Palestenian-Israeli Conflict

Do you think that they tried to hit her in the head with the tear gas?

I don't think it would be fair to say I am crying about it. I think you are obviously one sided and I am saying so. You think I am one sided, which I disagree with, and you are saying so.

I want a peace where both sides can be happy. Where both sides can have their children grow up and not be afraid. Is that bad? Is that different than what you want? The biggest difference I would see is that I think that there should be seperate states with the 1947 borders. I believe that you would like to see Israel removed as a country. Is that wrong?

At 10, I used to go hunting. I was a pretty decent shot at the time. Do I think that a 10 year old can't stand behind an object and ambush someone? Well, what do you think?

Have you ever been in the military? Have you ever been shot at?

You really haven't read very much that I have written if you don't think I care about the innocent people? Or is it that you view that if they are Israeli's they can't be innocent? If someone kills people with a suicide bomber, everyone they kill is an innocent. The difference as I see is that one side intentionally is targeting innocent people while the other side is not overly concerned when innocent people get hurt along the way. Which do you think is the greater sin?
 
Would everyone pretty much agree with the following scale? It goes from most reprehensible in my eyes to least.

1) Attacking civilians and children without warning trying to kill and maim them.

2) Using children to attack with or using human shields.

3) Attacking a non-military target out of uniform so that the target will not see you till too late and not worrying about what civilians get killed in the process.

4) Attacking a non-military target in uniform so that the target has a chance to see you and not worrying about what civilians get killed in the process.

5) Attacking a military target out of uniform so that the target will not see you till too late and not worrying about what civilians get killed in the process.

6) Attacking a military target in uniform so that the target has a chance to see you and not worrying about what civilians get killed in the process.

7) Attacking a non-military target out of uniform so that the target will not see you till too late but trying your best to minimize civilian casualties.

8) Attacking a non-military target in uniform so that the target has a chance to see you but trying your best to minimize civilian casualties.

9) Attacking a military target out of uniform so that the target will not see you till too late but trying your best to minimize civilian casualties.

10) Attacking a military target in uniform so that the target has a chance to see you but trying your best to minimize civilian casualties.

11) Giving your opponent a chance to surrender so that no one gets hurt.
 
I don't think you have read what I have written. At no point have I justified the Palestinian actions; I just justify their cause; not the means they are using to get to it. You on the other hand justify Israeli actions and their cause. You continue to justify the killing of innocents, while I do not. Have I said that the Palestinian killing of Israeli citizen x was right? I have to argue in this manner because of your ridiculous defense of every Israeli action.

I have never been in the military. I have never been shot at. Please explain to me how this hurts my argument.

If you are done trying to convince me that 10 year olds can shoot AK47s to kill, maybe we can get to the real point.
Maybe you didn't read the quote from earlier NewLearner. I'll retype it so that perhaps you will stop justifying the killings of the Palestinian children.

"According to Human Rights Watch, “The number of official investigations into alleged wrongful use of lethal force equals just two percent of the total number killed and only 15 percent of the number of children killed, despite the fact that many deaths occurred in non-combat circumstances and the extreme unlikelihood that many of the children killed were legitimate targets.”"

As for what I want...
I started typing a response, but then I thought better of it. I really want to think about exactly what I want as the solution before I reply. Time for some research.
Most want the solution you are naming, and that solution would exist in a perfect world. Who would want the others to suffer? The problem is that the happiness of one comes at the expense of the other with your solution. A good solution in the real world is a complicated answer that I will think about.

I don't know what I want, but the removal of Israel as a country would not mean the removal of Jews from the land of Israel. Isn't that what the one-state solution is?

May I ask why you are such an advocate for a two-state solution? Isn't the two-state solution against what America stands for? Doesn't America believe that different types of people can live together in peace?
Let me give you an example of a failed two-state solution: India and Pakistan.
To make it short, the British took control of India. After WW2, the solution to the tension between Pakistan and India was for a Muslim state (Pakistan) to be created alongside a Hindu state (India). Most muslims migrated to Pakistan, but many remained in India, a number that rivals the number of muslims in Pakistan. After independence, both sides ended up fighting multiple wars, have a conflict over Kashmir to this day, and are both the other's greatest enemy. Many muslims who remain in India feel they are discriminated against.
 
