Imagine That -- I’m Still Anti-War

rr165892

EdsonNascimento said:

my2hands said:

Cease fire expires with exchange of rockets

SWEET!

Started by Hamas because they want an open border (which Egypt won't provide either), but won't disarm. Why don't they attack Egypt for keeping a closed border?

They have no hope of defeating Israel militarily, yet they choose a militaristic solution that puts their citizens at peril while only addressing a single border. How does that make any sense?

It dosent

my2hands

Bingo

fuck

rr165892 said:

dancinacrossthewater said:

Many who have watched the conflict over the past few weeks have made the fundamental error of viewing it as a national struggle between Israelis versus Palestinians. In reality, an extremist segment of the Palestinian leadership – Hamas along with other terror groups – has effectively hijacked the Palestinian national movement in the name of Islamism.

The agenda isn’t about securing Palestinian rights or opposing Israeli policies; it’s about securing an Islamic state and opposing Israel’s existence. The vision offered by Hamas, and paid for by Iran, cannot be detached from what has happened in Iraq and Syria, and the ongoing battle between Sunni jihadis and Shia jihadis across the region.

Having lived under the sort of regime Hamas intends to create in Gaza, I know firsthand that Hamas is foremost a threat to the Palestinians themselves. And I know that, while Israelis may be Tehran’s sworn enemy, the Palestinian people are nothing more than pawns in the radical scheme of Iran’s ayatollahs.

I agree with your thinking here.Ive said the same thing.

As Byrnzie said, this is not actually reflective of reality. One Zionist tactic to win support for Israel's assault on Gaza is to talk about the threat of "Islamism", almost as though to make this another front for the "War on Terror". This has been the case for years now.

The author of the article that dancinacrossthewater posted has a very superficial understanding of the Middle East. Just look at how the author can't even get his conspiracy straight: Hamas is a pawn of the Iranians, while a Sunni-Shia "jihadist" war rages across the Middle East. But what the author conveniently forgets is that Iran is Shia and Hamas is Sunni, so where does this confusion fit within the neat little paradigm the author constructed of the Middle East? Or the fact that Hamas chose not to support Assad in the Syrian Civil War, forcing the leadership to relocate elsewhere, such as Qatar -- the same Qatar that is supporting rebels against Assad in Syria, while Iran is supporting Assad. Unfortunately for people like the author, or dancinacrossthewater for that matter, the Middle East is actually a more complicated place than people give it credit for, as opposed to one large warzone where madmen are running around massacring each other.

Just like anywhere else in the world, there are politics that govern the relationships between different groups and governments here. Hamas is a Palestinian national movement - it is guided by Islamic principles, but its goal is not to create an Islamic empire, or even an Islamic "state" within historic Palestine. This isn't me saying this, this is the Hamas leadership themselves. Why not allow them to have their own voice? Why is it that whenever we want to know what Hamas thinks, we don't go see what they say, we ask their critics and Zionists what Hamas thinks? Such poor researching skills.

They have said they don't participate in any regional conflicts, they are simply focused on liberating Palestine from Israeli occupation -- something many in this thread claim to be in support of as well. They have said they don't have anything against Jews, they just oppose the occupation. They have said they'd accept a longterm ceasefire and peace along the 67 borders - something that Byrnzie astutely pointed out the overwhelming majority of the world, save the US and Israel, has also accepted. They have said that afterwards they will not negotiate the future of Palestine singlehandedly, but that they want the Palestinians themselves to decide what their future would be. They have accepted democratic principles in the past, which Western countries at the behest of Israel actually rejected because the right puppet didn't win.

But let's not deal with what's actually on the ground. It's much more convenient to believe in worldwide "Islamist" conspiracies. Let's not listen to what Palestinians themselves have to say. Let's just demonize Hamas without using facts, and say that they hold the Palestinians "hostage" without asking the Palestinians themselves. How else can we continue to justify Israeli war crimes? The first step to justifying these crimes is by creating a moral equivalency between both sides, despite the fact that one is an occupier and the other is being occupied; in spite of the fact that international law is very explicitly anti-occupation, while granting the occupied the right to resist. No, let's ignore reality and just focus on what conveniently fits our worldview, because those crazy Muslims are just so easy to hate.

fuck

dancinacrossthewater said:

I agree that the Elie Wiesel add is over the top. But so is Hamas's charter. It's up to others to try and work towards a solution, which doesn't mean just yelling "Fuck the oppressors" in a self-righteous way all the time. I don't think the majority of the folks in this thread are doing that - just a few.

