1BC Civ Forums / Off Topic Discussions / More Than a Game, Civ in Real Life / Politics & Religion / NOT To Black Owl (anymore) / Latest Posts

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Konrad von Richtmark — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:31:34 GMT

[quote][b]Nuclearcow (6/3/2008)[/b][hr]I am hesitant to debate more specifics because I know that I am fairly ignorant of many things with Islam. I guess the biggest, most over-simplified argument I can make is that from the bits and pieces I have read, I cannot imagine Muhammad strapping a bomb on to blow himself up in a market of civilians (or encouraging others to do so), or shelling/rocketing blindly into a city, etc, etc, due to past perceived "evils" committed by a group's ancestors or by a country's leaders, or basically for any reasons I can think up in my mind.[/quote]

You are indeed correct in that, and as you can see from this thread, neither do I advocate such. I realize fully that most people in Israel want to share the land with the Palestinians, even if not all have the courage to trust them.

I'm only advocating extreme action against those that would perpetuate the sins of their ancestors (as well as claim that the sins were righteous and holy), both by direct action and by voting according to their beliefs.

But when it comes to Muhammed, he too knew when the situation called for extreme action. When he eventually conquered Mecca and broke the might of his enemies, he issued them a general amnesty. But along the way there, he did chop off a few heads. The Jewish tribes of Qurayza and Nadir (which lived in Medina by the time Muhammed & co arrived) had repeatedly broken their treaties with Muhammed, who nevertheless tried to resolve their differences, only to be betrayed again and again. Then came the Battle of the Trench, where the Jewish tribes joined the enemies of Islam. It was Islam's darkest hour, the Islamic community being under a very real threat of extinction. Muhammed & co prevailed, and went on to execute every man capable of bearing arms from those tribes.

[quote][b]Nuclearcow (6/3/2008)[/b][hr]Regarding Israel, you acknowledge that almost everyone in the world is living on lands conquered in the past, so everyone is guilty of the same thing, are they not? Should any man be punished for the "sins" of their ancestors? I would imagine most of the Palestinians who are alive today were not alive when Palestinians were pushed out of their homes, if that is how it happened.[/quote]

I hear what you are saying, and the answer is found in my last post. The Palestinian situation differs in that while the original perpetrators and victims are mostly dead by now, the consequences of 1948 are still felt. Most Palestinian "cities" are little else than overcrowded refugee camps that have become permanent. Gaza in particular has a population density which only a hyper-industrialized urban society could support.

Israel, on the other hand, profited significantly from the events of 1948; getting the land, real estate and productive property of some 700,000 refugees refused the right of return; all which was given over to Jewish immigrants.

While the sins of the fathers are not inheritable, the profits of those sins very much are. If a Palestinian who lives comfortably in the US would demand reparations from the state of Israel becase his grandparents were killed in 1948 by Jewish paramilitary troops, I would tell him to shut his gob. But if a Palestinian subsisting on UN food aid in Gaza would demand to be allowed to settle in the now-Israeli village where his grandparents were able to make a living farming the land, and he would be doing so now if not for the events of 1948, there is nothing I can say to him to contest the validity of his demand.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Nuclearcow — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:27:48 GMT

I don't know what to call this thread as it has jumped all over the place. "Random theological debate?" hehe. I guess it hasn't all been theological.
[quote]The simple answer is, the Quran was revealed gradually to Muhammed over two decades.[/quote]I did not know that. Regarding your post in general, "thank you" for humoring me with a logical and patient response on a potentially touchy subject.

I am hesitant to debate more specifics because I know that I am fairly ignorant of many things with Islam. I guess the biggest, most over-simplified argument I can make is that from the bits and pieces I have read, I cannot imagine Muhammad strapping a bomb on to blow himself up in a market of civilians (or encouraging others to do so), or shelling/rocketing blindly into a city, etc, etc, due to past perceived "evils" committed by a group's ancestors or by a country's leaders, or basically for any reasons I can think up in my mind.

Regarding Israel, you acknowledge that almost everyone in the world is living on lands conquered in the past, so everyone is guilty of the same thing, are they not? Should any man be punished for the "sins" of their ancestors? I would imagine most of the Palestinians who are alive today were not alive when Palestinians were pushed out of their homes, if that is how it happened.

