Exploding Grandma's

[dbermanmd]

As you are all aware, the Palestinians marked a new milestone with a suicide bombing by Fatma Omar an-Najar, a 68-year-old grandmother to 42 grandchildren a week or so ago. Apparently sparing no corner of their culture for caring and or nuturing I believe every demographic in their society has participated in homocide/suicide bombings.

Do you think that granting the Palestinians a "State" would stop the conflict?

To avoid censorship I will offer my own opinion first - I do not see anything different between having a "formal" state vs what they have now - they control the entire Gaza Strip given to them by the Israeli's with the only request being that of peace (obviously ignored by the Palestinians). So I believe they have so enveloped themselves in a culture of death and suicide and geared themselves to Israel's destruction that giving them a "State" would not be the cure for this conflict.

[daniel]

The Palestinians blow themselves up in order to kill Israelis. The Israelis drop bombs from the safety of airplanes, killing grandmothers and other innocent people along with the "bad guys." Are the Palestinians worse, because a grandmother is willing to die to exact revenge on those she hates? Or are the Israelis worse because they kill from a distance, at virtually no risk whatsoever to their bombers?

If there is a difference, it is merely that the Palestinisn fighters are more willing to die than the Israeli fighters. I say, a curse on both their houses! Note also that the state of Israel was born in the terrorist bombing campaign of the Stern gang who, after WW II, in reaction to the holocaust perpetrated by the Germans, decided to begin murdering Palestinisns to terrorize them off their land.

There will be no peace in the Middle East until both sides are willing to share the land: One secular state for Palestinisns and Jews alike. Right now there is too much hate on both sides, and plenty of blame for both.

[Mystery Squid]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 4 2006, 01:06 PM) [snapback]357377[/snapback]</div>

The Palestinians blow themselves up in order to kill Israelis. The Israelis drop bombs from the safety of airplanes, killing grandmothers and other innocent people along with the "bad guys." Are the Palestinians worse, because a grandmother is willing to die to exact revenge on those she hates? Or are the Israelis worse because they kill from a distance, at virtually no risk whatsoever to their bombers?

If there is a difference, it is merely that the Palestinisn fighters are more willing to die than the Israeli fighters. I say, a curse on both their houses! Note also that the state of Israel was born in the terrorist bombing campaign of the Stern gang who, after WW II, in reaction to the holocaust perpetrated by the Germans, decided to begin murdering Palestinisns to terrorize them off their land.

There will be no peace in the Middle East until both sides are willing to share the land: One secular state for Palestinisns and Jews alike. Right now there is too much hate on both sides, and plenty of blame for both.
[/b]

I would like to re-state:

Daniel for President.

[hycamguy07]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Dec 4 2006, 11:21 AM) [snapback]357385[/snapback]</div>

I would like to re-state:

Daniel for President.
[/b]

I 2nd that!

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 4 2006, 11:06 AM) [snapback]357377[/snapback]</div>

The Palestinians blow themselves up in order to kill Israelis. The Israelis drop bombs from the safety of airplanes, killing grandmothers and other innocent people along with the "bad guys." Are the Palestinians worse, because a grandmother is willing to die to exact revenge on those she hates? Or are the Israelis worse because they kill from a distance, at virtually no risk whatsoever to their bombers?

If there is a difference, it is merely that the Palestinisn fighters are more willing to die than the Israeli fighters. I say, a curse on both their houses! Note also that the state of Israel was born in the terrorist bombing campaign of the Stern gang who, after WW II, in reaction to the holocaust perpetrated by the Germans, decided to begin murdering Palestinisns to terrorize them off their land.

There will be no peace in the Middle East until both sides are willing to share the land: One secular state for Palestinisns and Jews alike. Right now there is too much hate on both sides, and plenty of blame for both.
[/b]

Please lets not confuse the Israeli's going after legitimate targets who choose to endanger others by using them as human shields. I would love for you to give one example of Israel bombing independant of a terror attack innocent Palestinian civilians for the heck of it. Why did Israel give back the Gaza Strip then for nothing more than a request for peace? What has been the Palestinian reply - 1,000 Kassams launced intentially at innocent Israeli citizens??? Yes the Palestinians are worse - what have they given up for an attempt at peace???? What land did they give back????? What promise for peace have they made or followed through with??????

More willing to die? That is an interesting thought given the Palestinians have killed more Israeli civilians than soldiers. Curse both their houses - lets see - one society is based on democracy the other on fear and violence and death. One honors life the other sends its children, parents AND GRANDPARENTS to be homocide bombers - and you equate them as equal - good for you. The State of Israel was not born of terror bombings - it was born via the UN.