Why is "fuck the oppressors" in quotes, as if you are quoting someone? Who in this thread said that? Can you please find the quote? What a fucking pathetic attempt to reduce the actual substantive arguments made in this thread to counter your false narratives. People have presented investigative articles, human rights reports, and historical context to explain why you are wrong. People have explained what potential solutions would look like. If all you think has been going on in this thread is people yelling "fuck the oppressors" then perhaps you have not been reading closely enough.

fuck

dancinacrossthewater said:

no i didn't say we can't [have a dialogue]...i said it would be difficult. i'm up for trying.

No, what you did was set preconditions for us even having a fucking discussion. You said:

"I'm happy to try and engage with your criticisms of the original article if you can phrase them in a more balanced manner and at least acknowledge that the guy who wrote it - and adopted a position most reasonable people would view as centrist - isn't totally full of shit. I don't accept your main argument that because Israel is currently the stronger power any attempt to look at the situation in a measured way means you're siding with Israel. So in that sense it's difficult for us to engage with each other because we're starting from fundamentally different assumptions."

You didn't like that my argument wasn't "balanced" enough for you, i.e., it doesn't fit your worldview. In fact, you explicitly say that at the end when you say that we have "different assumptions", therefore it's "difficult" for us to engage. You actually sound like an Israeli setting preconditions for negotiations with the Palestinians.

"First, you must recognize me."
"Ok."
"No, you must recognize my right to exist!"
"Um...ok?"
"No, now you must recognize that I have the right to exist as a Jewish state"
"Fuck off"

fuck

backseatLover12 said:

Leezestarr313 said:

What I am wondering about is, so if people decide on a two-state solution - how will this work out. Will they draw back the borders to what they have been in 1947? The people who had to flee from their land can go back and reclaim it? What will the people do who have lived there since back then? Can something like this happen peacefully? It somehow did in Germany after the country came back together. There were personal tragedies, but they were of course not comparable to what is going on in the Middle East right now. Would there be a peaceful solution that is not going to start another battleground?

Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. That's why I keep repeating, what does a real resolution look like? Forcing Israel to back down is using a violent act, and violence only begets violence. It certainly doesn't cause peace. So far, Leeze, you are one of the few really attempting to think what peace would look like. I'm merely attempting to get people to actually start thinking in that direction rather than spinning the wheels of anger and finger pointing. Because, that gets us no where. You'd think more this concept would get into more people's heads.

What are you talking about? We've explained time and time again that there are peaceful ways to force Israel to back down. Why do you keep thinking these are calls for war? To demand that your representatives in the US stop sending military aid to Israel -- that's a call for violence? To boycott products from Israel -- that's a call for violence? To demand companies begin divesting from Israel until they adhere to international law is a call for violence? What exactly do you disagree with here? To demand that Israel ends the occupation is a call for violence? To demand that Palestinian refugees who have been living in refugee camps for over 60 years be allowed the right to return to their homes is a call for war?

dancinacrossthewater

I think there's been a lot of good debate in this thread in addition to some crap. I don't think the articles I've posted are crap, and I don't think all of what you've said is crap either. I do think think the idea that Hamas as an organization would accept peace along the 67 borders is untrue...one or two party officials may have said it at one point, but the vast majority of those who wield power in Hamas's power structure continue to call very openly for the destruction of Israel and annihilation of Jews.

Do you support Hamas over Fatah to lead Palestine, fuck? Serious question - I'm not trying to trick you.

fuck

PJ_Soul said:

dancinacrossthewater said:

So if Israel relinquished air, sea, and land crossing control over Gaza, it'd be a start. I agree.

Lol. So you'd like to see a 180 degree flip of the situation.

Why is this a laughing matter? Do you think the blockade should continue?

As for your comment, a 180 degree flip of the situation would be the following: Palestinians take 1.8 million Israelis and lock them in a 30 mile by 10 mile strip of land. They do not allow anyone to get out or to get in. They restrict all the goods that go in to the extent that just enough food passes in so that they don't completely starve to death. Over 95% of the water in this strip of land becomes contaminated. They can receive no goods to sort out water filtration or sewage. Electricity cuts out 50% of the day because we are blocking their access. If fishermen get a little too far out, we shoot them dead. If an Israeli gets just a little too close to the "no man's land" area of the border, we shoot them dead. We have drones flying up at night routinely assassinating people we deem "terrorists" because they dare resist this blockade we've imposed on them. Sometimes, oftentimes, their family members or other people are killed in these attacks. And every couple of years we launch a full operation to kill ~1500 people.

