• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

A Palestinian Hero is Finally Coming Home

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Matt1970 called it like Babe Ruth! :)

Not surprising, though... LL has been hugging and supporting Islamic terrorists for years -- so much so that I sincerely hope he's on an official watch-list.
Not to diminish Matt's achievement here, but predicting LL's arguments isn't exactly rocket science...
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
:eek: LL cant possibly be that bad can he?
Yes, he really is. According to LL, attacks on women and children are completely justified because they're the only weapons available to his oppressed freedom fighting friends in the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.

Since their enemies have the unfair advantage of satellites, tanks, and fighter jets, it's apparently OK to blow up a schoolbus full of children or a hospital full of civilians.

Seriously, he's that f'd up.
 

Sephire

Golden Member
Feb 9, 2011
1,689
2
76
Hamas gains political support/influence.
Isreal stays true to her people

Will Hamas use the increased influence to further the cause of a Palestinian state or try to destroy any progress. That becomes the key issue.

We know Israel will lash out should anything be launched against her. Her fury will be worse if a released prisoner is involved.
No prisoners this time. Israel already thought about this. They made sure that they know where this terrorists hide in case another attack on then happens soon.

They got their Shalit back. It's up to the Palestinians to make the next move.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,148
1
76
The only thing we have to remember is that there is a slight, but significant, distinction between "justifiable" and "understandable".

I, for one, can understand why a group of people, standing toe to toe David and Goliath would rather go for Goliath's balls than a "fair fight". It just does not WORK that way.

You then get distinctions like the "nicer" side of the IRA, where they would "call ahead" to warn people of where they were planting so that women and children would not be hurt.

But you also look at many other movements where the only thing available for them to attack were the civilians. Hell, even our own actions in WWII bombed factories and other establishments where civilians worked (not the same as underwear bombing, I know).

The problem is simple. Absolute dismissal of an altering viewpoint will never bring resolution. The only solution is one that will take much more time, effort, and a hell of a lot less bullets.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
The only thing we have to remember is that there is a slight, but significant, distinction between "justifiable" and "understandable".

I, for one, can understand why a group of people, standing toe to toe David and Goliath would rather go for Goliath's balls than a "fair fight". It just does not WORK that way.

You then get distinctions like the "nicer" side of the IRA, where they would "call ahead" to warn people of where they were planting so that women and children would not be hurt.

But you also look at many other movements where the only thing available for them to attack were the civilians. Hell, even our own actions in WWII bombed factories and other establishments where civilians worked (not the same as underwear bombing, I know).

The problem is simple. Absolute dismissal of an altering viewpoint will never bring resolution. The only solution is one that will take much more time, effort, and a hell of a lot less bullets.
I agree.

However, the problem with the LL's of the world is that they lean much more toward "acceptable" and "justifiable," than they do toward "understandable."
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
LL will justify any Palestinian actions using history as an excuse because Israel did it.
Yet the Palestinians were also doing it as well.

Fast Forward.
Now the Palestinians are doing it and if Israel responds - it is bad.


He wants the justification to only be one sided.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
There are a couple basic flaws in the argument advanced by LL - that terrorism is just the weak side conducting war by the only means possible. It presumes that conducting any sort of war is necessary to begin with. Virtually all Palestinians who have died at the hands of the Israelis have died in the past 11 years of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The first 33 years of it yielded virtually no deaths, and the culmination of those 33 years was an offer of statehood on nearly all of the disputed territory. The Pals chose to reject this and start up a bloody intifada. They chose war over peace. Whatever the response of Israel, be it disproportionate or not, the choice of war was that of the Palestinians and hence it is a fallacy to argue that they have no choice but to use terrorism. If war was forced upon them the argument would have some weight. It has no weight when the terroristic side chooses war.

