon (the first time around)

Israel left Lebanon (ditto)

Hizbollah attacked Israel (recently)

What Israeli offer for peace Hizbollah, the Palestinians, etc would be willing to accept (that one would require links to support it)

What would happen in the area following the destruction of Israel.

PWW wrote:Now during the show, they were showing a segment where a group of fundamentalist Christians were praying that George Bush would be re-elected. (It must have been during his first term) My wife and I looked at each other and just shook our head. That kind of stuff is nuts. Yeah, I would like certain candidates to win, but not take it to the extreme of hoping God dogs the opponent.

Heh, if you really wanted king George to win re-election, you'd just call a Red-Level Security Threat in the key battleground states of Florida and Ohio, shut down the building where they count the votes, kick out all the election monitors for several hours, and then watch while George wins both states.

I'll never understand why they dd that, it seems really clumsy compared to simply having Diebold machines rig the election.

-Username17

Hizbollah attacked? Rockets landing in Isreal?

If Israel took it tanks home tomorrow, would the missiles stop flying?

When a cease-fire was called last week, did the missiles stop flying into Israel?

-Crissa

During the last war in Lebanon - did the fighting forces involved disarm?

The Christians disarmed, the Sunnis disarmed, the PLO pretty much disarmed and even went home.

Only Hizbollah and Isreal didn't disarm.

-Crissa

PS... When put to a vote, did Palestine choose to support a moderate or someone who doesn't support Isreal? Is that a valid reason to attack a foreign leader (Yassar Arafat)

PhoneLobster at [unixtime wrote:1154664855[/unixtime]]Look nearly your whole post is that same useless "Look over there its a UFO" strategy again.

The point is that the same thing can be said about your post as well. The only difference is that you're saying, "Look over there its a UFO (Israel)", and not wanting people to look on the crimes against the Aboriginal people committed by Australians. Are the Aboriginal people satisfied with how their land was taken from them? Heck no! The only difference between them and what has happened to the Palestinians is that they haven't become violent in the pursuit. The thing is that you're basically throwing stones from a glass balcony.

Oh dear, every nation ever has done bad things. So we shouldn't understand history, we shouldn't judge nations and most of all we can't do anything to stop more bad things happening.

The thing is that you're not only wanting to stop bad things from happening, you're wanting to forgive the Palestinians organizations Hamas and Hizbollah in their pursuit of driving the Israelis into the sea. Israel has been a country as long as I have been alive (I'm 39 years old) so they've been around long enough to be a country, just like the US and Australia. That's basically mean what you want to do is basically roll back time and give the land back to the Palestinians because of errors in the past. Guess what? The only difference in this and making the Americans give back the land to the Native Americans or making the Australians give back the land to the Aboriginal people is around 50 years, which really isn't that much time when factored over the existance of civilization. And the concept of morality was around far earlier than when those actions were committed against Native Americans and Aboriginal people. Thus, when looking at the argument in a moral sense, it is hypocrisy at its finest. People are wanting to rest on the goods robbed from their native people in their own country but want others to give back the goods in other countries.

And thats the point here, not who has done or is doing what the point is who can change it. The Israelis are the ones who get to decide between war and peace and as long as they choose war they are the badest guys on the block.

Because whether the othersides participate in the war or not it isn't within their power to stop it. If it was and they chose war then they would be the badest guys, but they just plain don't have the guns, the money or the international backing, all of that falls to Israel along with all the damning responsibility for the situation.

Just like the US Army in the US and the British Army in Australia during the 19th century. Amazing how things never change. Hey, I'm part Sioux: we tried to resist and killed an arrogant American general (who happened to be slaughtering our villages prior), but we eventually lost.

So there was a time limit? A certain amount of arbitrary destruction and murder that they were allowed in all fairness?

Judging that you have your things in Australia and I have my things in the US, I guess that it was.

Look, I wholeheartly agree with D_A in his last post: the bombing should stop based on the fact that it isn't effective. However, don't time morality into it because we all live in glass houses.

And lets note I said capture. See cause you don't "kidnap" enemy soldiers, you capture them. They are POWs not kidnapping victims, the kidnap term is just part of Israel's usual venemous spin.

