You failed to answer the question I posed so I'll answer it for you. What would it get the Palestinians if they halted attacks and told they israelis we have given up all our weapons? It'll get them the terrorist state of GREATER israel.
In the short term, yes. In the long term, it bears a good chance of turning the tide in the US the next time Israel goes nuts and blows up a bunch of innocent civilians.
that would be me. and I must be INSANE to call for an end to violence. what ever was I thinking? second of all, it would help their cause. for one, Israel wouldn't have a reason to smack the fuck out of them.
but according to you, Palestinians should continue (rocket) attacks on Israel. please tell me, how do those benefit the Palestinian cause?
(if Hamas publicly announced they would stop attacks and renounce violence)
I think Israel would lift the blockade on Gaza, provide aid, and discuss giving back occupied land with pressure from the Obama administration and Congress.
I think Israel would run out of excuses to use airstrikes and military incursions.
You keep accusing Byrnzie of misquoting you when every post you have quoted me on you have misquoted me to further your argument. Did you even read my post? Where did I say this "Palestinians should continue (rocket) attacks on Israel"? I said the attacks WORKED.
rocket attacks worked? how? what did they accomplish? you said you dont understand how someone could want Palestinians to stop attacks. well call me crazy, but that means you want them to continue. I'm not misquoting you.
I just told you the israelis DID NOT NEED A REASON to start wars or to grab more land.. and even then the world supported them. That was back in the days when Hamas did not even exist. Just a few years back they had internal and external "control" over Gaza with checkpoints and troops riddled everywhere in Gaza. The only thing that drove them out was the fact that they could not sustain the occupation BECAUSE OF THE PALESTINIAN ATTACKS. Yes the attacks worked. Just like the attacks by Hizbullah in Lebanese territory worked to drive the idf out of southern Lebanon in 2000. The Palestinians tried the peaceful route in the 70's and what did it get them? Assassinations.. but you probably call that "history" now.
again, are you not suggesting the rocket attacks should continue? by all means, correct me if I'm wrong. you really seem to think they work. personally I think its fucking moronic for them to do so. that will just bring more death and destruction.
You also talk about how israel will open the borders if Palestinians halt attacks. Well guess what.. Hamas tried that already and the israelis refused to open up the borders and eventually broke the ceasefire. Even to this day there are airstrikes on Gaza that go unreported and Hamas isn't even sending rockets out. So your whole argument is pointless.
according to some reports, the "ceasefire" was broken when Israel found Hamas digging a tunnel into Israel. are you really shocked Israel tried to stop that from happening? I'm not.
and guess what, EVERYTIME Israel launches airstrikes, their excuse is to "stop bombing making factories" or a Hamas military installation, etc etc. my suggestion is for Hamas to stop giving Israel targets. I know you think my suggestion of peace is pointless but its really not.
Do you want to know why Byrnzie tells you your argument is pro-Israeli. It is because you keep saying "oh they should both stop any violence for there to be peace". If both sides were losing then your argument would be the best way out but in this case one side is gaining excessively and the other is losing excessively. Your argument may work well in most cases but not in the case of a zionist movement that has ethnic cleansing as one of its goals.
the US will stop supporting Israel if attacks Hamas (after Hamas has laid down its arms and said all attacks on Israel will stop). you can point to the 70s all you want but times are different now.
my main point here is that rocket attacks DO NOTHING to help the Palestinians.
You failed to answer the question I posed so I'll answer it for you. What would it get the Palestinians if they halted attacks and told they israelis we have given up all our weapons? It'll get them the terrorist state of GREATER israel.
first of all, dont answer shit for me. second of all, I did answer your question.
You keep accusing Byrnzie of misquoting you when every post you have quoted me on you have misquoted me to further your argument. Did you even read my post? Where did I say this "Palestinians should continue (rocket) attacks on Israel"? I said the attacks WORKED.
(if Hamas publicly announced they would stop attacks and renounce violence)
I think Israel would lift the blockade on Gaza, provide aid, and discuss giving back occupied land with pressure from the Obama administration and Congress.
I think Israel would run out of excuses to use airstrikes and military incursions.
So all of the onus is on the Palestinians? That's like the Nazis saying that until the Jewish partisan groups and the other resistance movements lay down their weapons and renounce violence the Nazis will continue to maintain their brutal military occupation.
