RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!

[English Mobster]

An Ontario union may ban Israeli academics from teaching or speaking at the province's universities unless they condemn the current military action in the Gaza Strip, according to the Globe and Mail, sparking a fierce debate.
The newspaper says the Ontario arm of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) will introduce the proposal in a meeting next month.
It will call for "a ban on Israeli academics doing speaking, teaching or research work at Ontario universities" if they support Israel's military action.
The proposal was drafted after a Dec. 29 attack on an Islamic university in Gaza, which Israel claimed was connected to Hamas.
"Attacking an institution of learning is just beyond the pale," the Globe quoted CUPE Ontario president Sid Ryan as saying. "They deliberately targeted an institution of learning. That's what the Nazis did."
Comparing Israel to the Nazi regime, and potentially moving to censor Israeli academics, infuriated Bernie Farber, chief executive officer of the Canadian Jewish Congress.
He said the university may have been used by Hamas to store weapons, and it has not been confirmed either way.
"What happened at the university still is in question. Was it a place where arms are being stored?" he told the Globe. "Anyone who compares Jews and Nazis really enters into the dark realm of anti-Semitism. Mr. Ryan should be absolutely ashamed of himself."
The latest Middle East conflict began on Dec. 27 when Israel retaliated against Hamas rocket attacks, which had intensified after the end of a truce agreement.
More than a week later, Gaza health officials report 550 people have been killed, of which an estimated 200 were civilians. About 2,500 have been wounded. Meanwhile, Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israeli border towns.
The United Nations has called on both sides to stop fighting, and there is mounting international pressure for a ceasefire.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090105/cupe_israeli_090105/20090105?hub=Canada

[CN3089]

death to israel qtiyd

[SnaFuBAR]

Israel is a terrorist state. Who else responds to a few fuckhead launching some fireworks at them by attacking 200 people while they're praying?

Oh, just Israel, that's right. Hey let's totally attack obvious civilian targets instead of who we say we're attacking! BRILLIANT! Israel brags of having over 30 dedicated role "special forces" units that can target exactly what they want to do. Yeah, right. That's why the last time they went into Gaza they got destroyed? Israel is weak, and they can saber rattle all they want, but when it gets down to business, they get fucked up.

Israel sucks, hth.

[n00b1n8R]

That's still no reason to force people to condemn them. >_>
That's like making every Islamic person condemn the 11/9/01 attacks.

putting acronyms at the end of you posts makes your cool hth

[SnaFuBAR]

Terrorist attack =! state military action, so no, it's not the same, hth.

[n00b1n8R]

Didn't you just call them a terrorist state? :downs:

[SnaFuBAR]

See the "state" part of that? Oh, ok good. Think about it.

[CN3089]

death to israel qtiyd
quotin this cuz i'm down http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-jihad.gif

[Bodzilla]

Israel is a terrorist state. Who else responds to a few fuckhead launching some fireworks at them by attacking 200 people while they're praying?

Oh, just Israel, that's right. Hey let's totally attack obvious civilian targets instead of who we say we're attacking! BRILLIANT! Israel brags of having over 30 dedicated role "special forces" units that can target exactly what they want to do. Yeah, right. That's why the last time they went into Gaza they got destroyed? Israel is weak, and they can saber rattle all they want, but when it gets down to business, they get fucked up.

Israel sucks, hth.
i'm with snaf on this.

i mean for fucks sake, all you have to do is look at what there doing in the gaza strip and it's outrageous.
mb if they stopped bombing civi house's and you know, stopped all this hostile bullshit they wouldnt have a reason to rocket them in the first place.

the whole situation is fucking stupid, and it's a sad thing that so many people are caught in the crossfire.

[n00b1n8R]

I don't think anybody is disputing the fact that Israel is being a massive dick, but rather that that gives these people no right to force people to declare how they feel about the situation.

[Bodzilla]

wait, i think i've missed something vital to why israel are in there.

i thought this was all just bout fucking rockets on the border.

*reads again*

so it appears my short term memory is completely fucked from too much fapping. i forgot this wasnt just about the war but the Israeli academics being targeted.
my bad.

my point that the whole thing is completely stupid still stands.
because honestly fellas, how long have you been bickering amongst yourselves now. and for what.

[nooBBooze]

Well it does make sense to me tbh.
At least in the context of the scientific community i.e. the verbose and sophisticated version of peer pressure.

[Joshflighter]

You now what? nvm.

[nooBBooze]

Nvm indeed.

[ICEE]

I don't think anybody is disputing the fact that Israel is being a massive dick, but rather that that gives these people no right to force people to declare how they feel about the situation.

This ffs. This seems like a case of racial profiling to me. Singling out one type of people and forcing them to think something is absolutely ludocris, even if what you make them believe is actually true.

[PenGuin1362]

Who wants to learn about Israel anyway...

[deathret]

Ignorate fools, international affairs can quickly effect everyone. And how would you respond people blowing up your neighborhood? Oh... kids and thier fireworks... I think not. It isn't a cut and dry situation.... And it is going to get worse before it gets better...

Edit:

my point that the whole thing is completely stupid still stands.
because honestly fellas, how long have you been bickering amongst yourselves now. and for what.

Dude, do you know your history? Yeah, fighting is dumb, but you have three major religions claiming the same ground being the most holiest spot on earth. For them it is like seeing someone abusing your own mother.... but worst it is their God. Google some Muslim, Jewish and Christian history... You might start to understand...

[nooBBooze]

Dude, do you know your history?
Israel and Palestine is and has always been a political conflict.

[Masterz1337]

mb if they stopped bombing civi house's and you know, stopped all this hostile bullshit they wouldnt have a reason to rocket them in the first place.

The attacks will continue no matter what Israel does. Obviously, bombing civilian centers does anything but help their cause.

I'm no supporter of Israel, but they are never the ones breaking their agreements or instigating the conflicts. However, when they do react to threats and attacks, they do it in an unacceptable matter.

You can complain about Israel attacking civilians, but Hamas simply can use civilian centers to gather or for refuge, since if they are bombed it makes Israel look like the bad guys for attacking "innocent civilians", when truth be told no one really knows who is inside. Israel states terrorists were in the Mosque or School, while their enemies say it was civilians. No one can really know for sure, since neither source is reliable. It's a smart tactic on Hama's part.

And while special forces are used, this isn't COD4 where the enemy is so clearly defined. Hamas has used civilians as hostages before, and they disguise themselves as civilians as well. The special forces SHOULD be used, but no country wants to send it's soldiers into a dangerous area, when they can do the job without any risk, by dropping bombs. It's the completely wrong approach for any country trying to make peace with it's neighbors.

Oh, And I'm Jewish BTW.

[Dwood]

Honestly, i believe the whole muslim population centers should be nuked because they ARE the world aggressors.
[/sarcasm (I don't believe in mass murder, maybe mass suicide)]

Honestly though people, Hamas is doing what they are with great skill by portraying it as though the 'civillians' were the ones affected. They don't even have to do anything but lob rockets into Israel. (Israel is a country America helped form btw)

We should NOT be getting mad at Israel, no matter what response they take (as long as they don't nuke anything) as long as the rockets are coming from the Gaza region into Israel.

*as long as Hamas is allowed by lebanon *etc* to go by freely.

[SnaFuBAR]

Honestly, i believe the whole muslim population centers should be nuked because they ARE the world aggressors.
[/sarcasm (I don't believe in mass murder, maybe mass suicide)]

Honestly though people, Hamas is doing what they are with great skill by portraying it as though the 'civillians' were the ones affected. They don't even have to do anything but lob rockets into Israel. (Israel is a country America helped form btw)

We should NOT be getting mad at Israel, no matter what response they take (as long as they don't nuke anything) as long as the rockets are coming from the Gaza region into Israel.
Firstly, great opening in your post... yeah, not really. Fuck you.

Secondly, civilians ARE the ones affected, and that is irrefutable.

Lastly, YES WE SHOULD BE GETTING MAD AT ISRAEL. They have a constant history of completely accepting massive collateral damage in order to get only a couple of guys. And FUCK THE USA TOO, they blocked a cease fire for humanitarian aide.

[deathret]

Dude, it can't be easy having 7 million packing in to an area smaller then New Jersey with 1 billion angry mulsims surrounding you. And no both sides are not blame-free...

