You can't defend yourself if you are occupying another country

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I like how the media spins that the US and Israel are "defending" themselves in Iraq and Palestine.

You know what? The word "defend" or "retaliate" is total impossibility when you're occupying someone else's country. There is no such thing as defending yourself when you yourself are the aggressor.

And people are shocked when these poor uneducated farmers do crazy things.

Even if they could afford a gun, they wouldn't get within 100 feet of trying to address the US or Israeli military in combat and survive.

This is why we see the guerrilla tactics as suicide bombers, and cheap home made roadside bombs. Their lives are so fucking miserable that they have to resort to taking their own lives to fight back. However completely sick in the head this may be. You have to put on the other guy's shoe for a second.

Try having your family killed and you house bulldozed (Palestine) then not be able to go anywhere and have 1/3rd - 1/2 the year as imposed curfews...IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY....mind you....by foreigners, people that beat you, and shoot at your house for kicks. Oh and they won't give you the permit to let you build a new house after they bulldoze your old one, so you actually have to get permission to build otherwise it's illegal and you're punished. Which they deny you of course, so you have to live in some refugee slums/ghetto scenario.

Oh yeah, all your best friends, uncles, grandparents, etc... get the same lovely treatment. In your own country by some foreigners.

Electricity,water...essentially non existent most of the time.

Let me know how calm you remain, and where your sanity lies after years of that going on all around you.

The UN says both occupations are illegal. The Iraq war was illegal. Both occupations violate essentially every law imaginable and daily....for many years now.

A little something to think about, and go hmmm

Ahnimus

By the rule of cause and effect;

If I was a Palestinian, I'd be no different.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I think eventually after my spirit broke...after I've lost everything, and the will to live is no longer...yes I could very well try to take some of the enemy down with me.

Suddenly the term martyr takes on the proper context.

sad...

Ahnimus

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I think eventually after my spirit broke...after I've lost everything, and the will to live is no longer...yes I could very well try to take some of the enemy down with me.

Suddenly the term martyr takes on the proper context.

sad...

Yea, they are victims in their minds, just as the Jews are victims in their minds and the Americans in their's.

jlew24asu

Ahnimus wrote:

By the rule of cause and effect;

If I was a Palestinian, I'd be no different.

meaning what? you would strap a bomb to yourself and blow yourself on a bus?
or maybe fire rockets into Israeli neighborhoods?

some might be surprised to hear this (Byrzine) but I can understand why they do the latter.

but intentionally killing unarmed civilians? no good. from either side.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

meaning what? you would strap a bomb to yourself and blow yourself on a bus?
or maybe fire rockets into Israeli neighborhoods?

some might be surprised to hear this (Byrzine) but I can understand why they do the latter.

but intentionally killing unarmed civilians? no good. from either side.

You're right, however, on one side it's to be expected as a natural response to invasion...the other side just doesn't belong there and is imposing.

It's all hauntingly similar to Iraq now (regardless of how each occupation started).

It's like a sure fire recipe for conflict. Take a big army....go hang out in some country, make the situation intolerable to live in by blowing everything up, place restrictions on everything, return fire, and have the media call it defending yourself from crazy people that you must now scrub from the planet.

It took a lot of reading and digging through the smokescreens for me to finally see it.

The one fact remains regardless of he said/ she said propaganda viewpoints.

One side is a foreign combatant occupying another country that doesn't belong there.

Having the war, making the point, and leaving is one thing. Having the war and sticking around for years to create endless perpetual war is something very much different altogether.

jlew24asu

I would be a very happy guy if.....

we left Iraq and Iraq was able to sustain itself as a country, preferable a free one, with no more bloodshed

Israel and Palastine come to a peace agreement . basically a land agreement, that meets with both sides making concessions. those borders have been changing since the beginning of mankind. drawing a line in the sand is not that easy. every country has borders, lets all agree on something and move on. build a fucking fence for all I care. as it stands now, from what I can see on a map, Israel is occupying far too much land.

osama bin laden and his top deput are killed. and al queda falls apart. hell, i'll even throw in a taliban country in the tribal areas of pakistan. if you promise to stay in the mountains and mind your business, we'll go back to american and get on with building skyscrapers.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, they are victims in their minds, just as the Jews are victims in their minds and the Americans in their's.

