In Memoriam, Charlie Hebdo

[ben]

Ben I'm not interested in arguing with you tit for tat. I said what I said and I stand by it.

You've obviously got a good deal of emotional investment in this topic. And yes, you also buy into a tremendous amount of propaganda that is pumped out by the Israeli lobby. That's not an insult or an attack against you unless you decide to take it personally. It's simply my observation, especially when you make false statements such as "well armed" when referring to the Palestinians. It's utterly absurd to consider the conflict a fair fight. You don't like my use of the word butchering. Perhaps you'd prefer the term "slaughtering" because that is exactly what it is - an outright slaughter. A fair fight is not 2000+ dead compared to less than 100 dead on the other side. Israel holds all of the cards in this one. They can choose peace right now if they wanted. But, of course, we all know that's exactly what they don't want.

Your response is the textbook definition of both ad hominem and patronizing. You make outrageous accusations, and when called out on it you don't stand down, you respond - but with nothing of substance.

- 'I'm not interested in arguing tit for tat'. Right.
- 'You've obviously got a good deal of emotional investment in this topic'. Oh, it's my emotions that are the problem here. Got it.
- 'You don't like my use of the word butchering'. - No, I don't not like it, I went in detail why that is the height of dishonesty. You casually skipped that.

The only cards you did pull - of the lopsided death count and imbalance in military power - shows that far from not arguing, you will go for points that buttress your point of view. There just aren't any and those that you pulled are weak.

Calling the Palestinians 'well armed' is not a false statement, it's demonstrably true. I did not say that they are better armed than Israel - I did point out that if you fire at me with a pistol I am within my rights to fire back with an automatic.

Same for the lopsided death count - I am within my rights to shoot back if you open fire at me. Especially if you fire at me and my children. Even (and especially) if your children are around you when you shoot - that makes you a monster, not me. If I and my kids are wearing bulletproof vests, and yours aren't, then I may kill more of yours than you will mine. Guess what - I am still within my rights to shoot back if you open fire (and keep shooting) at me and my children.

If you want to argue, do so. If you don't want to argue, don't. Don't start with outrageous and obscene accusations and start trolling - 'ooh, you sound angry' when called out on it. There's no need to be disingenuous.

 

[Caliexpat]

Good to know you condemn Islamic fundamentalism, you probably therefore see how dangerous and deranged it is. Israel is nestled in that environment.

That thing above you just said is pure propaganda indeed. Now I see we have a true misunderstanding.
While obviously the foundation of Israel and the gradual migration of Jews to the Ottoman territories of Palestine constituted land being grabbed (after being payed for in voluntary contracts), or any way you see it, after the nation state was born and its borders were settled, Israel has had no further claims or plans of expansions into neighboring Arab countries, the reverse is true.
All the potential Israeli right wing expansionism is contained within the borders of what you call Palestine, so clearly you are under the spell of propaganda that makes you believe Israelis are insatiable land grabbers. For many decades the issue has been security and coexistence (if possible integration) with the Palestines.
Even If I advocated against Israel I could never imagine thinking that Israel actually wants to expand further, or that it would not accept an actual pace and security treaty if offered earnestly.
Just how far fetched are the fantasies you entertain, that Israel wants to invade the Syrian oil-fields?
Israel gained additional territory only in direct reprisal of being attacked, and in so many instances was convinced peacefully to give it back at the direct expense of its security in the hopes of actual peace.

Palestinians are generally accepted into America or Sweden when they can make the arrangements, but they can't cross the border to their fraternal neighboring Arab nations so easily as they have exhausted their patience for these Cis-Jordanians and only want one thing from them: to be used as a human buffer (shield and spear) against the grain of sand that is Israel. Perhaps without Islam the Arabic World would have treated Israel the way an Oyster develops a Pearl, but I am just daydreaming at 2 am.

How exactly can Israel choose peace right now? Is ISIS a signatory of the treaty too, because they have very suddenly become a concern too.