The second major point here is that people who argue that the Pals are conducting war by the only means possible don't understand what the real purpose of the terrorism is. The Pals cannot defeat Israel militarily with terrorism, no matter how much of it they conduct, no matter how many civilians they kill. Nor can they accomplish the purpose through the indirect channel of instilling terror in the Israeli citizenry and hence causing them to pressure their government to accede to the Pal demands. The Pals know very well that the opposite is true. The terrorism only serves to harden Israeli opinion against the Pals, and causes them to elect one hard line government after another. If the U.S. we were suffering daily terrorists attacks, would we elect people with a softer and more conciliatory approach, or hardliners who promise to stamp the terrorists out with force? I think we all know the answer to that question.

The hard line regimes of Sharon and Netanyahu are exactly what the Pals have bought and paid for. The Israeli left (it's Labor Party) has been in the political wilderness for over a decade now. This is exactly what the Pals want, because this is a war of public relations. They know that the terrorism will cause increasingly hard line Israeli governments to undertake increasingly hard line responses that will result in the deaths of an increasing number of Pals, including especially civilians who will inevitably be caught in the line of fire.

And the Arabs, in all their disdain for western culture, understand some things about that culture. They are aware that "Christendom" has been afflicted with 2 millennium of anti-semitism, which causes any action taken by Jews to endure 1000 fold the scrutiny of actions undertaken by anyone else. And second, they know of this "soft spot" liberal tradition we have for backing the underdog - the implicit assumption that might makes wrong. They play to both of these elements in western culture beautifully, and they get the expected result - their own actions and violence are excused, minimized, justified as rational responses to the aggression of a powerful bully who has left them no other choice in the matter. The object is to isolate the state of Israel and force concession after concession until it concedes itself out of existence. Every opinion poll bears this out - Pals support a "two state solution" only as a stepping stone to ridding Palestine of Jews. It's been the Arab objective since the invasion of 1948, long before there was an occupation or settlements.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,148
1
76
Just a quickie wolf.... You also have to admit, the offer of "statehood" was pretty much saying "OK, you can have Camden and Patterson, but we get the rest of the state"

"Oh, you can have Newark too, but we keep the refineries and airport..."
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
They had everything back to '48 and turned it down.
then they had options for 80+&#37; afterwards and turned it down.

the Palestinians have wanted everything or nothing.

Up to this point they have something and are slowly losing it again because they are demanding all.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Just a quickie wolf.... You also have to admit, the offer of "statehood" was pretty much saying "OK, you can have Camden and Patterson, but we get the rest of the state"

"Oh, you can have Newark too, but we keep the refineries and airport..."
They offered them virtually all of the West Bank, and 100&#37; of Gaza. Not at, but very close to the original pre-1967 green line. Is this territory ideal for a state? If course not. Neither is Israel's territory for that matter. This is what happens when you try to cram two states into a territory as small as what was left of Palestine after the Brits ceded off 2/3's of it to become the state of Jordan. Is Israel getting the better end of it? Yes they are. The Pals should have taken the deal that was offered in 1948. Why should they be freed from the consequences of the bad decision to reject the original partition? If they want to blame someone other than themselves, maybe they should lay some blame on the surrounding Arab nations who chose war instead of tolerating a majority Jewish state in Palestine.

The bottom line here is, has it been worth all this? 11 years of bloodshed because they were offered 96% of the West Bank instead of 100%? This was their choice. Terrorism cannot be justified as their only option.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,581
313
126
Do you persinally consider this bomber's actions -- attempting to blow up a civilian hospital and encouraging children to one day do the same -- heroic or justifiable in any way, shape, or form?
Given the context under which the Palestinians live, Id call it an act of desperation.

What are the Palestinians supposed to do, send nasty letters to the UN?
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,581
313
126
There are a couple basic flaws in the argument advanced by LL - that terrorism is just the weak side conducting war by the only means possible. It presumes that conducting any sort of war is necessary to begin with. Virtually all Palestinians who have died at the hands of the Israelis have died in the past 11 years of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The first 33 years of it yielded virtually no deaths, and the culmination of those 33 years was an offer of statehood on nearly all of the disputed territory. The Pals chose to reject this and start up a bloody intifada. They chose war over peace. Whatever the response of Israel, be it disproportionate or not, the choice of war was that of the Palestinians and hence it is a fallacy to argue that they have no choice but to use terrorism. If war was forced upon them the argument would have some weight. It has no weight when the terroristic side chooses war.

