America's one-eyed view of war - Page 2 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 09:08 PM
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstone
How convenient of you to not mention how many Palestinian civilians have been murdered by their Israelis occupiers. Of course you see no moral equivalence between Israel's murdering of Palestinian civilians, and the Palestinians targeting of Israeli civilians. You assume that all Israeli killing of civilians is inadvertent, whereas all Palestinian killing of civilians is deliberate.

The number of cases of Israeli tanks, helicopter gunships, and fighter jets firing into civilian marketplaces to punish curfew violators, or firing into civilian homes, or firing into crowds of adults and children known to be unarmed are myriad-too numerous and frequent to be recounted here. Israeli and international human rights organizations have remarked repeatedly on Israel's disproportionate use of firepower against civilians. The Israeli human rights organization reports that 80% of Palestinians killed by IDF troops enforcing curfew are children.

So where is your sense of morals now??? It is obvious you have none.

Don't push it or you will labeled a Jew hater like I have been, Defamation of charachter is a choice form of response in this forum. I am getting tiered of this shit now.
DP is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 09:15 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
rstone's Avatar
 
Date registered: May 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor
Don't push it or you will labeled a Jew hater like I have been, Defamation of charachter is a choice form of response in this forum. I am getting tiered of this shit now.
My objection with Israel is not that I do not believe they have a right to exist, which I absolutely believe they do. I have a problem with what many refer to as the illegal occupation of disputed territories, such as the West Bank. Israels occupation of this area does not negate its responsibilities to follow international law, which even the UN recognizes it is failing to do in regard to these occupied territories.

Having said that, I also believe Israel absolutely has a right to defend itself, but I don't believe that give it the right to act in a disproportionate way, which is also a violation of international law. However, I think its a foully to claim that any person who should live under a military occupation has no right to defend itself by whatever means necessary. I often wonder if our own founding fathers would of been labelled as terrorist when trying to expel the british from the US.

Also the effort to cast this struggle in moral terms, painting Israel as always an exemplar of high moral values and the Palestinians as unable to maintain those values, is extremely hypocritical and sanctimonious.

The Israeli actions are the deliberate, calculated, and quite frequent actions of a military establishment and government that are, all things considered, no more moral in their wartime conduct--or indeed in their peacetime conduct--than any other nation or people, including the Palestinians.

"Protecting the Constitution vs Presidental powers is not about terrorism, but of doing what is right vs. what is easy. I choose doing right... where do you stand?"
rstone is offline  
post #13 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 09:20 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstone
How convenient of you to not mention how many Palestinian civilians have been murdered by their Israelis occupiers. Of course you see no moral equivalence between Israel's murdering of Palestinian civilians, and the Palestinians targeting of Israeli civilians. You assume that all Israeli killing of civilians is inadvertent, whereas all Palestinian killing of civilians is deliberate.

The number of cases of Israeli tanks, helicopter gunships, and fighter jets firing into civilian marketplaces to punish curfew violators, or firing into civilian homes, or firing into crowds of adults and children known to be unarmed are myriad-too numerous and frequent to be recounted here. Israeli and international human rights organizations have remarked repeatedly on Israel's disproportionate use of firepower against civilians. The Israeli human rights organization reports that 80% of Palestinians killed by IDF troops enforcing curfew are children.

So where is your sense of morals now??? It is obvious you have none.
No, what I saw was a chance to stop it, and that the Palestinians chose not to. By following up their refusal with a bus bombing that killed a bunch of high school kids (spare me the sob stories on the poor Palestinian children) they showed what a moral fucking sewer they live in. They are a people who chose to be ruled by people who want nothing but more war. They deserve the consequences of their choices.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #14 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 09:22 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,926
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 599 Post(s)
During the Arafat era, Israel was faced with an opponent who would settle for nothing less than their extinction. Faced with such a foe, what steps would you deem appropriate to ensure your survival?

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #15 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 09:24 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar
I think 70 - 80% is a more realistic appraisal, but Arafat wasn't about to agree to anything that didn't include the elimination of Israel.
I'll have to go look it up, but I was under the impression it was everything except for Jeresuleum suburbs, and was 99% of what they ask. I'll find it and stand corrected if need be.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #16 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 09:27 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
From Wikipedia, "Camp David Accords" tome:

"The Palestinian negotiators indicated they wanted full Palestinian sovereignty over all the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, although they would consider a one-to-one land swap with Israel. As a starting point, Resolution 242 calls for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the Six-Day War and at the 1993 Oslo Accords the Palestinian negotiators accepted the Green Line borders for the West Bank.

Barak offered to form a Palestinian State initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10 to 25 years the West Bank area would expand to 90% (94% excluding greater Jerusalem) [4] [5]. The West Bank would be separated by a road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, with free passage for Palestinians although Israel reserved the right to close the road for passage in case of emergency. The Palestinian position was that the annexations would block existing road networks between major Palestinian populations. In return, the Israelis would cede 1-3 % of their territory in the Negev Desert to Palestine. Arafat rejected this proposal and did not make a counteroffer.

Clayton Swisher, who was present at the summit, rebuts the conventional wisdom about it in The Truth About Camp David (http://www.lewrockwell.com/wanniski/wanniski36.html). Swisher, a young scholar based in Washington, attempts to approach Camp David objectively and concludes that the Israelis and the Americans were at least as guilty as the Palestinians for the collapse. MJ Rosenberg of Israel Policy Forum, a pro-Israel think-tank in Washington, calls Swisher's book "the single best volume we are likely to have on the Camp David failure." Alternative points of view are offered in books by Dennis Ross and by President Clinton himself. Ross and Clinton, who were also both in attendance, place the blame largely on Arafat.

