You used it as a source though ...lowing wrote:
i didn't write the listVaregg wrote:
Quite a short list ... and Cuba ... really?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
lol as a response to you asking "yet another terrorist state"? As if you were not aware there were any.Varegg wrote:
You used it as a source though ...lowing wrote:
i didn't write the listVaregg wrote:
Quite a short list ... and Cuba ... really?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ … 9-10-02-15
GAZANS fire rockets into Israel?!! Didn't Israel give Gaza back? and now they are launching attacks from Gaza??...Doesn't logic dictate that they shoulda kept it after all, instead of giving away land to get attacked from? Nope according to most of you, logic dictates Israel should give up even MORE land to get attacked from.
GAZANS fire rockets into Israel?!! Didn't Israel give Gaza back? and now they are launching attacks from Gaza??...Doesn't logic dictate that they shoulda kept it after all, instead of giving away land to get attacked from? Nope according to most of you, logic dictates Israel should give up even MORE land to get attacked from.
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-21 15:52:55)
You think Gaza should fire tank shells into Gaza to stop Gaza firing rockets?
Hello?! Logic calling. You have 12 missed calls.
Hello?! Logic calling. You have 12 missed calls.
AussieReaper wrote:
Take a look at how many of those are displaced and refugees living outside of Palestine.FEOS wrote:
Facts don't support either argument. The Palestinian population has steadily grown over the years, despite your claims of Israeli "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing". If the Israelis were doing either, they are failing miserably.AussieReaper wrote:
One involves the mass killing of people based on their ethnicity (genocide).
Yes, Palestinian.
The other involves the displacement out of a given area of a people based on their ethnicity (ethnic cleansing).
Palestinians are displaced. Take a look at the map. Read up on the number of Palestinian refugees.
How can you say that it is close? It isn't ethnic cleansing until they are all gone?
Your criteria was "the displacement out of a given area of a people based on their ethnicity (ethnic cleansing)."
Are you going to tell me the Palestinians are not displaced?
The number of Palestinian refugees by country according to UNRWA in January 2010 were as follows:
* Jordan 1,983,733
* Lebanon 425,640
* Syria 472,109
* West Bank 778,993
* Gaza Strip 1,106,195
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinia … statistics
Millions.
Data don't lie. A decrease in Arab (Palestinian) population in the 70s--the time of greatest nation-state conflict--followed by a period of growth outpacing Jewish population growth, in relative terms.
"Refugee" status is debatable, particularly when "camps" have become self-sustaining cities in their own right in many cases. All of which is irrelevant to the argument: "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" both require a decrease in the population of a given race/ethnic class. That group (Palestinians) is actually increasing at a rate greater than the group that is supposedly inflicting "genocide" and/or "ethnic cleansing" upon them in the area where this is supposed to be occurring (Israel). Therefore, neither of those acts can be occurring.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
ya lsot me Aussie, I think if you are going to attacked form areas you abandon, then maybe you shouldn't abandon those areas.AussieReaper wrote:
You think Gaza should fire tank shells into Gaza to stop Gaza firing rockets?
Hello?! Logic calling. You have 12 missed calls.
no actually you doAussieReaper wrote:
You have 12 missed calls.
Which is like suggesting we should have tried seeing things from the Nazis perspective when they invaded Poland.lowing wrote:
and yet he argues strictly for the Palestinians and gives no acknowledgement to Israel.Varegg wrote:
That's what we have been trying to explain to you for about 5 years ...lowing wrote:
Regardless as to what you think Dilbert, like it or not, there are 2 sides to this story.
Weren't there two sides to that story?
Fuck Israel
actually there wasDilbert_X wrote:
Which is like suggesting we should have tried seeing things from the Nazis perspective when they invaded Poland.lowing wrote:
and yet he argues strictly for the Palestinians and gives no acknowledgement to Israel.Varegg wrote:
That's what we have been trying to explain to you for about 5 years ...
Weren't there two sides to that story?
and by suggesting there is not, stop telling me that I am the one who is closed minded
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-22 05:15:59)
So by your logic the camps are self sustaining so everything is okay in them?FEOS wrote:
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/fi … o-2005.gifAussieReaper wrote:
Take a look at how many of those are displaced and refugees living outside of Palestine.FEOS wrote:
Facts don't support either argument. The Palestinian population has steadily grown over the years, despite your claims of Israeli "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing". If the Israelis were doing either, they are failing miserably.
Your criteria was "the displacement out of a given area of a people based on their ethnicity (ethnic cleansing)."
Are you going to tell me the Palestinians are not displaced?
