Why There won't be Peace In the Middle East

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
*hint: the palestinians don't have helicopters*

A helicopter is capable of a pinpoint strike, while the suicide bomber is inaccurate by nature.

Seriously, this argument is getting old, that they have to do what they have to do, while sepcifically ignoring the difference in targets chosen.

Where in that can one find 'A dead jew is a good jew'?

You could make precision strikes with a helicopter, but Israel doesn't. Which side has killed more people? Which side has killed more children?

*Hint: it's not palestine*

Which side is defending it self?

*Hint: it's not palestine*

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
*hint: the palestinians don't have helicopters*

A helicopter is capable of a pinpoint strike, while the suicide bomber is inaccurate by nature.

Seriously, this argument is getting old, that they have to do what they have to do, while sepcifically ignoring the difference in targets chosen.

Its silly that you even have to point that out to people. The difference between intentionally targeting civilians with suicide bombs and strikes on militants with helicopters is glaringly obvious.

A suicide bomber can get much closer to their target than a helicopter can. After that, the level of explosive force being deployed is probably higher for the helicopter.

The issue is not who can get closer to the target and who is capable of more force, the issue is who they are targeting.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You could make precision strikes with a helicopter, but Israel doesn't. Which side has killed more people? Which side has killed more children?

Which side has its children out on the streets throwing rocks, in order to use them as cover? Or women while they escape a mosque?

You can compare raw numbers, but that doesn't tell you much.

Where in that can one find 'A dead jew is a good jew'?

In case you haven't noticed, I did not reply to that.
On the other hand, Narmer's comments amount to that, if you're familiar with his posting history.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
*hint: the palestinians don't have helicopters*

A helicopter is capable of a pinpoint strike, while the suicide bomber is inaccurate by nature.

Seriously, this argument is getting old, that they have to do what they have to do, while sepcifically ignoring the difference in targets chosen.

Where in that can one find 'A dead jew is a good jew'?

You could make precision strikes with a helicopter, but Israel doesn't. Which side has killed more people? Which side has killed more children?

*Hint: it's not palestine*

Which side is defending it self?

*Hint: it's not palestine*

Retaliating is not defending yourself.

The truth is both sides believe they are defending themselves, and both believe in some version of 'greater purpose'.

This is why the atrocities and conflict are unlikely to end.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
*hint: the palestinians don't have helicopters*

A helicopter is capable of a pinpoint strike, while the suicide bomber is inaccurate by nature.

Seriously, this argument is getting old, that they have to do what they have to do, while sepcifically ignoring the difference in targets chosen.

Its silly that you even have to point that out to people. The difference between intentionally targeting civilians with suicide bombs and strikes on militants with helicopters is glaringly obvious.

A suicide bomber can get much closer to their target than a helicopter can. After that, the level of explosive force being deployed is probably higher for the helicopter.

The issue is not who can get closer to the target and who is capable of more force, the issue is who they are targeting.

So Israel is more precisely targetting children than is palestine, in it's efforts to defend itself?

You suck at teh arguing.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So Israel is more precisely targetting children than is palestine, in it's efforts to defend itself?

Are you conveniently avoiding my previous remark?

As for targetting children, why don't you link to something instead of all this hot air.

Retaliating is not defending yourself.

Targetting the house of a militant leader is no necessarily retaliation, after all, offense is the best defense.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So Israel is more precisely targetting children than is palestine, in it's efforts to defend itself?

Are you conveniently avoiding my previous remark?

As for targetting children, why don't you link to something instead of all this hot air.

Retaliating is not defending yourself.

Targetting the house of a militant leader is no necessarily retaliation, after all, offense is the best defense.

Obviously why Palestinians kill Israelis.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: halik
You're a fool if you think the hate is one-sided.

One side of the conflict is an advanced society that can be reasoned with, coerced, or even told under threat of war to stop and make peace. The other side is trained from birth in indoctrination that heaven is achieved through self detonation and killing of innocent life.

Palestine as a government must be destroyed, its institutions of radical Islam banished from the face of the earth and only when its children are not brainwashed into bloodthirsty suicide can there ever be a future for them.

You aid them every time you try to equalize the situation and downplay the fact that the radical indoctrination of Islam is only on one side of the war. The belief system that heaven is through homicide and self destruction must be BANISHED. Stop making excuses for it; stop equalizing it and trying to add morale foundation for it. It is vile and absurd for you not to join us in advocating that this radical indoctrination is banished.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Obviously why Palestinians kill Israelis.

