The Middle East Conflict Thread

DJ...

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
70,287
Your posts about you enjoying the snuff movies and the above one condoning the rocket attacks are enough for me thanks. :sick:

Oh come now - this thread epitomises the issue in the region. Both sides would rather play the blame game than resolve their differences. Neither side is innocent in this debacle - that appears to be a common theme amongst all of the posters yet that seems to be ignored when a nerve is touched or merely a point disagreed with.

What I find bizarre is how people choose to take sides in this, and then get so defensive about their POV - IMO this is one of those situations where sitting on the fence and watching them commit hari kari on each other's asses is the best bet. No diplomat will resolve it - just like 2 bi-polar kids constantly at each other's throats, one day you just have to leave them be and allow them to beat the schit out of each other. Diplomacy and negotiations have failed time and time again. There comes a point where one has to come out on top, but the constant diplomacy efforts just hamper that! Leave them the fsck alone and let them do whatever it is they feel like doing to each other, over that stupid little piece of land.

Both sides are beyond redemption, and therefore beyond efforts to resolve it peacefully. However this is just a pipe-dream, because we all know the busy-body yanks and their mates will poke their noses into the situation at every possible opportunity and preach human rights and some other bullschit. It's a lose-lose situation no matter what happens...
 

rwenzori

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
12,360
Garyvdh, if you don't want to read the discussion , and claim that no debating is happening, then why bother posting here? We had been doing well, and I even had to change an opinion LOL. But greasy ignore list for you!
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
105,603
Oh come now - this thread epitomises the issue in the region. Both sides would rather play the blame game than resolve their differences. Neither side is innocent in this debacle - that appears to be a common theme amongst all of the posters yet that seems to be ignored when a nerve is touched or merely a point disagreed with.

What I find bizarre is how people choose to take sides in this, and then get so defensive about their POV - IMO this is one of those situations where sitting on the fence and watching them commit hari kari on each other's asses is the best bet. No diplomat will resolve it - just like 2 bi-polar kids constantly at each other's throats, one day you just have to leave them be and allow them to beat the schit out of each other. Diplomacy and negotiations have failed time and time again. There comes a point where one has to come out on top, but the constant diplomacy efforts just hamper that! Leave them the fsck alone and let them do whatever it is they feel like doing to each other, over that stupid little piece of land.

Both sides are beyond redemption, and therefore beyond efforts to resolve it peacefully. However this is just a pipe-dream, because we all know the busy-body yanks and their mates will poke their noses into the situation at every possible opportunity and preach human rights and some other bullschit. It's a lose-lose situation no matter what happens...

um, that's exactly what I said. Let the IDF do their work. No point in us debating it here. :rolleyes: In fact I said it twice.
 

DJ...

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
70,287
um, that's exactly what I said. Let the IDF do their work. No point in us debating it here. :rolleyes: In fact I said it twice.

But you jumped to massive conclusions about rwenzori being pro-hamas and then got pretty emotional in your attack of his supposed viewpoint. It's that emotion that epitomises the problem ad in fact suggests an opposing opinion...

BTW, I'm surprised considering your religious convictions that you have no interest in preservation of the occupied land...:confused:
 

Sackboy

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
5,598
Hey - don't blame me - I'm not the one with the "I don't care what the discussion was " attitude! ;)

I did answer - see post #226.
I never blamed you.

My point was, how much is left for the Palestinians to claim. Most of it has gone back. In fact there was a problem with which country to give the Shebaa Farms (Golan) back to.
Besides, Isreal controls it by virtue of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
105,603
Garyvdh, if you don't want to read the discussion , and claim that no debating is happening, then why bother posting here? We had been doing well, and I even had to change an opinion LOL. But greasy ignore list for you!

Oh, there is excellent debate from many of us who are willing to take on any other points made. My statement was that, even when the error in your thinking is politely pointed out to you... you ignore... and then come back to the same line of reasoning on the next page.

I post wherever the Hell I want. This is a free message board.

Your decision to put me on an ignore list, just proves your failure to adequately answer the challenges and questions that many of us have put to you.