The number of Palestinian refugees by country according to UNRWA in January 2010 were as follows:
* Jordan 1,983,733
* Lebanon 425,640
* Syria 472,109
* West Bank 778,993
* Gaza Strip 1,106,195
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinia … statistics
Millions.
Data don't lie. A decrease in Arab (Palestinian) population in the 70s--the time of greatest nation-state conflict--followed by a period of growth outpacing Jewish population growth, in relative terms.
"Refugee" status is debatable, particularly when "camps" have become self-sustaining cities in their own right in many cases. All of which is irrelevant to the argument: "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" both require a decrease in the population of a given race/ethnic class. That group (Palestinians) is actually increasing at a rate greater than the group that is supposedly inflicting "genocide" and/or "ethnic cleansing" upon them in the area where this is supposed to be occurring (Israel). Therefore, neither of those acts can be occurring.
Palestinians are increasing in population so the deaths of tens of thousands is alright?
Seriously?
The Warsaw Ghetto was self-sustaining IIRC. The Germans didn't give them any food and didn't let anyone in or out, or not back in at least.
Does that mean it was OK?
Does that mean it was OK?
Fuck Israel
Concentration camps got shit done.
Certainly solved the immigration problem.AussieReaper wrote:
Concentration camps got shit done.
Doesn't mean they aren't tryingFEOS wrote:
That group (Palestinians) is actually increasing at a rate greater than the group that is supposedly inflicting "genocide" and/or "ethnic cleansing" upon them in the area where this is supposed to be occurring (Israel). Therefore, neither of those acts can be occurring.
Actually being outbred is the one thing the Israelis are scared of. Its why they got out of Gaza, won't give Arab-Israelis the same rights as Jewish-Israelis and offer huge incentives to immigrants.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-22 05:59:30)
Fuck Israel
How can they be increasing in population when tens of thousands are dying? I dont think rabbits could even breed that fast.
There was 2 sides to the Nazi invasion. Much as im sure it will make me unpopular it wasn't a Nazi invasion so much as a German one. The Nazis were hugely popular in Germany and there was no big secret about the concentration camps. People knew exactly what was going on and the overwhelming majority were in support. The main reason for the Nazi popularity was due to the way the Allies treated Germany at the end of WWI. [/tangent]
You are making the point that despite Israels obvious military capability / superiority, their attempted genocide / ethnic cleansing is failing to kill Palestinians quicker than they can breed.
Seriously?
There was 2 sides to the Nazi invasion. Much as im sure it will make me unpopular it wasn't a Nazi invasion so much as a German one. The Nazis were hugely popular in Germany and there was no big secret about the concentration camps. People knew exactly what was going on and the overwhelming majority were in support. The main reason for the Nazi popularity was due to the way the Allies treated Germany at the end of WWI. [/tangent]
Referring to earlier in the thread, in the 6 day war Israel took on 5 surrounding countries and thrashed them all within 6 days. In December 2009 / January 2010 Israel killed over 1,000 Gazans in 22 days.Dilbert_X wrote:
Doesn't mean they aren't tryingFEOS wrote:
That group (Palestinians) is actually increasing at a rate greater than the group that is supposedly inflicting "genocide" and/or "ethnic cleansing" upon them in the area where this is supposed to be occurring (Israel). Therefore, neither of those acts can be occurring.
You are making the point that despite Israels obvious military capability / superiority, their attempted genocide / ethnic cleansing is failing to kill Palestinians quicker than they can breed.
Seriously?
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000636 wrote:
VI. West Bank & Gaza Strip: Arab Population (1948-2005)
B. Chart
Year | West Bank | Gaza Strip
1948 462,100 82,500
1950 765,000 240,000
1960 799,000 302,000
1970 677,000 368,000
1980 964,000 497,000
1985 1,044,000 532,288
1990 1,254,506 642,814
1995 1,626,689 875,231
2000 2,020,298 1,132,063
2005 2,385,615 1,376,289
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-03-23 04:15:11)
Stop. Putting. Words. In. My. Mouth.AussieReaper wrote:
So by your logic the camps are self sustaining so everything is okay in them?FEOS wrote:
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/fi … o-2005.gifAussieReaper wrote:
Take a look at how many of those are displaced and refugees living outside of Palestine.
Your criteria was "the displacement out of a given area of a people based on their ethnicity (ethnic cleansing)."
Are you going to tell me the Palestinians are not displaced?
The number of Palestinian refugees by country according to UNRWA in January 2010 were as follows:
* Jordan 1,983,733
* Lebanon 425,640
* Syria 472,109
* West Bank 778,993
* Gaza Strip 1,106,195
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinia … statistics
Millions.