Both sides willing to share the land. Tell me again what concessions the Palestinians have made?? Or do you think Israel should be the only party to give and give and should continue giving even though when it does it gets war in return. Blaming both is the weak argument by the way.

[eagle33199]

Please, define a legitimate target. Is it one that a nation deems to have strategic importance? If so, i'd say any target a group decides to have is legitimate - someone clearly thought it had a strategic importance, even if that importance only goes so far as to inspire fear in your enemies populace. Daniels comments are perfectly valid - which is worse, being willing to die for a cause, or sitting back and safely pushing buttons that results in your enemies deaths? Which is more honorable, flying a plane against an enemy that has no anti-aircraft capabilities, bombing the sh*t out of them, or storming that same enemy by ground? One method, while more effective, definitely comes off as more cowardly, as there is no risk to you.

You apparently seem to strongly believe that democratic nations cannot rule by fear - and yet our good president has done a lot of ruling by fear during his term. We're in Iraq because he and his spinsters were able to use the fear of another terrorist attack for their political reasons. We have terror watch lists and invasions of privacy because of the fear the administration has been able to inspire. Don't just assume that a democratic nation is always in the right.

You say one honors life while the other doesn't. This is a clearly false statement. They both bomb each other, taking lives. neither side can say it hasn't taken life in the struggle. The fact that one side appears to honor the lives of it's own citizens more is really what you were getting at. Is not all life equal? Or should we care more about the lives of the side we support than those of the side we don't? (i'm thinking here about some of the comments you've made in regards to Iraq as well.)

You're counter argument to Daniel's statement about sharing the land is pretty much non-sense. He stated that in order for their to be peace, both sides would have to be willing to share the land. You counter this by saying the Palestinians haven't made any concessions... well, it's a good thing no one ever made that argument! Instead, it was a forward looking statement theorizing about what would need to happen. No one suggested that Israel keep making concessions, or that Palestine make concessions - just that a mutually acceptable agreement for sharing the land be reached.

Please, argue against what other people say, not the easy canned response that doesn't quite apply to the actual argument at hand. It's pretty clear that you have a very one sided view of the conflict - Israel good, Palestine bad. You see the situation as very black and white, good and evil, democracy versus fear. Nothing is ever that simple.

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 4 2006, 11:44 AM) [snapback]357404[/snapback]</div>

Please, define a legitimate target. Is it one that a nation deems to have strategic importance? If so, i'd say any target a group decides to have is legitimate - someone clearly thought it had a strategic importance, even if that importance only goes so far as to inspire fear in your enemies populace. Daniels comments are perfectly valid - which is worse, being willing to die for a cause, or sitting back and safely pushing buttons that results in your enemies deaths? Which is more honorable, flying a plane against an enemy that has no anti-aircraft capabilities, bombing the sh*t out of them, or storming that same enemy by ground? One method, while more effective, definitely comes off as more cowardly, as there is no risk to you.

You apparently seem to strongly believe that democratic nations cannot rule by fear - and yet our good president has done a lot of ruling by fear during his term. We're in Iraq because he and his spinsters were able to use the fear of another terrorist attack for their political reasons. We have terror watch lists and invasions of privacy because of the fear the administration has been able to inspire. Don't just assume that a democratic nation is always in the right.

You say one honors life while the other doesn't. This is a clearly false statement. They both bomb each other, taking lives. neither side can say it hasn't taken life in the struggle. The fact that one side appears to honor the lives of it's own citizens more is really what you were getting at. Is not all life equal? Or should we care more about the lives of the side we support than those of the side we don't? (i'm thinking here about some of the comments you've made in regards to Iraq as well.)

You're counter argument to Daniel's statement about sharing the land is pretty much non-sense. He stated that in order for their to be peace, both sides would have to be willing to share the land. You counter this by saying the Palestinians haven't made any concessions... well, it's a good thing no one ever made that argument! Instead, it was a forward looking statement theorizing about what would need to happen. No one suggested that Israel keep making concessions, or that Palestine make concessions - just that a mutually acceptable agreement for sharing the land be reached.

Please, argue against what other people say, not the easy canned response that doesn't quite apply to the actual argument at hand. It's pretty clear that you have a very one sided view of the conflict - Israel good, Palestine bad. You see the situation as very black and white, good and evil, democracy versus fear. Nothing is ever that simple.
[/b]

Legitimate target - Somebody who has just shot a missile into your country - someone shooting at you - not innocent unarmed civilians who are not dressed in military garb --- just what is the military garb of the Palestinians --- answer ------ CIVILIAN CLOTHING You seem to be confusing strategic targets which tend to be structures and land from humans - something the Palestinians have convinced you is proper.