The second major point here is that people who argue that the Pals are conducting war by the only means possible don't understand what the real purpose of the terrorism is. The Pals cannot defeat Israel militarily with terrorism, no matter how much of it they conduct, no matter how many civilians they kill. Nor can they accomplish the purpose through the indirect channel of instilling terror in the Israeli citizenry and hence causing them to pressure their government to accede to the Pal demands. The Pals know very well that the opposite is true. The terrorism only serves to harden Israeli opinion against the Pals, and causes them to elect one hard line government after another. If the U.S. we were suffering daily terrorists attacks, would we elect people with a softer and more conciliatory approach, or hardliners who promise to stamp the terrorists out with force? I think we all know the answer to that question.

The hard line regimes of Sharon and Netanyahu are exactly what the Pals have bought and paid for. The Israeli left (it's Labor Party) has been in the political wilderness for over a decade now. This is exactly what the Pals want, because this is a war of public relations. They know that the terrorism will cause increasingly hard line Israeli governments to undertake increasingly hard line responses that will result in the deaths of an increasing number of Pals, including especially civilians who will inevitably be caught in the line of fire.

And the Arabs, in all their disdain for western culture, understand some things about that culture. They are aware that "Christendom" has been afflicted with 2 millennium of anti-semitism, which causes any action taken by Jews to endure 1000 fold the scrutiny of actions undertaken by anyone else. And second, they know of this "soft spot" liberal tradition we have for backing the underdog - the implicit assumption that might makes wrong. They play to both of these elements in western culture beautifully, and they get the expected result - their own actions and violence are excused, minimized, justified as rational responses to the aggression of a powerful bully who has left them no other choice in the matter. The object is to isolate the state of Israel and force concession after concession until it concedes itself out of existence. Every opinion poll bears this out - Pals support a "two state solution" only as a stepping stone to ridding Palestine of Jews. It's been the Arab objective since the invasion of 1948, long before there was an occupation or settlements.

- wolf
Wow, where did you get your history from? AIPAC?
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
1
76
They don't even TRY to hit military targets. Sure, they kill soldiers if they can grab them, but when they plan something it's always against civilians. True freedom fighters. In the Israeli prison, they were well fed and looked after, got state-funded university degrees (from Israeli universities no less). It's madness.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Just another pissing contest thread, as finding a just solution to a 63 year old conflict gets kicked further down the road.

But as Israeli fan clubbers fail to notice, Israeli bullshit propaganda has taken a big hit during the last decade. As most nations on earth already side with the Palestinians by a two to one margin, and as time goes on it far likely to become far worse, as both Israel and the USA become increasingly diplomatically isolated.

Maybe President Obama can't now afford to politically offend AIPAC, but Israel forgot to have a AIPAC anywhere else.

And when ole Bozo Netanyuhu announced the very provocation of new settlements in East Jerusalem the EU set as a pre condition not to, we shall see what the UN security council does about it when they take up the issue early next month.

Meanwhile why should all of us on P&N engage in revisionist history pissing contests, it will finally depend on world consensus that right now does not look good for Israel or the USA?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,183
3,872
126
They don't even TRY to hit military targets. Sure, they kill soldiers if they can grab them, but when they plan something it's always against civilians. True freedom fighters. In the Israeli prison, they were well fed and looked after, got state-funded university degrees (from Israeli universities no less). It's madness.
What if they were driven mad intentionally? All you have to do is destroy people's self respect sufficiently and they will seek to kill you. All you have to do is push people's buttons and they will go nuts. They when one side has vastly superior arms, that side can kill the other they have driven mad in purported self defense.

Once you have killed the irrational murdering bastards that suicide bomb with their kids, you can take their land. All you need to have is the physical upper hand. And all of this from the hysterical notion that God gave them the land. And then we talk about the other side as being mad. Hehe. Step back a bit and you can see the whole titanic joke for what it is, madness itself on all sides.

And there are folk on both sides who have some sense, and some humanity left. I wish them well.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY