Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Palestinians are Modern Indians

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 2:14:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There are a people in the world today who are contemporary counterparts, modern-day equivalents of the American Indians in the days when the West was being "won". They're a people who were living in a land without the status of a nation state, who were gradually invaded by outsiders who settled in their midst and who built up their numbers and strength until they were in a position to take over and drive the indigenous population into modern reservations for refugees, i.e. relocation camps. Of course I'm referring to the Palestinian people, who do indeed have much in common with the historical experience of the American Indians.

Like the American Indians the Palestinians know what it's like to be subjugated and dispossessed by someone intent on making their land their own. And the similarities continue, some Israelis even share the same religious rationale as the Pilgrims for their encroachment on another people's territory. Well, the Pilgrims messianically held that they were a new "chosen people" and that North America was a new promised land given to them by God, just as some Israelis rationalize that Palestine was permanently deeded by the Divine to their chosen ancestors as a homeland. Ergo, according to this belief, Israelis have a superior claim to the land and can be as heavy-handed about controlling it as they feel they need to be.

And Israel certainly has been every bit as heavy-handed in dealing with the Palestinians as the white man was with the red man in American history. The mainstream media of course gives us the impression that all the violence in the Middle East is one way, that it's all just senseless, criminal acts of terrorism being callously perpetrated against nice, innocent citizens of Israel. Indeed, certainly many Israelis who've been victims of terrorism have been, as individuals, nice and innocent human beings, however, Israel as a political entity has established and preserved its dominance over its territory by practicing violence and repression against the Palestinians and this fact is as much a blot on its honor as the "terrorism" of its enemies.

It's also interesting that the "terrorism" of the Palestinians has really not been any more heinous than some of the things Native American warriors did in the course of valiantly fighting back against the greed and genocide targeted at them by whites, yet today many in our society recognize that the Indians were not savages, they were just people driven to desperation and the brink of destruction who ferociously defended themselves. We can allow ourselves to recognize and concede this and to appreciate the nobility of the Indian's struggle now because that struggle with our society is over and in the dim past, but if Indians were waging guerrilla war against us in the here and now, if they were still abducting and killing and scalping white Americans in their little houses on the prairie would we still acknowledge the nobility of their cause and view their braves as freedom fighters?

I strongly suspect that the answer is no, we would vilify and villainize them as vile "terrorists", and of course we would portray ourselves as innocent victims who had done little to provoke or justify their "terrorist" tactics. What this points up is the tendency of people to use words such as "terrorism" in a very self-serving fashion. We use such adjectives to characterize the struggle for liberation and dignity of people when that struggle is being waged against us or our allies, or somehow poses a threat to our own interests. On the other hand, when the threat to us has passed, or when we or our friends are the perpetrators, well, then it's a different story, then we prefer more positive and flattering adjectives.

The Palestinians and their Arab brothers and sisters are fighting their war for self-determination and dignity right now, not in the romanticized past, and not being in a position to fight a classic sort of war they've been forced to resort to the type of hit and run tactics that get you branded a terrorist, thus we tend to moralistically judge them to be bad-guy terrorists and close our ears to their genuine cries for justice.

Well, it would seem that there's not really much more than this to our hypocritical demonization of "terrorists". Apparently what differentiates a bad-guy terrorist from a heroic soldier is pretty much a distinction without a difference, from the standpoint of the dead at least, apparently it just has to do with how death is delivered to innocent civilians.

Say what? Okay, I'll provide an example. Air Force pilots dropped more explosives on Hanoi and North Vietnam than all the bombing missions of World War Two rained down upon Europe and Japan, causing enormous "collateral damage", the technical euphemistic term for the victims of our military brand of state terrorism. But since it was our "boys", and since they were in uniform, and delivering their bombs from Air Force planes, we don't put them in the same disgusting category as terrorists. Someone who walks into a restaurant with an explosive device strapped to his body and kills several innocent diners is a fanatical terrorist, but the pilot who murders an entire village with napalm is just a soldier doing his patriotic duty!