[Joshflighter]

It's war. No one is innocent. Israel gave back there part of land they kept fighting for. But until Israel is wiped off the map, they wont stop. Its how they are, its how they will be. So Israel is not to blame. Israel wasn't sending rockets in the strip. Now Hamas has to deal with the consequence.

Also, what Masterz said is true. Best post here I think. :)

[SnaFuBAR]

It's war. No one is innocent. Except the civilians killed by Israel.

Israel gave back there part of land they kept fighting for. Palestinians want ALL of their land back, and to be out of the horrible conditions they're forced to live under due to the state of Israel.

But until Israel is wiped off the map, they wont stop. Its how they are, its how they will be. So Israel is not to blame. They won't get wiped off the map. Both the Israelis and Palestinians are unwilling to do all the things necessary for a chance at peace.

Israel wasn't sending rockets in the strip. Now Hamas has to deal with the consequence. Uh, no, not Hamas, civilians. You don't seem to understand that Israel goes "hey look a building they could possibly store weapons in, blow it up, men, women, children and all." They don't care because the victims aren't Jews. Everything Israel does is 100x worse than Hamas is even capable of.
.

[Joshflighter]

.



Umm, you know that in the news they admitted that there were hamas people firing rockets out of the school?

Also, it was Israel's land to start off with. Go look at a documentary about how there are archaeological finds. Second, Natives should own America and Canada, but we took over the place. The weak fall sadly in this world.

Umm, bad conditions? They dont just live in the strip... Is that what you are thinking? That's there choice. They want to live there, there are many other Palestinian places that are friendly to move too.

Israel didn't break deals, like masterz said. it was the was other way around.

You really should start opening your eyes. :|

I don't mean offence, but you are wrong in your points.

But as I was corrected before, I dont think this is what the topic is about?
Its more about the discrimination the human Ontario Union is doing.

[SnaFuBAR]

Fear, look at any pre-1948 map. Israel was never a state before then. It was Palestine, and before the British broke it up, the people in that area lived in relative peace. Please don't tell me to look shit up, I fucking studied this. Just because they had temples etc there 4000 years ago, and they LEFT, doesn't mean they should be placed there after ww2 and the holocaust, by displacing the majority that had been living there, even before Moses.

hth.

[deathret]

Also, it was Israel's land to start off with. Go look at a documentary about how there are archaeological finds. Second, Natives should own America and Canada, but we took over the place. The weak fall sadly in this world.

This is a bad arguement. And you know it.

[nooBBooze]

Hamas is nothing but a name.
If I'm stuck in an overcrowded poverty ridden ghetto, if everyone around me is more likely to starve, die from deasease or israeli bombs than to live another day, if only an explosion taking the lives of people i cared about shakens up my world of apathic desperation, I would'nt be so sure if I woulnd't tag along that group of armed men enthusiastically challenging fate.

At this point, i think the state of Israel is pretty much a fait accomplì. The expectiations of the Palestinians or their sympathisiers repespectably fueled by their media and other means of propaganda are way to high to ever be fulfilled. Israel will never be dissolved nor "wiped off the map" by a sovereign Nation, to put it in a horrendously misquoted sentence. Even when things get setteled right now, the mostly Palestinian but alse Israeli families destroyed in the last few generations, will make for still more generations of "terrorists" disrupting a supposed peace in their private crusade striving for nothing more than revenge and selfdistruction.

I really can't see any way out of this other than just stop caring.

[DarkHalo003]

The war won't ever end. It's a religious fight that will continue on till the last man is dead. Sadly, the Middle East still hasn't solved this issue after having 1000 years to figure it out. War sucks. Not nations alone.

[Joshflighter]

Fear, look at any pre-1948 map. Israel was never a state before then. It was Palestine, and before the British broke it up, the people in that area lived in relative peace. Please don't tell me to look shit up, I fucking studied this. Just because they had temples etc there 4000 years ago, and they LEFT, doesn't mean they should be placed there after ww2 and the holocaust, by displacing the majority that had been living there, even before Moses.

hth.


And what happen? Isreal won the place over. It was far, and it was agreed it was there land. Now are you going to tell me that its not there land? I will say what you told me. Just because they lived there 100 years ago , and they LEFT, doesnt mean they should be placed there after they lost the land.

Also, YOU dont read your history. Isreal and its people didnt just "leave." :|

EDIT:


I really can't see any way out of this other than just stop caring.

I agree with what he said. I dont think it will happen though. Atleast not them. We can, they wont.

[SnaFuBAR]

Israel won the place over? lmao. Look at modern ME history. Orthodox Jews were even opposed to the creation of the state of Israel.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said they "left", that's not the fact. The fact is that it was never Israel until the US and Britain ordained it so and split Palestine down the middle.

[Masterz1337]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Israel Won.

Not to mention, they've given back the Strip, they've given back Egypt it's land, and the Golan heights.

Care to explain why US and Britain were in charge of Palestine?

[SnaFuBAR]

I thought he meant in the "hearts and minds" sense. Ever since it was created, Israel was expansionist and aggressive.

[Phopojijo]

Not to mention how much Israel conquered of neighbouring land using French aircraft, etc etc etc.

Example -- Gaza strip... wasn't actually part of Israel until they conquered it.

Now about the original topic... banning people from speaking in a union for religious and political beliefs... is kinda... wrong. On so many levels...

(this post was supposed to be before Masters')

[DarkHalo003]

I thought he meant in the "hearts and minds" sense. Ever since it was created, Israel was expansionist and aggressive.
How? The own one of the smallest regions of land, not to mention the reason why they are fighting is religious. If you aren't religious, then you may not understand the concept. Not saying it's right though, but in their minds they think they have to fight.

You know nothing about Israel if you say they are nothing but aggressive. IT's as if you are trying to hate Israel and say bad things about them for being in a war. WE'RE in a war and you don't go hating on the U.S. No, it's the country you live in. Well, the same goes for the Israelites. To them, the war they are in is like the reason why we are in Afghanistan.

[nooBBooze]

The own one of the smallest regions of land, not to mention the reason why they are fighting is religious.
Religion has barely anything to do with it.

[Phopojijo]

WE'RE in a war and you don't go hating on the U.S. No, it's the country you live in. Well, the same goes for the Israelites. To them, the war they are in is like the reason why we are in Afghanistan.Uh... except that the UN has long been attempting to control the Arab-Israeli conflict by helping Palestine.

Afghanistan was entirely UN sanctioned.

There's one difference...

[DarkHalo003]

Uh... except that the UN has long been attempting to control the Arab-Israeli conflict by helping Palestine.

Afghanistan was entirely UN sanctioned.

There's one difference...
Meh true, but i'm trying to keep the politics of the UN out of it.lol. :p
But do you get the concept of what I'm saying?

Last time I recalled, Israel didn't have that much land compared to many other countries by the Middle East.


Religion has barely anything to do with it.
Explain to me how it doesn't? There is always some religious significance with the wars those countries have fighting amongst themselves. Some way or another.

[deathret]

(this post was supposed to be before Masters')

Psh... And you call your self a Super Moderator.:rolleyes:

[Masterz1337]

Ever since it was created, Israel was expansionist and aggressive.

Of course they would be aggressive, wouldn't you be if 6 Million of your people were exterminated and now you have a bunch of nations who are ready to attack you? The result of the war, which was waged on Israel was that Israel conquered lands, which they since then have been fine with giving back. They didn't one day decide, ya know, let's take all these Muslims people's land so we can expand.

Edit: And apparently from what I've heard, the Palestinians aren't even held in high regard by other Muslim nations. Look at Saudi Arabia, old Iraq, Iran, UAE, they are powerful Muslim nations with money, but do they help the Palestinians? I haven't heard anything. If support you mean attack Israel, than that's them using the Palestinians situation as a scapegoat. Also take a look between Albania and the rest of the middle eastern world, and what Albania did during WW2. The results might surprise you.

[Phopojijo]

Last time I recalled, Israel didn't have that much land compared to many other countries by the Middle East.So I could go in with a rocket launcher, control a city block, slaughter whoever's in it... call it Jijopia... and I'd be okay because it's smaller than most other countries?

[deathret]

let's take all these Muslims people's land so we can expand.