Well done Bil Gee I think your starting to get the point now... both are "equally bad" but that's the first time you've made that kind of statement. If that was your original point then you could just have said something like that before but oddly I can't really find any of your posts till now were you actually have.

Also Bil I don't quite know where you get off telling people how simple their view is or isn't. Have you ever lived anywhere that has had sustained problems with terrorism? I've got a feeling you haven't. As such your views are all just theories and bad theories at that.


Despite your claims it seems your the one having a hard time following my points. How did re-reading your posts lead you to make comments about the US media? I'll repeat my point for you again:

In your posts you use negative language for Israel's actions and positive language for the Palestinian's actions. Do you think this is taking a non-polarised view?


See above for the repeated explanation and your irrelevant reply.


Bil to remind you, you claimed:

I've made roughly four posts on this thread (starting from page 30) 3 of which have been replying to your nonsense and the previous one being 2 lines long so you don't really have much to look through. Of course you could just have admitted you made a mistake and addressed the wrong person but then that just wouldn't be possible would it? The reason that getting any evidence to support your accusations woulod be "too tiresome" is because I never made such statements. Seriously Bil Gee admitting you made a mistake isn't the end of the world, I know it might be hard to remain 100% smug when doing so but losing a bit of smugness is not a bad thing for most people.


Hmmm... I really don't see how this answers the point I made. To avoid another drug taking accusation here is the logic I am following:
1. You claimed that MY president was dividing the world up into good guys and bad guys based on their relationship to the US.
2. Given that MY president can only refer to the Irish president I found this statement ridiculous.
3. I asked you to explain how the Republic of Irelands President is guilty of what you claimed or alternatively just admit you thought you were addressing an American.
4. You have now done neither but suggested I must have been taking drugs. Which doesn't actually sensibly address anything I said.

I know in all likelihood not going to be capable of admitting you made a mistake but I don't think you should get free reign to sidestep such issues by making stupid comments about drugs or following points.


I'll repeat the point that is relevant... given that I live in the UK and have visited many 'foreign lands' I'm also quite aware of the general sentiment towards America and I think your overplaying your 'outsider view' card a bit.

Also, once again I was actually replying to your suggestion that I didn't understand foreign opinion on America especially in the UK. Given that I live in the UK and am quite aware of foreign opinion on the US I didn't see how this applies to me. And I still don't.



These don't seem to make any sense? You were "giving me the benefit of the doubt" by clearly claiming I was American and that I made several statements about America that I actually didn't? And you think Im showing off because you tried to tell me about UK papers I might not have heard of when I've lived here my whole life and I told you I am quite familiar with them? My location is just above my post count plus I recently had a discussion with you about Irish passports... Seriously Bil the fact that your not even able to admit that you falsely labelled someone as an American and have to make up ridiculous legitmations shows how pointless having a discussion with you is. If your unable to even admit something as simple as mistaken identity how could you possibly admit when someone has made a valid point in regards the actual discussion?


Sad that someone thinks it better to constantly try and justify a mistake than just admit they made one. Somehow though Im not really suprised.
 
I could have but I didn't.


Then you are wrong, in fact I've been slap bang in the middle of a terrorist attack and showered with glass eight years ago.



I doubt that



Yes






As I've already answered this twice now in two consequetive posts I have to accept that you are just never going to get it.






I'm sorry if your comprehension skills are so limited, but I'm not going to keep replying to this and no matter how many times you post I'm not going to change my response.


This isn't a second point it's simply a reiteration of the point you made in the above paragraph.




And the same point again.




Sorry but I can't look at the above paragraph and not wonder what you've been smoking.




