Supporters of Israeli terror, listen up!

dayan

El_Kabong wrote:

stop doing it, how's that for an answer?

By the way I'm not Israeli. And weren't you the one just drawing distinctions between individuals and gov't?

gue_barium

dayan wrote:

alright, then could you please explain to me how talking about "Israeli terror" is a constructive way to begin a discussion. Saying that Israel practices state terror is not an answer.

Yet, Israel does. As does America.

El_Kabong

dayan wrote:

By the way I'm not Israeli. And weren't you the one just drawing distinctions between individuals and gov't?

you think i was talking to you personally? there you go again...it was an answer, israel should stop it's terroristic activities

dayan

gue_barium wrote:

Yet, Israel does. As does America.

That is your opinion. I disagree. I in no way condone everything Israel does, but I think that talking about state terror blatently ignores salient points of history and intention.

El_Kabong

dayan wrote:

ok, I see what you mean, but that assumes that one can only be offended by comments directed directly at oneself. I'm offended by the comments because I strongly disagree with them and therefore find them to be a slur against a country that I love dearly, but that isn't even my point. My point is that Byrnzie seems to patently not want to discuss the issue and come to a greater understanding of world events. Rather he seems to simply want someone to scream at, and I'm just perplexed why he feels this urge to unload all his anger about this topic on us?

ppl feel strongly about the actions of israel against the palestinians. some actions can certainly be regarded as 'terrorism'...you can't get so upset b/c ppl don't see it the same was you

El_Kabong

dayan wrote:

That is your opinion. I disagree. I in no way condone everything Israel does, but I think that talking about state terror blatently ignores salient points of history and intention.

what is the intention of targeting their electrical system, even to the schools and hospitals? what is the intention of attacking an ambulance?

dayan

El_Kabong wrote:

you think i was talking to you personally? there you go again...it was an answer, israel should stop it's terroristic activities

But it's an answer to a question I didn't ask. The question isn't about what Israel does or doesn't, should or shouldn't do. The question was about the proper way to address other people who might not agree with you when beginning a discussion of a sensitive subject. I am questioning whether Byrnzie's choice of terms was well suited to starting a conversation, which again must be two-sided, or whether he is merely looking to pick a fight.

catefrances

boys boys dont make me separate you.


it's gonna take both sides to resolve this awlful mess. it's gonna take some shit eating from both sides. so just get on with it and do right by your people. i dont care what has gone on in the past. suck it up and start anew.

dayan

El_Kabong wrote:

what is the intention of targeting their electrical system, even to the schools and hospitals? what is the intention of attacking an ambulance?

The electrical system I can't speak to. As for ambulances, there have been repeated well documented instances of Palestinian terrorists using ambulances and other "protected" vehicles to transport weapons and attackers. Just yesterday an Israeli army post was attacked by militants using a jeep with TV markings on it.

dayan

El_Kabong wrote:

ppl feel strongly about the actions of israel against the palestinians. some actions can certainly be regarded as 'terrorism'...you can't get so upset b/c ppl don't see it the same was you

I don't care if people disagree with me. That is there right and the more power to them. All I'm saying is that we should strive to discuss issues in a constructive and positive manner without immediately throwing out terms meant to alienate and infuriate those with whom we disagree.

jlew24asu

dayan wrote:

I don't think it would bring peace to the region because I think at this point "resistance" has become a goal among many Palestinians so that they will continue to violently "resist" even once the occupation is over. It's like Hezbollah in Lebanon. Once Israel pulled out of Lebanon in 2000 Hezbollah simply found a new justification for continuing to fight. For them it is the Shebaa Farms, which is a tiny territory they claim is a part of Lebanon still under occupation. In fact the land is recognized by the UN to have been part of Syria before 67', but that doesn't really matter to Hezbollah because all they are looking for is a pretext to keep fighting. The reason Israel should pull back is demographic and moral. Israel has no right to rule over the Palestinians against their will, and if Israel is to remain both a democracy and a Jewish state is must cease occupying nearly 3 million Palestinians. I don't think Israel should pull back entirely to the 67' line, which was never a border anyways, only an armistice line, because they need to make very slight alterations to the line for security reasons (ie controlling the heights overlooking the only international airport in the country so that someone can't easily close down the country with a shoulder mounted missile). This would be an addition to Israel of about 3% of the West Bank, which they could compensate the Palestinians for with land that is now part of Israel.

sounds reasonable to be

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Dayan ...how big is your package?

yeah...down there...