Data don't lie. A decrease in Arab (Palestinian) population in the 70s--the time of greatest nation-state conflict--followed by a period of growth outpacing Jewish population growth, in relative terms.
"Refugee" status is debatable, particularly when "camps" have become self-sustaining cities in their own right in many cases. All of which is irrelevant to the argument: "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" both require a decrease in the population of a given race/ethnic class. That group (Palestinians) is actually increasing at a rate greater than the group that is supposedly inflicting "genocide" and/or "ethnic cleansing" upon them in the area where this is supposed to be occurring (Israel). Therefore, neither of those acts can be occurring.
Palestinians are increasing in population so the deaths of tens of thousands is alright?
Seriously?
I never said either of those things. You said "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing." Both of those terms have very specific and very dire definitions and implications. I'm merely showing you that neither of those terms apply to this situation--which is a horrible one for the Palestinians by any description. It's just not genocide or ethnic cleansing.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
It certainly is ethnic cleansing, Israel proper has been largely cleansed of arabs, they're working to finsh the job.
This isn't a new idea, they've been pushing it since pre-1900. 'National solution', ironic eh.
As for genocide, they are having a good try.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/livni-natio … d-1.259321"Once a Palestinian state is established, I can come to the Palestinian citizens, whom we call Israeli Arabs, and say to them 'you are citizens with equal rights, but the national solution for you is elsewhere,'" Livni was quoted by Army Radio as saying to students at a Tel Aviv high school.
Last month, Livni infuriated Israeli Arab lawmakers when she said: It must be clear to everyone that the State of Israel is a national homeland for the Jewish people."
At the time, Livni added that the national demands of Israeli Arabs should end the moment a Palestinian state is established.
This isn't a new idea, they've been pushing it since pre-1900. 'National solution', ironic eh.
As for genocide, they are having a good try.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-23 04:39:17)
Fuck Israel
Putting words into your mouth?
You said, on the ethnic cleansing and genocide:
One involves the mass killing of people based on their ethnicity (genocide).
The other involves the displacement out of a given area of a people based on their ethnicity (ethnic cleansing).
Both are happening to the Palestinians.
Palestinian civilians are being shelled and their homes destroyed again and again. Why? Because they are Palestinian. Israel then blames the Palestinians and claims they were human shields. Palestinians are displaced out of their homes, which are then bulldozed and then walls erected to keep them out.
It's pretty black and white. They are persecuted because they are Palestinian, and displaced when they have no homes to return to and are forceable removed.
Your defense for Israel was that the Palestinians are not refugees because-
"Refugee" status is debatable, particularly when "camps" have become self-sustaining cities in their own right in many cases. All of which is irrelevant to the argument: "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" both require a decrease in the population of a given race/ethnic class.
But "self sustaining city" does not change the fact that are refugee camps. Nazi concentration camps were self sustaining. Some even produced supplies for the war effort... What are you basing the self sustaining on anyway? The fact they have food?
You also said -
That group (Palestinians) is actually increasing at a rate greater than the group that is supposedly inflicting "genocide" and/or "ethnic cleansing" upon them in the area where this is supposed to be occurring (Israel). Therefore, neither of those acts can be occurring.
Your own argument is that because the population increased no genocide is happening. Does it require a net drop in population before it becomes genocide? Is there a magic number that must be reached?
I'm not putting words into your mouth. Your argument against the murder of civilians is incredible.
You said, on the ethnic cleansing and genocide:
One involves the mass killing of people based on their ethnicity (genocide).
The other involves the displacement out of a given area of a people based on their ethnicity (ethnic cleansing).
Both are happening to the Palestinians.
Palestinian civilians are being shelled and their homes destroyed again and again. Why? Because they are Palestinian. Israel then blames the Palestinians and claims they were human shields. Palestinians are displaced out of their homes, which are then bulldozed and then walls erected to keep them out.
It's pretty black and white. They are persecuted because they are Palestinian, and displaced when they have no homes to return to and are forceable removed.
Your defense for Israel was that the Palestinians are not refugees because-
"Refugee" status is debatable, particularly when "camps" have become self-sustaining cities in their own right in many cases. All of which is irrelevant to the argument: "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" both require a decrease in the population of a given race/ethnic class.
But "self sustaining city" does not change the fact that are refugee camps. Nazi concentration camps were self sustaining. Some even produced supplies for the war effort... What are you basing the self sustaining on anyway? The fact they have food?
You also said -
That group (Palestinians) is actually increasing at a rate greater than the group that is supposedly inflicting "genocide" and/or "ethnic cleansing" upon them in the area where this is supposed to be occurring (Israel). Therefore, neither of those acts can be occurring.