Is this what dancinacrossthewater called for? Or did dancinacrossthewater simply agree that the lifting of the inhumane blockade which UN officials have deemed a "collective punishment" on the people of Gaza and a "crime against humanity" might be a good start to reaching some sort of settlement?

Then again, maybe you just skipped Geometry class in middle school.

fuck

dancinacrossthewater said:

I think there's been a lot of good debate in this thread in addition to some crap. I don't think the articles I've posted are crap, and I don't think all of what you've said is crap either. I do think think the idea that Hamas as an organization would accept peace along the 67 borders is untrue...one or two party officials may have said it at one point, but the vast majority of those who wield power in Hamas's power structure continue to call very openly for the destruction of Israel and annihilation of Jews.

Would you like to provide some evidence? Did you not watch what Khaled Meshaal, Hamas' leader, said in his interview with Charlie Rose? Also, who is that actually "wields power" in Hamas' "power structure" -- would you care to enlighten us?

benjs

dancinacrossthewater said:

I think there's been a lot of good debate in this thread in addition to some crap. I don't think the articles I've posted are crap, and I don't think all of what you've said is crap either. I do think think the idea that Hamas as an organization would accept peace along the 67 borders is untrue...one or two party officials may have said it at one point, but the vast majority of those who wield power in Hamas's power structure continue to call very openly for the destruction of Israel and annihilation of Jews.

Do you support Hamas over Fatah to lead Palestine, fuck? Serious question - I'm not trying to trick you.

I think I understand the frustrations of many posters here when questions are answered time and time again, distractions are brought in, and the debate starts again - it's like a record player skipping, but in this morbid scenario, the longer the playback continues, the more blood is spilt. Israel is NOT in a legal position to wage war against Hamas if it creates a collective punishment to be carried over to the Palestinians, because Israel itself has ensured that the Palestinians have nowhere to go! Do tell: where do you tell 1.8 million people to go if they're afraid of rockets being dropped by Israel, and funded by the largest military superpower in the world? Should they... wade out into the ocean (which, if they go to far out into, they'll be shot)? How about... going towards Israel, the people who technically and politically control the region (who, if they go to close to, they'll be shot)?

If Palestine existed as an independent entity, Hamas would be forced to be accountable for any terrorism from that very instance onwards to its own people, to the ICC, to the UN, to Israel. Its own people, the UN, and Israel would ALL be perfectly within their rights to retaliate brutally to any terrorism. From the very SECOND that the Palestinian regions are under Hamas-Fatah rule, the world will know whether Hamas was indeed a peaceful entity, and if they are not, my only hope is that the Palestinian people can revolt quickly enough to remove them from power without too many further casualties.

brianlux

JimmyV said:

Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, Gaza...the insistence that Eddie was only referring to a single conflict continues to miss his point.

Too much war, too many warlords, too many conflicts. Worldwide.

Well said, Jimmy V and thanks for pointing this out!

It's so heavily ironic that 98% of this (to now) 55 page thread is off the mark as far as what the thread is about. The opportunity to place those 98% of errant posts found here is in AMT but for some reason, like plaque in unbrushed teeth, the misplaced posts continue to flourish here.

josevolution

brianlux said:

JimmyV said:

Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, Gaza...the insistence that Eddie was only referring to a single conflict continues to miss his point.

Too much war, too many warlords, too many conflicts. Worldwide.

Well said, Jimmy V and thanks for pointing this out!

It's so heavily ironic that 98% of this (to now) 55 page thread is off the mark as far as what the thread is about. The opportunity to place those 98% of errant posts found here is in AMT but for some reason, like plaque in unbrushed teeth, the misplaced posts continue to flourish here.

Isn't it ironic that " World Wide Suicide " seems very appropriate for today's world too ....

brianlux

josevolution said:

brianlux said:

JimmyV said:

Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, Gaza...the insistence that Eddie was only referring to a single conflict continues to miss his point.

Too much war, too many warlords, too many conflicts. Worldwide.

Well said, Jimmy V and thanks for pointing this out!

It's so heavily ironic that 98% of this (to now) 55 page thread is off the mark as far as what the thread is about. The opportunity to place those 98% of errant posts found here is in AMT but for some reason, like plaque in unbrushed teeth, the misplaced posts continue to flourish here.