Yes, modern war, with its tendency to produce massive "collateral damage" is inherently terroristic, and so every time we go to war for the unjust and selfish reasons of the ruling class, we become the bad-guy terrorists, we just conveniently fail to realize this. Our terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan has dwarfed the 9/11 attacks, many times over, but if you say the word "terrorist" the image it conjures in people's minds is that of an Arab with a Koran in his back pocket, not a flag-waving American GI.

This kind of stereotyping is of course a mental defense mechanism that allows us to feel quite righteous about our own use of terrorism, it lets us see our enemies as evil villains who deserve what we dish out to them, and lets us view ourselves as the gallant good guys of the "Free World". It's also how the corporate-owned media propaganda machine conditions us to think, so that we're more willing and gung ho to kill our fellow man, woman, and child to help the economic elite pursue its special interests by any means possible.

So the Palestinians who take up arms against their oppressors get painted as outlaws, heavies, and murdering miscreants, even though our own government and Israel have practiced terrorism on a much larger and more systematic scale. Yep, once again, the moral is if you practice terrorism on a big enough scale then it's no longer recognizable as terrorism and becomes something more glorious (to some people's minds), i.e. war. The only real offense, after all, that sets the Palestinians and their comrades in arms apart as political criminals are their transgressions against the Pax Americana. In other words, they're baddies because we've made them our foes, this is a rather faux reason for villanizing someone but it's the realpolitik way the world works.

Until we realize and come to terms with the unjustness of this, well, "No justice no peace", as the saying goes. If we sincerely want to ever bring about an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict we and the Israelis must stop standing aloft the moral high ground, where we all look quite ridiculously out of place, and stop taking the high and mighty position that we won't "deal with terrorists", and instead begin addressing and coming to terms with the legitimate claims of Palestinian freedom fighters who in reality are no more wicked and monstrous than the Sioux and Apache warriors who once upon a time engaged in "terrorism". Our national moral superiority complex and hypocrisy about our historical behavior is a great obstacle to world peace and social justice, we must learn to set it aside
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 3:41:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Palestinian mitochondrial DMA is semitic. Modern Palestinians are Syriac-Semites or just Semites. Any differences between Israelis and Palestinians are cultural.

Don't compare it to American-European colonialism.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 3:55:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You seem to think that the Jews in Israel came from the ground and just popped into place after WWII. You ignore that fact that the 1947 Levant state was 60% Jewish. Israels annex of Arab regions was unjustified but they just reaped the fruits of winning a war something all states involved in war have done. I also suggest you look a timeline of Israel from 2000.BCE to present day.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 12:14:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Charles,

Please stop posting your blog posts here, unless you actually intend to defend your beliefs in a debate.

http://www.debate.org...
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 12:36:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 12:14:48 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Charles,

Please stop posting your blog posts here, unless you actually intend to defend your beliefs in a debate.

I've done more than one debate, demonstrating a willingness to defend my views here. If you simply don't like my views, which I suspect is the case, then criticize them head-on, not with petty quibbles about the length of my posts or my falsely-alleged unwillingness to defend their content.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 12:43:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 12:36:14 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 12/15/2010 12:14:48 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Charles,

Please stop posting your blog posts here, unless you actually intend to defend your beliefs in a debate.


I've done more than one debate, demonstrating a willingness to defend my views here. If you simply don't like my views, which I suspect is the case, then criticize them head-on, not with petty quibbles about the length of my posts or my falsely-alleged unwillingness to defend their content.

You already:
(a) Strongly believe that your ideas are correct.
(b) Wrote enough to start a first round debate

Wouldn't it be better just to start a formal debate on the topic?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 12:43:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There's something that I'd like to make perfectly clear, in defending Palestinians against the unfair practice of marginalizing the legitimacy of their cause by labeling them "terrorists" I do not mean to condone or advocate the sort of indiscriminate political violence called "terrorism", I merely point out that by the ethical standards of conduct we in the West have historically set, and continue to set with our own reprehensible use of force, according to the morality that we practice as a society, people have every right to employ violence and the governments of the Western nations have no moral standing to criticize anyone for resorting to militant and destructive modes of political self-expression.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 12:53:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 12:36:14 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 12/15/2010 12:14:48 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Charles,

Please stop posting your blog posts here, unless you actually intend to defend your beliefs in a debate.


I've done more than one debate, demonstrating a willingness to defend my views here. If you simply don't like my views, which I suspect is the case, then criticize them head-on, not with petty quibbles about the length of my posts or my falsely-alleged unwillingness to defend their content.

The link I posted was where you ignored my debate challenge and our discussion on the "Unrealism of Communism" thread.

I don't care about your post length. I care that you ignore previous discussions and debate challenges and merely post topics directly from your blog.

Your previous thread "the two party system" is word for word from your blog http://thetotalrevolutionproject.com...

I'm sure you'll add this newest thread post to your blog soon enough.

Please answer me on the Unrealism of Communism thread.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 12:59:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
When Third World peoples, such as the Palestinians, fight back against the superior resources of the mighty they have little choice but to employ guerrilla tactics that in the eyes of some tarnish their cause, but would Americans be any different or better if they found themselves in a comparable situation?

If, for example, we lived in a Twilight Zone reality where the old Soviet Union had somehow managed to conquer the United States and install a full-blown occupation force in North America, surely then an underground resistance movement would form to drive them out of the country, and does anyone honestly doubt that such a movement would quite promptly resort to the sort of violence that would cause civilian "collateral damage", i.e. the sort of violence that's called "terrorism"?

Yes, I think that it's a pretty sure bet that American "freedom fighters" would carry out the kind of attacks and bombings that would take the lives of Russian civilians, including absolutely innocent children. And certainly there would be fanatical and suicidal individuals who would commit "suicide bombings". If American citizens ever found themselves feeling as desperate as the Palestinians, I'm quite certain that they'd prove themselves to be just as capable of "terrorism". Americans are simply fortunate to not find themselves in the kind of circumstance that would compel them to become killers of the innocent, it's easy to stand in judgment of others when you've never been tested yourself.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 1:06:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
For the record charles, we mostly agree on this topic, although I'm surprised you would call Native Americans "Indians." You're re-inforcing the same dominant discourse that allowed Europeans to portray them as non-native inhabitants and appropriate their land.

Judith Butler talks about how weird it is that Israel can count humanitarian workers in Gaza that work for Hamas as "terrorists" under their calculations that claim to not be killing civilians.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 1:34:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 1:06:18 PM, bluesteel wrote:
For the record charles, we mostly agree on this topic, although I'm surprised you would call Native Americans "Indians." You're re-inforcing the same dominant discourse that allowed Europeans to portray them as non-native inhabitants and appropriate their land.

Judith Butler talks about how weird it is that Israel can count humanitarian workers in Gaza that work for Hamas as "terrorists" under their calculations that claim to not be killing civilians.

You make good points here. As for my use of the word "Indian", well, it's just a concession to the conventional use of language, not an intentional concession to the dominant European discourse and the way that it has rationalized the mistreatment of indigenous peoples, but I do agree that the use of such words should be kept to a minimum as they do inadvertently keep alive an old and unsympathetic way of thinking about the victims of our history.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 2:15:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 12:36:14 PM, charleslb wrote:
I've done more than one debate, demonstrating a willingness to defend my views here. If you simply don't like my views, which I suspect is the case, then criticize them head-on, not with petty quibbles about the length of my posts or my falsely-alleged unwillingness to defend their content.

At 12/8/2010 3:09:44 PM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
At 12/8/2010 1:47:23 PM, charleslb wrote:
And I'll say again here that the quote in question, in the form that you take issue with, is not exclusively located on whatever Creationist website you found it at.