These kind of thoughts are scary... Are all Muslims bad? It isn't a black and white situation.

[DarkHalo003]

So I could go in with a rocket launcher, control a city block, slaughter whoever's in it... call it Jijopia... and I'd be okay because it's smaller than most other countries?
What? No, I'm saying that they aren't expansionists. Sure, they're taking Gaza, but to win a conflict you have to win ground. But hell, I don't know anymore. Terms are used so heavily now it's not even funny.

[Dwood]

For your information (http://townhall.com/Columnists/HughHewitt/2009/01/07/israels_race_against_the_clock)

[CN3089]

I'm no supporter of Israel, but they are never the ones breaking their agreements or instigating the conflicts.
Except when they broke the latest ceasefire that led directly to this conflict http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/confused.gif


death to israel, death to people who support israel


*glorified bottle rockets land in empty parking lot*
*bombs a school, kills 1 militant and 50 students*

COLLATERAL DAMAGE COULDN'T BE HELPED HERP DERP

[DarkHalo003]

Except when they broke the latest ceasefire that led directly to this conflict http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/confused.gif


repeat: death to israel
Wow, wishing death on another country and group of people? Very immature idea. There are just as many innocents in both countries as there are militants. War should die, not the general people.

[SnaFuBAR]

Of course they would be aggressive, wouldn't you be if 6 Million of your people were exterminated and now you have a bunch of nations who are ready to attack you? The result of the war, which was waged on Israel was that Israel conquered lands, which they since then have been fine with giving back. They didn't one day decide, ya know, let's take all these Muslims people's land so we can expand.

Those nations were ready to attack as a response of what the Israelis immediately did, such as attempting water diversion away from a neighbor, and land grabs. This is a historical fact that the aggression that came upon them was a result of their own actions.

Darkhalo003, ye, they are expansionist. Please look up the history.

[Phopojijo]

What? No, I'm saying that they aren't expansionists. Sure, they're taking Gaza, but to win a conflict you have to win ground. But hell, I don't know anymore. Terms are used so heavily now it's not even funny.Soooo you don't have any supporting arguments for Israel?

Okay. Next?

[Joshflighter]

Those nations were ready to attack as a response of what the Israelis immediately did, such as attempting water diversion away from a neighbor, and land grabs. This is a historical fact that the aggression that came upon them was a result of their own actions.

Darkhalo003, ye, they are expansionist. Please look up the history.


So.. ok, they defended, THEY ALL lost. Now its right to harass a country cause they lost to them? That is called biased opinions, and religion based ideas. Like CN is.

Also they were taking back there land. Whats happening now is not a people trying to take back land. They are just trying to inflict damage on Israel. I dont see no big nation confronting Israel with tanks to take it over. I see cowards attacking civilians and using there own kind as shields.

[DarkHalo003]

Those nations were ready to attack as a response of what the Israelis immediately did, such as attempting water diversion away from a neighbor, and land grabs. This is a historical fact that the aggression that came upon them was a result of their own actions.

Darkhalo003, ye, they are expansionist. Please look up the history.
Snaf, the Israelites aren't the only oppressors, which is what opinion you're giving off. This isn't a one-side oppressed fight. There are many more oppressors and aggressive forces fighting Israel too. You can't say that this is just Israel's oppressing of another nation.

I agree with Masters. If 6 million U.S. civilians were attacked and the U.S. returned fire aggressively, would they be considered a downright aggressive nation like you consider Israel? Israel has always been in some turmoil with other countries around it. Of course you can say Israel is aggressive if that's the only thing that happens over there. I'm sure if they didn't have these wars, they would be just as calm as other non-combatant countries right now.

Fear1337 took more words from my mouth. Thanks for saying it. I probably would have written them worse.lol.

[Masterz1337]

These kind of thoughts are scary... Are all Muslims bad? It isn't a black and white situation.

No but Muslim nations are the ones around Israel, who have a problem with it, and their problem is NOT with what's going on with the Palestinians. Jews and Muslims have gotten along fine in the past (WW2 Albania), and Israel isn't the one who violated a cease fire and started firing rockets into civilian centers. Yes, Israel is bombing locations with civilians now, and it's unacceptable. but to call them Aggressive expansionists is another thing.

[CN3089]

Wow, wishing death on another country and group of people? Very immature idea.

hmmm yes i clearly see in my post where I say "death to israelis" oh wait


Israel isn't the one who violated a cease fire and started firing rockets into civilian centers.Yes, they are the ones who violated a cease fire. http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/confused.gif

[Phopojijo]

So.. ok, they defended, THEY ALL lost. Now its right to harass a country cause they lost to them? That is called biased opinions, and religion based ideas. Like CN is.Because every time they attack Israel, Israel counter-attacks and expands their border.

Until they're forced by the UN to return (not give back, forced to return) some of what they conquered.


Also they were taking back there land. Whats happening now is not a people trying to take back land. They are just trying to inflict damage on Israel. I dont see no big nation confronting Israel with tanks to take it over. I see cowards attacking civilians and using there own kind as shields.Palestinians cannot take back their land, they're currently segregated behind walls "for national security".


No but Muslim nations are the ones around Israel, who have a problem with it, and their problem is NOT with what's going on with the Palestinians. Jews and Muslims have gotten along fine in the past (WW2 Albania), and Israel isn't the one who violated a cease fire and started firing rockets into civilian centers. Yes, Israel is bombing locations with civilians now, and it's unacceptable. but to call them Aggressive expansionists is another thing.But they did aggressively expand... hence Gaza and things that were mentioned in prior posts a dozen times now.

[DarkHalo003]

hmmm yes i clearly see in my post where I say "death to israelis" oh wait

Yes, they are the ones who violated a cease fire.
Oh shut up. You said death to Israel. Same thing. Same implications. Stop acting like it means nothing.

[Masterz1337]

Those nations were ready to attack as a response of what the Israelis immediately did, such as attempting water diversion away from a neighbor, and land grabs. This is a historical fact that the aggression that came upon them was a result of their own actions.

Darkhalo003, ye, they are expansionist. Please look up the history.



In 1964, Israel began withdrawing water from the Jordan River for its National Water Carrier. The following year, the Arab states began construction of the Headwater Diversion Plan, which, once completed, would divert the waters of the Banias Stream before the water entered Israel and the Sea of Galilee, to flow instead into a dam at Mukhaiba for use by Jordan and Syria, and divert the waters of the Hasbani into the Litani River, in Lebanon.[20] The diversion works would have reduced the installed capacity of Israel's carrier by about 35%, and Israel's overall water supply by about 11%.[21]The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) attacked the diversion works in Syria in March, May, and August 1965, perpetuating a prolonged chain of border violence that linked directly to the events leading to war.[22]
From Wikipedia.

It's like if you're neighbor started stealing your Wifi and internet service by using 80% of your bandwidth. Obviously you would do something, especially if you only had a certain amount of data you were allowed to use a month. Except in this case it's water, in the desert.

[nooBBooze]

Explain to me how it doesn't? There is always some religious significance with the wars those countries have fighting amongst themselves. Some way or another.
Ever since the holocaust [flawed but assumed for shorter argument] the endevour of giving the population of the various camps namely holocaust survivors of otherwise displaced people, stopped being a religious thing. Since then, it was purely political. Most of the jews weren't even asked where they wanted to go, infact most of them would have preffered to just return to their home countries. The US supported the creation of a defacto client state in the middle east out of strategic reasons.
Seriously, if you think about it, laying claim on a land temporarily [~200 years] owned by a mostly jewish population is ridicuoulous. The indians would be allowed to claim america back, italians most of europe etc.
The fact that religion appears to play a role in this, is because it is used as propaganda for the warring parties who rationalize and justifiy political tendencies and actions. If the causes for such actions wouldn't exist i.e. when the political cirsumstances do not favour the causes for voilence wich is poverty, fear and overwhelming immigration, the need to initiate certain opposing tendencies will not arise.

TL;DR: suppose you were a religious man living in a fairly industrialized country. You are more or less well off and quite satisfied with your life free of financial pressure. YOu believe yourself a zealous man of faith and you will of course passionatly defend your faith in a dispute. However, you will never pick up arms just because it is written in your scriptures. Thats just ridicoulous. If however your family happens to die and you lose your job and are now forced to live a life where day by day survival is a matter of chance, propaganda of any kind may trigger actions that are based on entirely personal reasons.