Isn't it ironic that " World Wide Suicide " seems very appropriate for today's world too ....

So true, joserevolution, sad but true.

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Does anyone find it the least bit interesting that we've spent the last 6 years removing ourselves from world affairs and now the world is on fire? I know we can't and shouldn't be involved in everything. But, perhaps SOME vigilance might be in order to "maintain the peace." (And no I'm not so stupid I think that nothing goes on when we are more involved. I am talking about degrees).

A little preventive measure goes a long way. - Speak softly and carry a big stick. (which does not mean you have to use the stick. Just that folks know you're willing to use it instead of jibber jabbing).

I think it is a good point, but I disagree that the world was not also on fire six years ago.

Again, all relative. I know all's not quiet on the Western/Eastern/Central front then. But, there certainly was a different focus and certain entities were relatively quiet. That doesn't mean what was going on was 100% right and that atrocities weren't still happening. But, again - it's a relativity.

We'd all like World Peace, but it's very clear there are factions that will never abide, so we must always be vigilant and not be so quick to dismiss the need for military intervention (which, of course, comes with it's own difficult decisions of what's right, wrong, effective, etc.). What's clear at least to me is that burying our heads in the sand and saying - now, y'all be good - ok? is not only ineffective but creates an atmosphere that certain groups feel they can fill with greater destruction without caring who gets killed to further their personal agendas. Kind of like this thread. >-

EdsonNascimento

brianlux said:

josevolution said:

brianlux said:

JimmyV said:

Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, Gaza...the insistence that Eddie was only referring to a single conflict continues to miss his point.

Too much war, too many warlords, too many conflicts. Worldwide.

Well said, Jimmy V and thanks for pointing this out!

It's so heavily ironic that 98% of this (to now) 55 page thread is off the mark as far as what the thread is about. The opportunity to place those 98% of errant posts found here is in AMT but for some reason, like plaque in unbrushed teeth, the misplaced posts continue to flourish here.

Isn't it ironic that " World Wide Suicide " seems very appropriate for today's world too ....

So true, joserevolution, sad but true.

Not entirely true. There are certainly groups that are willing to sacrifice the innocents they claim to represent to further their cause at any cost. And there are other groups that are trying to protect a way of life that is predicated on freedom and individual liberties despite what the rhetoric would say. Neither side is perfect, but I will always side with the one fighting and protecting freedom and their citizens.

So neither side is committing suicide. One is protecting its people. The other is sacrificing it. Suicide indicates one is willing to kill oneself.

fuck

brianlux said:

JimmyV said:

Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, Gaza...the insistence that Eddie was only referring to a single conflict continues to miss his point.

Too much war, too many warlords, too many conflicts. Worldwide.

Well said, Jimmy V and thanks for pointing this out!

It's so heavily ironic that 98% of this (to now) 55 page thread is off the mark as far as what the thread is about. The opportunity to place those 98% of errant posts found here is in AMT but for some reason, like plaque in unbrushed teeth, the misplaced posts continue to flourish here.

Are you saying that the moderators on this forum don't know how to do their job properly? This thread has been allowed to continue, so can the complaints about it being off topic finally stop? Please? if the mods feel the need to close the thread, then they can choose to do so.

josevolution

EdsonNascimento said:

brianlux said:

josevolution said:

brianlux said:

JimmyV said:

Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, Gaza...the insistence that Eddie was only referring to a single conflict continues to miss his point.

Too much war, too many warlords, too many conflicts. Worldwide.

Well said, Jimmy V and thanks for pointing this out!

It's so heavily ironic that 98% of this (to now) 55 page thread is off the mark as far as what the thread is about. The opportunity to place those 98% of errant posts found here is in AMT but for some reason, like plaque in unbrushed teeth, the misplaced posts continue to flourish here.

Isn't it ironic that " World Wide Suicide " seems very appropriate for today's world too ....

So true, joserevolution, sad but true.

Not entirely true. There are certainly groups that are willing to sacrifice the innocents they claim to represent to further their cause at any cost. And there are other groups that are trying to protect a way of life that is predicated on freedom and individual liberties despite what the rhetoric would say. Neither side is perfect, but I will always side with the one fighting and protecting freedom and their citizens.

So neither side is committing suicide. One is protecting its people. The other is sacrificing it. Suicide indicates one is willing to kill oneself.