Actually, the quote in question is exclusively located on a creationist website. Explain this: http://i51.tinypic.com...

The rest of your response is a red herring. Materialistic monism is not the only form of materialism, regardless of how nicely that delusion fits in with your belief system.

Anyone doubting that he did not respond to my original accusation, please see page six of "Some Thoughts on Nihilism". I'm probably going to make a separate thread to respond to his nonsense regarding drug use. The historical and biological denialism in that response is to much to respond to in this thread.

Tell me charlesb, would you rather me start a thread debunking your claims about spirituality and drug use, or will you defend yourself in a debate? Care to comment about where you found that creationist quote?
twsurber
Posts: 505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 9:10:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Everyone that knows me or has looked at my profile knows my stance on Israel. I don't have to lose another debate or get hammered in the threads to know that my personal views are against the flow.

Regardless, I too would like to see the Palestinians have a home. Unfortunately, barring the Hamas "all or nothing position" , they don't seem to want a home. They have repeatedly rejected numerous offers, the very generous Camp David offer notwithstanding. I once suggested that Gaza be declared the Islamic State of Hamas, and most of the West Bank be declared the Islamic State of Palestine. As with other suggestions, mine was dismissed with ridicule.

I can both see and somewhat agree with the similarities of Native Americans being displaced as well as the the semantical definition of war. I appreciate Charles' acknowledgement that the Jews feel the land was given to them by the God of the Bible.

As Juvanya pointed out, practically every nation that wins a conflict keeps land that was acquired. Charles failed to point out that when Britain controlled the land, they ultimately chose to re-create the Jewish nation of Israel. In other words, they did what they wanted with their own property. According to Alan Dershowitz, most of the Jews who moved to Israel came and purchased property in legal transactions. Further, the Jews developed the land and nation into better than it was.

After the nation of Israel was established, as with any nation, it becomes the responsibility of the government to protect it's citizens. The Israelis do aggressively defend and respond to both threats and attacks. Assets such as the Shin Bet, the Mossad, and even the IDF are called into action when deemed necessary. Keep in mind, the Jews are rarely the ones who start the trouble.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 10:09:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 9:10:20 AM, twsurber wrote:
Everyone that knows me or has looked at my profile knows my stance on Israel. I don't have to lose another debate or get hammered in the threads to know that my personal views are against the flow.

Regardless, I too would like to see the Palestinians have a home. Unfortunately, barring the Hamas "all or nothing position" , they don't seem to want a home. They have repeatedly rejected numerous offers, the very generous Camp David offer notwithstanding. I once suggested that Gaza be declared the Islamic State of Hamas, and most of the West Bank be declared the Islamic State of Palestine. As with other suggestions, mine was dismissed with ridicule.

I can both see and somewhat agree with the similarities of Native Americans being displaced as well as the the semantical definition of war. I appreciate Charles' acknowledgement that the Jews feel the land was given to them by the God of the Bible.

As Juvanya pointed out, practically every nation that wins a conflict keeps land that was acquired. Charles failed to point out that when Britain controlled the land, they ultimately chose to re-create the Jewish nation of Israel. In other words, they did what they wanted with their own property. According to Alan Dershowitz, most of the Jews who moved to Israel came and purchased property in legal transactions. Further, the Jews developed the land and nation into better than it was.

After the nation of Israel was established, as with any nation, it becomes the responsibility of the government to protect it's citizens. The Israelis do aggressively defend and respond to both threats and attacks. Assets such as the Shin Bet, the Mossad, and even the IDF are called into action when deemed necessary. Keep in mind, the Jews are rarely the ones who start the trouble.