The fact is the Palestinians have adhered to numerous ceasefires and they have always been repaid with more violence, and with increased settlement building.
You ask Hamas to renounce violence. Why are you not also asking Israel to renounce violence?
(if Hamas publicly announced they would stop attacks and renounce violence)
I think Israel would lift the blockade on Gaza, provide aid, and discuss giving back occupied land with pressure from the Obama administration and Congress.
I think Israel would run out of excuses to use airstrikes and military incursions.
So all of the onus is on the Palestinians? That's like the Nazis saying that until the Jewish partisan groups and the other resistance movements lay down their weapons and renounce violence the Nazis will continue to maintain their brutal military occupation.
The fact is the Palestinians have adhered to numerous ceasefires and they have always been repaid with more violence, and with increased settlement building.
Hamas has never laid down there arms and renounced violence.
What are you a lawyer or something? If you want to play semantics, by all means, have fun diddling yourself all day. We said innocent, unarmed, civilians, and a half dozen other descriptors at various times. I think it was plenty clear who we were referring to. But if playing dumb helps you feel like you were right and vindicated, don't let me piss on your parade.
If you're carrying a bat or rocks, you're not unarmed. If you're assaulting, abusing, or harassing, you're not innocent. Clear?
Don't pretend that was your angle all along, because it wasn't. You said innocent civilians & unarmed civilians. You failed to account for the mass of violent settlers who didn't fall into your cozy categories.
You and Jlew excel at playing semantics, putting words in others mouths, and generally muddying the water with your bullshit, so how about you take that stick out of your ass?
(if Hamas publicly announced they would stop attacks and renounce violence)
I don't think there's any misunderstanding in what you're saying here. Hamas must renounce violence, and then Israel - being the benevolent, civilized nation that it is - will follow suit and stop 'retaliating'.
(if Hamas publicly announced they would stop attacks and renounce violence)
I think Israel would lift the blockade on Gaza, provide aid, and discuss giving back occupied land with pressure from the Obama administration and Congress.
I think Israel would run out of excuses to use airstrikes and military incursions.
And what is Israel's excuse right now for continuing to build illegal settlements? Are you suggesting that the settlements are related to Hamas' rocket attacks? If not, then why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?
I don't think there's any misunderstanding in what you're saying here. Hamas must renounce violence, and then Israel - being the benevolent, civilized nation that it is - will follow suit and stop 'retaliating'.
yes. thats what I'm saying. thats just a hopeful guess. and, in my opinion, worth a shot for Hamas. the alternative (firing rockets into Israel) has not done them any good.
(if Hamas publicly announced they would stop attacks and renounce violence)
I think Israel would lift the blockade on Gaza, provide aid, and discuss giving back occupied land with pressure from the Obama administration and Congress.
I think Israel would run out of excuses to use airstrikes and military incursions.
And what is Israel's excuse right now for continuing to build illegal settlements? Are you suggesting that the settlements are related to Hamas' rocket attacks? If not, then why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?
no thats not what I'm suggesting. and ask the jews why they continue to build illegal settlements. I have nothing to do with that.
Hardly. Israel can't be trusted. What I'm saying is that the guy getting robbed needs to get the guy FINANCING the guy who's robbing him to withdraw his support. Israel is irrelevant. They aren't going to stop until the US pulls the plug on them. They have no reason to. Palestine's ONLY hope to gain some measure of justice is to take the US out of the equation so that the international protections and laws can work.
To do that...i believe Palestine needs to lay down its arms. The guy hitting him with the baseball might not stop, but the guy that bought and gave him the bat might take it back and now you've got a fairer fight.
The Palestinians have been getting crushed for 60 years. What makes you think that Americans will give them the sympathy vote if they now simply agree to lay down and die? Look what just happened in Gaza - it was a massacre. 1,300 Palestinians snuffed out. 9 israeli's, 4 of whom were killed by friendly fire. Where was the sympathy in America? The U.S blocked a U.N resolution calling for an immediate end to hostilities. It was fucking disgraceful.
Let's just hope that Obama doesn't follow suit. It would be great if at the next U.N vote on 242 the Americans didn't obstruct a peaceful settlement again and veto it.
