BF2S Forums Britain's most respected Judge 'Dilbert_X is Right'

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

We do differ, I honestly believe if Israel would be left alone they would leave others alone, like I said, olive branches have been offered only to be shot out of their hands. I do think if you feel you need to actually shoot someone it should be to kill them. Israel is doing what it feel it needs to, ot gain control over the situations it faces.

This mentality could easily be used to explain Palestinian behaviour too lowing. I find it mind boggling that anyone could take a situation as complex as the Middle East and boil it down to one side being completely in the right... you have yet to condemn or criticize a single thing Israel has done.

lowing wrote:

1. I agree, except the previous govts. did nothing to stop attacks into Israel, they turned a blind eye if not actually assisted. So perhaps the blame lies somewhere other than Israel having to deal with this bullshit.

A similar criticism could be leveled at successive Israeli Governments on the issue of illegal settlements and the actions of extremist settlers. I get the impression you have fully bought into the idea of the Israelis being complete victims in all of this; what about these innocent Palestinian families who have been turfed out of their homes and made refugees?

lowing wrote:

2. agree. at least you will gain some street cred and sympathy from others.

Agreed. It was the same with the IRA... the minute you start targeting civilians you may forget about any romantic notions of 'freedom fighting'.

lowing wrote:

3. nope, but we both know tha that hostage would die before the gunman got away never to be seen again.

So what you are saying is you condone the killing of civilians for the purpose of some sort of subjective 'greater good'?

lowing wrote:

Israel is here to stay, it is time to get over it, it appears attacking them time after time day after day is not gunna get you anything except a worse beating than could ever be delievered. So try another approach.

Yes, I believe Israel is here to stay and I have always advocated a two state solution but if Israel ever wants peace with its neighbours (neighbours lol... Palestine aren't technically neighbours at all, they are the occupants of the land Israel established itself on) it has to stop acting like the big tough guy and meet the Palestinians half way. The Palestinians are not going to simply give up, they will never give up, NEVER. The Israelis can either round them all up and exterminate them, like Hitler tried with the Jews during the holocaust, or they can just get used to living in constant fear of rocket and suicide attacks... it's as simple as that.

I'll tell you one thing... keeping the Palestinian people poor, disenfranchised and angry won't solve anything.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

I do not think Israle is completely right. My sympathies just lie with the side that does not target women and children, or use them as shields. I view Israel as being on the defensive since the beginning. I would like to see what would happen if someone actually took the olive branch Israel extended instead of target it.

At last a chink of light! You don't believe Israel are angels in this whole debacle!

You see Israel as having been on the defensive from the beginning... well, many people would say that is because they set up a country in the middle of a land where people were already living. How would you like it if you came home one day to find someone else living in your house, claiming that their grandfather had once owned the property?

You speak about olive branches as though the whole thing is very straightforward and simple when sadly it is not. I as much as anyone would like to see a peace deal accepted lowing but there are many crucial issues that must be addressed in order to do this. I personally would like to see the Israelis accept the Saudi Arabian peace deal offered in 2002, where Israel returns all of the stolen land in return for recognition in the eyes of its Arab neighbours and a normalisation of relations.

lowing wrote:

1. Perhaps, but again, the land in question is land that continues attacks into Israel has been launched is it not?

So what? So they move in their own people to the land and turn a blind eye to sectarian violence against old Palestinian women and children? Weak argument lowing... even if the land is seized because of rocket attacks that does not give them the right to annex it and start building plantations there. I really would love to see how you would respond if Mexicans declared a state in your town and simply turfed you and your neighbours out on the street... for a man who has, in my opinion, always stuck to their fundamental principles you seem to act against these principles in your support of Israel. Sure, the terrorist aspect of much of the Palestinian struggle must go against your sensibilities but I would have thought someone like you would be able to appreciate their cause and their conviction in what they believe, no?

These people have had their nation, and in many cases their actual property and home, stolen from them... how do you countenance that? Do the Jews deserve it more than the Palestinians or something? You complain in other threads about 'big bad Government' taking from one set of people to give to another, well what do you think is happening in the occupied territories?

lowing wrote:

3. No, but it does sound like that doesn't it? What I am saying is if the gunman started firing and killing people in the street while holding a hostage, it would probably come to a point where they both would die instead of letting him continue to kill 100 people unchallenged.