Your own argument is that because the population increased no genocide is happening. Does it require a net drop in population before it becomes genocide? Is there a magic number that must be reached?
I'm not putting words into your mouth. Your argument against the murder of civilians is incredible.
Corrected..AussieReaper wrote:
Palestinian civilians are being shelled and their homes destroyed again and again. Why? Because they are Palestinian constantly firing rockets. Israel then blames the Palestinians Militants and claims they were using human shields. Palestinians are displaced out of their homes, which are then bulldozed and then walls erected to keep them out.
It's pretty black and white. They are persecuted attacked because they are Palestinian their homes are being used by militants, and displaced when they have no homes to return to and are forceable removed.
For the first part, at what point do you call somebody a refugee? When they have created a permanent "shelter" and live in it to all extents and purposes, is this not just called living?AussieReaper wrote:
Your defense for Israel was that the Palestinians are not refugees because-
"Refugee" status is debatable, particularly when "camps" have become self-sustaining cities in their own right in many cases. All of which is irrelevant to the argument: "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" both require a decrease in the population of a given race/ethnic class.
But "self sustaining city" does not change the fact that are refugee camps. Nazi concentration camps were self sustaining. Some even produced supplies for the war effort... What are you basing the self sustaining on anyway? The fact they have food?
You also said -
That group (Palestinians) is actually increasing at a rate greater than the group that is supposedly inflicting "genocide" and/or "ethnic cleansing" upon them in the area where this is supposed to be occurring (Israel). Therefore, neither of those acts can be occurring.
Your own argument is that because the population increased no genocide is happening. Does it require a net drop in population before it becomes genocide? Is there a magic number that must be reached?
I'm not putting words into your mouth. Your argument against the murder of civilians is incredible.
Im struggling to think of any Genocides where the was a net increase in the population?
As there seems to be a permanent reference to Nazism lets see what happened to the population of Eastern Europe under the Nazis? IIRC it wasnt increasing..
from above...
"The bombing — the first fatal attack in Jerusalem in several years — along with a rocket barrage Wednesday on the southern city of Beersheba, come at a delicate diplomatic moment and could have far-reaching consequences, especially if Israel retaliates or more attacks follow.
In December 2008, Israel responded to months of intense rocket fire with a fierce offensive in Gaza, killing some 1,400 Palestinians, including hundreds of civilians. Hamas, which suffered heavy losses, has largely honored an unofficial truce since then, but in recent weeks the lull has begun to fray."
As you said Dilbert, the arabs want peace its the israeli aggressors that are the problem here.
The only reason the Israeli deaths arent much higher is because of how useless Hammas are with their rockets, still give them another 5-10 years to practice and a bit more help from the iranians and im sure they will improve.
"The bombing — the first fatal attack in Jerusalem in several years — along with a rocket barrage Wednesday on the southern city of Beersheba, come at a delicate diplomatic moment and could have far-reaching consequences, especially if Israel retaliates or more attacks follow.
In December 2008, Israel responded to months of intense rocket fire with a fierce offensive in Gaza, killing some 1,400 Palestinians, including hundreds of civilians. Hamas, which suffered heavy losses, has largely honored an unofficial truce since then, but in recent weeks the lull has begun to fray."
As you said Dilbert, the arabs want peace its the israeli aggressors that are the problem here.
The only reason the Israeli deaths arent much higher is because of how useless Hammas are with their rockets, still give them another 5-10 years to practice and a bit more help from the iranians and im sure they will improve.
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-03-23 16:41:18)
Well, this is topical.
Another brick in the wall.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12837953The Israeli parliament has passed a law that allows the state to deny funding to institutions that question the country's existence as a Jewish state.
Civil rights groups say the law restricts the freedom of expression of Israel's Arab minority, which makes up about a fifth of Israel's population.
The controversial law brought in by the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party was passed by a vote of 37 to 25.
The new law has been called the Nakba bill, the Arabic word for catastrophe.
Palestinians use the term to refer to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, when hundreds of thousands of them fled or were forced from their homes.
Under the new law, groups involved in activities that deny Israel's existence as a Jewish state can be prevented from receiving public funding.
Those activities include marking Israel's Independence Day as a day of mourning.
Civil rights and Israeli Arab politicians say the law is undemocratic and unfairly singles out Israel's Arab citizens.
The current version of the law is more moderate than the original, which called for prison sentences for anyone holding Nakba memorial events.
Another brick in the wall.