Religion is the mean not the reason.

I really need to stop caring.

[DarkHalo003]

Ever since the holocaust [flawed but assumed for shorter argument] the endevour of giving the population of the various camps namely holocaust survivors of otherwise displaced people, stopped being a religious thing. Since then, it was purely political. Most of the jews weren't even where they wanted to go, infact most of them would have preffered to just return to their home countries. The US supported the creation of a defacto client state in the middle east out of strategic reasons.
Seriously, if you think about it, laying claim on a land temporarily [~200 years] owned by a mostly jewish population is ridicuoulous. The indians would be allowed to claim america back, italians most of europe etc.
The fact that religion appears to play a role in this, is because it is used as propaganda for the warring parties who rationalize and justifiy political tendencies and actions. If the need for such actions wouldn't exist i.e. when the political cirsumstances do not favour the causes for voilence wich is poverty, fear and overwhelming immigration, the need to initiate certain opposing tendencies will not arise.

TL;DR: suppose you were a religious man living in a fairly industrialized country. You are more or less well off and quite satisfied with your life free of financial pressure. YOu believe yourself a zealous man of faith and you will of course passionatly defend your faith in a dispute. However, you will never pick up arms just because it is written in your scriptures. Thats just ridicoulous. If however your family happens to die and you lose your job and are now forced to live a life where day by day survival is a matter of chance, propaganda of any kind may trigger actions that are based on entirely personal reasons.

Religion is the mean not the reason.
Ah, makes sense. Now thinking about it, the govies do try their best to exploit moral. But I supposes that's politics. :v:

[Phopojijo]

Oh shut up. You said death to Israel. Same thing. Same implications. Stop acting like it means nothing.Uh, no it doesn't.

Death to Israel means the government should be dissolved and Palestine should take over.

Death to Israelis means that all citizens of Israel should be killed.

IMO both suck... but Israel does need to learn to co-exist. Peace isn't brought about by guns... especially when those guns aren't even your's.

[Masterz1337]

Because every time they attack Israel, Israel counter-attacks and expands their border.

Until they're forced by the UN to return (not give back, forced to return) some of what they conquered.

Palestinians cannot take back their land, they're currently segregated behind walls "for national security".

But they did aggressively expand... hence Gaza and things that were mentioned in prior posts a dozen times now.
Hitler aggressively expanded. Israel gained new lands through a conflict that was brought onto them from others. Of course you're going to invade an enemy and take their land. Hell, was the Confederate States of America an aggressive expansionist country for attempting to invade the US rather than continually expand? What is the difference between Expansionism and Aggressive Expansionism?

[Bodzilla]

How? The own one of the smallest regions of land, not to mention the reason why they are fighting is religious. If you aren't religious, then you may not understand the concept. Not saying it's right though, but in their minds they think they have to fight.

You know nothing about Israel if you say they are nothing but aggressive. IT's as if you are trying to hate Israel and say bad things about them for being in a war. WE'RE in a war and you don't go hating on the U.S. No, it's the country you live in. Well, the same goes for the Israelites. To them, the war they are in is like the reason why we are in Afghanistan.
Turn off your fox news channel please.

[DarkHalo003]

Hitler aggressively expanded. Israel gained new lands through a conflict that was brought onto them from others. Of course you're going to invade an enemy and take their land. Hell, was the Confederate States of America an aggressive expansionist country for attempting to invade the US rather than continually expand? What is the difference between Expansionism and Aggressive Expansionism?
Like I said before, you have to gain land to win a conflict. Aggressive expansionism is merciless Hitler-styled expansionism. If you say his expansionism is right, that's just a bit crude.

[Phopojijo]

Hitler aggressively expanded. Israel gained new lands through a conflict that was brought onto them from others. Of course you're going to invade an enemy and take their land. Hell, was the Confederate States of America an aggressive expansionist country for attempting to invade the US rather than continually expand? What is the difference between Expansionism and Aggressive Expansionism?Hitler did a lot of things... and Israel did some of those things... aggressively expand... keep people behind walls... eat, sleep, and breathe.

Saying "Hitler did it" is just trying to discourage people to discuss your point. Hate to break it to you... but the point is true, regardless of whether Hitler did it too.

[armoman92]

quotin this cuz i'm down http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-jihad.gif

same here, Israel = illegitimate. how many people suffered for it to made in the first place?

[Joshflighter]

Wait, how did they aggressively expand? :o

I don't remember that happening. :O

EDIT: to the guy above me.

How many people died for the US war right now?

IF you want to argue, bring something to the table that is argue-able. Also, why are we arguing about if Israel should be a country or why its there. I think we strayed from where Israel attacking because they were being attacked.

EDIT again: Oh and to the guy above me again...

So how many people died for thinking its right to be a terrorist and sending rockets into civilized places?

[Phopojijo]

Wait, how did they aggresively expand? :o

I don't remeber that happening. :OIt was before you were born. (Unless you're over 30)

[Joshflighter]

It was before you were born. (Unless you're over 30)

Of course, I'm not 30. I mean what event? Was it in the 6 day war? or..?

I just don't remember them attacking just for the sake of having more territories.

[Masterz1337]

Yeah link us to some Wikipedia sites where Israel went out of their way to attack to gain land.

I said Hitler was an aggressive expantionalist because.
A. It's true.
B. Everyone knows what went on in WW2.

If you want to throw out the Hitler analogy, look at Japan or the Soviet Union.

[CN3089]

palestinian rocket impact:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/g07_17466021.jpg

israel's response:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/g12_17492683.jpg

BUT THEY HAD TO DO THIS THEY ARE DEFENDING THEMSELVES FROM THE HORRIBLE ROCKET ATTACKS http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/downsdance.gif

[DarkHalo003]

Now I think you're just trolling. =/

[Masterz1337]

How about you show us some legitment photos over the ones that you decided to put in you're photo bucket gallery :rolleyes:

[CN3089]

How about you show us some legitment photos over the ones that you decided to put in you're photo bucket gallery :rolleyes:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/01/scenes_from_the_gaza_strip.html

look how dumb you are

[DarkHalo003]

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/01/scenes_from_the_gaza_strip.html

look how dumb you are
It's the Boston Press. Anything they put in there will be exaggerated for the best possible story and clincher. Trust Time and NG.

That one rocket was a dud. The shell would be obliterated if not.

[CN3089]

That one rocket was a dud.

look how dumb you are, most rockets don't have explosives on them


e: the rockets I built in my physics class are prob. more dangerous if we hadn't fired them into the lake

[SnaFuBAR]

That is legit. The armament of Hamas is shamefully small.

[Joshflighter]

The rockets hamas sends sometimes contains bb's or other such small shards.. when it impacts the ground or building, it spreads and kills or badly injures anyone in the area. So showing a missed missile is clearly one sided. How about showing the damage it actually does on Israel? OH, and showing how bad Israel is? They were warned many times to stop. Now they have to deal with it. The Innocent should have not elected hamas and they should have left. They are not the ones to be injured, but that's how sadly hamas works. Humans are there shields.

[SnaFuBAR]

A Palestinian medic surveys the damage to a mobile medical clinic destroyed after an Israeli air strike in Gaza January 5, 2009. Four ambulances and three mobile clinics were destroyed in the bombing at Health Care Union, medical workers and witnesses said. (REUTERS/Mohammed Salem) # (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/01/scenes_from_the_gaza_strip.html#photo12)

sup warcrime.

[DarkHalo003]

A Palestinian medic surveys the damage to a mobile medical clinic destroyed after an Israeli air strike in Gaza January 5, 2009. Four ambulances and three mobile clinics were destroyed in the bombing at Health Care Union, medical workers and witnesses said. (REUTERS/Mohammed Salem) # (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/01/scenes_from_the_gaza_strip.html#photo12)

sup warcrime.
Sup biased opinion. (Not about the medics, but about how all of your posts are one-sided)

Explosions can be anything from the release of shrapnel to what we usually think of. Fear explained it better. Yet, Hamas is relatively skew compared to Israel's superior military. But IF they were warned ahead of time, then they will have to suffer the consequences until a surrender. Regardless, war is war, so it sucks on both sides.