You are not telling him what he wants to hear. He also failed to mention that Israel was invaded almost immediately, and drove its opponents out. Then, more land was annexed. That was the risk taken when they decided to invade. They have continued, in futility, to take Israel back. Unfortunately for them, Israel has a superior military, and will not be taken without a fight. This situation is nothing like the Native Americans. You do make a good point, though. Israelis have made the land inhabitable, unlike its original condition, and they will continue to fight as long as necessary. Sorry Charles...
twsurber
Posts: 505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 10:19:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Thanks for the support! If the Pals really want a nation, then they have to do their part and meet Israel half way. If not, they can continue to dwell in a pity party or move in with their new buddy Hugo Chavez. Either way I remain loyal to the Jewish people and nation of Israel.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 10:57:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What would it take for isreal to be wrong. Like how many people would they have to kill to to make you stop supporting them.

It's a legitimate question.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 11:17:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 10:57:27 AM, Sieben wrote:
What would it take for isreal to be wrong. Like how many people would they have to kill to to make you stop supporting them.

It's a legitimate question.

What would it take for Israel's aggressors to be wrong? How many innocents have to be murdered before people stop supporting them?

It's a legitimate question.
twsurber
Posts: 505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 11:27:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 10:57:27 AM, Sieben wrote:
What would it take for isreal to be wrong. Like how many people would they have to kill to to make you stop supporting them.

It's a legitimate question.

Thank you for the question.

Unfortunately it is sometimes necessary for a legitmate government to kill while defending their citizens. Please note that Pals are considered citizens of Israel. Yet, the government has an obligation to protect it's citizens from all threats, both foreign and domestic.

It isn't realistic to attach a numerical tag to a death toll. Any leader of any nation can has the potential to make bad decisions. FWIW, in the eyes of the Likud, many decisions made by the Labor are wrong or could be done better, and vice versa.

If I have to accept a tag as an extremist then so be it. Is there going to be a time or hypothetical situation where I would change my loyalty? Not that I can foresee. I'm sure that there are also some sharp folks on DDO that could trap me in a semantical battle, but where the rubber meets the road I am pro Israel.

P.S. If you think being a Zionist is tough, try being a loyal Redskins fan ;o)
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 12:21:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 11:27:53 AM, twsurber wrote:

If I have to accept a tag as an extremist then so be it. Is there going to be a time or hypothetical situation where I would change my loyalty? Not that I can foresee. I'm sure that there are also some sharp folks on DDO that could trap me in a semantical battle, but where the rubber meets the road I am pro Israel.
I think this is the definition of an ideologue.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 12:51:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 11:17:49 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 12/16/2010 10:57:27 AM, Sieben wrote:
What would it take for isreal to be wrong. Like how many people would they have to kill to to make you stop supporting them.

It's a legitimate question.

What would it take for Israel's aggressors to be wrong? How many innocents have to be murdered before people stop supporting them?

It's a legitimate question.

Can't they both be wrong?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 1:00:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 12:51:05 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 12/16/2010 11:17:49 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 12/16/2010 10:57:27 AM, Sieben wrote:
What would it take for isreal to be wrong. Like how many people would they have to kill to to make you stop supporting them.

It's a legitimate question.

What would it take for Israel's aggressors to be wrong? How many innocents have to be murdered before people stop supporting them?

It's a legitimate question.

Can't they both be wrong?

Indeed, I think they are, but Israel has tried giving back the annexed land to no avail. It is all or nothing for their aggressors. This leaves Israel no choice but to simply defend itself the best way it can.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 1:01:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 1:00:45 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 12/16/2010 12:51:05 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 12/16/2010 11:17:49 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 12/16/2010 10:57:27 AM, Sieben wrote:
What would it take for isreal to be wrong. Like how many people would they have to kill to to make you stop supporting them.

It's a legitimate question.

What would it take for Israel's aggressors to be wrong? How many innocents have to be murdered before people stop supporting them?

It's a legitimate question.

Can't they both be wrong?

Indeed, I think they are, but Israel has tried giving back the annexed land to no avail. It is all or nothing for their aggressors. This leaves Israel no choice but to simply defend itself the best way it can.

The best defense is to pack up and leave.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 1:09:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 1:01:25 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 12/16/2010 1:00:45 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 12/16/2010 12:51:05 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 12/16/2010 11:17:49 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 12/16/2010 10:57:27 AM, Sieben wrote:
What would it take for isreal to be wrong. Like how many people would they have to kill to to make you stop supporting them.