Fuck Israel
Bombing civilians to target militants?Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Corrected..AussieReaper wrote:
Palestinian civilians are being shelled and their homes destroyed again and again. Why? Because they are Palestinian constantly firing rockets. Israel then blames the Palestinians Militants and claims they were using human shields. Palestinians are displaced out of their homes, which are then bulldozed and then walls erected to keep them out.
It's pretty black and white. They are persecuted attacked because they are Palestinian their homes are being used by militants, and displaced when they have no homes to return to and are forceable removed.
What a great strategy.
Under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, a refugee is defined in Article 1A as a person who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country"Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
For the first part, at what point do you call somebody a refugee? When they have created a permanent "shelter" and live in it to all extents and purposes, is this not just called living?AussieReaper wrote:
Your defense for Israel was that the Palestinians are not refugees because-
"Refugee" status is debatable, particularly when "camps" have become self-sustaining cities in their own right in many cases. All of which is irrelevant to the argument: "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" both require a decrease in the population of a given race/ethnic class.
But "self sustaining city" does not change the fact that are refugee camps. Nazi concentration camps were self sustaining. Some even produced supplies for the war effort... What are you basing the self sustaining on anyway? The fact they have food?
You also said -
That group (Palestinians) is actually increasing at a rate greater than the group that is supposedly inflicting "genocide" and/or "ethnic cleansing" upon them in the area where this is supposed to be occurring (Israel). Therefore, neither of those acts can be occurring.
Your own argument is that because the population increased no genocide is happening. Does it require a net drop in population before it becomes genocide? Is there a magic number that must be reached?
I'm not putting words into your mouth. Your argument against the murder of civilians is incredible.
So please, explain to me how Palestinians who have been forceably removed from their homes, have a fear of persecution for simply being Palestinian are not considered refugees under your own selective opinion.
So by your logic, the Nazi death camps weren't really that bad until the Jewish population started to fall at a rate greater than the birth rate?Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Im struggling to think of any Genocides where the was a net increase in the population?
As there seems to be a permanent reference to Nazism lets see what happened to the population of Eastern Europe under the Nazis? IIRC it wasnt increasing..
I am not defending Israel. I am not arguing against the murder of civilians (erm, that reads wrong, because we both are, but you know what I mean). I am arguing against your use of the terms genocide and ethnic cleansing, as I don't think they are applicable in this case. I've made it clear that I think Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is wrong. I said it quite clearly in my first response--do you need me to go back and quote it for you?AussieReaper wrote:
Putting words into your mouth?
You said, on the ethnic cleansing and genocide:
One involves the mass killing of people based on their ethnicity (genocide).
The other involves the displacement out of a given area of a people based on their ethnicity (ethnic cleansing).
Both are happening to the Palestinians.
Palestinian civilians are being shelled and their homes destroyed again and again. Why? Because they are Palestinian. Israel then blames the Palestinians and claims they were human shields. Palestinians are displaced out of their homes, which are then bulldozed and then walls erected to keep them out.
It's pretty black and white. They are persecuted because they are Palestinian, and displaced when they have no homes to return to and are forceable removed.
Your defense for Israel was that the Palestinians are not refugees because-
"Refugee" status is debatable, particularly when "camps" have become self-sustaining cities in their own right in many cases. All of which is irrelevant to the argument: "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" both require a decrease in the population of a given race/ethnic class.
But "self sustaining city" does not change the fact that are refugee camps. Nazi concentration camps were self sustaining. Some even produced supplies for the war effort... What are you basing the self sustaining on anyway? The fact they have food?
You also said -
That group (Palestinians) is actually increasing at a rate greater than the group that is supposedly inflicting "genocide" and/or "ethnic cleansing" upon them in the area where this is supposed to be occurring (Israel). Therefore, neither of those acts can be occurring.
Your own argument is that because the population increased no genocide is happening. Does it require a net drop in population before it becomes genocide? Is there a magic number that must be reached?
I'm not putting words into your mouth. Your argument against the murder of civilians is incredible.
Genocide and ethnic cleansing have very clear definitions. The population data do not support the application of either of those definitions to the situation in Israel. Does that mean that I think the Palestinians aren't being mistreated by the Israelis? Not at all. Again: stop putting words in my mouth. Especially when I said the exact opposite. Overtly and clearly.
Disagreeing with your characterization of the situation does not equate to defense of atrocity. I'm just not emotional about the situation.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
What population data are you basing this on?FEOS wrote:
Genocide and ethnic cleansing have very clear definitions. The population data do not support the application of either of those definitions to the situation in Israel.
I don't believe that population increases negates in any way, the killing of civilians.
As if the IDF purposely and only targets civillians, fuck sakes Aussie
inane little opines