What are you a lawyer or something? If you want to play semantics, by all means, have fun diddling yourself all day. We said innocent, unarmed, civilians, and a half dozen other descriptors at various times. I think it was plenty clear who we were referring to. But if playing dumb helps you feel like you were right and vindicated, don't let me piss on your parade.
If you're carrying a bat or rocks, you're not unarmed. If you're assaulting, abusing, or harassing, you're not innocent. Clear?
Don't pretend that was your angle all along, because it wasn't. You said innocent civilians & unarmed civilians. You failed to account for the mass of violent settlers who didn't fall into your cozy categories.
yup. we said innocent and unarmed civillians. "violent settlers" do not fall into that category. where is the confusion?
You and Jlew excel at playing semantics, putting words in others mouths, and generally muddying the water with your bullshit, so how about you take that stick out of your ass?
lol wow. I wonder if you were warned about this type of rhetoric.
I don't think there's any misunderstanding in what you're saying here. Hamas must renounce violence, and then Israel - being the benevolent, civilized nation that it is - will follow suit and stop 'retaliating'.
yes. thats what I'm saying. thats just a hopeful guess. and, in my opinion, worth a shot for Hamas. the alternative (firing rockets into Israel) has not done them any good.
So you admit that you think that Israel is a benevolent peaceful nation and that all of the past 60 years of bloodshed has been the fault of the Palestinians fighting back? Go ahead and let me know if I've in any way distorted what you said.
Are you saying that the Palestinian attacks against Israeli's are responsible for this?:
I don't think there's any misunderstanding in what you're saying here. Hamas must renounce violence, and then Israel - being the benevolent, civilized nation that it is - will follow suit and stop 'retaliating'.
yes. thats what I'm saying. thats just a hopeful guess. and, in my opinion, worth a shot for Hamas. the alternative (firing rockets into Israel) has not done them any good.[/quote]
So you admit that you think that Israel is a benevolent peaceful nation and that all of the past 60 years of bloodshed has been the fault of the Palestinians fighting back? Go ahead and let me know if I've in any way distorted what you said.
no, thats not what I'm saying. nice try though. what a joke. I'll respond again so there is NO misunderstanding.
I don't think there's any misunderstanding in what you're saying here. Hamas must renounce violence, and then Israel - being the benevolent, civilized nation that it is - will follow suit and stop 'retaliating'.
yes that is what I'm saying. except the part about Israel being a benevolent civilized peaceful nation. I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE.
yup. we said innocent and unarmed civillians. "violent settlers" do not fall into that category. where is the confusion?
Thanks for clearing that up for me. So you and Soulsinging disagree then. As far as you're concerned, settlers who verbally abuse old men and women, spit at them, and beat them with their fists, qualify as innocent civilians? The settlers in the article I posted above, who, on a daily basis were recorded abusing schoolgirls on their way to school, beating them with their fists, and throwing rocks at them, constitute innocent civilians?
yup. we said innocent and unarmed civillians. "violent settlers" do not fall into that category. where is the confusion?
Thanks for clearing that up for me. So you and Soulsinging disagree then. As far as you're concerned, settlers who verbally abuse old men and women, spit at them, and beat them with their fists, qualify as innocent civilians? The settlers in the article I posted above, who, on a daily basis were recorded abusing schoolgirls on their way to school, beating them with their fists, and throwing rocks at them, constitute innocent civilians?
you are asking me if someone verbally abuses another person, they should be shot and killed? no, thats not what I'm saying.
yes. thats what I'm saying. thats just a hopeful guess. and, in my opinion, worth a shot for Hamas. the alternative (firing rockets into Israel) has not done them any good.
Israel massacred 900 civilians, including 400 children, in January of this year, and your response is that the Palestinians must renounce violence and lay down their weapons.
yes. thats what I'm saying. thats just a hopeful guess. and, in my opinion, worth a shot for Hamas. the alternative (firing rockets into Israel) has not done them any good.
Israel massacred 900 civilians, including 400 children, in January of this year, and your response is that the Palestinians must renounce violence and lay down their weapons.
Truly mind-boggling.
what excuse did Israel use for massacring 900 civilians? o thats right, to protect themselves from rockets being fired into Israel.
take rockets out of the equation, maybe, just maybe, Israel wouldn't have a reason to "protect" itself.