Even though your remarks are supposed to be sarcastic and/or funny, you fare no better than 3chordcharlie since you just took out of the equation the intended targets, and made both actions seem equal, i.e. an act of defense.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So Israel is more precisely targetting children than is palestine, in it's efforts to defend itself?

Are you conveniently avoiding my previous remark?

As for targetting children, why don't you link to something instead of all this hot air.

Retaliating is not defending yourself.

Targetting the house of a militant leader is no necessarily retaliation, after all, offense is the best defense.

That's not a 'truth' it's a phrase, and you can't offer it as proof.

I would rather that you, who hold such strong opinions, already knew that 'your guys' have killed many more people, more civilians, and more children than Palestine, and believed there was some real justification for it (i.e. that you were prepared to make an 'apology', which FTR does not actually mean 'I'm sorry').

But you choose to hide behind denial, which tells me that you've bought Israel's hard-luck story, hook, line and sinker.

But here you go: Study on media bias

This study is about the wildly skewed reporting of deaths on American network television, which has left most Americans with the impression that Palestinians kill Jews everyday, and are rarely held to account.

I suspect you will question the legitimacy of the study, simply because it is convenient for you to do so - the numbers are all real, but you will deny them anyway.

As a matter of fact though, I'm fine with that. I'm not arguing with you about media bias, I'm arguing about number of deaths, and you will have trouble with that, because of the source:

We recognize that reporting on Israel/Palestine has been an exceptionally controversial topic. Therefore, while there are many potential yardsticks for measuring accuracy, we chose criteria that would be widely acknowledged as significant, conducive to statistical analysis, and immune to subjective interpretation.

We chose to focus on the reporting of deaths, because this allows meaningful statistical analysis that would be impossible in a qualitative study. This unambiguous yardstick allows us to determine whether media demonstrate even-handed respect for human life, regardless of ethnic or religious background. Fortunately, accurate data for both populations is available from the widely respected Israeli human rights organization, B?Tselem

What this means is you can ignore all implications of media bias, and you're still left with raw numbers that tell you Israel has killed far more people than Palestine, including many more children.

Now, are you satisfied enough to perhaps make a real argument as to why Israel killing children with their helicopters is 'okay'?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Obviously why Palestinians kill Israelis.

Even though your remarks are supposed to be sarcastic and/or funny, you fare no better than 3chordcharlie since you just took out of the equation the intended targets, and made both actions seem equal, i.e. an act of defense.

You think any rational person would view you as 'winning' this argument?


Wow, you're really out there.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
That's not a 'truth' it's a phrase, and you can't offer it as proof.

What are you talking about?
There have been many phrases, and it wouldn't hurt you to be more specific.

Nevertheless, I've noticed that from your long post two things were abset:

1. Proof that Israel is targeting children.
2. Any reply as to the Palestinians use of children and women as shields.

I'm sure you'll get to that at some point.

You think any rational person would view you as 'winning' this argument?

Read it again; it's not even an argument.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
That's not a 'truth' it's a phrase, and you can't offer it as proof.

What are you talking about?
There have been many phrases, and it wouldn't hurt you to be more specific.

'Targetting the house of a militant leader is no necessarily retaliation, after all, offense is the best defense.'

This is not an argument, or evidence, it's simply a 'saying'.

Nevertheless, I've noticed that from your long post two things were abset:

1. Proof that Israel is targeting children.
2. Any reply as to the Palestinians use of children and women as shields.

I'm sure you'll get to that at some point.

Israel tends to attack residential areas, as opposed to business ones. But when you blow up a house in a crowded neighborhood, you can hardly call this 'precise targetting'.

If Israel responded to attacks with truly targetted retaliations (say, assassinating a known terrorist leader with a rifle), that might be the sort of 'measured response' that they claim to make.

I, for one, would be more impressed if Israel passed on the opportunity to retaliate, because they were unable to catch someone in a position to make a 'targetted attack'.

If Israel wants to continue their policy of pseudo-genocide, they should be open about it, although they won't earn any more support from me than they have already.

You think any rational person would view you as 'winning' this argument?

Read it again; it's not even an argument.[/quote]
So you're response is to ignore the whole post. Well done.

I've been mistaken, you're not an aplogist: apologists offer something. You're a zealot.

 

[JD50]

So I guess in WW2 the Americans were the bad guys because we killed many more innocent German civilians than the Germans killed innocent American civilians right?