Let's not put words into my mouth. There's a lot of supposition coming from your direction. As I said, we'll agree to disagree. You believe in your propaganda and I'll believe in mine. The land grab is a plan that has been in the works for quite some time now:

http://en.wikipedia....our_Declaration

The Balfour Declaration (dated 2 November 1917) was a letter from the United Kingdom's Foreign SecretaryArthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[sup][1][2][/sup]

The text of the letter was published in the press one week later, on 9 November 1917.[sup][3][/sup] The "Balfour Declaration" was later incorporated into the Sèvres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire and the Mandate for Palestine. The original document is kept at the British Library.

 

[K4RR4R]

The funny thing is you're both right:

Israel's policy on dealing with provocation (whether or not that provocation has any actual consequence or not) is heavy handed in the most absolute sense, and has zero regard for civilian casualties, women and children or otherwise. Palestinian leadership takes full advantage of this fact by provoking anyway, and using the media to emphasize the 'butchery'. In the same sense, Israel continues to provoke by encroaching on land that even their staunchest allies condemn, showing the Palestinian people just how little freedom they have regardless of where they live in the disputed territories.

 

[Caliexpat]

Your response is the textbook definition of both ad hominem and patronizing. You make outrageous accusations, and when called out on it you don't stand down, you respond - but with nothing of substance.

- 'I'm not interested in arguing tit for tat'. Right.
- 'You've obviously got a good deal of emotional investment in this topic'. Oh, it's my emotions that are the problem here. Got it.
- 'You don't like my use of the word butchering'. - No, I don't not like it, I went in detail why that is the height of dishonesty.

The only cards you did pull - of the lopsided death count and imbalance in military power - shows that you will go for points that buttress your point of view. There just aren't any and those that you pulled are weak.

Calling the Palestinians 'well armed' is not a false statement, it's demonstrably true. I did not say that they are better armed than Israel - I did point out that if you fire at me with a pistol I am within my rights to fire back with an automatic.

Same for the lopsided death count - I am within my rights to shoot back if you open fire at me. Especially if you fire at me and my children. Even (and especially) if your children are around you when you shoot - that makes you a monster, not me. If I and my kids are wearing bulletproof vests, and yours aren't, then I may kill more of yours than you will mine. Guess what - I am still within my rights to shoot back if you open fire (and keep shooting) at me and my children.

If you want to argue, do so. If you don't want to argue, don't. Don't start with outrageous and obscene accusations and start trolling - 'ooh, you sound angry' when called out on it. There's no need to be disingenuous.

I'm not being outrageous, obscene, trolling nor angry. Ben, you're clearly getting a little bent out of shape on this one I'm afraid. As I mentioned, you obviously have a lot more of emotional investment in this topic than I do. Let's just agree to disagree and have a great day tomorrow. Cheers.

 

[ben]

The funny thing is you're both right:

Israel's policy on dealing with provocation (whether or not that provocation has any actual consequence or not) is heavy handed in the most absolute sense, and has zero regard for civilian casualties, women and children or otherwise. Palestinian leadership takes full advantage of this fact by provoking anyway, and using the media to emphasize the 'butchery'. In the same sense, Israel continues to provoke by encroaching on land that even their staunchest allies condemn, showing the Palestinian people just how little freedom they have regardless of where they live in the disputed territories.

Zero regard? I don't think you're well informed.
Untold numbers of Israeli soldiers havelost their lives because of risky operations that were made riskier to minimize civilian casualties.

Here's an old clip showing Israelis satirizing their rules of engagement: (have to turn on subtitles - the CC button)

 

[Matt84]

The Balfour Declaration (dated 2 November 1917) The "Balfour Declaration" was later incorporated into the Sèvres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire and the Mandate for Palestine.

As I said, there is no reason to believe Israel intends to expand beyond its established borders (well within the Mandate of Palestine), and has not done so when unprovoked, and extensively withdrawn when not only provoked, and all accusations, or perpetrations even, of expansionism only occur within what is already Palestine. There is a very well defined limit to your accusations, both geographical (Israel's borders which include Palestine as a zone of control) and causal (direct provocation in the form of aggression, over and over again, backed by two continents of Palestinian "friendly" neighbors).
The original "land grab" was part of many arrangements that went with decolonization. You might notice that all African and most Asian countries were also created in a similar manner, and I wouldn't be surprised many of the documents planning their borders were located in the British Library.