What are you a lawyer or something? If you want to play semantics, by all means, have fun diddling yourself all day. We said innocent, unarmed, civilians, and a half dozen other descriptors at various times. I think it was plenty clear who we were referring to. But if playing dumb helps you feel like you were right and vindicated, don't let me piss on your parade.
If you're carrying a bat or rocks, you're not unarmed. If you're assaulting, abusing, or harassing, you're not innocent. Clear?
Don't pretend that was your angle all along, because it wasn't. You said innocent civilians & unarmed civilians. You failed to account for the mass of violent settlers who didn't fall into your cozy categories.
You and Jlew excel at playing semantics, putting words in others mouths, and generally muddying the water with your bullshit, so how about you take that stick out of your ass?
You're a piece of work my man. Even when we've discovered we agree you continue to argue. Are you hoping at some point I'll apologize for ever disputing your genius, beg your forgiveness, and praise you as the most brilliant political mind of our time? What kind of validation are you hoping for here? Will it make you feel a lot better about yourself if jlew and I just say you're absolutely right about everything and nobody can ever possibly dispute a point you've made (despite the fact that I already shot down your claimed expertise on American free speech)? If your self esteem needs a boost that bad, I'm not above helping you out man.
you are asking me if someone verbally abuses another person, they should be shot and killed? no, thats not what I'm saying.
Nice try at avoiding the fact that they beat people, sometimes to death. I posted a bunch of articles above which highlight the daily physical assaults by these settlers. But never mind that part, just focus your attention on the verbal abuse. This is perfectly in line with your reasoning all along in this thread - Israel has been engaged in a 60 year brutal ethnic cleansing campaign and land grab. It is currently in breach of over 60 U.N resolutions. It stands accused of war crimes by every international human rights organization, along with the U.N. Less than 6 months ago it carried out a massacre against a defenseless civilian population whom it had previously imprisoned for two years and reduced to abject poverty and chronic malnutrition.
And your response is that the Palestinians need to renounce violence and lay down their weapons, and that Israel is a civilized and benevolent nation.
I already shot down your claimed expertise on American free speech)
Sure, give yourself a pat on the back. I pretended to be an 'expert' on American free speech as it pertains to racial hatred on the internet. Your chest must have been swelling with pride ever since. Did you tell your lawyer buddies in the bar about it yesterday?
what excuse did Israel use for massacring 900 civilians? o thats right, to protect themselves from rockets being fired into Israel.
take rockets out of the equation, maybe, just maybe, Israel wouldn't have a reason to "protect" itself.
its shocking, I know.
And what excuse did Israel give for the two year illegal blockade of Gaza which preceded the rocket attacks? Or are you going to pretend that the first rocket attack was carried out in year zero?
yup. we said innocent and unarmed civillians. "violent settlers" do not fall into that category. where is the confusion?
Thanks for clearing that up for me. So you and Soulsinging disagree then. As far as you're concerned, settlers who verbally abuse old men and women, spit at them, and beat them with their fists, qualify as innocent civilians? The settlers in the article I posted above, who, on a daily basis were recorded abusing schoolgirls on their way to school, beating them with their fists, and throwing rocks at them, constitute innocent civilians?
Spitting and yelling... innocent in the sense they don't deserve to die. You don't kill someone for talking shit about you. Though given your anger and aggression in here, I can see why you'd try to justify it.
Beating... not innocent and fair game for fighting back. That's called self defense.
you are asking me if someone verbally abuses another person, they should be shot and killed? no, thats not what I'm saying.
Nice try at avoiding the fact that they beat people, sometimes to death. I posted a bunch of articled above which highlight the daily physical assaults by these settlers. But never mind that part, just focus your attention on the verbal abuse.
you are the one who mentioned "verbal abuse" as a reason to kill someone, not me.
if one of those settlers beat someone up, I expect the other person to fight back. are we going to argue on a case by case basis here on which settlers deserve to die and which dont?
This is perfectly in line with your reasoning all along in this thread - Israel has been engaged in a 60 year brutal ethnic cleansing campaign and land grab. It is currently in breach of over 60 U.N resolutions. It stands accused of war crimes by every international human rights organization, along with the U.N. Less than 6 months ago it carried out a massacre against a defenseless civilian population whom it had previously imprisoned for two years and reduced to abject poverty and chronic malnutrition.