The problem with this argument is that it supports bombing. If they are POWs, then Hizbollah is an occupying army in Lebanon. Thus, bombing is required against the opponents, and was has always been unfortunate against those that were near other combatants. Heck, Hizbollah was using the UN posts as "shields." If the Israeli soldiers are POWs, then Hizbollah militants are military units and civilians are killing themselves for hanging around opposition military units. Hey, as a civilian, if I walk next to a M1A1 tank in Iraq, then it's my fault if I get killed for being so close to a military target.

That's why I hate to think about this argument in moral terms. Doing so leads to the above thought process. I'll just admit that I'm only concerned with US interests and be done with it.

wrote:The point is that the same thing can be said about your post as well. The only difference is that you're saying, "Look over there its a UFO (Israel)", and not wanting people to look on the crimes against the Aboriginal people committed by Australians. Are the Aboriginal people satisfied with how their land was taken from them? Heck no! The only difference between them and what has happened to the Palestinians is that they haven't become violent in the pursuit. The thing is that you're basically throwing stones from a glass balcony.

Absolutely not.

Its a separate issue and I'd look into it with no problem.

But I'm not going to let it distract me from the Israel issue like I'm some kid with attention deficit disorder.

And the situations and solutions are actually dramatically different.

But like I said I won't go into it because frankly its just a distraction tactic on your part.

wrote:That's basically mean what you want to do is basically roll back time and give the land back to the Palestinians because of errors in the past.

Did I ever say anything of the sort?

I said Israel just has to stop being a dick.

That means no more invasions, bombings, bulldozings, check point victimization shit, etc...

Now compensation or some other justice for those wronged would be nice, and while your at it you could do something about the bombers on the other side. But that requires peace and a police force that hasn't been bombed back into the stone age for being loosely affiliated with the leader of a political party the Israelis don't like this week.

But really just not being an asshole anymore is all they really need to do.

wrote:That's why I hate to think about this argument in moral terms. Doing so leads to the above thought process. I'll just admit that I'm only concerned with US interests and be done with it.

You keep saying this. But really is it that big an issue to make the judgement that it is wrong for Israel to CONTINUE to do this shit right in front of us?

The past is just a means of understanding the present of the situation, know it because its useful. The real issue is continued acts of senseless barbarity.

If you say its OK because you can't make judgements they will keep doing it in front of you forever.

Draco_Argentum at [unixtime wrote:1154671595[/unixtime]]
I think you missed one very important point and then went to attack the soft target moral sideline.

The bombing of German and Japanese civilians was evil. Now thats morality and can't be proved. The point was that condeming Israel's use of similar tactics is no longer considered an acceptible way of waging war.

I think a better point is one I once posted at Nifty. Forget the moral debate. Its a fact that targeting the civilian population's morale dosen't work. It makes the target more willing to fight. Both sides of the Israel fight should know this but they both don't seem to care.

In a total war situation (i.e. the country basically commits as many resources as possible to warfare), attacking civilians (i.e. a resource being used in the war against you) is roughly as evil as attacking enemy soldiers. (If you're talking specifically about, say, Dresden, that might be a bit different. I'm just talking about in general.)

And I'm still pretty certain that the a-bombs we used against Japan were horrific (I mean, they're atomic bombs), but the alternative solutions for ending the war would have been far more costly in terms of lives and money for all sides involved.

Yes, I'm saying the atomic bombs were the lesser of two (or more) evils. That sounds crazy, but World War II was pretty crazy.

Xander77 at [unixtime wrote:1154698722[/unixtime]]

PhoneLobster at [unixtime wrote:1154697606[/unixtime]]
Well I ignored your post, and will continue to, I'd tell you why but we're keeping it civil.

So, basically you don't care what the bastards on the other side have to say for themselves? I understand. It's always easier to argue with someone who isn't actually there to point our your... mistakes. As for incivility, there's always PM's, you know.

While I can't say for sure, I'm guessing (hoping) that part of Mr. Lobster's decision to ignore your post was due to your usual style of being horribly rude to, ummm...just about everyone really. (I guess you're equal-opportunity rude, now that I think about it.)

However, that lengthy post on the previous page was not your usual style by a long shot, and I found it pretty interesting, so I hope that people who would normally skip over it would go back and give it a read.

Actually the atomic bombs are somewhat defensible, they worked. The Tokyo fire bombing didn't work. Oddly enough the death toll was similar.