No, I don't think it's right for the Medical side to get hit. I'm talking about the scenario as a fucking whole, not in details for the most part when I refer to consequences.

[CN3089]

How about showing the damage it actually does on Israel?

lol, three people dead, a few roads mildly damaged, a few holes in some buildings, oh no


Sup biased opinion.

attacking ambulances is a violation of the geneva conventions soooo

[Joshflighter]

Sup terrorists. You seem to be defending them a lot and hamas.

It's Hamas's fault for keep harassing them. Stop being one sided Snaf. You cant even admit Israel has a right to fight back.

Me and Masterz disagree with Israel's innocent kills, but surely not that Hamas has been harassing them to much. That's what happens.

Also, that article really one sided.

EDIT: So CN, you say that its ok for Hamas to do that? You admit its Hamas who is attacking them, they were fine till Hamas was aggressively sending rockets.

[Phopojijo]

CN dude, "watch your wording" would be an understatement.

[Bodzilla]

so blowing up a fucking medic station is completely justifiable.
Fucks sake you people are on some good drugs.

[Masterz1337]

Even if it's not, you fill one of those with shrapnel you're doing a lot of damage. The rockets being fired over are apparently powerful enough to destroy buildings, sounds like a threat worth dealing with to me.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3287237,00.html

I don't think anyone here is actually defending Israel's current response to these rockets, I haven't been since my first post in this thread.

I do not agree with those that are trying to paint Israel as this evil oppressive nation. Their responses to these attacks are over the top and they are behaving no better than their attackers.

[Phopojijo]

It's Hamas's fault for keep harassing them. Stop being one sided Snaf. You cant even admit Israel has a right to fight back.Actually... Israel broke the ceasefire on November 4th (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4)

Soo... check your facts before calling people one-sided...

It's easy to be "one-sided" if the other side has been fact-checked wrong.

[Masterz1337]

Sup biased opinion.

Explosions can be anything from the release of shrapnel to what we usually think of. Fear explained it better. Yet, Hamas is relatively skew compared to Israel's superior military. But IF they were warned ahead of time, then they will have to suffer the consequences until a surrender. Regardless, war is war, so it sucks on both sides.

Please shut up >_>.

You're actually going to defend them attacking a mobile hospital for civilians?

[DarkHalo003]

Sup terrorists. You seem to be defending them a lot and hamas.

It's Hamas's fault for keep harassing them. Stop being one sided Snaf. You cant even admit Israel has a right to fight back.

Me and Masterz disagree with Israel's innocent kills, but surely not that Hamas has been harassing them to much. That's what happens.

Also, that article really one sided.
Calling them terrorists is a bit too extreme. That just shows unneeded aggression.

I agree on this. When you put your people at risk for messing with a superior military you're failing as a gov't to protect them. If they negotiate a contract to end the fighting, then many will be saved on both sides. Israel is simply doing their job as a gov't to protect their citizens. At one side, they are using scare tactics and on the other, they are using actually military power to force a surrender.


Please shut up >_>.

You're actually going to defend them attacking a mobile hospital for civilians?
I never said that. Damn, I keep getting over subjected with more than one topic at once. Sorry, forgot about that section at the time. It's complete shit that they are attacking medical areas. You're right, it violates one of the regulations. It's ridiculous. It's like kicking the other side in the balls. Sorry I left out one detail, but I type faster than I think half the time. >_>

[Bodzilla]

Even if it's not, you fill one of those with shrapnel you're doing a lot of damage. The rockets being fired over are apparently powerful enough to destroy buildings, sounds like a threat worth dealing with to me.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3287237,00.html

I don't think anyone here is actually defending Israel's current response to these rockets, I haven't been since my first post in this thread.

I do not agree with those that are trying to paint Israel as this evil oppressive nation. Their responses to these attacks are over the top and they are behaving no better than their attackers.
that = this??

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/gaza_01_07/g13_17476497.jpg
Palm trees are great for scale :awesome:

[Masterz1337]

I never compared the Hamas rockets to the ones Israel is using. In fact I have been against Israels response to the attacks this whole thread.

[Joshflighter]

Off-topic:

Damn, that must be a nice camera, it took a nice pic. :O

[Bodzilla]

I do not agree with those that are trying to paint Israel as this evil oppressive nation
the image doesnt lie masterz :/

[Joshflighter]

So that image makes them evil and oppressive....?

They are attacking back.

[Bodzilla]

attacking back from what exactly.

so if you punch me in the stomach, and i retaliate by murdering your entire family down to your 3rd cousins, thats cool?

jesus fucking christ people.

[Masterz1337]

So any nation that uses bombs that big is an evil oppressive nation? I don't disagree that they're no better than terrorists themselves in this recent conflict, but I do not believe that they are "the nation out to get the Arab world" as several have been implying in this thread. And if you look through the thread, you''ll see exactly what I mean. In fact you'll see articles, examples, and legit examples and questions, that others simply decided to ignore and post pictures instead. >_>.

For example the 6 days war?

[Joshflighter]

No.. but letting you punch my stomach isn't either.

I am not saying that Israel is not going over board. But how you guys are putting it, and snaf.. its something like this:

-Israel doesn't belong there
-Death with Israel
-They dont have no reason to attack
-Everyone loves them, but they hate everyone else.

[Phopojijo]

I never compared the Hamas rockets to the ones Israel is using. In fact I have been against Israels response to the attacks this whole thread.
Again... Israel's attacks, not Israel's response...

See: http://www.modacity.net/forums/showpost.php?p=345308&postcount=83

[Bodzilla]

i cant see another way to look at them after such matters.
if your trying to bomb a country back to the stone age in an argument you started.... then what else do we call you.

[SnaFuBAR]

When you put your people at risk for messing with a superior military you're failing as a gov't to protect them. If they negotiate a contract to end the fighting, then many will be saved on both sides. Israel is simply doing their job as a gov't to protect their citizens. At one side, they are using scare tactics and on the other, they are using actually military power to force a surrender.



They are attacking back.

Israel broke the cease fire on Nov. 4th.

Is there something you don't get?

[Joshflighter]

Israel broke the cease fire on Nov. 4th.

Is there something you don't fucking get?



Are you blind? cause I sure as hell can read normal writing. I suggest you getting glasses :)

They are fighting back from attacks. OWAI, to you what hamas was doing, was nothing wrong.

[mech]

Jackie Chan sure does know alot about war.

[DarkHalo003]

So that image makes them evil and oppressive....?

They are attacking back.
It's mainly the issue of how they're attacking back though. I don't agree with how they are attacking back, some of it is cheap, but you also have to look at Hamas for not anticipating such a large retaliation. They ARE messing with a military superpower here. It was a stupid decision for Hamas to attack in the first place (before the cease fire was broken by Israel) and they're putting their people at jeopardy because of it. Israel could stop, but what if Hamas continued? The wounded and oppressed would probably riot because they think they're gov't aren't doing anything about it. Everything is pending from there. But that's not the issue at hand is it. If anything seems miseducated in my post, then it probably is. If it's something that seems so common sense, like the Medic incident, where someone would not approve of it then I probably just missed the detail or implied something else in my post, like I was implying that Snaf was acting a tad one sided.

[Masterz1337]

Was that response towards me or Fear bod?

I missed that Youtube video the first time you posted Phopo, and so yes, Israel "broke" the cease fire by killing gunmen who were intending on planning on attacking Israel? That's what I picked up from the video. It's the classic "well he started the fight when he hit me back" situation.

[Bodzilla]

rofl.

honestly, if i didnt laugh then fear, i'd cry.

[Phopojijo]

Are you blind? cause I sure as hell can read normal writing. I suggest you getting glasses :)

They are fighting back from attacks. OWAI, to you what hamas was doing, was nothing wrong.There wasn't any attacks though... it was a ceasefire... Israel broke it.


I missed that Youtube video the first time you posted Phopo, and so yes, Israel "broke" the cease fire by killing gunmen who were intending on planning on attacking Israel? That's what I picked up from the video. It's the classic "well he started the fight when he hit me back" situation.That's what Israel said when questioned... there was no proof there was an attack being planned.