Are you scared that I labeled you as Pro-Hamas? Does that upset you? Your posts and your stance speak for themselves. I think it is quite obvious to most people here. You believe I am pro-Israel, so what? I make no bones about that. I hate terrorism and murder.

But that does not make me want to deny the Palestinian people a place to live and peaceful life. I do hope they get it one day.

You on the other hand only seek to deny Israel's right to exist and defend itself. Who is being the unreasonable one?
 

Sackboy

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
5,598
Hey - don't blame me - I'm not the one with the "I don't care what the discussion was " attitude! ;)

I did answer - see post #226.

Oh, there is excellent debate from many of us who are willing to take on any other points made. My statement was that, even when the error in your thinking is politely pointed out to you... you ignore... and then come back to the same line of reasoning on the next page.

I post wherever the Hell I want. This is a free message board.

Your decision to put me on an ignore list, just proves your failure to adequately answer the challenges and questions that many of us have put to you.

Are you scared that I labeled you as Pro-Hamas? Does that upset you? Your posts and your stance speak for themselves. I think it is quite obvious to most people here. You believe I am pro-Israel, so what? I make no bones about that. I hate terrorism and murder.

But that does not make me want to deny the Palestinian people a place to live and peaceful life. I do hope they get it one day.

You on the other hand only seek to deny Israel's right to exist and defend itself. Who is being the unreasonable one?
I noticed that too lol

. Perhaps that's when the tea is ready. He's not the only one who does that though. Nobody likes to be wrong, but it doesn't do the debate any good not to be.
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
105,603
But you jumped to massive conclusions about rwenzori being pro-hamas and then got pretty emotional in your attack of his supposed viewpoint. It's that emotion that epitomises the problem ad in fact suggests an opposing opinion...

Ask rwenzori point blank to answer YES or NO to the following questions...

1) Does Israel as a nation have a right to exist?
2) Does Israel have a right to defend itself?
3) Is Hamas a terrorist organization?
4) Is Hamas still launching rockets into Israel today?

he is the one who claims to be an atheist, yet his sympathies are totally out of alignment with his stated affiliation. His answers to the above questions will betray his sympathies.

aqua-lung is even worse. He ignores questions he cannot answer, he misquotes sources and twists them to his own ends.

Hey, I'm just calling a spade a spade here. Let's cut the bullkark and be honest here.

BTW, I'm surprised considering your religious convictions that you have no interest in preservation of the occupied land...:confused:

um, what? :confused: you've lost me here? Where did I say that?
 

rwenzori

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
12,360
I never blamed you.

My point was, how much is left for the Palestinians to claim. Most of it has gone back. In fact there was a problem with which country to give the Shebaa Farms (Golan) back to.
Besides, Isreal controls it by virtue of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.

I see that the wording of that resolution is much disputed. The biggest chunk is the West Bank, is it not, so start there, and negotiate. Alantjie always accuses me of "appeasement" when I mention "negotiate", but negotiation, willingness, and small steps might start the process. Continuing to kill each other solves nothing, and just creates more "security problems" for Israel. But as I have said, I think things are probably too far gone.
 

DJ...

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
70,287
Ask rwenzori point blank to answer YES or NO to the following questions...

1) Does Israel as a nation have a right to exist?
2) Does Israel have a right to defend itself?
3) Is Hamas a terrorist organization?
4) Is Hamas still launching rockets into Israel today?

he is the one who claims to be an atheist, yet his sympathies are totally out of alignment with his stated affiliation. His answers to the above questions will betray his sympathies.

aqua-lung is even worse. He ignores questions he cannot answer, he misquotes sources and twists them to his own ends.

Hey, I'm just calling a spade a spade here. Let's cut the bullkark and be honest here.

No thanks - I've had my say - that's your issue with rwenzori - not really my place to start mediating...:D

um, what? :confused: you've lost me here? Where did I say that?

You said let them wipe each other out. Unless of course you're assuming Israel would outright win any conflict? Sorry, I'm now confused about your standpoint on this - are you a neutral and couldn't care if either wipe each other out - or are you of the opinion that world should leave Israel to wipe out Palestine, not the other way round?
 