It's a legitimate question.

What would it take for Israel's aggressors to be wrong? How many innocents have to be murdered before people stop supporting them?

It's a legitimate question.

Can't they both be wrong?

Indeed, I think they are, but Israel has tried giving back the annexed land to no avail. It is all or nothing for their aggressors. This leaves Israel no choice but to simply defend itself the best way it can.

The best defense is to pack up and leave.

I disagree. So far, so good, as far as Israel is concerned. Forfeit, afterall, is no defense at all. Also, it would be a shame to see that land go back to the hellish shape it was in. I enjoy visiting every chance I get, and certainly would be unwilling to submit to terrorism. It is going to take some simple diplomacy, that unfortunately, Israel's aggressors can't grasp. Until they do, they will continue to fall at the feet of Israel.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 1:26:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 1:09:10 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:

I disagree. So far, so good, as far as Israel is concerned. Forfeit, afterall, is no defense at all.
You don't think they'd be safer in the middle of nowhere? The United States has a lot of unused land.

Also, it would be a shame to see that land go back to the hellish shape it was in. I enjoy visiting every chance I get, and certainly would be unwilling to submit to terrorism.
Oh noooo the laaand... Would you die to preserve my favorite vacation spot?

It is going to take some simple diplomacy, that unfortunately, Israel's aggressors can't grasp. Until they do, they will continue to fall at the feet of Israel.
BER NER NER NER ROCK AND ROLL YEAHH! Grow up man. These are human beings. It isn't cool to take satisfaction in isreal's kill-death ratio.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 1:35:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 1:26:37 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 12/16/2010 1:09:10 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:

I disagree. So far, so good, as far as Israel is concerned. Forfeit, afterall, is no defense at all.
You don't think they'd be safer in the middle of nowhere? The United States has a lot of unused land.
We must agree to disagree on this point.

Also, it would be a shame to see that land go back to the hellish shape it was in. I enjoy visiting every chance I get, and certainly would be unwilling to submit to terrorism.
Oh noooo the laaand... Would you die to preserve my favorite vacation spot?
This is the Holy land, not simply a vacation spot.

It is going to take some simple diplomacy, that unfortunately, Israel's aggressors can't grasp. Until they do, they will continue to fall at the feet of Israel.
BER NER NER NER ROCK AND ROLL YEAHH! Grow up man. These are human beings. It isn't cool to take satisfaction in isreal's kill-death ratio.

You say this like Israel is randomly killing every Palestinian in sight. This could not be further from the truth. Israelis do not strap bombs to themselves and blow up buses, women and children. This is a daily fear that ISRAELIS face. They react in such a way as to prevent as much violence to their citizens as possible. Are these innocent Israelis not human in your eyes? I am plenty grown, and after serving in the military, am even more pro Israel than ever before.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 1:38:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 1:26:37 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 12/16/2010 1:09:10 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:

I disagree. So far, so good, as far as Israel is concerned. Forfeit, afterall, is no defense at all.
You don't think they'd be safer in the middle of nowhere? The United States has a lot of unused land.

Also, it would be a shame to see that land go back to the hellish shape it was in. I enjoy visiting every chance I get, and certainly would be unwilling to submit to terrorism.
Oh noooo the laaand... Would you die to preserve my favorite vacation spot?

It is going to take some simple diplomacy, that unfortunately, Israel's aggressors can't grasp. Until they do, they will continue to fall at the feet of Israel.
BER NER NER NER ROCK AND ROLL YEAHH! Grow up man. These are human beings. It isn't cool to take satisfaction in isreal's kill-death ratio.