Congratulations, you've taken one point that has already been answered and just reiterated in different forms throughout this lengthy post. Some day you may be able to put an argument together that consists of multiple points.







And the same point yet again, and surprise surprise the same answer.



This is the way it works sparky, I make a point, you challenge that point, I respond. Then you accept it or make an additional point or say that you disagree and move on.

You made a point a couple of posts ago, I answered. By asking the same basic question a dozen different ways you seem to have convinced yourself that you have said something new or put together a sophisticated argument, you haven't.
 
I said... Have you ever lived anywhere that has had sustained problems with terrorism? Not have you ever been at the scene of a terrorist attack. My housemate was in the tube that was blown up on July 7th and yet that doesn't mean she has experience of living somewhere that sees continued violence.

The rest are your points are your trademark nonsense. For future reference rather than assuming someone is American when they disagree with you just look at their location its just above the post count. I know it is probably too bothersome or too tiring but it will save you from making such long irrelevant points and having to spend so long trying to cover such a stupid assumption.

Oh and by the way Bil did you miss this point?

This was said in a post replying to you just before you spouted off about how much I love Israel and clearly take their side.

As for the pointers on discussion thanks thats great to know. So lets see how you put that into practice yourself...











Seriously where did you learn your incredible debating skills from? You keep yakking on about other people's inability to follow your points or their lack of reading comprehension but the fact is you don't make relevant points and you especially don't respond to the points anyone raises against. The exchange above is just an example of how difficult it is to get an answer from you on ONE point even when you repeat and clarify the question several times. An answer I might add which in the end was one word and actually doesn't explain or justify your position at all but you seem to think somehow proves yourself right.

EDIT: If you think Im selectively quoting I have been taking your responses underneath my quotes... and if you have an example were you actually supplied the answer I'd love to see it.
 
A (white) Briton was approaching an Israeli vehicle, waving a clearly visible white flag, wearing a helmet clearly labelled TV, calling out to alert the soldiers to his presence, and they shot him in the neck. If there ever was a clear cut case of murder, then this was it.

The Israelis cleared the soldier involved. Cleared. What a joke!

It shows that the Israeli authorities dont give a damn about how their soldiers behave.
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5068660.stm

it looks like it may kick off now.
 
I would say that you haven't read what I have written. Can you point to a single post where I said killing a civilian was ok? There are none. Please don't confuse me with dcombatives. I have said several times that there are problems on both sides. You identify with the Palestinian cause. I identify with the Israeli cause. I do believe they have a right to defend themselves. Don't you? I believe that if someone is in a gun fight and shooting innocent people, the soldiers have the right and duty to shoot him. Don't you? Beyond that, both sides should not be doing a lot of killing.



The reason I asked, is because you have unrealistic expectations for a soldier's ability to produce perfect shots and that they instantly know exactly where shots are coming from. When you are getting shot at, you shoot back. You duck and try to survive. When you throw a grenade, you throw in a direction, not at a person's face. If you had experience, you would understand no soldier intentionally threw a grenade into a girl's face. A grenade is not a baseball.



Let me get to the point. If a bullet is being fired by a 10 year old girl or a 30 year old man, it has the same consequences when it hits you. The person firing the bullet should be fired back at. I really see as that simple.



Maybe you didn't read that the same group demands that the Palestinians stop the suicide bombings? Can we agree that both have done more violence than can ever be justified?



Hey, take all the time you want. I don't really see a good solution. I have mentioned that a number of times. I would disagree on the idea of removing Israel as a nation. If it is a one state solution, you can't have a one person one vote democracy or it will end up a muslim country. And I think we both know how well the Jews will be treated under that system.



I am for a two state solution because of a number of issues. I believe that internal affairs in a soverign country are given greater lattitude than when they exit their country. I believe that both sides would prefer a two state solution. And I believe that the two state solution would result in greater freedoms and more peace for both parties.

I noticed that you didn't make any remarks on the post I made about how reprehensible combat actions are. Do you disagree with it?
 