Sackboy

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
5,598
um, what? :confused: you've lost me here? Where did I say that?
I think he's saying you're Jewish.

...........
Rwennzori, the West Bank is mostly under the control of a Palestinian faction.

The West Bank has a unique status in two respects; first, there is no precedent for a belligerent occupation lasting for more than a brief period, and second, that the West Bank was not part of a sovereign country before occupation — thus, in legal terms, there is no "reversioner" for the West Bank. This means that sovereignty of the West Bank is currently suspended, and, according to some[specify], Israel, as the only successor state to the Palestine Mandate, has a status that "goes beyond that of military occupier alone."[49]
wiki
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
105,603
You said let them wipe each other out. Unless of course you're assuming Israel would outright win any conflict? Sorry, I'm now confused about your standpoint on this - are you a neutral and couldn't care if either wipe each other out - or are you of the opinion that world should leave Israel to wipe out Palestine, not the other way round?

OK, let me explain...

I would hope that Israel would win any conflict it would have to get involved in so that it can defend itself.

I think the world is already leaving Israel alone in this matter. There are the obligatory bleats about restraint and tolerance... but for the most part it seems like the world is just letting Israel get on with it... even Egypt and the Arab League. My guess is that people are so sick of Hamas and their brand of radicalism that they just don't care anymore what happens to them (except for the few other radical states or groups that are funding Hamas out of a sense of duty or hatred for Israel).

My point was, we don't have to debate this (although I don't mind... that is why I am still here). I meant Israel will do my debating for me by destroying Hamas and terrorism... that is what I want.

I don't mind debating here (although with the number of posts deleted - it doesn't help your post count much! :p) ... and arguing with people like rwenzori is like repeatedly bashing your head against the door post, because they refuse to concede a single point and even keep coming back to issues that have already been successfully negated. I just don't think he is consistent... he says he is against ALL violence... but when pushed he keeps coming down on the side of the "Palestinians" .. but I think by that he means Hamas. But that is my opinion and observation. I think there are a few others that agree with me. You are free to do what you want with that info. :)
 

DJ...

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
70,287

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
105,603
This is exactly my viewpoint on the matter....

Bush blames Hamas for Gaza conflict
* President Bush accuses Hamas of building rockets instead of schools, roads
* Bush says Hamas committed act of terrorism by launching rockets into Israel
* Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to address U.N. Security Council
* Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls for "durable and sustainable" cease-fire

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. President Bush laid the blame for recent fighting in Gaza squarely at the feet of Hamas, accusing militants of waging a campaign of violence against Israel with little regard for its people.

"Since Hamas' violent takeover in the summer of 2007, living conditions have worsened for Palestinians in Gaza," Bush says in prepared remarks released Friday by the White House. "By spending its resources on rocket launchers instead of roads and schools, Hamas has demonstrated that it has no intention of serving the Palestinian people."

In a radio address to air Saturday, Bush says Hamas committed an act of terrorism when it renewed rocket attacks into Israel last month, provoking this week's airstrikes by Israel.

"In response to these attacks on their people, the leaders of Israel have launched military operations on Hamas positions in Gaza," Bush says. "As a part of their strategy, Hamas terrorists often hide within the civilian population, which puts innocent Palestinians at risk."

Palestinian medical sources said Friday that at least 421 people have been killed and 2,200 wounded in Gaza since Israeli air raids began December 27.

Israeli police and military officials say four Israelis have died and 57 have been wounded.

With Israeli tanks and troops massed along the Gaza border as Saturday morning broke, Bush acknowledged the humanitarian toll that the airstrikes have taken upon Gaza's densely packed population.

But Bush does not directly mention the toll that the airstrikes have taken in the address, again blaming conditions in Gaza on Hamas, which has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel.

Bush said his administration will continue to monitor the situation in Gaza closely and will stay in contact with leaders throughout the region.

President-elect Barack Obama is said to be monitoring the situation. He has been in contact with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton, the nominee for secretary of state.

Exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, in a statement broadcast Friday on Al Jazeera television network, chided Obama for having a "double standard."