[SnaFuBAR]

Are you blind? cause I sure as hell can read normal writing. I suggest you getting glasses :)

They are fighting back from attacks. OWAI, to you what hamas was doing, was nothing wrong.
You must be the blind one, because Israel attacked Gaza without Hamas firing rockets at them first. Israel broke the cease fire. Can you comprehend this? This means that 4 months into the 6 month cease fire, ISRAEL ATTACKED GAZA FIRST.

[Bodzilla]

you need size 16 font snaf.

and brightly flashing colours. remember the audience your talking to.

[Phopojijo]

That's what you get in a thread titled "RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!"

[Masterz1337]

That's what Israel said when questioned... there was no proof there was an attack being planned.

And there's no proof they weren't. So once again, we're stuck having the only information coming to us through 2 unreliable factions

[SnaFuBAR]

you need size 16 font snaf.

and brightly flashing colours. remember the audience your talking to.
No, apparently I need a news station to spin the truth.

[SnaFuBAR]

And there's no proof they weren't. So once again, we're stuck having the only information coming to us through 2 unreliable factions
the only thing we do know for a FACT is that Israel broke the cease fire.

[Bodzilla]

And there's no proof they weren't. So once again, we're stuck having the only information coming to us through 2 unreliable factions
attacking someone first who could attack you (note: not will) still means you attacked first.

:\

[Anton]

From the video someone posted with CNN's Broadcast.. they said that there was no true truce.. or something along those lines.


Even if there was a truce, Israel hit a tunnel or something like that which was thought to of been dug to be used to kidnap israeli soldiers. They had "security" reasons to do so.

However I do not support ANYTHING Israel or Hamas is doing right now.


The one thing that truly matters right now is helping the Gaza Strip and it's civilians. This is unacceptable to allow Israel to hit Civilian targets.


No hatin' on the Anton please. :p

[Masterz1337]

I don't disagree, but there would be no need to attack them if htey weren't trying to instigate an attack of their own.

If this were a thread about how a guy shot a intruder coming to rape his little sister and he got sent to jail for killing him, this forum would be up in arms about how fucked the judicial system is.

[Phopojijo]

And there's no proof they weren't. So once again, we're stuck having the only information coming to us through 2 unreliable factionsYou can't give Israel the benefit of the doubt if you fail to give Palestine it.

That's the factless bias tripe getting pushed to people that we're talking about.

Like you said, you have no proof that anyone's right... so why pick a side? Go with what we know, Israel broke the ceasefire. That's the only certainty.

[Joshflighter]

No, apparently I need a news station to spin the truth.


You know, even though you try, to only bring up certain facts. Most were flawed. Yes they did attack first. But they didn't attack a human population. NOW DID THEY? They attacked people who are considered terrorists in America. What did Hamas do instead? They didn't go: Come here guys, we are going to do this like men. NO. They went and started launching rockets to kill civilians. Do you need me to make that size 16?

(To snaf)

[Bodzilla]

You can't give Israel the benefit of the doubt if you fail to give Palestine it.

That's the factless bias tripe getting pushed to people that we're talking about.

Like you said, you have no proof that anyone's right... so why pick a side?
why the fuck can i never rep you when i want too.

[Bodzilla]

NOW DID THEY? They attacked people who are considered terrorists in America.
oh, right now i understand.

america backs it so it's coo.
dam sand munkies and there terrorium wilds!

cool story.

[SnaFuBAR]

What else is Hamas capable of doing? Last time Israel went into Gaza, Hamas took it to them, and dealt them a fair amount of losses. This is why the ground incursion is so small this time around.

I'm sure Israel shelling from deep inside it's territory and dropping bombs is doing it like men, too, right?

Keep trying.

[Masterz1337]

You can't give Israel the benefit of the doubt if you fail to give Palestine it.

That's the factless bias tripe getting pushed to people that we're talking about.

Like you said, you have no proof that anyone's right... so why pick a side? Go with what we know, Israel broke the ceasefire. That's the only certainty.

Because Israel wasn't the one who decided to target CIVILIANS in an attack.

[Joshflighter]

oh, right now i understand.

america backs it so it's coo.
dam sand munkies and there terrorium wilds!

cool story.


Is everything a joke to you?

[Phopojijo]

You know, even though you try, to only bring up certain facts. Most were flawed. Yes they did attack first. But they didn't attack a human population. NOW DID THEY? They attacked people who are considered terrorists in America. What did Hamas do instead? They didn't go: Come here guys, we are going to do this like men. NO. They went and started launching rockets to kill civilians. Do you need me to make that size 16?

(To snaf)1) They're human...

2) America *shouldn't* have anything to do with this (in spite of their best efforts)

Because Israel wasn't the one who decided to target CIVILIANS in an attack.No... they just stick 'em in camps and blockade their supplies.

[Bodzilla]

Is everything a joke to you?
just ur poastin.

[SnaFuBAR]

Because Israel wasn't the one who decided to target CIVILIANS in an attack.
They're blowing up ambulances, Mosques and schools and they're not targeting civilians? :confused2: :confused2: :confused2:

[Masterz1337]

What else is Hamas capable of doing? Last time Israel went into Gaza, Hamas took it to them, and dealt them a fair amount of losses. This is why the ground incursion is so small this time around.

I'm sure Israel shelling from deep inside it's territory and dropping bombs is doing it like men, too, right?

Keep trying.

You going to pull a Bill Maher and say the 9-11 hijackers were brave for their acts too?

Also civilian shields.

[Joshflighter]

What else is Hamas capable of doing? Last time Israel went into Gaza, Hamas took it to them, and dealt them a fair amount of losses. This is why the ground incursion is so small this time around.

I'm sure Israel shelling from deep inside it's territory and dropping bombs is doing it like men, too, right?

Keep trying.

Keep trying? They did a ground offence once. And you know what happen? The hamas backed into civilian groups like cowards. They they showed how civilians were being killed and not them.

Also, now you are saying that hamas doesn't have weapons to fight like men? Based off what I read, you also basically say that hamas is cowards now and need to stay in civilian compounds, while shooting rockets.

[SnaFuBAR]

Straw man, try again, Masters.

[Masterz1337]

They're blowing up ambulances, Mosques and schools and they're not targeting civilians? :confused2: :confused2: :confused2:

Who targeted civilians first? Who was launching rockets into civilian centers first in this conflict? Yeah, I thought so.

Edit: You knwo waht, I'm done dealing with you Snaf. This whole thread you're coming off as a Jihadist sympathizer hothead who not once has even looked at this realisticly other than HURR ISRAEL IS BAD". IM or PM me when you cool down.

[SnaFuBAR]

Keep trying? They did a ground offence once. And you know what happen? The hamas backed into civilian groups like cowards. They they showed how civilians were being killed and not them.

Also, now you are saying that hamas doesn't have weapons to fight like men? Based off what I read, you also basically say that hamas is cowards now and need to stay in civilian compounds, while shooting rockets.
I never claimed hamas weren't cowards. It's called urban warfare. You should look it up sometime.

[SnaFuBAR]

Who targeted civilians first? Who was launching rockets into civilian centers first in this conflict? Yeah, I thought so.
So you admit that Israel did target civilians now? Are you attempting to justify Israel inciting massive collateral damage?

[Joshflighter]

So you admit that Israel did target civilians now? Are you attempting to justify Israel inciting massive collateral damage?


No he is saying hamas did. Don't try to pretend you dont understand what he meant. :|

[Sel]

So the situation is absolutely absurd and has been going on for years. Both sides are blameworthy for various loads of shit and there's no point justifying either.

hth

[Disaster]

Israel broke the cease fire on Nov. 4th.

Is there something you don't get?


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/world/middleeast/25mideast.html

learn your facts

[Anton]

---

[Joshflighter]

And someone was saying about unreliable facts?

[Bodzilla]

you clearly dont listen to moderators do you.


Again... Israel's attacks, not Israel's response...

See: http://www.modacity.net/forums/showpost.php?p=345308&postcount=83

[CN3089]

Is everything a joke to you?
just your posting

[Masterz1337]

So you admit that Israel did target civilians now? Are you attempting to justify Israel inciting massive collateral damage?

I've admitted that several times throughout the thread, if you were actually reading my posts. And I've shared my disdain and disappointment in them, and said they are acting no better than terrorists themselves.

Now I'm actually done talking to you.

