Haha, you guys are having a circle jerk.
"That's not what you did. You immediately disregarded all of the news articles since they were from Israel. Unfortunately that's not how the world works."

kind of like you disregard the UN because they happen to often oppose Israel policy (which doesn't matter anyhow since we always veto these resolutions even if they're 200:1 in favor vs opposed)
It's not only that I take these as being somewhat biased sources, it's that their underlying arguments are weak. I could provide similar photos of the Israeli army tearing houses down, and Israeli youths stoning arabs in the streets with impunity, or a sick Palestinians made to trek many miles around checkpoints to reach hospitals, piles of the dead and wounded, ect, I can make either side look bad if I want to so long as I make my report incidental, these sorts of articles don't prove the big picture they only hope to create a general disregard of Palestinian life in order to drum up an intangible support for Israel and create double standards for defining brutality and evil.

"If you are skeptical then go look it up and actually find factual fallacies, otherwise your skepticism means nothing in the argument."

I hardly said I found factual fallacies of these specific photos or descriptions, but you notice there are no larger numbers presented just assumptions left to be inferred by the material, are most of Palestinians killed militants, or assisting as a human shield in some specific manner other than just happening to live next to militants? If the percentage killed in this human shield scenario are very very low lets say less than 1% than we can go ahead and scoff at the implications made in the article.
(I looked for some kind of numbers on this, and found the info out there a bit dense to distill such a number, anyhow the article aught to have given us some kind of number and the fact that they didn't somewhat implies that either they don't know or it didn't support their assertion)

looking for more info on the topic heres a report on the subject indicating Israelis using Palestinians as human shields for their activities (at least the Palestinians have the decency to use their own people who would presumably be volunteers):

"
Wikipedia (not an incorruptible source but then again this verifiable especially since their is an implicit recognition of the behavior by the Israeli supreme court having to rule on it.)

Israel and Gaza

heres
Amnesty International[1] and Human Rights Watch[2] have reported that the Israel Defense Forces used Palestinian civilians as human shields during the 2002 Battle of Jenin. The Israeli human-rights group B'Tselem reported that "for a long period of time following the outbreak of the second intifada, particularly during Operation Defensive Shield, in April 2002, the IDF systematically used Palestinian civilians as human shields, forcing them to carry out military actions which threatened their lives".[3] The practice was outlawed by the Supreme Court of Israel in 2005 but human rights groups claim the IDF continues to use it, although the number of instances reportedly has dropped sharply.[3][4]In February 2007, Associated Press Television News released footage of an incident involving Sameh Amira, a 24-year-old Palestinian. The video appears to show the West Bank resident serving as a human shield for a group of Israeli soldiers."

I think Israel loses a great deal of it's moral superiority right here on your issue, certainly by your own standards.

"
Ok, that's nice again. But it's merely opinion. Maybe it's also possible that the US wants a stable, pro-US democracy in the middle east. But that'd be too simple, it has to be a giant fucking conspiracy. Ockam's Razor. It's important to US foreign policy therefore we support it. Now it's obvious there are lobbying groups with interests, but this thing about GM wanting to sell military hardware therefore they control the US media and have it support Israel is utter nonsense. Arabs buy tons of military hardware, and I'm pretty sure that the share of military hardware Israel buys from them is negligible."

conspiracy
3. A combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose. (that last part is pretty much whether you like what they're doing or not, so if aunt bee and my wife are planning to get me to stop eating gummy bears to me that's evil therefore it's a conspiracy against me.)

I like this concept of Occam's razor (you spelled it wrong so you know it's to the bad room for you) though it's interesting that you only want to use it when it supports you. I also think you tend to use it incorrectly in this circumstance, a gave the example of G.E., but the truth is a huge portion of american private capital is involved in military industry in some way or another (with many more indirectly perceiving benefit from pro western military actions, eg Macdonald's gets to open up in Iraq now), what's the simpler scenario? We have these companies that are tied into the military industrial complex (hardware and other war services, military construction, mercenaries ect) they make more money if theres more war, and also when foreign markets are opened up to them often through war. They're also embedded in the media as either owners or advertisers. So is it more likely that they (who generally help elect US leadership) would have no process by which to effect the market they are Dependant on, or that they have many processes by which to create positive results for themselves? (Also them selling arms to both sides of conflicts is just more good business for them.)
Occam's razor doesn't mean that the explanation for something is only correct if a 7 year old can understand it, it means when in doubt the simpler case is probably correct, but I'm not talking about aliens here I'm talking about powerful people doing the things powerful people do.