I personally believe that the Israelis don't care enough about collateral damage... but that's just my perception. I don't condone the killing of civilians by Palestinians and I don't condone the killing of civilians by Israeli security forces.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Israel did not set up a country, the UN did, I suspect due to sympathy for the Jews after WW2. I do not believe there will be peace in the region, regardless of what Israel does. I believe the only acceptable outcome for the majority of the region is destruction of Israel. So if you wanna speak of negotiating and peace, you gotta factor that in, there simply will never be any.

Incorrect, the UN outlined a three state plan for Palestine with a Jewish State, an Arab State and a UN controlled zone around Jerusalem (UN GA Resolution 181), this was rejected by the Palestinians and the Arab world and when the British mandate ended in 1948 Ben Gurion went ahead regardless of the details of the UN resolution and established an exclusively Jewish State of Israel... this sparked the 1948 Arab-Israeli war; so no, the UN did not create Israel as it exists today. I also don't agree with your belief that Israel must be destroyed for peace to reign in the region. I grew up on the border of a similar deap seated conflict and I have seen things I never thought possible in my lifetime, it may take a lot longer in the holy land but I still believe it to be possible, increasing Palestinian affluence could prove influential in this regard.

lowing wrote:

1. Actually I see no problem with it, if Mexico continuously launched attacks from the border, we would take it from them so they could not continue such attacks. If you do not want to lose land stop using the land t oattack Israel. You already know what is gunna happen.  It is not Israel destroying these peoples lives, it is the Palastinian govt. that is doing this, by continously forcing their innocent civilians to live on the front lines of war. By continously antaginizing Israel with their terrorism, instead of seeking peace.

In that case you must also agree with Islamic extremist attacks on the US and US interests around the world? I mean if the US insist on medling in Islamic countries then they are really bringing these attacks on themselves, no? If you don't want planes flown into your sky scrapers just stop invading and setting up military bases in Islamic countries, yeah?

By the way I think you'll find it IS is the Israeli Government who are ruining these Palestinian families' lives lowing, they are the ones forcefully removing them from their homes and making refugees of them... what you are saying is the equivalent of claiming that a US bomb blowing an Iraqi child's arms off is actually Saddam's fault because he 'forced' the Americans to invade.

lowing wrote:

3. Me either, the difference is though, Israel does not target civilians, they target areas that attacks come from. This makes them military targets. If civilians get killed, blame the govt. that puts them in harms way on purpose.

It's all the same to me at the end of the day lowing... people still have to go to funerals and mourn the death of their loved ones. What colour uniform the man who pulled the trigger was wearing offers little consolation. Your attitude could also just as easily be warped to fit the Palestinian extremist's agenda too i.e. any Jew who lives in the occupied territory is an invader and therefore a legitimate target, if they get killed blame the Israeli Government that put them there on purpose.

And btw lowing these Palestinians weren't placed anywhere "on purpose", in most cases they just happened to live in these places. They are victims of the changing landscape that surrounds them, they are not Jews from around the world that have chosen to up sticks and move to the front line of a war zone, they have lived there generation after generation for many years and now their homes have been torn asunder by conflict.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

You are right it was rejected by the Palasrinians and thge Arb world, unfortunately it still passed 33 to 13.

You've missed my point lowing, Ben Gurion did not establish an Israel in accordance with what was outlined in UN GA Resolution 181... what happened to the UN controlled zone or the Arab zone, eh? So Israel in its current incarnation is not a result of UN decision-making.

lowing wrote:

1. Wait a sec, you spent a few years telling me the terror attacks have nothing to do with Islam, yet you sit hear now and say terrorism is a reult of medling with Islamic countries. Might wanna clarify that. Also, like I said before, the unrest with the people in the ME has more to do with their shitty lives while their govt. officials live in palaces the size of Rhode Island. They view death as better than life, while they watch the US value life over death. Do not blame the US for this.