"You got involved, and you had a statement regarding the issue of Mumbai, but you did not get involved and say anything about the enemy's crime against Gaza," Meshaal said. Learn more about Meshaal and other key leaders in the conflict »

Asked Sunday whether a land invasion would change how the Obama administration views Israel, Obama's senior adviser yielded to Bush.

"The fact is that there is only one president at a time. There's only one president who can speak for America at a time. And that president now is George Bush," David Axelrod said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Bush says in his address that "America's objectives in the Middle East will remain clear: We seek security and peace for our allies, the free people of Israel. For the Palestinian people, we seek a peaceful and democratic Palestinian state that serves its citizens and respects its neighbors. For all in the region, we seek an end to terror."

The comments reflected the general tone that the U.S. has historically taken toward Hamas, which the United States and the European Union consider a terrorist group.

In democratic elections in Palestinian territories backed by the United States in 2006, Hamas won a landslide victory in parliamentary voting.

After the elections, the U.S. government asked the Palestinian Authority to return $50 million in donations for infrastructure improvements. The United States cut off direct, nonhumanitarian aid to Gaza but more than doubled humanitarian aid it funnels through non-governmental groups and the United Nations.

Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority and a member of Hamas' rival Fatah party, dissolved Gaza's Hamas-led government and declared a state of emergency in 2007. Hamas took control of the territory shortly afterward.

Abbas was to travel to New York on Friday to address the United Nations Security Council, his office said.

On Wednesday, the council debated a Libyan-sponsored draft resolution favored by Arab countries that calls for Israel to immediately cease military attacks against civilians and asks for the protection of the Palestinian people.

The United States indicated that it does not back the resolution, though it does support a cease-fire.

Rice said Friday that a "durable and sustainable" cease-fire was needed to end the violence in Gaza and in southern Israel.

"We are working toward a cease-fire that would not allow a re-establishment of the status quo," she said. "It is obvious that should take place as soon as possible, but we need a cease-fire that is durable and sustainable."
 

rwenzori

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
12,360
I think he's saying you're Jewish.

...........
Rwennzori, the West Bank is mostly under the control of a Palestinian faction.

wiki

Yes, but read more of that article. There are settlers, there are huge restrictions on movement, and so on. It is rather like a bantustan, as Gaza is. If Israel wants to keep it like that, well fine, but then don't expect any progress to peace.

Peace, if REALLY desired, is going to take a LOT of compromise ( read pain ) by both sides, and some statesmen of the calibre of ours during our transition to democracy. I don't see them though, nor the willingness to compromise by either side.
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
105,603
Yes, but read more of that article. There are settlers, there are huge restrictions on movement, and so on. It is rather like a bantustan, as Gaza is. If Israel wants to keep it like that, well fine, but then don't expect any progress to peace.

Peace, if REALLY desired, is going to take a LOT of compromise ( read pain ) by both sides, and some statesmen of the calibre of ours during our transition to democracy. I don't see them though, nor the willingness to compromise by either side.

If they don't want to live in a Bantustan... then let them put down the rockets and start building roads. Then we will see who is serious. But I don't think they have even tried that route yet. They just go straight to the violence and bloodshed. Like I said... it is a way of life for them. I honestly dont' think they want peace.
 

Sackboy

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
5,598
Originally Posted by DJK View Post
BTW, I'm surprised considering your religious convictions


Well what DID you mean then? We can't read minds. [This is a fast, brutal debate - no slackers here please :p ]

Yes, but read more of that article. There are settlers, there are huge restrictions on movement, and so on. It is rather like a bantustan, as Gaza is. If Israel wants to keep it like that, well fine, but then don't expect any progress to peace.

Peace, if REALLY desired, is going to take a LOT of compromise ( read pain ) by both sides, and some statesmen of the calibre of ours during our transition to democracy. I don't see them though, nor the willingness to compromise by either side.
The Palestinians wanted a state, so they got two territories. They aren't really viable, mostly because greater Israel is very very small to start with. What was the option for them - become Israeli citizens??
 

Sackboy

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
5,598
Top