And your response is that the Palestinians need to renounce violence and lay down their weapons,
yes. I think its in the Palestinians best interest to lay down their arms and renouce violence. I do not feel the alternative, of firing worthless rockets into Israel, will help their cause at all. I think it will just bring on more death and destruction. and thats not what I want.
Comments
In the short term, yes. In the long term, it bears a good chance of turning the tide in the US the next time Israel goes nuts and blows up a bunch of innocent civilians.
rocket attacks worked? how? what did they accomplish? you said you dont understand how someone could want Palestinians to stop attacks. well call me crazy, but that means you want them to continue. I'm not misquoting you.
again, are you not suggesting the rocket attacks should continue? by all means, correct me if I'm wrong. you really seem to think they work. personally I think its fucking moronic for them to do so. that will just bring more death and destruction.
according to some reports, the "ceasefire" was broken when Israel found Hamas digging a tunnel into Israel. are you really shocked Israel tried to stop that from happening? I'm not.
and guess what, EVERYTIME Israel launches airstrikes, their excuse is to "stop bombing making factories" or a Hamas military installation, etc etc. my suggestion is for Hamas to stop giving Israel targets. I know you think my suggestion of peace is pointless but its really not.
the US will stop supporting Israel if attacks Hamas (after Hamas has laid down its arms and said all attacks on Israel will stop). you can point to the 70s all you want but times are different now.
my main point here is that rocket attacks DO NOTHING to help the Palestinians.
first of all, dont answer shit for me. second of all, I did answer your question.
far be it from me to misquote you so I'll ask.
should Hamas continue rocket attacks on Israel ?
So all of the onus is on the Palestinians? That's like the Nazis saying that until the Jewish partisan groups and the other resistance movements lay down their weapons and renounce violence the Nazis will continue to maintain their brutal military occupation.
The fact is the Palestinians have adhered to numerous ceasefires and they have always been repaid with more violence, and with increased settlement building.
You ask Hamas to renounce violence. Why are you not also asking Israel to renounce violence?
Hamas has never laid down there arms and renounced violence.
Don't pretend that was your angle all along, because it wasn't. You said innocent civilians & unarmed civilians. You failed to account for the mass of violent settlers who didn't fall into your cozy categories.
You and Jlew excel at playing semantics, putting words in others mouths, and generally muddying the water with your bullshit, so how about you take that stick out of your ass?
I don't think there's any misunderstanding in what you're saying here. Hamas must renounce violence, and then Israel - being the benevolent, civilized nation that it is - will follow suit and stop 'retaliating'.
Another bullshit question which only proves that you still completely miss the point.
They've already tried it. They adhered to the ceasefire last year and the result was that Israel carried out an incursion and murdered 6 Palestinians.
What have you got to say about that?
And what is Israel's excuse right now for continuing to build illegal settlements? Are you suggesting that the settlements are related to Hamas' rocket attacks? If not, then why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?
yes. thats what I'm saying. thats just a hopeful guess. and, in my opinion, worth a shot for Hamas. the alternative (firing rockets into Israel) has not done them any good.
digging illegal tunnels into Israel and not laying down their arms is not the same as a ceasefire.
maybe those 6 Palestinians shouldnt have dug that illegal tunnel. they would still be alive
no thats not what I'm suggesting. and ask the jews why they continue to build illegal settlements. I have nothing to do with that.
its not a bullshit question. its a direct question. feel free to answer. if not, maybe you shouldnt troll in with insulting remarks. just a thought.
I agree.
The Palestinians have been getting crushed for 60 years. What makes you think that Americans will give them the sympathy vote if they now simply agree to lay down and die? Look what just happened in Gaza - it was a massacre. 1,300 Palestinians snuffed out. 9 israeli's, 4 of whom were killed by friendly fire. Where was the sympathy in America? The U.S blocked a U.N resolution calling for an immediate end to hostilities. It was fucking disgraceful.