Oh, I dunno. From
[counturl=41]Wikipedia:[/counturl]

"He felt, however, that his bombings were saving lives by encouraging Japan to surrender earlier. Former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoe's statement that, fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s, lends support to this view."

Interesting, I've never seen that before.

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1154721783[/unixtime]]Hizbollah attacked? Rockets landing in Isreal?

...

Are those, like, questions? Aimed at me? Or just general testing of an unfamiliar concept? Yes, Hizbollah attacked (Israel, which is what you presumably meant). Yes, Rockets landing in Israel.

If Israel took it tanks home tomorrow, would the missiles stop flying?

Again. We took our tanks and went home 5 years ago (actually, more like 6 or 7, by now). That hasn't proved effective in stopping anything.

When a cease-fire was called last week, did the missiles stop flying into Israel?

-Crissa

I think the word you're looking for is "called for".

Oberoni at [unixtime wrote:1154745072[/unixtime]]
Yes, I'm saying the atomic bombs were the lesser of two (or more) evils. That sounds crazy, but World War II was pretty crazy.

Well, the reason nobody started WWIII is because people actually saw what an atom bomb can do to a city (yes, arguably at the beginning of the sentense)

Oberoni at [unixtime wrote:1154745231[/unixtime]]
While I can't say for sure, I'm guessing (hoping) that part of Mr. Lobster's decision to ignore your post was due to your usual style of being horribly rude to, ummm...just about everyone really. (I guess you're equal-opportunity rude, now that I think about it.)

I'm only reasnobly rude, and only to the people who deserve it. Which, admittedly, is nearly everyone, at one point or another.

OTOH, I'm fairly certain that I've never interacted with Mr Lobster, so I have to presume...

I had absolutely no intention of posting on this topic. Israel really doesn't concern me. I enjoyed the discussion because a lot of good arguments were given. But then my blood boiled.

It was because i saw Xander77's original post.

You see, my pressure went skyhigh because your words made me hate myself. And I hated me because your words made me file you into a type and i really hate doing that. I hate placing people into drawers. Now why? I was in one of them.

A bit of history. I'm from Croatia, formerly a part of Yugoslavia. Born of a “mixed marriage”(father Serb, mother Croat) and living in Croatia. When the wars in Yugoslavia began, my father was pro Yugoslavia and my mother was pro Croatia, so basically I got both stories at the same time. Because of my background, I never used the words you use so liberally(I can hear your tone of voice) - “they” and “them”. I had cousins on both sides, there were no they and them for me. I got beaten a couple of times because my dad is a Serb and got ignored by serbian friends cause my mom is a Croat. And what I also learned was to filter the crap and retoric out and hear what people said that was of importance.

So you claim that you spoke with “them”? Did you listen? Did you listen for one single second? Did you see the wall you country is building before this meeting? Ever been to a refugee camp? I have. I've seen the suffering. Are there any Israeli refugee camps? Ever been to one?
Where do your words come from? Do you sit in front of the screen and absorb the newscasts and webpages or are you maybe in the front lines of the war getting fed with propaganda? Go out there and stand in line for your daily cup of flour and sugar. Walk the garbage riden “streets” of a camp. Take a plastic bucket and drink a bit of brown water. Then come back and lament about poor Israelis defending themselves.

But you won't. I know “your kind”(you made me put you in a drawer) of people. I got loads of “your kind”(you made me put you in a drawer) right here. “They” are evil. “They” did it. Let's get rid of “them”. It was “them”...

p.s.

“Bloody Balcan”, that's what my region is called. You can guess why. The wars here(from WWII onward) have created ethnically clean countries(or at least clean of one minority). Genocidal maniacs have ravaged the lands from here to there. And now the bill has come and they have to pay. In Hague, at the War Tribunal.
So guess what they say in Croatia? The Tribunal is not fair, only ”we” get called to it.
So guess what they say in Serbia? The Tribunal is not fair, only ”we” get called to it.
So guess what they say in Bosnia? The Tribunal is not fair, only ”we” get called to it.

Xander77 wrote:[opinion]snip...