"Israeli Arabs on the other hand have full rights and can move around the country anywhere."

example of not having full rights:
"Palestinian citizens of Israel will not be able to grant their citizenship to their spouses."
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daphna_baram/2006/05/ apartheid_thats_what_it_is_cal.html

"And yes in Israel Arabs have more rights, why do I know this? Simple logical math without even delving into any of the issues - Women(over half the population) are basically property of their husbands in Arab countries, they have rights in Israel. Therefore Arabs have more rights in Israel."

While this is true to some extent, you're merely pointing the finger at the qualities of Muslim culture and saying that because they have a different culture they have fewer rights than your superior culture, besides which it depends upon how you weigh each kind of right and it's a whole other discussion, and doesn't particularly support they main assertion of your original post in any event.

"I could go into how even if we exclude women and just look at men Arabs have more rights but you don't actual make factual objections, just opinion based ones."

Sorry I'm just catching up on my research paper of arguing this thread, though you could certainly use more facts yourself.

"The 10:1 ratio is a product of Palestinian war tactics that depend on blending in with civilians to make it hard to distinguish Guerrilla warriors, the use of human shields and the lower casualty rate due to superior Israeli arms and soldiers."

I think if anything your latter point is 99% of the cause. of course yours is just your opinion as well as mine.

"If Hamas had a nuclear bomb they would use it on Israel, Israel does not use its bombs on Hamas. That is how you know who has more regard for human life."

You have no proof of this it's just your opinion, of course for Israel using a nuclear weapon on it's doorstep the political and radioactive fallout would be a strong deterrent in any case and does not prove their lack of desire to do so.

"No, there are conditions that go along with the land. These are the parts that makes it hard. Your argument reeks of desperation."

Right, conditions like giving the Israelis more of the land, and/or diminishing Palestinian national sovereignty to the point to where they are basically a reservation nation, which I wouldn't agree to either.

"Wrong, it existed in Pre-Roman times. It was destroyed and conquered by the Romans. The tribes that lived there before the Jews are no longer in existence. The Jews have a right to it.
The Bedouin tribes didn't even arrive until 600 ad."

This cracks me up the jews had a right to it because they were there in pre roman times? And the Palestinians no right because they were only there for 1400 years?

"The world decided Israel had a right to exist and own that land. Jews have a better claim to the land than the Palestinians(who's is negligible)."

I hope the world never decides that Australia has a right to my house, that would suck for me.

"When they want to murder you and your children I don't think you have an obligation to help them. Maybe you do, because you will believe anything to forward your argument but I don't think most people would.That's why it is an act of kindness."

I still don't how you're saying anything other than that an incomplete act of genocide is an act of kindness, letting them have food come into Palestine is not a gift it's a lack of an action to block that food.

"Why? They have human rights violations - sure, no one can argue with that. Are they worse than any of the Arab nations, China, Russia, and most of Africa - Hells no. That's bias. Why do 40% of critical UN resolutions target Israel? Is Israel responsible for 40% of the evil in the entire world?"

Occam's razor?

"I would end with some spiel about how awesome I am and then link you to some famous person, Noam Chomsky is an idiot by the way, but that just makes you look stupid."

Let's see a PhD, founded modern linguistic theory, written around 100 books by now, honorary degrees from 30 universities, professor emiritis at MIT, was voted the leading living public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll conducted by the British magazine Prospect, masses of other accomplishments, man if only I could be as stupid as Noam.

Mike-

If you want to see bias look at this about reporting on deaths in the conflict of children 22:1 Palestinian vs Israeli in conflict related death.