Safely pushing buttons - how many dead Israeli's are currently occupying the miitary graveyards?? NONE?? The difference is they use smart weapons to TRY TO PROTECT innocent civilians while the palestinains hurl unguided missiles INTENTIONALLY into cities and towns -- can you see the difference there???

Bombing the s**t out of them? When have they done that? They could annhilate them tomorrow if they wanted to without regard to civilian casualty rates - no??

I will assume democracies are correct and fear societies are wrong thanks - you may choose not to. At least the people control the government in my country like they did last month. How do the Palestinians speak for themselves??? The Israeli's have elected both peace and defense oriented governments during the past 20 years in response to palestinian temprements. When was the last peace oriented palestinian government?

How do the Palestinians honor life? Explain it to me please...... Sending your children and parents and GRANDPARENTS strapped with C4 to self detonate??? If that is your definition of honoring life please stay inside and turn off all the electric power. Life is all equal - how you cherish it protect it care for it defines you - and apparently you like the way the Palestinians treat life - cool.

What would be your suggestion to share the land? Seeing how the UN defined Israel's borders in 1948 - what would you have done in order for a lasting peace ... I cant wait to read this one BTW.

[eagle33199]

Oh, this is going to be fun...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 4 2006, 11:03 AM) [snapback]357415[/snapback]</div>

Legitimate target - Somebody who has just shot a missile into your country - someone shooting at you - not innocent unarmed civilians who are not dressed in military garb --- just what is the military garb of the Palestinians --- answer ------ CIVILIAN CLOTHING You seem to be confusing strategic targets which tend to be structures and land from humans - something the Palestinians have convinced you is proper.
[/b]

So, where's the Iraqi that shot a missile into America? Oh wait, thats right... there wasn't one (and 9/11 doesn't count, since there wasn't a confirmed link there, despite what the administration would have you believe...). Then you go on to contradict yourself... saying not civilians in military garb, then describing the military garb of the Palestinians. Strategic targets can be both people and structures - which is where your confusion is. Strategy is defined as "A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal" - plan of action: bomb civilian targets to instill fear. seems like a strategy to me, in which case those targets (civilians) are strategic targets.

Oh, and the Palestinians haven't "convinced" me of anything. in fact, i haven't listened to propaganda from either side of the argument, which is perhaps why i can see both sides, while you're blinded.

Safely pushing buttons - how many dead Israeli's are currently occupying the miitary graveyards?? NONE?? The difference is they use smart weapons to TRY TO PROTECT innocent civilians while the palestinains hurl unguided missiles INTENTIONALLY into cities and towns -- can you see the difference there???
[/b]

Lets try completing one train of thought before jumping tracks, shall we? The fact is, the Israel military utilizes relatively safe methods of launching their bombs - no one ever said it was perfect, or that people haven't died. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are willing to sacrifice themselves in suicide missions. Thats what we're talking about here, not their choice of targets.

Bombing the s**t out of them? When have they done that? They could annhilate them tomorrow if they wanted to without regard to civilian casualty rates - no??
[/b]

I think it was pretty clear that that particular section of my post was theoretical in nature, and not specific to any one conflict. I was simply showing the two extremes of what we're discussing here, and the clear difference between them.

I will assume democracies are correct and fear societies are wrong thanks - you may choose not to. At least the people control the government in my country like they did last month. How do the Palestinians speak for themselves??? The Israeli's have elected both peace and defense oriented governments during the past 20 years in response to palestinian temprements. When was the last peace oriented palestinian government?
[/b]

Once again, you clearly state that democratic nations aren't capable of being fear societies. I challenge you that any nation, under any form of rule, can be a fear society. Any nation can also be a peaceful society. Like i said, things are not black and white, good and evil, fear and democracy.

How do the Palestinians honor life? Explain it to me please...... Sending your children and parents and GRANDPARENTS strapped with C4 to self detonate??? If that is your definition of honoring life please stay inside and turn off all the electric power. Life is all equal - how you cherish it protect it care for it defines you - and apparently you like the way the Palestinians treat life - cool.

What would be your suggestion to share the land? Seeing how the UN defined Israel's borders in 1948 - what would you have done in order for a lasting peace ... I cant wait to read this one BTW.
[/b]

Did i say i liked the way Palestinians treated life? Quite putting words in my mouth, please. I was simply asking you if all life was equal, because you were displaying a clear bias towards Israeli life versus Palestinian life.

As for how to share the land... i don't have a solution. I'm not afraid to admit that. I also never claimed i did. instead, i simply supported Daniel's stance that there won't be peace until both sides are willing to consider it.

I do have hope that, someday, you'll listen to a sane argument, not dismiss it out of hand, and not base your rebuttals on putting words in peoples mouths. it may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but hopefully someday...