Let's just hope that Obama doesn't follow suit. It would be great if at the next U.N vote on 242 the Americans didn't obstruct a peaceful settlement again and veto it.
yup. we said innocent and unarmed civillians. "violent settlers" do not fall into that category. where is the confusion?
lol wow. I wonder if you were warned about this type of rhetoric.
So you admit that you think that Israel is a benevolent peaceful nation and that all of the past 60 years of bloodshed has been the fault of the Palestinians fighting back? Go ahead and let me know if I've in any way distorted what you said.
Are you saying that the Palestinian attacks against Israeli's are responsible for this?:
yes. thats what I'm saying. thats just a hopeful guess. and, in my opinion, worth a shot for Hamas. the alternative (firing rockets into Israel) has not done them any good.[/quote]
no, thats not what I'm saying. nice try though. what a joke. I'll respond again so there is NO misunderstanding.
yes that is what I'm saying. except the part about Israel being a benevolent civilized peaceful nation. I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE.
nope. Israel is responsible for that.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. So you and Soulsinging disagree then. As far as you're concerned, settlers who verbally abuse old men and women, spit at them, and beat them with their fists, qualify as innocent civilians? The settlers in the article I posted above, who, on a daily basis were recorded abusing schoolgirls on their way to school, beating them with their fists, and throwing rocks at them, constitute innocent civilians?
you are asking me if someone verbally abuses another person, they should be shot and killed? no, thats not what I'm saying.
Israel massacred 900 civilians, including 400 children, in January of this year, and your response is that the Palestinians must renounce violence and lay down their weapons.
Truly mind-boggling.
what excuse did Israel use for massacring 900 civilians? o thats right, to protect themselves from rockets being fired into Israel.
take rockets out of the equation, maybe, just maybe, Israel wouldn't have a reason to "protect" itself.
its shocking, I know.
You're a piece of work my man. Even when we've discovered we agree you continue to argue. Are you hoping at some point I'll apologize for ever disputing your genius, beg your forgiveness, and praise you as the most brilliant political mind of our time? What kind of validation are you hoping for here? Will it make you feel a lot better about yourself if jlew and I just say you're absolutely right about everything and nobody can ever possibly dispute a point you've made (despite the fact that I already shot down your claimed expertise on American free speech)? If your self esteem needs a boost that bad, I'm not above helping you out man.
Nice try at avoiding the fact that they beat people, sometimes to death. I posted a bunch of articles above which highlight the daily physical assaults by these settlers. But never mind that part, just focus your attention on the verbal abuse. This is perfectly in line with your reasoning all along in this thread - Israel has been engaged in a 60 year brutal ethnic cleansing campaign and land grab. It is currently in breach of over 60 U.N resolutions. It stands accused of war crimes by every international human rights organization, along with the U.N. Less than 6 months ago it carried out a massacre against a defenseless civilian population whom it had previously imprisoned for two years and reduced to abject poverty and chronic malnutrition.
And your response is that the Palestinians need to renounce violence and lay down their weapons, and that Israel is a civilized and benevolent nation.
Go figure.
Sure, give yourself a pat on the back. I pretended to be an 'expert' on American free speech as it pertains to racial hatred on the internet. Your chest must have been swelling with pride ever since. Did you tell your lawyer buddies in the bar about it yesterday?
And what excuse did Israel give for the two year illegal blockade of Gaza which preceded the rocket attacks? Or are you going to pretend that the first rocket attack was carried out in year zero?
Spitting and yelling... innocent in the sense they don't deserve to die. You don't kill someone for talking shit about you. Though given your anger and aggression in here, I can see why you'd try to justify it.
Beating... not innocent and fair game for fighting back. That's called self defense.
Right, so do we agree that the thousands of settlers who engage in routine physical violence against Palestinians constitute legitimate targets?
you are the one who mentioned "verbal abuse" as a reason to kill someone, not me.
if one of those settlers beat someone up, I expect the other person to fight back. are we going to argue on a case by case basis here on which settlers deserve to die and which dont?
yes. I think its in the Palestinians best interest to lay down their arms and renouce violence. I do not feel the alternative, of firing worthless rockets into Israel, will help their cause at all. I think it will just bring on more death and destruction. and thats not what I want.
I never said that. I even had to reply again since you "muddy the waters" and "put words in my mouth"
wait, didnt you just accuse others of doing that?
go figure.