I have mostly Scottish and Irish ancestors. Would it be fair for me to seek reparations, land, etc from England today because land may have been taken from my ancestors from England centuries ago? Surely not, so where does this line get drawn? If Person A does something unfair, unrighteous, mean or whatever to Person B, if reparations and justice can be done, it should be and most people understand why reparations are sought. But what about children and grandchildren of Person A? Should they make payments/reparations to the children and grandchildren of Person B? What about people who have since immigrated into a nation that formed long before they were born. Should they "pay" too because the children and grandchildren of Person B want justice? If another 1000 years goes by, will "Palestinians" still be seeking ill will based on wrongs done to their ancestors and wanting payback, or justice or whats supposedly rightfully theirs? Where do you draw the line?

If I was dictator of the world, I am not sure how I would solve some of the conflicts over there and don't know what I'd do, if anything, to rectify some of those wrongs. By doing something now in 2008, it almost seems like any actions by either party is committing wrongs to more innocents, in my opinion.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Black Owl — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:23:27 GMT

:crying: *demands another bottle of STFU, and goes into a dark corner*

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

cleopatra143 — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:13:50 GMT

[quote][b]Black Owl (6/2/2008)[/b][hr]Thanks......I guess. But couldn't you just use the title "My Cause", or "Why There Can Not Be Peace"? (just kidding):D

Thanks for trying Cleo.:P[/quote]Well, KvR can change it to whatever he wants. :P

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Black Owl — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:29:32 GMT

Thanks......I guess. But couldn't you just use the title "My Cause", or "Why There Can Not Be Peace"? (just kidding):D

Thanks for trying Cleo.:P

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Konrad von Richtmark — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:40:31 GMT

Fair enough.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

cleopatra143 — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:08:15 GMT

[quote][b]Black Owl (6/2/2008)[/b][hr]No insult intended Kvr. But Konrad has answered as stated To Black Owl. Sure would appreciate someone removing my handle from the title now. Since this thread no longer concerns me.[/quote]ok, done =P

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Black Owl — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:05:51 GMT

No insult intended Kvr. But Konrad has answered as stated To Black Owl. Sure would appreciate someone removing my handle from the title now. Since this thread no longer concerns me.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Konrad von Richtmark — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:56:04 GMT

Nuclearcow,

I know well enough that most people live where they live because of an invasion that happened at one point in time. How does that make it right? Genocide is very historical too, should it also be accepted on that basis? On the contrary, Israel must not be excused for it nor be freed of responsibility for the Palestinian situation; for doing so would set a precedent to keep committing the naturalistic fallacy of accepting it as a part of history, with the implication that there is nothing condemnable whatsoever with the attempts to destroy Israel and establish Palestine in its stead.

The invasion of Palestine, and the expulsion that followed, is not a point of historical curiosity. It is a recent event whose consequences are felt today. Israel did not only commit it, it also profited from it greatly, which is why Israel must be held liable to correct the situation.

Your request for theological debate is granted.

The simple answer is, the Quran was revealed gradually to Muhammed over two decades. There was no divine command to take up arms prior to the establishment of the Islamic state in Medina. The core theological and moral teachings of Islam were revealed during the preceding Meccan period. Teachings concerning war, and other communal-level issues, were revealed during the Medinan period when it became relevant. Muhammed and his followers were a meek and humble lot, they did not turn into holy warriors before God commanded it.

Islam was gradually being revealed during the life of Muhammed; but today, we have the fullness of the revelation to go by, including a comprehensive set of instructions regarding war, peace and foreign relations. If any passage would describe Islamic militarism in a nutshell, it would be Quran 8:59-61

[i]Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better of the godly: they will never frustrate them.
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou also incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth all things.[/i]

In other words, we welcome peace, even with past enemies who have repented and changed their ways. But for those who insist on being the enemies of Islam, we have nothing but wrack and ruin. The settlers insist on being the enemies of Islam, so...

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Black Owl — Sat, 31 May 2008 23:24:34 GMT

Mongoose[insipid little children ]

LMAO!:D:hehe:

ADDIT: You should speak more often.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

jerm — Sat, 31 May 2008 17:28:30 GMT

I'm just going to stick with the STFU for a little while longer. Carry on...

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Scipio Africanus — Sat, 31 May 2008 14:15:08 GMT

These 'debates' always reaffirm to me the convictions that I described in the infamous "nuke Damascus" post.

There are only three ways it is ever going to "end:"

(a) Israel ceases to exist; (b) moderate Muslims moderate extremists into truly inconsequential demographic proportions; (c) truly horrific cataclysm that disintegrates the Us-vs-Them cultural models that are so common among contemporary Islamic-Jewish-Christian minds [similar to the way The Great War acts I and II disintegrated the Nationalist cultural models that were so common among Euro-Asian-Amero minds in the 1930s].

I have serious doubts (a) will ever happen. Israel is too powerful, too profitable, and too much a buddy to the U.S.

I read stuff like KvR's rhetoric, as well as what I see on other sites, and to a lesser extent Muk's stuff and I think (b) will never happen either.

I guess that leaves us with (c) to look forward too . . . great :(

. . . Ah well. Maybe it won't happen in our lifetimes, so why should we care?

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

-M- — Sat, 31 May 2008 11:19:49 GMT

Didnt ask me but I'll answer

Muhammad - a bigger than life, charismatic leader could overimpose/regulate his followers far better than any of today's Palestinian leadership

Today is different from yesturday - we live in gated communities, this exaserbates closed up ppl's emotions when they cannot leave the refugee camp for better opportunities elsewhere; the world is far more densly populated, & if u want a comparison look how differently city folk react to a situation than country folk.

Nascent Islam - being nascent nessesitates sheepishness. Islam is not nascent no more & there are plenty of Muslims that were not wronged personaly, but can keep the flame kindled for wutever their personal agendas may be.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Nuclearcow — Sat, 31 May 2008 10:41:43 GMT

There are a great number of people on this planet who are living where they are at because their ancestors "invaded" someone else's land. It would be a hate-filled chaotic world if everyone had that mentality and acted on it.

On another topic, Konrad, do you mind if I attempt a minor religious debate? It can be touchy to do so with some people, but if you'll humor me, I promise I'll be respectful.

I don't know if I know enough about Islam to debate logically, but I think I know a decent bit more than the average non-Muslim. When Mohammad and his early followers were driven out of their homes to Medina, they didn't "pick up the sword" in self-defense. Not until a great many 'evils' were committed upon them and more-so until their families remaining in Mecca were threatened, did they finally "pick up the sword" and act. If this is the example of the leader and founder of Islam, how can it be justified in the Islamic world to take actions like you suggest above, or worse, like many Islamic religious figures over there seem to justify?

I've read what Mohammad dictated as for how prisoners of war were to be treated (even giving the shirt of his own back to a prisoner so he'd be clothed). I've read about many Christians and Jews, who were a minority, obviously, being treated far more fairly once Islam "conquered" those lands than they were before. I could site similar examples, as well I'm sure you could. So my question is [b]HOW[/b]... if Mohammad's ethics are to be emulated, can what you suggest be religiously or morally justified? Not just what you suggest, as what you suggest seems quite a bit tamer than many of the clerics over there seem to suggest. I don't get it.

To be fair, the Crusades and the wiping out of Jerusalem by Christians was probably far worse, just as are many of the actions committed throughout history by various religions were, but the difference being this stuff is happening TODAY and many clerics are justifying it and some suggesting far worse.

Again, I hope I seem respectful in my question and mean no disrespect, sir.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

mongoose201 — Sat, 31 May 2008 09:23:35 GMT

I'm not posting as admin here, but I have to respond to that. (Against my better judgement, I'm sure)...

Perhaps this is an oversimplification, but I really, really [b]hate[/b] my neighbor. His trees block the sunlight from my garden, his dogs crap on my lawn, and his insipid little children break my windows with their constant baseball games.

Therefore, I shall kill him and his little rat children, so that I won't have a reason to hate.

(I realize this is a gross exaggeration, but the idea that it's a legitimate course of action to kill someone so that you will no longer have a reason to hate them is laughable to me.)

:shrug: Carry on.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Konrad von Richtmark — Sat, 31 May 2008 09:13:00 GMT

And over to jerm,

As for the genocide thing, I would never advocate genocide simply on ethnic (or other demographic) basis. But neither do I think that civilians are never a legitimate target. Not if the civilians are actively and voluntarily collaborating with an oppressive enemy.

Yes, I think all adult settlers in colonies whose presence causes the Palestinians the slightest bit of trouble are legal targets. They are invaders and oppressors. Whether doing so is actually beneficial to the Palestinian cause is irrelevant for whether it is righteous to slay them.

Exterminating the Kahanist colony of Hebron (population: 400-some) would liberate some 18,000 Palestinians from living at their mercy. That alone would make it worth it.

If choosing your targets rather than targeting an entire ethnicity makes it into something less than genocide, let's call it "limited genocide" or "discriminate extermination" or whatever would be relevant.