Very true.

I think everyone needs to take inventory of the situation. The US has driven the message home 100 times over. Ok, everybody gets it...attack the US and they will get very upset figure out vaguely who did it, invade somebody, and proceed to blow everything up. There was a hint of sarcasm in there, but you know what I mean. They will figure it out and rain a hellstorm down on you.

Israel needs to establish realistic borders that can provide some kind of security and not be greedy over setting up settlements all over the place by snapping up all the choice spots. Also give Palestine the right to privacy, the most basic of human rights, and an overall sense of security. All in all, the Palestinians were living there first regardless. Otherwise it will go on forever, or until the genocide is complete.

Ahnimus

Part of the problem is Israeli settlements that cover all of palestine. There is nowhere to draw borders unless those settlements are removed.

jlew24asu

Ahnimus wrote:

Part of the problem is Israeli settlements that cover all of palestine. There is nowhere to draw borders unless those settlements are removed.

yea, situation sucks.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Ahnimus wrote:

Part of the problem is Israeli settlements that cover all of palestine. There is nowhere to draw borders unless those settlements are removed.

They chose all the closest spots to water, strategic military highlands, and best agricultural areas, and kicked all the Palestinians out by force. Then they handed out free machine guns all the Jewish settlers.

I figure they have tons of bulldozers, they can either build new ones in larger segregated zones, and give up some of their homes to Palestinians that they bulldozed. Which would be completely proper. They get billons in aid anyway. IT's not like they can't restructure. Sell back a few f-16 and a few tanks if necessary.

A house for a house sounds good to me, and the Palestinians who lost their houses should really be compensated on top for all the shit they had to go through. Seems common sense, as their houses used to be on the exact same land as the newly built Jewish settlement before it was demolished anyway. Unless, of course,they're all dead, then it should follow blood lines.

The foreign combatants will have to concede, but they won't, which also shows more of who is really at fault in this scenario.

Truthmonger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

They chose all the closest spots to water, strategic military highlands, and best agricultural areas, and kicked all the Palestinians out by force. Then they handed out free machine guns all the Jewish settlers.

I figure they have tons of bulldozers, they can either build new ones in larger segregated zones, and give up some of their homes to Palestinians that they bulldozed. Which would be completely proper. They get billons in aid anyway. IT's not like they can't restructure. Sell back a few f-16 and a few tanks if necessary.

A house for a house sounds good to me, and the Palestinians who lost their houses should really be compensated on top for all the shit they had to go through. Seems common sense, as their houses used to be on the exact same land as the newly built Jewish settlement before it was demolished anyway. Unless, of course,they're all dead, then it should follow blood lines.

The foreign combatants will have to concede, but they won't, which also shows more of who is really at fault in this scenario.

About 2 months ago I posted an article that showed Israeli settlemnts were on private Palestinian land. Apparently 4/10 of the land used for Israeli settlements was this private land, which the top Israeli court said was unlawful. It forbade new settlements to be built on this land.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1953702,00.html

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Truthmonger wrote:

About 2 months ago I posted an article that showed Israeli settlemnts were on private Palestinian land. Apparently 4/10 of the land used for Israeli settlements was this private land, which the top Israeli court said was unlawful. It forbade new settlements to be built on this land.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1953702,00.html

I just can't imagine what that would be like. Going to see your old neighborhood and seeing some new house sitting on your plot of land for which you still hold the title/deed and you would be risking your life just to knock on the door and ask what's up, or protest.

It's no wonder these guys are seriously pissed.

DCGARDEN

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

This is why we see the guerrilla tactics as suicide bombers, and cheap home made roadside bombs. Their lives are so fucking miserable that they have to resort to taking their own lives to fight back. However completely sick in the head this may be. You have to put on the other guy's shoe for a second.



A little something to think about, and go hmmm

Look, you make some fine points for sure, but you have to at least admit that a good portion of the suicide bombers and guerilla attackers are NOT actually Iraqi's who are rebelling. I think I even read you wrote in another post that Al Qaeda in Iraq are only there because we invaded. I mean, true, but you can't have it both ways. There are Iraqis who are doing this, for sure, but there are also outside elements who have lost nothing from the invasion of Iraq, but are only attacking, and killing, and destroying because of anti-US sentiment and the hope that they will prevent this from ever being a truly free country.