The funny thing is you're both right:

Israel's policy on dealing with provocation (whether or not that provocation has any actual consequence or not) is heavy handed in the most absolute sense, and has zero regard for civilian casualties, women and children or otherwise. Palestinian leadership takes full advantage of this fact by provoking anyway, and using the media to emphasize the 'butchery'.

I agree with you in most you say except for the fact that IDF actually does put a lot of work into trying to hit the needle and not the hay. This is increasingly difficult when the enemy deliberately uses hospitals as military bases and in general puts the armed conflict and the goal of liberation before the actual well being of their women and children. Who knows how long ago this conflict would have been resolved if one of the two sides, perhaps the weaker, would have put aside its pride and moved on along its neighbors or even within Israel as this opportunity was and is offered and many Palestinians have took it.
Perhaps without such a war-like ideology such as Islam the Palestinians would have reached a solution similar to Mandela's in South Africa, and challenged the Israelis demographically, they would have won by now. But perhaps Islamic fundamentalism is also a Jewish conspiracy.

 

[polostar88]

As I said, there is no reason to believe Israel intends to expand beyond its established borders (well within the Mandate of Palestine), and has not done so when unprovoked, and extensively withdrawn when not only provoked, and all accusations, or perpetrations even, of expansionism only occur within what is already Palestine. There is a very well defined limit to your accusations, both geographical (Israel's borders which include Palestine as a zone of control) and causal (direct provocation in the form of aggression, over and over again, backed by two continents of Palestinian "friendly" neighbors).
The original "land grab" was part of many arrangements that went with decolonization. You might notice that all African and most Asian countries were also created in a similar manner, and I wouldn't be surprised many of the documents planning their borders were located in the British Library.



I agree with you in most you say except for the fact that IDF actually does put a lot of work into trying to hit the needle and not the hay. This is increasingly difficult when the enemy deliberately uses hospitals as military bases and in general puts the armed conflict and the goal of liberation before the actual well being of their women and children. Who knows how long ago this conflict would have been resolved if one of the two sides, perhaps the weaker, would have put aside its pride and moved on along its neighbors or even within Israel as this opportunity was and is offered and many Palestinians have took it.
Perhaps without such a war-like ideology such as Islam the Palestinians would have reached a solution similar to Mandela's in South Africa, and challenged the Israelis demographically, they would have won by now. But perhaps Islamic fundamentalism is also a Jewish conspiracy.

The Palestinians could have won long ago if they used the tactics of Gandhi.

I was in Israel, and it is a society beset by Western rot much like a lot of Europe and the US. They don't have the strength to do what they're being accused of...

But...I still believe Islam question is somewhat of a red herring. Look at why we're even talking about Israel. Someone brought up Israel as supposedly an example that non-Muslims can also be "big meanies." There are a lot of crazy and masochistic people in the West. These are the people who have no problems with 3d world immigration, or welcome it. They are mentally ill.

 

[French jurist]

Things are turning wild in Paris:
Two hostage situations
Various AK47 shootings

 

[ben]

Yes, some dead already: unclear if shooters and/or hostages.

 

[K4RR4R]

Zero regard? I don't think you're well informed.
Untold numbers of Israeli soldiers havelost their lives because of risky operations that were made riskier to minimize civilian casualties.

Here's an old clip showing Israelis satirizing their rules of engagement: (have to turn on subtitles - the CC button)

Sorry mate, but whether the attack was justified or not, you're going to have a very hard time convincing anyone that Israeli's military policies have an acceptable amount of regard for civilian casualties. I'm not saying Hamas does either, but if we're talking about the IDF here, they have quite demonstrably shown they are more than happy to sink to the level of disregard for civilians to the point where 500+ children are killed. I understand that a nation needs to defend itself from that one rocket that might get through, and it also needs to repress any ongoing uprisings on its borders, but then again Israel's borders keep changing, and being investigated for war crimes generally doesn't happen as a result of self defence.