Tragic yes, murder, most likely not. Unfortunately, the Palestinians don't follow the established rules of war. Things like a white flag, or media label mean very little to those in the combat zone because the Palestinians have used such ruses in the past to conduct attacks. For example, Hamas has taken body armor carriers, removed the ceramic plates and replaced them with explosives for their homicide bombers. What should determine whether or not the soldier commited an unlawful killing would be:
1. did he give verbal coofftopicnds to Mr. Miller, for example to "halt" or something like that.
2. did Mr. Miller respond to the verbal coofftopicnds.

Imagine being a scared young soldier in the middle of a combat zone. You see a guy approaching your vehicle. He's wearing a bulky vest. You know homicide bombing is a prefferred tactic of your enemy. You point your weapon at the guy and order him to halt. He ignores you and keeps walking toward you. You know if he gets too close and he has a bomb instead of armor plates in the vest, you and your buddies in the vehicle are going to die. What do you do? It's simple, you shoot the guy to protect yourself and your buddies.

What I don't know is how Mr. Miller's situation played out. Was he challenged? If so, how did he respond? These details would be critical to the investigation. Failure to heed a challenge would be a justified shooting, and clear the soldier. However, if the soldier just turned and shot the first guy he saw, then that would indeed be an unlawful killing. Also, you can only judge the soldier's actions based on the information the soldier had at that moment. You don't get to second guess his decision with after-the-fact knowledge.

I'm not saying the Israeli soldier is innocent. It's entirely possible Mr. Miller was killed in an unlawful fashion, which would make his death murder. What I am saying is there are many other things that need to be considered than the presence of a meaningless white flag and a TV helmet and it's important to find those facts before you rush to judgement.
 
This is going back in the thread some... but since someone did bring up the subject of slavery




Imperialist Missionaries Infringe Al-Qaeda Freedom Fighter's Right To Recruit Christian Children In Punjab
 
Bil you kick ass. Read the article you just posted, the entire drift of the piece is that we're being too concerned about the Human Rights of the people we're fighting in Iraq, to the detriment of our soldiers.


Your ability to own yourself by posting links you clearly haven't read properly is really starting to take off.
 
I did not reply to the reprehensible combat actions post because first, it was long, confusing, and a seemingly pointless read. Its only purpose was to say that Palestinian actions are more despicable than Israeli actions. It looked at the issue from the Israeli side, with its trained professional army, more money and power, etc. with nothing for the Palestinian side.
Wow...I just reread that above post. So all of the responsibility for civilian deaths rests with the Palestinians according to you? As I said before, definitely completely one sided trying to say that Palestinians are more evil than Israelis.
 
The 20% arab-Israelis have representation in the Knesset.

One of the reasons the British andate was partitioned that way was because of the population dispersal.

There were over 800,000 Jews displaced fom Muslims countries in 1948. Since the establishment of Israel, The Jewsh population in Arab countries has been steadily declining.

The one state solution guarrantees the eliminitian of Israel as a Jewish state.
 
You should try reading the post, it was simply to illustrate that oppositiion to the war in Iraq is something that goes across the political spectrum. The comments about being too liberal and not protecting soldiers and the swipes at Tony Blair are just the normal background noise you would expect from a tory rag. Yet again you demonstrate that your views are so indefensible that you try (unsucessfully) picking at details to distract from the main issues.
 
Like the Israelis do?



Did Mr Miller pose any threat whatsoever (no), was it a reasonable action to shoot Mr Miller(no)


You may panic and start shooting, it doesn't make it acceptable.


One dead unarmed man, and you are still jumping to the defence of the murderer because you see him as one of you allies.
 
Sorry, but your posts are such long dreary rants I've stopped looking closely at them


See what I mean?








I have done, the challenges that you face in comprehending plain English are not my problem.



In case you hadn't noticed I'm not asking you any questions, if you think that you are important enough to for me to spend time going back hunting through your posts, you are every bit as deluded as I thought you were.
 
Back
Top