...........Im just talking about the song dude that is all .......how it seems appropriate for today's world ...

brianlux

fuck said:

brianlux said:

JimmyV said:

Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, Gaza...the insistence that Eddie was only referring to a single conflict continues to miss his point.

Too much war, too many warlords, too many conflicts. Worldwide.

Well said, Jimmy V and thanks for pointing this out!

It's so heavily ironic that 98% of this (to now) 55 page thread is off the mark as far as what the thread is about. The opportunity to place those 98% of errant posts found here is in AMT but for some reason, like plaque in unbrushed teeth, the misplaced posts continue to flourish here.

Are you saying that the moderators on this forum don't know how to do their job properly? This thread has been allowed to continue, so can the complaints about it being off topic finally stop? Please? if the mods feel the need to close the thread, then they can choose to do so.

Well, we haven't heard from the mods here so I don't know what they're thinking. I don't criticize what they do- it's not my place to do so. No, I'm guessing they have other things to do than read 55 pages of the same things being said over and over. I will say though that I am very surprised that they have tolerated all the seething personal attacks in these threads- but again, that's not my call. More irony, I suppose.

fuck

brianlux said:

fuck said:

brianlux said:

JimmyV said:

Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, Gaza...the insistence that Eddie was only referring to a single conflict continues to miss his point.

Too much war, too many warlords, too many conflicts. Worldwide.

Well said, Jimmy V and thanks for pointing this out!

It's so heavily ironic that 98% of this (to now) 55 page thread is off the mark as far as what the thread is about. The opportunity to place those 98% of errant posts found here is in AMT but for some reason, like plaque in unbrushed teeth, the misplaced posts continue to flourish here.

Are you saying that the moderators on this forum don't know how to do their job properly? This thread has been allowed to continue, so can the complaints about it being off topic finally stop? Please? if the mods feel the need to close the thread, then they can choose to do so.

Well, we haven't heard from the mods here so I don't know what they're thinking. I don't criticize what they do- it's not my place to do so. No, I'm guessing they have other things to do than read 55 pages of the same things being said over and over. I will say though that I am very surprised that they have tolerated all the seething personal attacks in these threads- but again, that's not my call. More irony, I suppose.

My understanding from the line of your previous post, "The opportunity to place those 98% of errant posts found here is in AMT but for some reason, like plaque in unbrushed teeth, the misplaced posts continue to flourish here," was that you were calling out the mods (the "for some reason" the posts are allowed "to flourish here" being that the mods are not doing their jobs well enough). But now that you have clarified that that was not your intention, and that your post was just another attempt to derail the conversation without contributing any substance to it, I can go back to ignoring you. Cheers.

fuck

EdsonNascimento said:

brianlux said:

josevolution said:

brianlux said:

JimmyV said:

Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, Gaza...the insistence that Eddie was only referring to a single conflict continues to miss his point.

Too much war, too many warlords, too many conflicts. Worldwide.

Well said, Jimmy V and thanks for pointing this out!

It's so heavily ironic that 98% of this (to now) 55 page thread is off the mark as far as what the thread is about. The opportunity to place those 98% of errant posts found here is in AMT but for some reason, like plaque in unbrushed teeth, the misplaced posts continue to flourish here.

Isn't it ironic that " World Wide Suicide " seems very appropriate for today's world too ....

So true, joserevolution, sad but true.

Not entirely true. There are certainly groups that are willing to sacrifice the innocents they claim to represent to further their cause at any cost. And there are other groups that are trying to protect a way of life that is predicated on freedom and individual liberties despite what the rhetoric would say. Neither side is perfect, but I will always side with the one fighting and protecting freedom and their citizens.

So neither side is committing suicide. One is protecting its people. The other is sacrificing it. Suicide indicates one is willing to kill oneself.

Perhaps the point of the song is that the idea of seeing "different sides" in constant conflict with each other is problematic in and of itself and "suicidal" since it leads to perpetual violence. That may have been the point josevolution was trying to make.

That being said, and I am no longer addressing you now Edson, I do not mean to suggest that seeking justice through peaceful means perpetuates conflict. And that does not mean that demanding that an oppressing power cease its persecution of people is suicidal either. Achieving justice can be messy, but so long as principles are upheld throughout this initiative, such as securing freedom and equality, and allowing an oppressed people to maintain their dignity, I think we can keep sight and not stray off into perpetual conflict. But so long as people forgo justice for peace, then oppression will continue, albeit in a silent manner.