[dragonfly]

To answer your question: No, I don't believe I will see peace between Isreal and its neighbors in my lifetime.

Now, I have a lot of Jewish friends but since this is a touchy subject, I have a question I've always wondered but have been afraid to ask:

What, fundamentally, gave the Jews the right to take over the Palistinians' land over the past century? I know, it was a couple of declarations by the English and the UN, but I'm asking, from the point of view of a Palistinian, why should the Palistinians be content to give up their land, other than that they were forced to? IOW, why would you expect any other reaction from them than what they are doing?

I'm not supporting one side or the other. It's just a question.

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 4 2006, 12:28 PM) [snapback]357426[/snapback]</div>

Oh, this is going to be fun...
So, where's the Iraqi that shot a missile into America? Oh wait, thats right... there wasn't one (and 9/11 doesn't count, since there wasn't a confirmed link there, despite what the administration would have you believe...). Then you go on to contradict yourself... saying not civilians in military garb, then describing the military garb of the Palestinians. Strategic targets can be both people and structures - which is where your confusion is. Strategy is defined as "A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal" - plan of action: bomb civilian targets to instill fear. seems like a strategy to me, in which case those targets (civilians) are strategic targets.

Oh, and the Palestinians haven't "convinced" me of anything. in fact, i haven't listened to propaganda from either side of the argument, which is perhaps why i can see both sides, while you're blinded.
Lets try completing one train of thought before jumping tracks, shall we? The fact is, the Israel military utilizes relatively safe methods of launching their bombs - no one ever said it was perfect, or that people haven't died. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are willing to sacrifice themselves in suicide missions. Thats what we're talking about here, not their choice of targets.
I think it was pretty clear that that particular section of my post was theoretical in nature, and not specific to any one conflict. I was simply showing the two extremes of what we're discussing here, and the clear difference between them.

Once again, you clearly state that democratic nations aren't capable of being fear societies. I challenge you that any nation, under any form of rule, can be a fear society. Any nation can also be a peaceful society. Like i said, things are not black and white, good and evil, fear and democracy.
Did i say i liked the way Palestinians treated life? Quite putting words in my mouth, please. I was simply asking you if all life was equal, because you were displaying a clear bias towards Israeli life versus Palestinian life.

As for how to share the land... i don't have a solution. I'm not afraid to admit that. I also never claimed i did. instead, i simply supported Daniel's stance that there won't be peace until both sides are willing to consider it.

I do have hope that, someday, you'll listen to a sane argument, not dismiss it out of hand, and not base your rebuttals on putting words in peoples mouths. it may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but hopefully someday...
[/b]

How did you get to Iraq from this discussion.

If you have no solution that fine. Sharing the land is ok as long as Israel belongs to the Israeli's and the West Bank and Gaza Strip belong to the Palestinians (half of which already does en toto).

Your thoughts please on the Palestinians firing rockets from the Gaza Strip after it was given to them as an act of peace please?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 4 2006, 01:02 PM) [snapback]357446[/snapback]</div>

To answer your question: No, I don't believe I will see peace between Isreal and its neighbors in my lifetime.

Now, I have a lot of Jewish friends but since this is a touchy subject, I have a question I've always wondered but have been afraid to ask:

What, fundamentally, gave the Jews the right to take over the Palistinians' land over the past century? I know, it was a couple of declarations by the English and the UN, but I'm asking, from the point of view of a Palistinian, why should the Palistinians be content to give up their land, other than that they were forced to? IOW, why would you expect any other reaction from them than what they are doing?

I'm not supporting one side or the other. It's just a question.
[/b]

The Jews did not take over the Palestinians. There was a very large Jewish population there to begin with, and if I am not mistaken the Jews were there before the Palestinians in any event AND the UNITED NATIONS decreed it so and it was voted on by the WORLDS nations and it was approved by the MAJORITY. And after the Holocost, what would you suggest be done?????

Interesting in how you would not obey a ruling from the UN in this instance but in other instances you would like global warming. Himmmm...... smells a little here. What do your Jewish friends think about this if you don't mind telling me....

And lets take your comment a step further - if the Palestinians should not listen to the UN and they have the right to attack the Jews - then the Jews have a right to self-defense and hence they are free and should be unfettered to do as they please to defend themselves????

When you read the Bible, any reference made to the Palestinians - the Old or the New Book. How about the Koran - any references there? How about any mention of Jews and Israel in those Holy Books?

I am glad you have a lot of Jewish friends by the way. Of what importance is that? Why did you need to state that?

If you had to support a side of devise a solution which would you support and/or what would be your decision to make it in your opinion fair?