[Phopojijo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/world/middleeast/25mideast.html

learn your factsThat article was from June 25... the ceasefire broke on November 4th... 4 months after the article.

Soooo...

"Learn your facts".

[Bodzilla]

just your posting
http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-master.gif

[Bodzilla]

heh

[Anton]

I totally misread shit, god you guys post too quickly.

[Joshflighter]

just your posting


And ur points are disgusting and discouraging to know such people as you even think and live the way you do. Its really sad. Death to Israel? Wtf is wrong with you.

I am gone to do some stuff, cause I actually do have stuff in life! :O

[Sel]

Don't hate on cn he has an animated haruhi tf2 spray :saddowns:

[Bodzilla]

I totally misread shit, god you guys post too quickly.thanks, now it looks like i double posted >:(

dam trollz.

[Bodzilla]

I am gone to do some stuff, cause I actually do have stuff in life! :O
i'm as surprised as you :O!

[Disaster]

That article was from June 25... the ceasefire broke on November 4th... 4 months after the article.

Soooo...

"Learn your facts".
That doesn't make any sense. Your source is wrong because i have proof in that article that it was Hamas that broke the cease fire 4 months before it was claimed that Israel broke the cease fire.

[Joshflighter]

i'm as surprised as you :O!

lol. :)

[Bodzilla]

That doesn't make any sense. Your source is wrong because i have proof in that article that it was Hamas that broke the cease fire 4 months before it was claimed that Israel broke the cease fire.

>_________________________>

[Sel]

You guys are making an awfully big deal for something that's been going on for the better part of a few decades http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l42/selentic/Emotes/whistling.gif

Just throwing that out there.

[SnaFuBAR]

That doesn't make any sense. Your source is wrong because i have proof in that article that it was Hamas that broke the cease fire 4 months before it was claimed that Israel broke the cease fire.
Hahaha, oh my God that is golden.

[Masterz1337]

I don't disagree, but there would be no need to attack them if htey weren't trying to instigate an attack of their own.

If this were a thread about how a guy shot a intruder coming to rape his little sister and he got sent to jail for killing him, this forum would be up in arms about how fucked the judicial system is.

Anyone care to refute this?

[ICEE]

Why argue about a war that wouldn't be happening if either side was really truly right in the first place? I don't understand why the US has to be involved in it anyways.

[Phopojijo]

That doesn't make any sense. Your source is wrong because i have proof in that article that it was Hamas that broke the cease fire 4 months before it was claimed that Israel broke the cease fire.No... it's because the ceasefire was never broken.


Islamic Jihad (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/islamic_jihad/index.html?inline=nyt-org), a small extremist group, claimed responsibility for the attack and said it had been a response to an Israeli military raid in the West Bank city of Nablus at dawn on Tuesday, in which a senior Islamic Jihad operative and another Palestinian (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/palestinians/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) man were killed.
Under pressure from Hamas, Islamic Jihad had agreed to abide by the temporary truce, which was meant to apply only to Gaza, but had balked at the idea of not responding to Israeli military actions in the West Bank.Islamic Jihad is not Hamas. As a result, the ceasefire continued.

The ceasefire was still active at the time that Israel broke it on November 4th... was my point. So yes Israel still broke the ceasefire because it wasn't called off back in June.


I don't disagree, but there would be no need to attack them if htey weren't trying to instigate an attack of their own.

If this were a thread about how a guy shot a intruder coming to rape his little sister and he got sent to jail for killing him, this forum would be up in arms about how fucked the judicial system is.Uh... I've always been against Vigilante Justice since that scenario wouldn't be self defense.

I could also point to the war in Iraq as another analogy.

Now if it was defense in the act than I'd agree... as long as he didn't use excessive force. (If lethal force was necessary, than yeah). However... Israel didn't defend themselves in the act so that's obviously not your point and is irrelevant. They also use much-excessive force that kills civilians (and ambulences, etc.)

So yeah, in spite of the sensationalism... it is illegal... and there would be much better ways to cope with the issue.

[Disaster]

the ceasefire broke on November 4th


No... it's because the ceasefire was never broken.

Wut?

Also, The article I posted is saying that Hamas broke the truce's guidelines by firing rockets into Israel. Whats not to get? Israel didn't break the ceasefire, Hamas did. The article is before November 4th and that adds to the truth of the article even more.

E: "Hamas guarantees that all Palestinian factions abide by the prohibition on the use of violence against Israel. "

http://middleeast.about.com/od/israelandpalestine/a/me080618a.htm

More truth that the ceasefire was broken.

[Phopojijo]

The point I was trying to make was that the ceasefire was never broken before November 4th. Hence, Israel broke it.

If you'd look at the context of "The ceasefire was never broken" I was referring to back in June when YOUR article was published. ((And actually at any point up until November 4th when Israel broke it.))

Plain and simple.

The Ceasefire was active on November 3rd...
The Ceasefire collapsed on November 4th when Israel attacked...

That's the facts... plain and simple.

Got it?

Good

Let's continue.

Edit: To make it fully clear... the Ceasefire was active on November 3rd... regardless of what happened before (by people who were not even Hamas)... the ceasefire was still active. Stating what happened in June makes no difference, because it didn't break the ceasefire... because it wasn't frickin' Hamas.

[Masterz1337]

Unless the ceasefire was once again issued after disasters article, then you're wrong, because it wouldn't have been active Nov. 3rd.

[Disaster]

I refer you to the post above yours.

Hamas didn't follow through with the terms of the truce and thus it was broken in June.

E: to Phopojijo

[Mass]

Israel is and always has been accountable for reaching a higher moral standard if it would like to continue calling itself a Jewish state.

Instead of policing their own settlers they've looked the other way for years and years, you can look at the public policy and say "they've halted expansion to make peace," but in reality they're growing very quickly and continue to do nothing to control their own people.

Instead of negotiating with Hamas and offering peace, supplies, and respite from encroaching settlers to the Palestinians in exchange for Hamas's agreement to actively police Jihadist activity, they pour more funds into the already over-active military planning branch, like knowing where the rockets are right now and being able to hit them with artillery was really going to do anything in terms of safety. They're not going to make any impact on the Jihadists until they put it in the interest of the greater Palestinian population to root them out themselves.

As for Israel's right to exist, a million peoples have displaced a million others over the course of time, and the diaspora and subsequent persecution was hardly at the whim of the Jews.

But even looking at it from Israel's perspective, they ought to know: You can't scare a desperate people, and no one is controllable.

[Phopojijo]

Yeah you guys aren't reading the point "It wasn't broken because it wasn't Hamas". {{Completely ignoring that no-one even declared it broken}}

There's no point debating with people who decide to not attempt to understand your arguments. {{See: Example (http://www.modacity.net/forums/showpost.php?p=345416&postcount=152) If they would have understood my argument, they would have known I was referring to Hamas not breaking it, not it being broken in general.}}

PM me when you actually have a valid argument.

[Disaster]

The truce was broken by Islamic Jihad but that breaks the ceasefire on Hamas' part as well. The terms were the following




Egypt sets the starting time of the truce (June 19 at 6 a.m.).
Israel reopens the Karni and Sufa commercial crossings into the Gaza Strip on June 22, with the flow of goods set at 30 per cent of the levels before Hamas took over the territory in January 2006.
Hamas guarantees that all Palestinian factions abide by the prohibition on the use of violence against Israel.
By June 29, Israel is to lift all limits on the flow of goods through the Karni and Sufa crossings, with the exceptions of materials that could be used for explosives.
Hamas and Fatah reach an arrangement on administering the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt.
Talks on the Rafah crossings and negotiations to over Shalit’s release as part of a prisoner swap with Hamas are to continue.

Again you are wrong

Source: http://middleeast.about.com/od/israelandpalestine/a/me080618a.htm

[Phopojijo]

The truce was broken by Islamic Jihad but that breaks the ceasefire on Hamas' part as well. The terms were the following
Again you are wrong

Source: http://middleeast.about.com/od/israelandpalestine/a/me080618a.htmAGAIN

PM me when you have a VALID argument.

Israel never declared it broken.

They never declared it broken because it wasn't Hamas. Sure that's what the ceasefire said... however Israel still let the ceasefire go.

Therefore

ISRAEL BROKE IT.