Reported 7.5:1 Israeli child death to Palestinian ect it goes into some detail on the numbers.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/ap-report.html#kids

Although both areas are subject to Israeli military operations, in the Gaza Strip, targeted killings, incursions and border incident are more prevalent. At least 284 Palestinians have been killed for moving within 150 metres of the perimeter fence with Israel, 117 of them civilians, including 23 children
(sounds like a good reason to shoot a kid)
During 2006, Israeli Security Forces fired some 14,000 artillery shells into the Gaza Strip which were responsible for killing 59 persons, almost all of them civilians. 14 In November 2006, the Government of Israel placed a moratorium on the use of artillery fire, contributing to a significant reduction of civilian deaths in 2007.
(I don't think these are human shields, not unless they move real quick to get in front of the shells.)
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/ d9d90d845776b7af85256d08006f3ae9/ be07c80cda4579468525734800500272!OpenDocument
kind of like you disregard the UN because they happen to often oppose Israel policy

Not really. I presented a statistic that is infallibly true and you didn't look at the main issue because it was uncomfortable for you. Instead you twisted it to use as ad hominem.

I could provide similar photos of the Israeli army tearing houses down, and Israeli youths

This is not your original argument, please don't pretend that was a real response.

You disregarded news sources and I called you on it. Your argument sucks.


I hardly said I found factual fallacies of these specific photos or descriptions

Ok, sir I suppose we will only use statistics from agencies without any bias whatsoever.

I guess we're screwed.

You have the worst argument ever, it is a twisted and full of hypocrisy and doesn't work. Be believing in this argument you afford yourself the ability to disregard any statistics that don't conform to your petty world view - yet you ignore any precedent this sets(namely that you can't use any news agencies anymore - they all have bias).

I think Israel loses a great deal of it's moral superiority right here on your issue, certainly by your own standards.

While it is morally reprehensible that this happened, it is much different from sending your own children in as cannon fodder.

First off, the Israeli Supreme court ruled that this was morally wrong. And it has since ceased. This shows that Israeli morality is at a much higher level than Palestinian level. It was definitely an isolated punished incident.

Secondly, using the enemy to save yourself in times of war is something that I don't have a particular problem with.

This is much more equivalent to capturing and holding hostages then sacrificing your own children to die.


Occam's Razor

You're right, I forgot the "h".

Your whole argument is faulty, if the military industrial complex wanted to sell weapons for maximum profit in this conflict they would sell to the Arabs. First you would have a huge apocalyptic invasion of Israel, then a never ending war between Sunni's and Shia's that would be sparked off by which faction controlled the sites of the holy land.

Secondly, Ockham's razor does apply here. I see that you don't understand that having a small group of people conspire to control the media in order to sell weapons is not as simple as wanting an ally in the middle east.


While this is true to some extent, you're merely pointing the finger at the qualities of Muslim culture and saying that because they have a different culture they have fewer rights than your superior culture

Oh my god are you one of those people? You actually believe in moral relevance?


By following your logic they are also less human - they deserve less human rights, as you said. Where did this misogyny come from?

Moral relevance is the biggest load of bull that could ever be thought of. We are all human and we are all afforded a set of human rights. Having a screwed up culture does not mean that human rights go away.

I suppose 14th century Europe and chastity belts are ok? That was another culture! The obvious answer is no it was not ok, its reflexive because this was a bad thing white people did.


At its heart moral relevance is a perverse form of racism and bigotry(against both white people and other people).

"Palestinian citizens of Israel will not be able to grant their citizenship to their spouses."

Security reasons. Justified.

You have no proof of this it's just your opinion, of course for Israel using a nuclear weapon on it's doorstep the political and radioactive fallout would be a strong deterrent in any case and does not prove their lack of desire to do so.

Do you want to bet on those odds, son?

This cracks me up the jews had a right to it because they were there in pre roman times? And the Palestinians no right because they were only there for 1400 years?

Ok, let's follow your logic. Whoever comes in and takes the land has all the right to it.

Oops that utterly defeats the entire logical justification for a Palestinian state.

I hope the world never decides that Australia has a right to my house, that would suck for me.

Well, I suppose the more relevant comparison in that case is if the US decided Australia had a right to your house. Because that's what the British did.

