Debates
25 Jun 08
25 Jun 08
Originally posted by AThousandYounghttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7472819.stm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians
The democratically elected Palestinian government refuses to crack down on thugs attacking a neighboring country from within it's borders after agreeing to a cease fire. Some government.
'The rocket attack on Sderot on Tuesday was carried out by Islamic Jihad, which said it was to avenge an Israeli raid in the West Bank, in which two died.
No injuries were reported in the attack, the first on Israel since the truce agreement came into force.'
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2473503420080624
'NABLUS, West Bank (Reuters) - Israeli forces killed two Palestinians, including an Islamic Jihad commander, in the West Bank city of Nablus on Tuesday in the first fatal raid since a ceasefire took hold in the Gaza Strip last week.'
Some government, Israel refuses to cease attacking neighbour, even after agreeing a ceasefire...
25 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by GoatboysrevengeMy understanding is the rocket attack came from Palestinian soil. Palestine refused to deal with it properly and therefore IMO the cease fire was broken. If Palestine allows attacks on Israel from Palestinian soil Israel has no choice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7472819.stm
'The rocket attack on Sderot on Tuesday was carried out by Islamic Jihad, which said it was to avenge an Israeli raid in the West Bank, in which two died.
No injuries were reported in the attack, the first on Israel since the truce agreement came into force.'
http://www.reuters.com/ar government, Israel refuses to cease attacking neighbour, even after agreeing a ceasefire...
25 Jun 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungActually, if you read the links, then you would find out that the IDS killed two Palestihnians two days BEFORE the rocket attackes.
My understanding is the rocket attack came from Palestinian soil. Palestine refused to deal with it properly and therefore IMO the cease fire was broken. If Palestine allows attacks on Israel from Palestinian soil Israel has no choice.
Yes, it came from Palestinian soil, but considering ISRAEL KILLED TWO PALESTINIANS FIRST, Therefore breaking the ceasefire, then the issue should not be that Hamas cannot control another militant group, but that Israel cannot call foul when they struck first...
25 Jun 08
Originally posted by GoatboysrevengeI am not able to piece together a timeline based on those articles. The one is a day older than the other but that does not mean the events happened in that order necessarily.
Actually, if you read the links, then you would find out that the IDS killed two Palestihnians two days BEFORE the rocket attackes.
Yes, it came from Palestinian soil, but considering ISRAEL KILLED TWO PALESTINIANS FIRST, Therefore breaking the ceasefire, then the issue should not be that Hamas cannot control another militant group, but that Israel cannot call foul when they struck first...
25 Jun 08
Israel seems to be claiming that Palestinians fired a mortar shell into Israel:
The army on Tuesday confirmed that Palestinians fired a mortar shell into Israel from Gaza overnight in the first reported violation by militants of the ceasefire.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080624/tpl-uk-palestinians-israel-violence-43a8d4f_2.html
Here's another interesting quote from that article:
Under the ceasefire deal, brokered by Egypt, Hamas agreed to prevent other militant groups in the Gaza Strip, including Islamic Jihad, from launching cross-border attacks.
That seems like a pretty explicit claim. Why do they refuse to prevent such attacks now by cheering on "resistance fighters" and refusing to chastise them for breaking their country's international agreement?
25 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou do realise the Israeli forces killed two Palestinians the day before the rocket attack, don't you?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians
The democratically elected Palestinian government refuses to crack down on thugs attacking a neighboring country from within it's borders after agreeing to a cease fire. Some government.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7472819.stm
And more precisely:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080624/ts_nm/palestinians_israel_violence_dc
It would seem the Israeli's decide who is to live, who is to die and who's to stick to agreed ceasefires.
25 Jun 08
Originally posted by shavixmirI was not aware of that event when I opened this thread. Israel is claiming that they were attacked by a mortar, thought of course that's not confirmed by anyone.
You do realise the Israeli forces killed two Palestinians the day before the rocket attack, don't you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7472819.stm
And more precisely:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080624/ts_nm/palestinians_israel_violence_dc
It would seem the Israeli's decide who is to live, who is to die and who's to stick to agreed ceasefires.
25 Jun 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's a mute point whether there was a mortar attack or not.
I was not aware of that event when I opened this thread. Israel is claiming that they were attacked by a mortar, thought of course that's not confirmed by anyone.
The core of the matter at hand is that Israel condemns behaviour, whilst doing exactly the same (although worse) themselves.
The second point that's interesting is that the media report the Palestinian mortar attack and Israel's reaction to it first, and then, as a hind sight, report that the Israelis broke the truce first. And even then, the mainstream media still makes it sound like Israel is justified. It took the BBC (in the link I sent) 8 paragraphs to point out that Israel "may have made the first move", hence most people have already swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
25 Jun 08
Originally posted by shavixmirYou do a pretty good job casting that line yourself, old man.
It's a mute point whether there was a mortar attack or not.