I don't see how getting rid of the colonies (by whatever means) could [i]not[/i] be beneficial to the peace process. It would give the Palestinians less reason to hate Israel. The colonies and their spatial, economical, infrastructural and security needs are what has crippled the Palestinian economy.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Konrad von Richtmark — Sat, 31 May 2008 08:39:21 GMT

Wow wow wow. I'm busy a few days with research work, and people are gulping koolaid-laced STFU by the gallon.

Scipio, don't you EVER quote me partially in that way! It makes me look... inconsistent.

For the enlightenment and edification of the rest, here is the full quote:

[i]If I was Emperor of Israel, I would invade and annex Palestine. Start the granddaddy of all manhunts, and put Hamas and Hizbollah to the sword to a man. Clear up the mess that Palestine is, make it able to function on its own. Stop colonization, roadblocks and other nonsense making it unable to. Replace the corrupt Palestinian civil service with an Israeli, preferably full of leftist peaceniks (not that I usually agree with peaceniks, but I'd trust them to be among those in Israel with most concern for Palestinian well-being). Bring milk and cookies, and make sure that the foreign aid sent in by the outside world actually reaches the people. Heck, Arafat ruled one of the poorest countries of the world, but still managed to be the 3rd richest regent in the world (the Sultan of Brunei being first, and the Saudi king second). Once Palestine is deemed to be in order, it is released and granted independence.[/i]

To me, it is the Palestinians that matter. Not Palestinian nationhood. Nationalism is the idolatry of secular people.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

-M- — Sun, 25 May 2008 10:20:26 GMT

Totalitarian Regimes can acheive points of efficiency that Democracies can only dream of. But democracies are more efficient on average, & average is wut makes life tolerable.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Black Owl — Sun, 25 May 2008 10:20:05 GMT

*starts talking to himself* "But either way maybe we should just stay away from wishful thinking on the demise of others?"

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Black Owl — Sun, 25 May 2008 10:11:01 GMT

If I was Emperor of Israel, I would invade and annex Palestine. Start the granddaddy of all manhunts, and put Hamas and Hizbollah to the sword to a man. Clear up the mess that Palestine is, make it able to function on its own. . .

If I owned a private Palestinian terror network (isn't a theokraut allowed to dream ), I'd leave mainland Israel alone. Settlements in the occupied territories would be fair game. The isolated ones deep in the territory (whose linking to the Israeli mainland causes severe problems, like restrictions on Palestinian movement) would be targeted for genocide, as would the Kahanist enclave that Jewish Hebron is. There is no negotiating with people like them.

Sorry I never saw the first one. Why didn't he post that quote? Would have made things much easier.

*takes bottle into corner by himself*

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Scipio Africanus — Sun, 25 May 2008 08:18:21 GMT

Drink the Koolaid Johnny . . .

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

jerm — Sun, 25 May 2008 00:27:43 GMT

Now presenting, the 1BC brand, STFU:

[img]http://www.1bcciv.com/Attachment1116.aspx[/img]

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

jerm — Sat, 24 May 2008 23:49:51 GMT

You do that after you've had too much STFU. :hehe:

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Locus Coeruleus — Sat, 24 May 2008 17:12:29 GMT

forget STFU, everyone needs to just go take a freezing cold shower and think about things for a moment!

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

jerm — Sat, 24 May 2008 16:52:22 GMT

No, you can't force me to take it... I won't... No... :glug: Stop...! :gulp: I can't... :waterboarding noises:... hey, this isn't that... give me the bottle!

Mmmmmm.... STFU.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

cleopatra143 — Sat, 24 May 2008 14:24:18 GMT

[quote][b]Scipio Africanus (5/24/2008)[/b][hr]. . . effects seem to have worn off . . . takes another swig of STFU

*mutely offers up the tankardfor passingaround the table*[/quote]rofl I should make us 1BC mugs of STFU. :D

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

-M- — Sat, 24 May 2008 13:30:01 GMT

Takes it up & chugs it down & mutely mutters: "this stuff dont seem to be working" :P

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Scipio Africanus — Sat, 24 May 2008 13:13:48 GMT

. . . effects seem to have worn off . . . takes another swig of STFU

*mutely offers up the tankard for passing around the table*

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

jerm — Sat, 24 May 2008 12:52:18 GMT

Good Konrad quote Scipio.