I still don't how you're saying anything other than that an incomplete act of genocide is an act of kindness, letting them have food come into Palestine is not a gift it's a lack of an action to block that food.

Anything other than completely eliminating people that want to murder everything that you love is an act of kindness most definitely.


Occam's razor?

We're not in doubt, we know that it is impossible that Israel is not responsible for 40% of the evil in the world.

Sorry, like most of your argument this part sucked as well.


I could be as stupid as Noam

I'm sorry, I guess I should respect people that hate themselves.
I think the only solution is for Worldweaver and his naysayers to violently attack one another and then claim that they are the actual victim and the other side is a bunch of horrible monsters. That would solve everything!
I never claimed that Israel was the ultimate most virtuous saint in the conflict, but when people go so far as to relate it to a Nazi state and deny its legitimacy to exist they are just wrong.

I believe that there are a lot of things that could be done by Israel to help the conflict, but it has acted with considerable restraint.

And I don't believe the Palestinians are some kind of demon spawn, but I don't believe they have to moral high ground that moral relevance affords them.
Here's a thought: instead of worrying over what ethnic group overseas is the bigger monster when it comes to moral atrocities and propaganda attacks, how about supporting the peaceful majority who just want to work and live without being blown to whichever afterlife they believe in? Oh, right, because you don't hear news about peace, only the attacks by the militant extremists, who don't reflect the people of either group.
You idiot, I'm all for concessions to Palestinians for land. Because I have an opinion on who I prefer doesn't mean that I don't support peace.

For example, recently at Annapolis I was mad at the Israelis for not trying for a more ambitious plan, this is partly due to the weak coalition government in control, but that shouldn't be an excuse.

Don't criticize what you don't know.
You idiot, I never said supporting concessions or favoring either side. Your opinion doesn't amount to jack squat when it comes to these people's lives. This isn't a football game where you can just cheer for a team, this is life and death for many of the people involved.

For example, getting mad at a country for not being more ambitious isn't supporting peace. You're just focusing on the negative, and cheering for team A over team B, when it's not appropriate to cheer at all for either side.

Don't criticize what you don't understand. If you want to support conflict and hatred, go cheer for the Red Sox.
Don't be a tool. Of course supporting concessions is supporting the peaceful majority. BECAUSE IT LEADS TO FUCKING PEACE.


You ought to see a psychiatrist.
If anyone is a tool, it's you, perpetrating negative political stereotypes about people and events you know nothing about.

Concessions aren't supporting peace. That's basically what the whole conflict is about, taking land from one ethnic group and giving it to another. It creates stress, anger and conflict between the people who lose their homes and land and those who gain them. Most Israelis don't support concessions as a way to achieve peace. Syria is upset because Israel stole it's land and annexed it. Giving it back now isn't going to make everything alright again. It's a bit too late for concessions to do any real good, and the people know it.

You need to pull your head out of your ass once in a while and actually find out what's going on before you start spewing shit all over the place.
Xooxer you are one of the most ridiculous people on BYOND. You believe in 9/11 conspiracies for god's sake. You're going to earn a blog ban because you are a troll(the whole reason you posted was to get back at me from making people laugh at you) and my sensibilities are repulsed by your essence. The only reason people care in the slightest what you think is because you created some shitty chat game about ten years ago. BYOND was better off when you were still stuck in your backwoods hut without any internet access you dirty hick.

You have about the same rationality in your arguments as the average member of Digg.com. Of course we need to debate the issues, as that is the way to hammer out the issues to achieve peace. Everyone but you seems to think that re-organizing the land will achieve peace. Every single god damn political leader in the world. It must be another conspiracy theory right?

I don't think you realize how much stupid was compounded into your statement. "Don't talk about the issues, just sit there and achieve peace."

Its laughable.



Most Israelis don't support concessions as a way to achieve peace.

Seventy percent of Israelis are in favor of land concessions you dolt.

Syria is upset because Israel stole it's land and annexed it.

Winning strategic land in a defensive war is not stealing it. I suppose all land won in war is stealing?
Palestinians were the original inhabitants of that land, even according to the bible.
Page: 1 2