Abookamongstthemany

dayan wrote:

I don't care if people disagree with me. That is there right and the more power to them. All I'm saying is that we should strive to discuss issues in a constructive and positive manner without immediately throwing out terms meant to alienate and infuriate those with whom we disagree.

See, this is where our opinion is what is making you angry. No matter how infuriated it makes you, many of us believe Israel engages in terrorist activities...out there in the open for all to see often times. It's not personal...you are not Israel, so I would advise you not to get so upset when people have negative things to say about the stuff Israel has been doing for years.

gue_barium

dayan wrote:

I don't care if people disagree with me. That is there right and the more power to them. All I'm saying is that we should strive to discuss issues in a constructive and positive manner without immediately throwing out terms meant to alienate and infuriate those with whom we disagree.

Alienation and infuriation are the things to be constructively, or at least objectively, avoided. I have no problem with the lead post. If you are objective, and honest, you shouldn't have any problem with it either.

Gary Carter

dayan wrote:

All I'm saying is that we should strive to discuss issues in a constructive and positive manner without immediately throwing out terms meant to alienate and infuriate those with whom we disagree.

u will never get that with the people of the moving train, dont bother trying, it doesnt work, trust me

dayan

gue_barium wrote:

Alienation and infuriation are the things to be constructively, or at least objectively, avoided. I have no problem with the lead post. If you are objective, and honest, you shouldn't have any problem with it either.

So what you're saying is that if I'm objective and honest then I will immediately agree that Israel is a terrorist state?!!! Forgive me, but just because you believe yourself to be right it doesn't mean that I have to agree. I could just as easily say that if you were objective and honest you would see what is wrong with the lead post.

dayan

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

See, this is where our opinion is what is making you angry. No matter how infuriated it makes you, many of us believe Israel engages in terrorist activities...out there in the open for all to see often times. It's not personal...you are not Israel, so I would advise you not to get so upset when people have negative things to say about the stuff Israel has been doing for years.

And what I'm saying is that if you want to calmly and rationally, without unneccessary invective, discuss specific instances where you believe Israel has acted wrongly, that would be great. Throwing out general slurs about "Israeli terror" is not how civilized discussions are begun.

gue_barium

dayan wrote:

So what you're saying is that if I'm objective and honest then I will immediately agree that Israel is a terrorist state?!!! Forgive me, but just because you believe yourself to be right it doesn't mean that I have to agree. I could just as easily say that if you were objective and honest you would see what is wrong with the lead post.

As thee only nuclear superpower in the Middle East, why must Israel resort to pre-emptive annihilation of it's enemies? It's ridiculous, just as it's ridiculous for America to do the same in Iraq. It is terrorism, plain and simple.

dayan

gue_barium wrote:

As thee only nuclear superpower in the Middle East, why must Israel resort to pre-emptive annihilation of it's enemies? It's ridiculous, just as it's ridiculous for America to do the same in Iraq. It is terrorism, plain and simple.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with regard to Israel, and I don't want to go anywhere near the issue of Iraq. Not with a ten foot pole.

catefrances

gue_barium wrote:

As thee only nuclear superpower in the Middle East, why must Israel resort to pre-emptive annihilation of it's enemies? It's ridiculous, just as it's ridiculous for America to do the same in Iraq. It is terrorism, plain and simple.

for israel being nuclear is a paper tiger. they can't really do anything to their immediate neighbours without cutting off their own foot. are they gonna nuke someone when it could in all likelihood result in the destruction of their own state by their own actions? or are they gonna build one of those big arse walls around themselves to protect from that radioactive cloud?