[quote]If I was Emperor of Israel, I would invade and annex Palestine. Start the granddaddy of all manhunts, and put Hamas and Hizbollah to the sword to a man. Clear up the mess that Palestine is, make it able to function on its own. . . .[/quote]

I think it gives a little perspective to this:

[quote]If I owned a private Palestinian terror network (isn't a theokraut allowed to dream ), I'd leave mainland Israel alone. Settlements in the occupied territories would be fair game. The isolated ones deep in the territory (whose linking to the Israeli mainland causes severe problems, like restrictions on Palestinian movement) would be targeted for genocide, as would the Kahanist enclave that Jewish Hebron is. There is no negotiating with people like them.[/quote]

See, when we try and understand where people are coming from... ah, we've been through this before.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

jerm — Sat, 24 May 2008 12:49:13 GMT

I actually don't see how what you said is that much worse/better than what Konrad said about Genocide. I don't think you were advocating the nuking of Damascus, only that it's probably the only solution. Perhaps Konrad's "genocide" post is nothing more. The only way for the Palestinians to have an effective way to get "their fair share", is to use tactics such as genocide. Now I don't actually know if he supports genocide as a legitimate tactic or not, and I'd like an answer, but I can see how someone would interpret what you said as advocating the nuking of cities, which, frankly, seems right up there with Genocide.

[quote]To defend the guy a bit, he is finding several people posting opposing opinions lately, and some of them... quite strongly. Probably feels a bit ganged up on.[/quote]

Yes, and my point was to make it clear that I wasn't one of the ones trying to gang up on him. Just trying to keep things civil is all...

[quote]We should not post strong opposing opinions to a strong opinion?[/quote]

Post a strong opposing opinion, just keep in civil. If you can't post an emotion free post, don't post. Criticise (constructively), give counter points, ask questions but don't say things like "FIRE" in a crowded theater (trying to be vague;)).

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Scipio Africanus — Sat, 24 May 2008 12:14:47 GMT

[quote][b]Rishbhav (5/24/2008)[/b][hr] . . . To be fair, I'm pretty sure that Scipio has advocated some pretty radical measures at times - the "nuke Damascus" comment comes to mind, as have the posts where he has advanced various scorched earth policies
. . . [/quote]

I am not getting pulled back into this, but this is the second time people have made paraphrase references using that "nuke Damascus" crap. Here is the post and [url=http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2220121-56-4.aspx?Highlight=Damascus]the thread for those of you who want to objectively assess[/url] if that is what I really said.

If you are gonna make references to things I've said, please go back and re-read it, and also provide quotes and links. It is the only civil thing to do.

And for the one who originally started it, see what happens when you facilitate hearsay?

This is the other reason these neverending things carry on: people hear/read what they want to instead of what the writer actually wrote, and then the misquote for the sake of trying to generate particular attitudes among other readers.

[quote][b]Scipio Africanus (7/17/2006)[/b][hr][quote][b]Palpster (7/17/2006)[/b][hr]All the events you describe were proper wars, which is to say one army versus another (or multiple ones, but that's beside the point). The case we are talking about here is something totally different. [/quote]

The aggressors have made it into this type of war, a geurilla war. They have done so out of a conscious recognition that fighting a geurilla war, while imposing a much higher cost in blood on their grass-roots supporters and their civilian power base, also is the only option they have to win: to take territory away from Israel, and hopefully even drive all Jews out of the territory.

[quote] What do I propose? Well, as I said before that's where I am a bad critic, because I don't have a better alternative. I can't think of an alternative when violence only gives birth to more violence and diplomatic efforts have been proven mostly fruitless since it's a game of give and take and neither side wants to give (although I must admit Israel has shown more willing to walk this path in recent years).[/quote]

I admire your honesty and frankness. It is not often that one critical of Israel or the West can come right out and say that, their suggestions to desist from escalated aggression do not represent a true solution. Indeed, I fear you are correct. Israels only hope is to "conquer" her aggressors. Until a people are faced with genocide, they are rarely willing to submit to unconditional surrender, and particularly those with a strong group feeling of pride, and haughtiness.

This is why I think the only real solution is completely disproportionate force: nukes or neutron bombs, about 20 or 30 of them: Damascus, Tehran, various military installations, etc. . . . Show in one fell swoop that these nations exist at the mercy of the Western-Israeli "cabal," and establish a solid psychosocial basis for occupation, pacification, reconstruction, and social re-engineering, as was done in Japan and Germany in 1946 through the 1960s.

It is difficult for geurillas to find villages in which to get food and shelter, when the major city to which all possible villages in a 150 mile radius trade has been turned into ash. This is precisely why we had so little problem with insurgents and geurillas in post-war Germany and post-war Japan. Their will to fight was soundly beaten, in the former case with hundreds of thousands of bombs, and in the second case with hundreds of thousands of bombs topped off with two big bombs.