Just a point worth "hmmmmmming" about

RolandTD20Kdrummer

DCGARDEN wrote:

Look, you make some fine points for sure, but you have to at least admit that a good portion of the suicide bombers and guerilla attackers are NOT actually Iraqi's who are rebelling. I think I even read you wrote in another post that Al Qaeda in Iraq are only there because we invaded. I mean, true, but you can't have it both ways. There are Iraqis who are doing this, for sure, but there are also outside elements who have lost nothing from the invasion of Iraq, but are only attacking, and killing, and destroying because of anti-US sentiment and the hope that they will prevent this from ever being a truly free country.

Just a point worth "hmmmmmming" about

But who is occupying who and where? I think they are looking down the road seeing the bigger picture. Crossing the world's 2nd largest ocean to occupy another country can polarize an entire region of people. they are probably thinking, We have what they want (oil). If we don't help get rid of the big foreign superpower...were probably going to be next on the chopping block.

Alternative energy...I wish there was more going on with this in the media.

Byrnzie

DCGARDEN wrote:

Look, you make some fine points for sure, but you have to at least admit that a good portion of the suicide bombers and guerilla attackers are NOT actually Iraqi's who are rebelling. I think I even read you wrote in another post that Al Qaeda in Iraq are only there because we invaded. I mean, true, but you can't have it both ways. There are Iraqis who are doing this, for sure, but there are also outside elements who have lost nothing from the invasion of Iraq, but are only attacking, and killing, and destroying because of anti-US sentiment and the hope that they will prevent this from ever being a truly free country.

Just a point worth "hmmmmmming" about

Yes, and all of this was predicted by top U.S advisors prior to the invasion. The Bush administration knew that invading Iraq would increase the risk of terrorism in the world, and they invaded anyway. The arms dealers are being well looked after.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

I would be a very happy guy if.....

Israel and Palastine come to a peace agreement . basically a land agreement, that meets with both sides making concessions.

There have been countless offers of a two-state settlement over the past 40 years and every single one has been vetoed by the U.S, in opposition to world opinion.
America's latest contribution to the 'peace process' has been to provide a 25% increase in funding to Israel - amounting to $30 Billion.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Byrnzie wrote:

There have been countless offers of a two-state settlement over the past 40 years and every single one has been vetoed by the U.S, in opposition to world opinion.
America's latest contribution to the 'peace process' has been to provide a 25% increase in funding to Israel - amounting to $30 Billion.

Yeah and Bush's argument to that is " I'm the first president that ever suggested to actually have a state called Palestine!.....see? I'm awesome...I'm doing it! So it's just so obvious I want peace...isn;t that just so awesome of me?"...

What he forgets to mention in the same breath how many times he's vetoed positive action.. I think he's vetoed constructive UN peace processes in Israel around 30 times.

Uhhh...ooops!!

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

There have been countless offers of a two-state settlement over the past 40 years and every single one has been vetoed by the U.S, in opposition to world opinion.
America's latest contribution to the 'peace process' has been to provide a 25% increase in funding to Israel - amounting to $30 Billion.

ok lets talk about it. the last 40 years? I remember clinton giving it a go at camp david and Arafat rejecting it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords

and bush's road map to peace? is that doable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_map_for_peace

I am not defending those plans but merely stating them. I will have to read through those links again. they are just what I remember off the top of my head.


lets talk about these "countless offers" you speak off.

know1

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I think eventually after my spirit broke...after I've lost everything, and the will to live is no longer...yes I could very well try to take some of the enemy down with me.

Suddenly the term martyr takes on the proper context.

sad...

Not me. Killing is wrong.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yeah and Bush's argument to that is " I'm the first president that ever suggested to actually have a state called Palestine!.....see? I'm awesome...I'm doing it! So it's just so obvious I want peace...isn;t that just so awesome of me?"...

What he forgets to mention in the same breath how many times he's vetoed positive action.. I think he's vetoed constructive UN peace processes in Israel around 30 times.

Uhhh...ooops!!

last 40 years..... over 30 vetos......


lets see it? and talk about it.