Nothing to do with Islam? Errr don't think I ever said that lowing... I have always said that Islamic extremism is a warped take on the Islamic faith, a version that has bent specific passages and grey areas of the Koran to fit its own agenda in the same way that a lawyer exploits loopholes and non-specific or questionable legal language in a court case. In terms of the wider Middle East I agree with you that much unrest exists among a poor populus while royalty live in lavish palaces but to bring things back to Palestine I have to point out that there aren't many massive palaces or Government buildings on the Palestinian side. Their plight is largely thanks to the occupying Israeli regime having the power to cut off the oil, gas, water and electricity whenever they please. As for your assertion that all Muslims value death over life, I think it's horrible presumptuous and quite insulting... perhaps you'd like to ask m3thod if he would rather die than live a normal, happy existence like the rest of us? Muslims are normal people lowing, no different to you or I.

lowing wrote:

2. as a matter of fact yes, Saddam put his people in danger through his actions, and so it came to pass. Was it done unpurpose? nope, but innocent people die in war. It is sad but true.

Utter nonsense lowing. If G.I. Joe presses a button that drops a bomb, blowing the limbs off of a child, the blame lays squarely on Joe's doorstep. He can argue all he wants about what led up to him to pressing the button but quite frankly he should save his plea for Saint Peter when he's knocking on the pearly white gates. You claiming it was entirely Iraq's fault is like someone claiming 9/11 was entirely the US Government's fault for continually meddling in the Middle East and imposing itself on Islamic culture throughout the region... which is obviously insulting and quite wide of the mark.

lowing wrote:

3. Gee, so their is no chance that the Palastinians are useing its civilian population a shields, and purposely launching attacks from these areas? To accomplish a few things, 1. either they get away with it so they continue to do this and 2. even if they are attacked in these areas, people like you will blame Israel for civilian deaths. A win win it looks like. but, I guess I was mistaken that isn't what is happening

Surely you can see that there two wrongful actions going on here? Innocent people are being used as shields to attack Israelis and innocent people are being hit while attacking Palestinians... neither of these actions are just but both are symptomatic of each other, it's a vicious cycle. It's a difficult process to overcome a situation like this, it took a long time in Northern Ireland for both sides to trust each other enough to desist in their attacks but they were able to do it in the end.

There are two major problems standing in the way of peace in the Holy land. The macho Israeli attitude and the Palestinian proclivity for martyrdom.

Last edited by lowing (2008-12-04 18:40:53)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lowing wrote:

this seems more realistic than Israel without the approval of the UN just laid claim and started killing people.

Under the UN plan the rights of the Palestinians in Israel were supposed to be respected, the Israelis did just start killing people and turfed them out.

Lowing wrote:

Surely you can see that one side is doing it on purpose, and the other is being used for propaganda purposes. Look Israel is killing innocent people. Well, no, innocent people are being killed because Palestine purposely sets them up to.

Both sides are killing civilians on purpose, neither side is deliberately putting up their civilians to be killed - its just the Israelis have better propaganda.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lowing wrote:

bullshit, Israel does not pose their civilians for slaughter, Palestine does.

Please provide an example to back up your bullshit.

OTOH Israel puts its civilians in 'settlelements' on stolen land in the middle of Paelstinian territory, please explain how that isn't 'posing its civilians for slaughter'.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lowing wrote:

Those people are not launching attacks form those settlements.

They are living on someone elses land illegally, to set up there they would have had to throw someone else off that land.
According to your own arguments, someone who sets foot on someone elses property uninvited can expect to be shot.
They have invaded someone elses country, please explain how Israeli civilian settlements in Palestine isn't 'posing its civilians for slaughter'.

I would have said invading someone elses property, in a foreign country, and building a house on it, is a few steps above breaking a window and nicking a tv, or crossing a border to look for work.
From your previous comments civilians who do so deserve to die, if not please explain why this doesn't apply to the Israelis.

Again, please provide examples of Palestine 'posing its civilians for slaughter'.

Both sides have a lot to answer for, but the Israelis are fundamentally in the wrong here.

Lowing wrote:

Read the papers, or do you believe Palestines does not use civilians as shields? If so, you are the only one.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Then you'll have plenty f examples to show us.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-12-09 02:53:45)

Lowing wrote:

you can keep waiting, if you think Hamas using women and children as shields has not been on the news, in the papers, or on the internet then you definately have selective reading and hearing.

Lowing wrote:

do it yourself, since we both know it is there.