If I can say this without sounding psychopathic, it WILL eventually come to this. The Israelis are NOT going to surrender, so unless the Israeli-haters can get their hands on enough nukes and anti-missile counter-measures to take out the Jews in one fell swoop, this is the bull whose horns groups like Chamas and Chezbollah are playing on.[/quote]

ADDIT: if you are still a bit confused, [url=http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2220121-56-5.aspx?Highlight=Damascus]my long post a few pages later[/url] clarifies more

[quote] . . .

My realistic appraisal is that, if it is not ended DEFINITIVELY, it is going to continue in cycles of cease-fire and escalation, and that with each cycle, the escalation grows more fearsome, and more and more of the world gets drawn into it. Thus, it is simply a matter of time before it will spiral completely out of control and end with absolute definitiveness. Avoiding the necessary steps to end it definitely TODAY, IMO, merely delay but increase the scale of the suffering that will inevitably occur later.[/quote]

ADDIT*2: and ironically, Konrad's response to that long post just a bit further down the page.

[quote]Scipio, to tell the truth, I must say that, having followed the conflict over many years and switched positions several times, I have come to nearly the same conclusion as you. Israel's policy of limited violence is insufficient to achieve anything significant, except cause suffering on the Arab side and fan the flames.

If I was Emperor of Israel, I would invade and annex Palestine. Start the granddaddy of all manhunts, and put Hamas and Hizbollah to the sword to a man. Clear up the mess that Palestine is, make it able to function on its own. . . .[/quote]

So much has been said on this site, I really doubt that ANY of us need to write much more. We could spend a lifetime just reading one another and just trying to fully understand what it is we are all trying to say. But then, reading is passive, and the reason we come here is to interact.

We have all been guilty at one time or another of provoking, and in that sense I agree 100% with what you say Rishbav. If we could all just try to seek conversations---even on the points where we KNOW we might disagree---in ways that are less_provoking and more_intriguing we might even be able to carry on these 'fun' discussions without them getting nasty.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

-M- — Sat, 24 May 2008 11:21:26 GMT

processes feed on themselves. this is an evolutionarily inherent trait oflife. soak up energy, get bigger, repeat.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

cleopatra143 — Sat, 24 May 2008 11:13:58 GMT

[quote][b]Rishbhav (5/24/2008)[/b][hr][quote]
Part of the problem as I see it lies in Black Owl's comment about answering strong opinions with more strong opinions. (Nothing specific to Black Owl, just the general idea that we all seem to have in this forum)

The problem with that is that it just leads to escalation as the opinions get stronger and stronger, until eventually it loses all pretense of being a discussion and just becomes a shouting match, which then leads to aggravation and frustration all around. So how about we take a breath, calm down, and go back to what this forum was supposed to be - a venue for discussion and debate, not a soapbox for demagogues?

-Just a lurker's measly 2¢

[/quote]Great comments Rish.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Rishbhav — Sat, 24 May 2008 11:10:52 GMT

[quote]

Please re-read #2 That was not what was said. Kvr's rebuttal was a twist to silence the critism of his tone and insensitivity to others. Regardless of his deep feelings, he does not have the right, (or maybe he does here?),to post an agenda of Genocide. No matter how much of a "dream" it maybe. If it had been said by somebody else about the Palestinians, we would, I'm sure, seen very strong offense, no?
[/quote]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that Scipio has advocated some pretty radical measures at times - the "nuke Damascus" comment comes to mind, as have the posts where he has advanced various scorched earth policies

As for your second point, how can opinions be wrong? I think we've forgotten what this place was meant to be - a place of discussion where opinions could be shared and talked about. Instead its turned into a battleground where we just have our opinions but heads. Konrad, do you think that with your super-strong rhetoric about genocide, and jihad you're going to change Black Owl's opinion one whit?

Part of the problem as I see it lies in Black Owl's comment about answering strong opinions with more strong opinions. (Nothing specific to Black Owl, just the general idea that we all seem to have in this forum)

The problem with that is that it just leads to escalation as the opinions get stronger and stronger, until eventually it loses all pretense of being a discussion and just becomes a shouting match, which then leads to aggravation and frustration all around. So how about we take a breath, calm down, and go back to what this forum was supposed to be - a venue for discussion and debate, not a soapbox for demagogues?

-Just a lurker's measly 2¢

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Black Owl — Sat, 24 May 2008 09:00:26 GMT

[quote][b]Nuclearcow (5/24/2008)[/b][hr][quote]Playing the Holocaust card = Making references to what the Jews suffered during the Holocaust to silence criticism of Israel.