The UN is a biased body that is hostile to Israel.[/opinion]

nuff said. you might as well wrap those tags arround your whole posts

Oberoni at [unixtime wrote:1154745072[/unixtime]]And I'm still pretty certain that the a-bombs we used against Japan were horrific (I mean, they're atomic bombs), but the alternative solutions for ending the war would have been far more costly in terms of lives and money for all sides involved.

That's the Oberoni fallacy all over again.

History says that there were two intentional mistranslations - Japan offered to entertain surrender the week prior to the bombing of Hiroshima. Only we decided it sounded better to forget this particular set of envoys, even though they eventually led to the treaty signing.

Even if Hizbollah is an enemy army - what right does Israel have to ignore the UN and any international force and destroy a third party - Lebanon?

Who's dying to bombs this week? It isn't Israelis.

-Crissa

Xander77 at [unixtime wrote:1154755005[/unixtime]]Yes, Hizbollah attacked (Israel, which is what you presumably meant). Yes, Rockets landing in Israel.

So, the missiles began flying before or after Isreali soldiers and planes and bombs were wandering around Lebanon?

If Israel took it tanks home tomorrow, would the missiles stop flying?

Again. We took our tanks and went home 5 years ago (actually, more like 6 or 7, by now). That hasn't proved effective in stopping anything.

When did the rockets start flying? Before or after Isreali forces started blowing up the guys holding them?

When a cease-fire was called last week, did the missiles stop flying into Israel?

I think the word you're looking for is "called for".

I think the word you're looking for is "Yes, the missiles did stop."

Think about that.

Then think about whose boats are being blown to bits. Whose trucks and roads and airplanes. Because the majority are not Hizbollah's.

I don't like the gangs on the east side - but I don't blow up the police stations there because they haven't arrested the gangs.

That's exactly what Isreal has done repeatedly in the last ten years.

-Crissa

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1154765873[/unixtime]]
Even if Hizbollah is an enemy army - what right does Israel have to ignore the UN and any international force and destroy a third party - Lebanon?

Hezbollah and Lebanon aren't separate entities, though. Hezbollah holds seats in the Lebanon government. It really isn't any different than the republicans deciding Mexico needs to be driven into the sea, and started firing rockets across the border.

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1154766408[/unixtime]]
So, the missiles began flying before or after Isreali soldiers and planes and bombs were wandering around Lebanon?

When did the rockets start flying? Before or after Isreali forces started blowing up the guys holding them?

...

..

.

"What color is that wall?"

"It's black".

"What color is that wall?"

"It's black."

Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

There needs to be a point where you tell me that the wall is actually very dark blue, or only exists in my mind, because I'm getting a bit tired of this. Especially, given that (as Zherog's post demonstrated) you don't actually appear to be paying attention to my answers.

I don't like the gangs on the east side - but I don't blow up the police stations there because they haven't arrested the gangs.

I won't bother to fit the analogy exactly, but (again) - we're blowing up police stations that are actually cooperating with the gangs. Which btw, isn't very smart. When you have a "really really totally excellent, dude!" airforce, the temptation to solve all your military problems from the air without getting any troops killed is often stronger that your actual comperhension of what needs to be done to solve the problem.

Edit - re: ceasefire.

If I care enough, I would translate a humorous metaphor about two "knights/posters" "fighting" with arguments. It's in Russian, and the funny parts involve recognizing people and points from the forum, so I won't.

Anyway, the conclusion has Poster A pressing poster B to admit that the wheel is round. Eventually, poster B admits that the platonic ideal of the wheel is roughly circle shaped, at which point Poster A declares that he obviously won the combat and retires. It's funny because it's true. And it's the reason many are reluctant to admit even the most obvious facts to the person they're arguing with.

Right. Let's assume that the platonic ideal of a cease-fire does in fact allow both sides to cease-firing on one another. Could you tell me what conclusions you draw from that?

josephbt at [unixtime wrote:1154762720[/unixtime]]I had absolutely no intention of posting on this topic. Israel really doesn't concern me. I enjoyed the discussion because a lot of good arguments were given. But then my blood boiled.

It was because i saw Xander77's original post.

You see, my pressure went skyhigh because your words made me hate myself. And I hated me because your words made me file you into a type and i really hate doing that. I hate placing people into drawers. Now why? I was in one of them.

...