Or maybe raw numbers don't make up the whole story....

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JD50
So I guess in WW2 the Americans were the bad guys because we killed many more innocent German civilians than the Germans killed innocent American civilians right?

Or maybe raw numbers don't make up the whole story....

If you're talking about Dresden, then yes, the Allied leaders were wrong, and acted out of a desire to get revenge while the getting was good.

Are you under the impression that WWII was a war between Germany and America?

Your fall-back position lacks credibility, because a few minutes ago, when you were either unaware of the real story on deaths, or thought that I was unaware of it (or speculating), you said:

The issue is not who can get closer to the target and who is capable of more force, the issue is who they are targeting.

Now that this position is shot, you retreat to 'it doesn't matter, because Israel is obviously on moral highground'. I fail to see what's so obvious about that.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50
So I guess in WW2 the Americans were the bad guys because we killed many more innocent German civilians than the Germans killed innocent American civilians right?

Or maybe raw numbers don't make up the whole story....

If you're talking about Dresden, then yes, the Allied leaders were wrong, and acted out of a desire to get revenge while the getting was good.

Are you under the impression that WWII was a war between Germany and America?

Your fall-back position lacks credibility, because a few minutes ago, when you were either unaware of the real story on deaths, or thought that I was unaware of it (or speculating), you said:

The issue is not who can get closer to the target and who is capable of more force, the issue is who they are targeting.

Now that this position is shot, you retreat to 'it doesn't matter, because Israel is obviously on moral highground'. I fail to see what's so obvious about that.

No, I hold both positions, Israel is on the moral highground. My point is, that you are using raw numbers of civilian deaths to say that Israel is intentionally targeting innocent civilians, and raw numbers do not make up the whole story. Even if you can find the rare instance where an Israeli soldier intentionally kills an innocent civilian, I seriously doubt that it is the norm.

 

[Aisengard]

You could also take for an example the nuclear bombing of civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Raw numbers taken out of context are useless, and people do it because when you put them in context, it invalidates their point.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Israel tends to attack residential areas, as opposed to business ones. But when you blow up a house in a crowded neighborhood, you can hardly call this 'precise targetting'.

Why don't you tell us where the militants hold their gatherings, plan their suicide bombings, or just hide?

If Israel responded to attacks with truly targetted retaliations (say, assassinating a known terrorist leader with a rifle), that might be the sort of 'measured response' that they claim to make.

Gotcha! Send troops into hostile territory so they can punch a militant in the face, while taking care not to leave any dirt on the rug.

There is little point of arguing with you about measured reponse -- you'd probably even b*tch if Israel sent suicide bombers in response.

If Israel wants to continue their policy of pseudo-genocide, they should be open about it, although they won't earn any more support from me than they have already.

Heh... I should've guessed -- "pseudo genocide". Must be the worst genocide ever, given that their numbers are rising so quickly.

So you're response is to ignore the whole post. Well done.

Which post? Are you being intentionally vague?
My one-liner was in reponse to your one-liner, unless you're talking about your tirade about media bias, which is hardly relevant.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Israel tends to attack residential areas, as opposed to business ones. But when you blow up a house in a crowded neighborhood, you can hardly call this 'precise targetting'.

Why don't you tell us where the militants hold their gatherings, plan their suicide bombings, or just hide?

If Israel responded to attacks with truly targetted retaliations (say, assassinating a known terrorist leader with a rifle), that might be the sort of 'measured response' that they claim to make.

Gotcha! Send troops into hostile territory so they can punch a militant in the face, while taking care not to leave any dirt on the rug.

There is little point of arguing with you about measured reponse -- you'd probably even b*tch if Israel sent suicide bombers in response.

If Israel wants to continue their policy of pseudo-genocide, they should be open about it, although they won't earn any more support from me than they have already.

Heh... I should've guessed -- "pseudo genocide". Must be the worst genocide ever, given that their numbers are rising so quickly.

So you're response is to ignore the whole post. Well done.

Which post? Are you being intentionally vague?
My one-liner was in reponse to your one-liner, unless you're talking about your tirade about media bias, which is hardly relevant.

Actually, the problem is that you didn't read the post. The media bias is both real, and relevant, but if you had read the post (to his credit, JD50 did, and is currently light-years ahead of you in terms of formulating a rational argument), you would have discovered that it was simply a source with some nice graphs to show relative deaths on the two sides of the conflict. You would also have discovered that the deaths data does not come from what would normally be considered a 'biased' source, thus allowing you to disregard the study itself, and still be stuck with the numbers.