That's what is meant by it. Nothing more. It is irrelevant to me whether the Holocaust has been exaggerated or not, I never made such a claim.[/quote][Ahhh. Okay. Sorry for my misunderstanding. If some people are using the Holocaust to silence criticism of Israel, then I agree that they are wrong. IMO, you're right that discussion/criticism over Israel's current policies/actions should be based on those politices/actions and not evils committed in WWII.]Nuclear Cow

Please re-read #2 That was not what was said. Kvr's rebuttal was a twist to silence the critism of his tone and insensitivity to others. Regardless of his deep feelings, he does not have the right, (or maybe he does here?), to post an agenda of Genocide. No matter how much of a "dream" it maybe. If it had been said by somebody else about the Palestinians, we would, I'm sure, seen very strong offense, no?

[#2. Was an attempt made to silence that brand of hatred and insensitivity to others here by trying to remind you that you are not the only one reading it? You bet your *** it was! I think there should be some unwritten rule somewhere to give the benefit of the doubt to those who did suffer, and those who continue to suffer from the Nazi regime. ]Black Owl

What exactly, is wrong with being more sensitive to others? Tell me.

[quote]Konrad, I sense that you are getting a bit combative with me (could just be a European thing:P )[/quote][some of themTo defend the guy a bit, he is finding several people posting opposing opinions lately, and ... quite strongly. Probably feels a bit ganged up on.[/quote]]Nuclear Cow

Ahh..., then maybe he's wrong?(OMG! Did I say that outloud?) We should not post strong opposing opinions to a strong opinion?:doze:

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Nuclearcow — Sat, 24 May 2008 01:07:17 GMT

[quote]Playing the Holocaust card = Making references to what the Jews suffered during the Holocaust to silence criticism of Israel.

That's what is meant by it. Nothing more. It is irrelevant to me whether the Holocaust has been exaggerated or not, I never made such a claim.[/quote]Ahhh. Okay. Sorry for my misunderstanding. If some people are using the Holocaust to silence criticism of Israel, then I agree that they are wrong. IMO, you're right that discussion/criticism over Israel's current policies/actions should be based on those politices/actions and not evils committed in WWII.

[quote]Konrad, I sense that you are getting a bit combative with me (could just be a European thing:P )[/quote]To defend the guy a bit, he is finding several people posting opposing opinions lately, and some of them... quite strongly. Probably feels a bit ganged up on.

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

jerm — Fri, 23 May 2008 13:08:39 GMT

Konrad, I sense that you are getting a bit combative with me (could just be a European thing :P). While others seem bent on doing this, I am not one of them. Please try and keep it respectful with me at least as I am only trying to discuss the matter with you as well as understand where you are coming from. You haven't crossed the threshold of being disrespectful but I just want to keep it that way ;).

[quote]o rly? What did violent resistance ever accomplish, apart from ending colonial rule pretty much everywhere? India is the exception rather than the rule; and there too, Gandhi & co weren't alone, but rather making their struggle in parallel with groups that put the pressure on Britain by sending home occupation troops in body bags.[/quote].

First of all, you responded to the paragraph in which I was objecting to Genocide as a tactic, not violence. Either you are trying to change the subject or you misunderstood what I was saying. I still have not heard a clear answer as to whether you think Genocide is a justifiable act... ever.

To address your response, colonial rule and the Israeli/Palestinian situation are quite different for a variety of reasons. Firstly, violent means against the English (for example) did not (necessarilly; not sure if there are any cases of this) include "Genocide," which is the term you used that got everyone ticked. Also, when the British colonized, they were doing it for imperical reasons. The lands were really far away and would take long periods of time to get there and back. British survival didn't in any way depend on the conflicts and so they pulled back because it was not worth the effort in keeping those lands. The Israelis could walk to the colonies behind the green zone. I'm not saying they should but they could. Many in Israel feel that their survival does depend on keeping the Palestinian lands occupied. Lastly, the reason India was able to get rid of the British peacefully is because the British were generally a decent society, and at the time, democratic. I believe Israel is such a society as well. I'm not saying that I agree with settlements being there, only that this situation is different.

[quote]As seen by the volume of rocket attacks, Hamas and Hezbollah have quite serious firepower between them. Currently, it is dispersed widely and fired into the Israeli mainland. That's why it doesn't accomplish anything else than prolong the conflict ([b]which Hamas probably wants[/b]) - it gives Israel no option to rid itself from it by retreating, since they have nowhere to retreat.[/quote]

This is because the Palestinian leadership... namely Hamas and other organizations, don't want reconsiliation. They don't want "their piece of the pie", they want it all. They want Israel to cease to exist and replace it with an Arab run, Islamic form of government, or at least a government where they and their buddies are in power. This is the heart of the problem. Until the people reject these guys, they aren't going to get anything.