The ceasefire still was in effect on November 3rd, 2008
That was accepted by both parties... hence why neither party brought up the June incident... and it had to be someone in a webforum.

[Joshflighter]

Im here for a few so I dont want to create a whole argument.

But, then the stuff we argued when masterz was here is all useless. Just because hamas attacked first. So who ever said that hamas is just attacking cause Israel broke the treaty, wrong. Hamas was attacking in the treaty. Correct me if I'm wrong. I just dont feel like creating a whole argument again. We have to remember, we are just siting on our computers. Nothing more, and nothing less.. lol. I have to remind that to myself. :P

[Disaster]

Just because they didn't claim that it was broken doesn't deny the fact that it was broken and you know it. Your just beating around the bush. The terms were broken which makes the truce broken.

Also, The treaty didn't officially end when Israel Killed the 6 Palestinian men either.

This is when the Truce Officially Ended.http://worldfocus.org/blog/2008/12/18/ceasefire-between-israel-and-hamas-breaks-down/3302/
Hamas was the one to officially end it 1 month after the killing of the 6 Palestinian men.

WHICH MAKES HAMAS THE ONE TO END THE CEASE FIRE NOT ISRAEL

:downs:

[Phopojijo]

Hamas called the end to the ceasefire, true.

Had Israel called an end to the ceasefire after Islamic Jihad attacked in June... Israel would have ended the ceasefire.

[Disaster]

Yeah? But they didn't did they?

Hamas broke the terms first which makes them the first to defy the ceasefire giving Israel every right to retaliate back. However, the amount of force they used is condemnable.

[Phopojijo]

Yeah? But they didn't did they?

Hamas broke the terms first which makes them the first to defy the ceasefire giving Israel every right to retaliate back. However, the amount of force they used is condemnable.You're right they didn't call off the ceasefire... which means it was still active until Hamas had enough of Israel o.O

Yes... Israel could have easily said "Screw you" back in June... they had every right to (albeit Hamas wasn't at fault... but hey) but they didn't.

[Disaster]

You're right they didn't call off the ceasefire... which means it was still active until Hamas had enough of Israel o.O

Yes... Israel could have easily said "Screw you" back in June... they had every right to (albeit Hamas wasn't at fault... but hey) but they didn't.

The treaty wasn't called off because of Israeli attacks. It was called off so they could retaliate IN CASE of Israeli attack which I believe Palestine had a right to do. It doesn't make Hamas bad because they called it off. They were just the first ones to break the terms.

I believe Israel still had hopes that the ceasefire would work back in June and that is why they didn't call off the truce.

Which also denies Snaf's claim that they are a so called "Aggressive Expansion" people because if they were, they would have taken any chance they could to obliterate Hamas and the other Palestinian factions so they can controls the land

... :downs:

[Amit]

The treaty wasn't called off because of Israeli attacks. It was called off so they could retaliate IN CASE of Israeli attack which I believe Palestine had a right to do.

But wait, if they called it off AFTER Israeli attacks, they wouldn't need to go into the "in case" scenario. Why would you call it off "in case" Israel attacks if they already have? That makes no sense. Calling it off just opens a window for Israel to chuck a grenade in after they've already tapped on the window with cherry bombs.

There seems to be a contradiction or lack of clarification or in the above post/quote.

P.S. This is one of the fastest fucking growing threads, like holy shit!

[Disaster]

But wait, if they called it off AFTER Israeli attacks, they wouldn't need to go into the "in case" scenario. Why would you call it off "in case" Israel attacks if they already have. There seems to be a contradiction or lack of clarification or in the above post/quote.
It was a lack of clarification on my part. What I meant was a massive attack like what is happening right now. Sorry lol :p

[Phopojijo]

Which also denies Snaf's claim that they are a so called "Aggressive Expansion" people because if they were, they would have taken any chance they could to obliterate Hamas and the other Palestinian factions so they can controls the land.
Actually it doesn't... because that would look bad in the public eye...

[Disaster]

Actually it doesn't... because that would look bad in the public eye...
it was sarcasm and is why it was in ninja tags :\

[DarkHalo003]

Actually, according to Fox News or something along those lines, the cease fire EXPIRED. I don't know the details, but according to this, the ceasefire ended back in December.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/18/content_10525454.htm

I hope this helps, but if the signed another ceasefire in such a short time, please tell me. Also tell me if the ceasefire was broken before the Friday it was supposed to end.

[Amit]

Actually, according to Fox News or something along those lines, the cease fire EXPIRED. I don't know the details, but according to this, the ceasefire ended back in December.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/18/content_10525454.htm

I hope this helps, but if the signed another ceasefire in such a short time, please tell me. Also tell me if the ceasefire was broken before the Friday it was supposed to end.

Fox news? I'm not even gonna go farther with that issue. Just don't use Fox News...ever!

I forgot to mention this with my previous post but if you guys are going to post a "proof" article, make sure you do the research by providing us with links to multiple articles that say the same things. That way we can consider the sources and statements credible.

[Joshflighter]

Lets clear this up. Cease fire or not, no one has a right to take a life or try to take a life. They are both at fault. Religion blinds many men and woman. its a fact. Some make you do crazy things.

Life will always be lost, in good or bad ways. I dont think there is any more arguing needed for this topic. Its not like we are changing anything... if we could, it would have happen in the last 17 pages. :)

[DarkHalo003]

Fox news? I'm not even gonna go farther with that issue. Just don't use Fox News...ever!

I forgot to mention this with my previous post but if you guys are going to post a "proof" article, make sure you do the research by providing us with links to multiple articles that say the same things. That way we can consider the sources credible.
Alright, I didn't exactly say Fox News alone, only as an example. I said some news station along those lines as well. Here are more sources:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/18/content_10525454.htm

http://snackfeed.com/videos/detail/80fdf5b4-1fa4-102c-a525-00304897c9c6/Gaza-ceasefire-expires?_s=s

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7791100.stm

There are more, supportive sources. Sorry for the small delay. Just wanted to sort the ceasefire thing.

This topic could be locked and maybe it should be. War is always too sketchy of a topic after a while. It's sort of just people's opinions on who should get away with what, but really it should be neither one of them getting away with anything (unless we get a WWII type scenario or a defensive reason, but even then it's still not necessary to take others' lives). Still, this stuff is a bit crooked either way. It mostly is around the Middle East.

[MetKiller Joe]

Lets clear this up. Cease fire or not, no one has a right to take a life or try to take a life. They are both at fault. Religion blinds many men and woman. its a fact. Some make you do crazy things.

Life will always be lost, in good or bad ways. I dont think there is any more arguing needed for this topic. Its not like we are changing anything... if we could, it would have happen in the last 17 pages. :)

QFT.

[Disaster]

Actually, according to Fox News or something along those lines, the cease fire EXPIRED. I don't know the details, but according to this, the ceasefire ended back in December.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/18/content_10525454.htm

I hope this helps, but if the signed another ceasefire in such a short time, please tell me. Also tell me if the ceasefire was broken before the Friday it was supposed to end.
Thats nowhere near fox news. Its China View :|

[DarkHalo003]

Thats nowhere near fox news. Its China View :|
Look at my latest post. I fixed it. :v:

[TeeKup]

My god, some of you should be forbidden to talk politics.

[Sel]

My god, some of you should be forbidden to talk politics.

So they'll be country leading politicians within the month, and they will lead us to glory! :downs:

[Warsaw]

My god, some of you should be forbidden to talk politics.

And just about all politicians should be forbidden from politics.

[PenGuin1362]

You seem to miss the point that regardless of who broke the cease fire, Palestine fired rockets into Israel. In a case like this, careful and TACTICAL retaliation is understandable. However, Israel responds with a full fledged invasion of Gaza and is now considering following Hamas deeper into Palestine as Hamas retreats. They don't carefully pick their targets, they blow the shit out of where suspected Hamas officials may be (in one case, a U.N. Operated school setup as a refugee camp). Nearly one third of the 650+ Palestinians killed were woman and children. No one likes you Israel :mad:

[Warsaw]

And this, kids, is why we no longer try to partition the world. It didn't work when the Brits made Israel, and it never worked before. Partition leads to conflict with displaced peoples.

[Bodzilla]

what about the zulu's :X

fucking crazy shit there.