Your use of the word tirade is highly suspect, and simply offers more proof that you didn't read the post.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Your use of the word tirade is highly suspect, and simply offers more proof that you didn't read the post.

:laugh:

You really have no argument, so you're trying to tout that study as a testament; however, it is still unclear to what.

Nobody is arguing that the raw numbers are equal, but as Aisengard said, that proves nothing out of context.

So, what are you crying over? Media bias? Are you really surprised that they don't report every death? Do they report about Israelis kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank?
Of course not, as it is not a big even as that of a suicide bomber on a bus.

Back to the issue at hand, which you try so hard to avoid: why don't you tell us where militants draft their plans, organize and hide?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50
So I guess in WW2 the Americans were the bad guys because we killed many more innocent German civilians than the Germans killed innocent American civilians right?

Or maybe raw numbers don't make up the whole story....

If you're talking about Dresden, then yes, the Allied leaders were wrong, and acted out of a desire to get revenge while the getting was good.

Are you under the impression that WWII was a war between Germany and America?

Your fall-back position lacks credibility, because a few minutes ago, when you were either unaware of the real story on deaths, or thought that I was unaware of it (or speculating), you said:

The issue is not who can get closer to the target and who is capable of more force, the issue is who they are targeting.

Now that this position is shot, you retreat to 'it doesn't matter, because Israel is obviously on moral highground'. I fail to see what's so obvious about that.

No, I hold both positions, Israel is on the moral highground. My point is, that you are using raw numbers of civilian deaths to say that Israel is intentionally targeting innocent civilians, and raw numbers do not make up the whole story. Even if you can find the rare instance where an Israeli soldier intentionally kills an innocent civilian, I seriously doubt that it is the norm.

Israel is employing a strategy that kills (very conservatively) 5 times as many people as Palestine kills. The data I've found suggest that they possibly kill more children, as a proportion of total deaths, than do Palestinian suicide bombers.

Before I let it slip through, you are correct - raw numbers are never the whole story. But they are so incredibly skewed that it is impossible to really believe Israel's 'measured response' story. There are many ways Israel could approach the conflict, kill people, and support this position; their current tactics do not qualify. I don't see any evidence that the average Israeli or the Israeli government has any more regard for Palestinians than there is coming the other way.

Although I'm not a fan of equivocation, I see a conflict where both parties quite justifiably feel wronged. One has friends, money, and power, and the other does not, but neither respects the other.

I don't think Judaism or Islam are good candidates to produce a Ghandi figure, but it's going to take one to fix this. Judaism has produced one before, but whatever the spiritual truth was about him, we know that he was truly exceptional, and unfortunately I'm not holding my breath.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Your use of the word tirade is highly suspect, and simply offers more proof that you didn't read the post.

:laugh:

You really have no argument, so you're trying to tout that study as a testament; however, it is still unclear to what.

Nobody is arguing that the raw numbers are equal, but as Aisengard said, that proves nothing out of context.

So, what are you crying over? Media bias? Are you really surprised that they don't report every death? Do they report about Israelis kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank?
Of course not, as it is not a big even as that of a suicide bomber on a bus.

Back to the issue at hand, which you try so hard to avoid: why don't you tell us where militants draft their plans, organize and hide?

Equal?

Learn to read.

 

[imported_dna]

Here you go: image

Perhaps that will explain to you why so many "children" get hurt -- they are the cannon fodder that the terrorist organizations use as a shield, and to garner the sympathy of naive westreners (remeber Al-Durrah?).

EDIT
By the way, I'm still waiting to hear from you as to where the militants usually operate from. I'm sure it's not from the house @ 784 Terrorist Road.

 

[Czar]

dna,
do those children go out of their way to israeli checkpoints to attack them?

or could it be that this is their neighborhood and an israeli tanks and all that follows just happen to be there to disrupt their lives and.. maybe kill pe.. I mean "accidently" kill people they know

this is no life the israelis are allowing the palestinians to live and you know that

 

[imported_dna]

I'll play along with you....

Let's assume that Israel was running an operation against some militants based on some intel they received, and entered Nablus (as there was in a recent event).
Would you send out your kids into the line of fire? Do you consider that normal? Or do a few more dead children look as good as the fabricated Al-Durrah incident did?