[quote]Now, imagine all that firepower concentrated onto Jewish Hebron, an extremist enclave of some 400 inhabitants. It would be a smoking ruin in no time. And if the settlements are such a divisive issue in Israeli society as Rabi claims, it would force the hand of those who oppose them. The Israeli military is a conscript army - do they want their own people returning home in body bags from defending an unjust occupation they don't support?[/quote]

You are probably right that it would eliminate the settlements but it wouldn't help the peace process. It would most likely just unite the Israeli people more against the Palestinians. So, once again, do you think it would be justifiable to kill all the people there, even those who didn't resist?

[quote]And by the way, jerm, I don't like implications of having conveniently ignored a post in a thread. I read Rabi's post which you quoted. None of it is news to me.[/quote]

You ignored it by not responding to it. How can I know if you read it or not.

[quote]Now tell me, where do the Geneva conventions make an exception stating that it can be ignored for concerns of national security (or even national existence)? Where does the UDHR make such an exception? The Arab states didn't expel the Palestinians, they only contributed to Israel feeling necessitated to.[/quote]

It's funny you should mention this. So, the UN gets all on Israel's case about Palestinian right of return yet is largely silent about all the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands]jews kicked out of their Arab countries[/url], the Polish stuck in the Soviet Union, Hindus and Muslims vis-a-vis India and Pakistan and the Germans expelled from Czechoslovakia. Yes, the UN does make exceptions, just not for da jews.

[quote]What exactly are you referring to when saying that the Palestinians should not expect to get everything they deserve? If you are talking about things whose implementation is practically impossible (such as an unrestricted right of return), then I would agree. If you are talking about things which Israel could afford to cede but simply does not want to, I disagree. Israel should not be tolerated to approach peace negotiations from a position of strength, from being allowed to hold things just because it wants to and has the power to back it up.[/quote]

Right now, with my limited knowlege, I'd say I'm in the same camp as you. It is practically impossible to give away the West Bank right now, given the hostile climate from its neighbors on "that side". Gaza was probably the right thing to do but there has not been any willingness of the PA to try and stop any of the violence because of it. When movement is happening in your favor, even if it's not everything, you don't respond by using more violence!

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Black Owl — Fri, 23 May 2008 12:43:26 GMT

Kudos -M-.;)

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

-M- — Fri, 23 May 2008 12:38:16 GMT

BlackO got that right

Only miserable pplz argue. Happy ppl conversate. They shake their heads @ unfortunate, & nod it @ the good. If there is anything they can do about the either they just get up & do it. Miserable ppl will argue, & then they will argue about the argument & only grow more miserable bcz they get nothing done besides arguing. And their arguments will have nothing accomplished bcz all sides were closed wut is reality. The reality is that nothing "should" be, everything "is".

RE: NOT To Black Owl (anymore)

Black Owl — Fri, 23 May 2008 11:44:49 GMT

I'm only going to respond to these two items.

#1. No where in my statement did I call you, or refer to you as a NAZI. It was in reference to a seriously flawed and anger provoking statement YOU MADE. (Lets not forget the storm trooper alter ego you carry tho.)

#2. Was an attempt made to silence that brand of hatred and insensitivity to others here by trying to remind you that you are not the only one reading it? You bet your *** it was! I think there should be some unwritten rule somewhere to give the benefit of the doubt to those who did suffer, and those who continue to suffer from the Nazi regime. Nobody has slandered or mocked Palestinian claims here. Only their validity to the peace process has been questioned. Rabi is correct. Your zeal on the subject blinds you. Therefore making further discussion useless and pretty petty. I leave you to your misery. It's a bueatiful day here today. Maybe it won't be tomorrow. But today it is. I plan to have fun with it.

This paragraph is for the other posters here.The Middle East I feel is really not worth the effort the US and US tax payers put behind it. I'm all for pulling away and letting them choke the **** out of each other. Israel, and Jordon seem to be the only ones there that want to enjoy bueatiful days. The rest grovel in self pity and beat themselves with the flogs of misery. Relishing in it.

This conversation is over for me. I like your tenacity on subjects Konrad. But this is a dead end one. And frankly, it's laced with far too much outrage to be properly dealt with. I can see why Peace there is so elusive. That much is illustrated in our little neck of the woods.