Sigged.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 1:44:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 1:35:31 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 12/16/2010 1:26:37 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 12/16/2010 1:09:10 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:

I disagree. So far, so good, as far as Israel is concerned. Forfeit, afterall, is no defense at all.
You don't think they'd be safer in the middle of nowhere? The United States has a lot of unused land.
We must agree to disagree on this point.
Its a practical point, not a question of value. Isreal would have to fight off less palestinians if they relocated to Idaho.

Oh noooo the laaand... Would you die to preserve my favorite vacation spot?
This is the Holy land, not simply a vacation spot.
This is YOUR holy land. Would you die to preserve Mecca? What about my holy land?

Do you think the judeo-christian god wants you to "hold the fort" no matter what? No matter how many other people need to die? I thought he loved everyone.

Also, why does there need to be a GOVERNMENT on holy land? Nothing in the bible says you have to establish a government.

You say this like Israel is randomly killing every Palestinian in sight. This could not be further from the truth. Israelis do not strap bombs to themselves and blow up buses, women and children. This is a daily fear that ISRAELIS face. They react in such a way as to prevent as much violence to their citizens as possible. Are these innocent Israelis not human in your eyes?
Straw man. I'm not saying palestinians don't attack or try to threaten isreal. I'm saying that you're committed to killing an infinite number of people so long as they attack you. This is incredibly in-humanitarian and un-christian, particularly since palestinians won't follow isreal if they leave.

I am plenty grown, and after serving in the military, am even more pro Israel than ever before.
What
a
surprise

The killbot thinks infinite killing is okay.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 1:46:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Formatting screwed up.
You say this like Israel is randomly killing every Palestinian in sight. This could not be further from the truth. Israelis do not strap bombs to themselves and blow up buses, women and children. This is a daily fear that ISRAELIS face. They react in such a way as to prevent as much violence to their citizens as possible. Are these innocent Israelis not human in your eyes?
Straw man. I'm not saying palestinians don't attack or try to threaten isreal. I'm saying that you're committed to killing an infinite number of people so long as they attack you. This is incredibly in-humanitarian and un-christian, particularly since palestinians won't follow isreal if they leave.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 2:07:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 1:46:19 PM, Sieben wrote:
Formatting screwed up.
You say this like Israel is randomly killing every Palestinian in sight. This could not be further from the truth. Israelis do not strap bombs to themselves and blow up buses, women and children. This is a daily fear that ISRAELIS face. They react in such a way as to prevent as much violence to their citizens as possible. Are these innocent Israelis not human in your eyes?
Straw man. I'm not saying palestinians don't attack or try to threaten isreal. I'm saying that you're committed to killing an infinite number of people so long as they attack you. This is incredibly in-humanitarian and un-christian, particularly since palestinians won't follow isreal if they leave.

We are not Christian. Also, why would Israel not defend itself? This is not a strawman at all. Why would they run from an inferior opponent? Furthermore, You can make personal insults at me all day, I have yet to get personal with you, and I intend on keeping it that way. It seems that there is quite a bit of anti-semitism floating around, though.
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 2:17:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 2:07:25 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 12/16/2010 1:46:19 PM, Sieben wrote:
Formatting screwed up.
You say this like Israel is randomly killing every Palestinian in sight. This could not be further from the truth. Israelis do not strap bombs to themselves and blow up buses, women and children. This is a daily fear that ISRAELIS face. They react in such a way as to prevent as much violence to their citizens as possible. Are these innocent Israelis not human in your eyes?
Straw man. I'm not saying palestinians don't attack or try to threaten isreal. I'm saying that you're committed to killing an infinite number of people so long as they attack you. This is incredibly in-humanitarian and un-christian, particularly since palestinians won't follow isreal if they leave.

We are not Christian. Also, why would Israel not defend itself? This is not a strawman at all. Why would they run from an inferior opponent? Furthermore, You can make personal insults at me all day, I have yet to get personal with you, and I intend on keeping it that way. It seems that there is quite a bit of anti-semitism floating around, though.

Being anti-Israel =/= anti-semitism.
I realize anti-semitism refers predominantly to Jews, but I'm pretty sure Palestinians are semitic too.