This is, frankly, the most interesting post I've seen on this thread. I'm not sure if we'll be able to actually "establish a meaningful dialogue" - I'm too defensive to actually see if you have a point, and you've obviously already dismissed most of what I'm saying as hate filled propoganda (a reiteration of the "facts and opinions" bit - obviously, everything in my post is filtered through my subjective pov. Nevertheless, the parts taht aren't marked as opinions, are the ones that neither side contests, and are therefore as objectively true as is possible, given the time and place).

I don't have the time to answer at the moment but I will consider what you said while I'm at work, and will provide a full answer once I get back. I'm afaraid I'll only be talking to myself, but isn't that what most political... opinon givers... do?

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1154765873[/unixtime]]

Oberoni at [unixtime wrote:1154745072[/unixtime]]And I'm still pretty certain that the a-bombs we used against Japan were horrific (I mean, they're atomic bombs), but the alternative solutions for ending the war would have been far more costly in terms of lives and money for all sides involved.

That's the Oberoni fallacy all over again.

History says that there were two intentional mistranslations - Japan offered to entertain surrender the week prior to the bombing of Hiroshima. Only we decided it sounded better to forget this particular set of envoys, even though they eventually led to the treaty signing.

-Crissa

I'm just going to go ahead and assume that you're not the actual super-top-secret bearer of history, and the other sources I've read and seen have at least as good of a chance of being accurate about the whole affair as you do.

So, while I'm sure some Japanese - I'd imagine lots of Japanese (including many in the government) - thought surrender was a pretty sweet idea at the time, the military higher-ups who wanted to fight to the last breath were not so keen on the idea.

Ergo, the bombs.

P. S. since I'm sure you're looking at something that shows you that all the important Japanese people were about to throw in the towel, and our nuking was utterly uncalled for...if you could throw me a link (or name of the book, whatever), I'd like to check it out. No point in assuming my research is 100% factually correct and yours isn't, at least not without checking yours out first.

josephbt at [unixtime wrote:1154762720[/unixtime]]I had absolutely no intention of posting on this topic. Israel really doesn't concern me. I enjoyed the discussion because a lot of good arguments were given. But then my blood boiled.

It was because i saw Xander77's original post.

Hmmmmm...ok, question. What would the "good" initial post from Xander have consisted of? What could he have said that would make you say "wow, that was the most awesome insight from an Israeli dude ever?"

The A-Bomb argment is a long running one, with ample evidence on both sides. But while it can't ever be resolved to anyone's satisfaction, it also isn't especially relevant to the current war.

Facts:
[*] Truman was aware that Moscow was moving into position to continue its war on the Axis on the Eastern Front, and thus if the war proceeded for more than a few months longer the Nippon islands almost certainly would have been partitioned like Deutchland was.

[*] Truman was aware that actual house-to-house fighting over Tokyo would cost an unbelievable amount of US casualties.

[*] Truman was aware that some members of the Tokyo government were feeling out the possibilities of surrender before the bomb dropped.

[*] Truman was aware that some members of the Tokyo government were confidently predicting that the nation would fight to the last man, woman, and child until every last Nippon citizen was dead or the round-eyes were repulsed.

---

Uh... right. So you can point to your favorite fact and show conclusively that Truman was a visionary or a demon. It can be seen as anything from blatant cold-war posturing to a final hammer-blow against the Fascist forces of the East in the name of liberty... and we'll never know because Truman is dead.

Yes, the Nippon empire conquered more land area and killed more people than their Nazi allies. And yes, they fought the war with an irrational tenacity that left them reviled by their opponents. But on the other hand, yes the Soviet forces were coming to the rescue anyway, and yes Nippon had already been crushed beyond any chance of mounting or sustaining a meaningful war effort.

But really, while this topic is fascinating, it's not in fact this topic. It's some other topic, and one which will be continued to be debated for as long as humans walk the Earth.

This topic is about how the Israelis use excessive force against civilian populations in order to provoke wars and then use their entire population as ablaitive human shields to justify the continuance of aggression and whip their own people into forced compliance. Not about past attrocities such as the liquidation of the Australian Aboriginal People or the Rape of Nanking, or the Smallpox Blanket incidents, or any of that. Waving your hands about how something someone else did is also bad may in fact be a true statement, but it's not a relevant statement.

-Username17