The core of the matter at hand is that Israel condemns behaviour, whilst doing exactly the same (although worse) themselves.
The second point that's interesting is that the media report the Palestinian mortar attack and Israel's reaction to it first, and then, as a hind sight, report that th ...[text shortened]... first move", hence most people have already swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
BTW the word is "moot", not "mute."
25 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirYou have a good point. The front page news should be that the truce was broken. This reads just like any other incident, avoiding the political implications.
It's a mute point whether there was a mortar attack or not.
The core of the matter at hand is that Israel condemns behaviour, whilst doing exactly the same (although worse) themselves.
The second point that's interesting is that the media report the Palestinian mortar attack and Israel's reaction to it first, and then, as a hind sight, report that th first move", hence most people have already swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
But then again, if a Palestinian mortarted Israel, then Israel sort of has a legitimate reason. If so they should declare that Palestine broke the truce by mortar shell on day X.
26 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirAs per usual, shav, you ripe old cheese, you have your emotions on your sleeve and your head so far up your arse you need a plexiglass tummy implant just to see where you're going. If I had my way, I'd have your rear end shaved and make you walk backward so I don't have to look at you anymore. Now, once again you got me doing what you do -----
Pick on the details when you can't hide the truth.
Well, this entire exercise, all these political threads, appear to me to be useless because of the way our brains work with respect to politics.
Some of us fall into the erroneous notion that the mind as thought of by philosophers, cognitive scientists, economists, and political scientists since the 18th century -- a dispassionate mind that makes decisions by weighing the evidence and reasoning to the most valid conclusions -- which bears no relation to how the mind and brain actually work.
1. information that feels threatening to us, even if we won't admit it, make our brains associate that information with negative emotions;
2. what passes for reasoning in politics, especially in debates online like these or in blogs, is most often rationalization, the motive being an effort to reason to emotionally satisfying conclusions;
3. the part of the brain that lights up when looking at and resolving conflicts has been shown by clinicians to light up when there is a conflict between what a reasonable person could believe and what a partisan would want to believe; and
4. Folks reason with their gut rather than analyze the merits of things. Even when you present partisans with a reasoning task through a carefully crafted, even neutral post, what you get back invariably is an emotional response rationalizing what the partisan wants to believe.
This is, btw, why Republicans have been successful in US elections while Democrats have failed. When partisans face potentially troubling political information, they become emotionally distressed, whether consciously, unconsciously or some combination of the two.
So we try to turn away from the source of unpleasant emotion -- fight it, contradict it, ignore it,. whatever works. This is why almost all of what one can see in these online debates, here and everywhere on the internet, involves faulty reasoning -- reasoning twisted to avoid unpleasant emotion, to confirm pre-existing, comfortable emotions. We're wired that way; we can't help doing this.
In fact, there is evidence that once partisans find a way to reason to false conclusions, they not only turn off the negative emotion switches in their brains, they turn on the positive emotion switches -- so they feel good reasoning to false conclusions, they feel self satisfied, justified, and entirely in the right. We get a jolt of positive reinforcement for biased reasoning. These are the same switches, incidentally, biologically speaking, as those thrown when drug addicts get their fix.
We're all political junkies.
So, bottom line, none of you use substantive, logically valid arguments.
Yet none of you have the emotional security or intellectual chops to admit it even to yourselves.
This isn't a discussion or debate about anything at all.
Just a lot of emoting.
Now, go on, call me names .... if it makes you FEEL better 😉😀
27 Jun 08
Originally posted by ScriabinDidn't read much of this. Something about politics being irrational and emotional and therefore there's no point to rationally discussing it right? 😴
As per usual, shav, you ripe old cheese, you have your emotions on your sleeve and your head so far up your arse you need a plexiglass tummy implant just to see where you're going. If I had my way, I'd have your rear end shaved and make you walk backward so I don't have to look at you anymore. Now, once again you got me doing what you do -----
Well, thi ...[text shortened]... st a lot of emoting.
Now, go on, call me names .... if it makes you FEEL better 😉😀
27 Jun 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOne assumes you have a learning disability that makes it impossible or at the least highly difficult for you to read anything or comprehend that which you do manage to "skim."
Didn't read much of this. Something about politics being irrational and emotional and therefore there's no point to rationally discussing it right? 😴
What is it? Dyslexia, ADD, ADHD, something like that?
Or is it merely sloth?
27 Jun 08
Originally posted by ScriabinMaybe.
As per usual, shav, you ripe old cheese, you have your emotions on your sleeve and your head so far up your arse you need a plexiglass tummy implant just to see where you're going. If I had my way, I'd have your rear end shaved and make you walk backward so I don't have to look at you anymore. Now, once again you got me doing what you do -----
Well, thi ...[text shortened]... st a lot of emoting.
Now, go on, call me names .... if it makes you FEEL better 😉😀
But the Israeli's still broke the truce first.