[edit]
Jerusalem and the Temple Mount
A particularly virulent territorial dispute revolved around the final status of Jerusalem. Although offered much of East Jerusalem, the Palestinians rejected a proposal for "custodianship," though not sovereignty, over the Temple Mount, demanding complete sovereignty, which for Jews would have meant losing a bond with both the Mount and the attached Western Wall. According to both Ambassador Dennis Ross and Robert Malley, key American participants in the Camp David summit, Yasser Arafat claimed at one point in the negotiations that the holy Jewish Temple was not in Jerusalem at all, but in the West Bank city of Nablus.
"
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #17 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 09:27 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,926
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 599 Post(s)
Does it really matter? If you achieve 75% of your agenda during good faith negotiations, you take the package and thank your maker for it. In fact, it was not a good faith negotiation, and that is the proof.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #18 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 09:31 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstone
My objection with Israel is not that I do not believe they have a right to exist, which I absolutely believe they do. I have a problem with what many refer to as the illegal occupation of disputed territories, such as the West Bank. Israels occupation of this area does not negate its responsibilities to follow international law, which even the UN recognizes it is failing to do in regard to these occupied territories.

Having said that, I also believe Israel absolutely has a right to defend itself, but I don't believe that give it the right to act in a disproportionate way, which is also a violation of international law. However, I think its a foully to claim that any person who should live under a military occupation has no right to defend itself by whatever means necessary. I often wonder if our own founding fathers would of been labelled as terrorist when trying to expel the british from the US.

Also the effort to cast this struggle in moral terms, painting Israel as always an exemplar of high moral values and the Palestinians as unable to maintain those values, is extremely hypocritical and sanctimonious.

The Israeli actions are the deliberate, calculated, and quite frequent actions of a military establishment and government that are, all things considered, no more moral in their wartime conduct--or indeed in their peacetime conduct--than any other nation or people, including the Palestinians.
And I am saying that they negotiated in good faith to end the situation, and were rebuffed by the Palestinians. In the end, it was the Palestinians who chose war.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #19 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 09:32 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
rstone's Avatar
 
Date registered: May 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
They are a people who chose to be ruled by people who want nothing but more war. They deserve the consequences of their choices.
They didnt choose crap... so please quite with the hypocritical and sanctimonious BS. They never choose to be occupied in the first place, they were in fact EVICTED in 1967.

Lets get some facts straight here... the British Mandate was illegal in the first place. Lets not also forget that the mandate for a Israel nation in Palestine was made by a) by a European power, b) about a non-European territory, c) in flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority resident in that territory, who at the time happen to be Palestinean.

In 1948, at the moment that Israel declared itself a state, it legally owned a little more than 6 percent of the land of Palestine...After 1940, when the mandatory authority restricted Jewish land ownership to specific zones inside Palestine, there continued to be illegal buying (and selling) within the 65 percent of the total area restricted to Arabs.

Thus when the partition plan was announced in 1947 it included land held illegally by Jews, which was incorporated as a fait accompli inside the borders of the Jewish state. And after Israel announced its statehood, an impressive series of laws legally assimilated huge tracts of Arab land (whose proprietors had become refugees, and were pronounced 'absentee landlords' in order to expropriate their lands and prevent their return under any circumstances).

Lets also not forget that the Palestineans did not declare war in 1948 against the Israeli's and took no part in that war, but yet they were EVICTED from there homelands by Israel. The Palestineans had no weapons or armies to defend itself with as the British had already destroyed any such ability by them to resist. The British Mandate only allowed the Israelis to be armed, which was a major objection by the Palestineans.

Gandhi said it best...

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs...As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds." --- Mahatma Gandhi

"Protecting the Constitution vs Presidental powers is not about terrorism, but of doing what is right vs. what is easy. I choose doing right... where do you stand?"
rstone is offline  
post #20 of 31 (permalink) Old 08-14-2006, 09:36 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar
Does it really matter? If you achieve 75% of your agenda during good faith negotiations, you take the package and thank your maker for it. In fact, it was not a good faith negotiation, and that is the proof.
It was bad politics more than anything else. The liberal government of Edmud Barak would have continued to negotiate if the people of Israel had seen that the situation was being improved by negotiation. Instead, they refuse the deal, but then make matters impossible by killing that busload of kids. The reason? Arafat's supporters back home are a bunch of corrupt murderers, who only wish one thing: the destruction of Israel. Rstone does not see that as long as they hold that position, they are impossible to deal with. The Israeli people saw it for sure, and voted out Barak and voted in the Likud. Their position: you want murder, you got it. Hamas was certainly was no improvement, it was a change from dishonest murderers to honest murderers.

Last edited by FeelTheLove; 08-14-2006 at 09:39 PM.
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    'President Bush's war, not America's war' firstmb Off-Topic 0 11-28-2005 11:28 PM
    Anti-Iraq War Soldiers form PAC, begin airing new ad against the War FeelTheLove Off-Topic 8 10-15-2004 12:02 PM
    America's 50/50 stance Cap n Carageous Off-Topic 20 10-15-2004 06:47 AM
    Tomorrow, will it be war or not? War means new SLK sales will trickle. kls 023 R170 SLK-Class 13 03-17-2003 11:17 AM
    Survey: How do you view this forum -- Table view? Thread view? Sort by? RLO R170 SLK-Class 4 06-04-2002 08:28 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome