First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Deutscher Herbst
Posted 11/11/09 , edited 11/11/09

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Read it again.


You can't redefine words Dom. I can't define terrorism as 'when people are shown love and affection'. Because that's not what terrorism is.


What does negotiating have anything to do with the definition of terrorism?

Are you a hypocrite when you made this claim? When you asked me to define "terrorism".

FYI, terrorist factions use act of terrorism( aka complete ignorance of any official channel of communication as defined by me) as their acceptable form of demand for negotiation.


Ummm, no, how would that make me a hypocrite? I asked you to define it, and you gave a completely irrelevant definition.

Yeah some terrorists do that.

Seraph, I'll respond to you some day, first I got to go to sleep.

If you don't like my definition then don't use it, otherwise come straight out and say why do you think my definition is wrong. Instead of you keep hiding behind this so-called "clear political definition", when you yourself don't even have one of yours.

BTW that's not just some, but all terrorists factions done it every time. Or do you also consider diplomacy an act of terrorism?


Ryutai-Desk wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

If you’re pro-Palestinian you support or at least defend Hamas firing missiles at Israeli school children. Do you also defend this? I mean, the Israeli civilians have nothing more to do with the conflict than the German civilians. Wouldn’t it be prejudice to say it’s understandable for the Palestinian terrorists to target Israeli innocents but not German innocents, both of which are equally unrelated to the issue?

Isn’t liberal-terrorist supposed to be an oxy-moron? This historical event was pretty recent and seems to show that not only conservatives and Muslims can be terrorists and murderers. The left has its radicals, its extremists as well.


Palestinians also have nothing to do with what happened to Jews in Germany. Why they have to suffering under illegitimate invasion? Do Palestinians would sit back and watching their people being killed by heavy machine guns? The question is who started this war first. Palestinians under Yasser Arafat always wanted to make peace deal, from both Hamas or Fatah, that's why he got Nobel award.

If Israel wanted revenge, do it to Nazi or current Neo Nazi. Don't do it to wrong people and in wrong place.


SeraphAlford wrote:

You’re right; we’re not supposed to only consider how a country treats its own people, but I was taking into account our foreign affairs and I do not think that it makes us a terrorist state at all. I mean, we don’t really need to use intimidation and fear to control people. We’ve got money for that.


What makes me wonder is, why US seems very bothered to other countries and gives themselves many problems while in their country itself there are many problem that needs to be solved. Like you've mentioned, many wars that actually haven't been solved, instead it became worst than when the regime was still there.

What's your definition of war then? The last time we actually got a real official war situation that I remember was the Gulf War at the start of 1990's. Which actually putted Iraqis' army at war with the rest of the UN member states(citation). And that was all due to how Iraq and Iran never did see each other eye-to-eye even after an official UN ceasefire on 1988(citation).

Therefore I think you should redefine your definition of war, because only nations can officially declare war against one another. While war is just another form of diplomacy, when nations stopped communicating officially.

Which is also how and why I define extremists from both the Hamas and Fatah faiths as terrorist factions, because the ex-president of Palestinian Yasser Arafat actually wanted peace with Israel(citation).

Or so we thought.

Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/11/09 , edited 11/11/09

DomFortress wrote:


Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Read it again.


You can't redefine words Dom. I can't define terrorism as 'when people are shown love and affection'. Because that's not what terrorism is.


What does negotiating have anything to do with the definition of terrorism?

Are you a hypocrite when you made this claim? When you asked me to define "terrorism".

FYI, terrorist factions use act of terrorism( aka complete ignorance of any official channel of communication as defined by me) as their acceptable form of demand for negotiation.


Ummm, no, how would that make me a hypocrite? I asked you to define it, and you gave a completely irrelevant definition.

Yeah some terrorists do that.

Seraph, I'll respond to you some day, first I got to go to sleep.

If you don't like my definition then don't use it, otherwise come straight out and say why do you think my definition is wrong. Instead of you keep hiding behind this so-called "clear political definition", when you yourself don't even have one of yours.

BTW that's not just some, but all terrorists factions done it every time. Or do you also consider diplomacy an act of terrorism?


Well, when I asked you to define, I didn't mean I wanted you to give me your personal idea of what terrorism is, I wanted you to define it.

Here's what the english language generally says the word means: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

The basic definition of the word is clear, it's just the use of terror (fear, violence, etc.) to get something done. That's clear from the composition of the word "terror" -ism. In a political context it's just using terror for political reasons.

That's what terrorism is, people have just used the word in other ways without making it clear what they mean. Usually people mean "only terrorism that is being done towards us, not terrorism that we're committed towards others." I don't even know how you came up with your idea of what terrorism is, but it has nothing to do with whether people know about it or not.
Posted 11/11/09 , edited 11/11/09

Yei wrote:



Well, when I asked you to define, I didn't mean I wanted you to give me your personal idea of what terrorism is, I wanted you to define it.

Here's what the english language generally says the word means: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

The basic definition of the word is clear, it's just the use of terror (fear, violence, etc.) to get something done. That's clear from the composition of the word "terror" -ism. In a political context it's just using terror for political reasons.

That's what terrorism is, people have just used the word in other ways without making it clear what they mean. Usually people mean "only terrorism that is being done towards us, not terrorism that we're committed towards others." I don't even know how you came up with your idea of what terrorism is, but it has nothing to do with whether people know about it or not.

And so I did, right here:

My definition of terrorism is an act of complete ignorance of any official channel of communication. That's why I used the infamous Iron Curtain as a physical symbolical representation of both the form and ideology that's terrorism.
So why are you asking me for a dictionary definition? When I'm not a dictionary, I am myself. Are you trying to deceive me for a dictionary? How absolutely terrifying! [/sarcasm]

My grandfather had relatives back in China while we lived in Taiwan. And for him not able to contact his older bother in China, who raised him after their father died, was a terrifying experience. So are you telling me that I watched my grandfather suffered from the terror that was the Iron Curtain for nothing? What was the Iron Curtain but a "physical symbolical representation" of "the form and ideology" that's "an act of complete ignorance of any official channel of communication"? Which I defined as "terrorism", even when there's a Taiwanese's own version of the Iron Curtain. Which almost got my family whipped out by causing the February 28 Holocaust.

What's a nation's interest, or a plain English dictionary, has anything to do with my suffering under terrorism?

Remember!
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/11/09

DomFortress wrote:


Yei wrote:



Well, when I asked you to define, I didn't mean I wanted you to give me your personal idea of what terrorism is, I wanted you to define it.

Here's what the english language generally says the word means: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

The basic definition of the word is clear, it's just the use of terror (fear, violence, etc.) to get something done. That's clear from the composition of the word "terror" -ism. In a political context it's just using terror for political reasons.

That's what terrorism is, people have just used the word in other ways without making it clear what they mean. Usually people mean "only terrorism that is being done towards us, not terrorism that we're committed towards others." I don't even know how you came up with your idea of what terrorism is, but it has nothing to do with whether people know about it or not.

And so I did, right here:

My definition of terrorism is an act of complete ignorance of any official channel of communication. That's why I used the infamous Iron Curtain as a physical symbolical representation of both the form and ideology that's terrorism.
So why are you asking me for a dictionary definition? When I'm not a dictionary, I am myself. Are you trying to deceive me for a dictionary? How absolutely terrifying! [/sarcasm]

My grandfather had relatives back in China while we lived in Taiwan. And for him not able to contact his older bother in China, who raised him after their father died, was a terrifying experience. So are you telling me that I watched my grandfather suffered from the terror that was the Iron Curtain for nothing? What was the Iron Curtain but a "physical symbolical representation" of "the form and ideology" that's "an act of complete ignorance of any official channel of communication"? Which I defined as "terrorism", even when there's a Taiwanese's own version of the Iron Curtain. Which almost got my family whipped out by causing the February 28 Holocaust.

What's a nation's interest, or a plain English dictionary, has anything to do with my suffering under terrorism?

Remember!


I was trying to make a point, so we could actually get somewhere. It was very simple, we just needed to look at the definition of terrorism so we could continue.

I got lots of homework now, so I think it's a good time to end it here ^_^
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/12/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

I’m not saying that the holocaust justified the nakba. That’s a completely different topic. Well, I suppose it doesn’t matter, I guess we can talk about this if you like.


There's not much we can talk about Deutschland im Herbst actually. I knew this thread when nobody have posted yet. This was merely history lesson. And you're already stated it was wasting time. I post here because you associated this with muslims being terrorist in your edit. Well, yeah. I know about your method in most of your thread. Let's talk it again.


SeraphAlford wrote:



So you see not only did the Arabs support the Nazi they also helped them extend the reaches of the holocaust. Although the Muslims were much more moderate than the German Nazis and the Europeans, the fact is that they were very much involved in Hitler’s genocide. Statistics also showed that Nazi sentiments were high in other Arab/Muslim nations, such as Egypt and Syria.


I know about it. Therefore, was that has anything to do with current Palestinian with Nazi? Jews and Muslims used to lived together there. British Army and other foreign power, like Nazi, broke their peace. Using political moves, both of foreign power tried to break them apart.
Yes, Palestinian were contributing in killing Jews with Nazi. As Jews were contributing in killing Palestinian with British Empire first.

That's why both of them were wrong, being provoked easily by foreign power just because their belief are different. It can't be helped when it comes to belief, they always believe they're being destined to get their promised lands without considering another civilians there. Also sentiments from people that can't interpret Qur'an properly, hating current Jews because of what they did in thousand years ago is just stupid.

Those were all in the past. Dragging past's events just to make current situation worse is not right. But bringing all peace that happened in the past is a reminder that peace is possible. Yeah, politics from certain influence groups always prevent that to happened. I wanted to talk about possible solutions, not spouting all sins from the past from both sides.


SeraphAlford wrote:

With the exception of the Westbank they’re not being invaded. As Norman Finkelstein concedes in the introduction of his book Israel ethnically cleansed Gaza of the Jews and then proceeded to dismantle settlements in the Westbank while also taking steps to remove the blockade of Palestinian territory. The Palestinians then elected Hamas and conducted the illegal abduction of Gilad. Aside from being a blatant violation of international humanitarian law this kidnapping was also the shot heard round the world. This alone didn’t end the peace process, but Israel’s response to it was so insane that afterwards any hope of immediate progress in the Westbank was instantly obliterated. That’s why they’re facing a legitimate invasion.

As it stands why should Israel return to Westbank at all? In 1948 the Arabs ethnically cleansed the Greater Middle East and stole 100,000 square kilometers of Jewish land--four times the size of Israel. Again, Arab scholars often argue that nearly a million Jews were slaughtered in the streets, burnt alive, or driven from their homes is because Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine during their War for Independence.

However, in November of 1947 an Egyptian delegate by the name of Heykal Pasha addressed the Political Committee of the United Nations General Assembly concerning their plan to partition Palestine into two separate Jewish and Arab states. Heykal spoke on behalf of “Muslim countries,” and “all the Arab states,” threatening that the establishment of a Jewish state would result in massacres and race wars against the Jews as well as anti-Semitism greater than that present in Nazi Germany.

So, the Arabs can complain about the Westbank whenever they return the 100,000 square kilometers of Jewish land they stole.


It's quite amusing, you saying the abduction of Gilad Shalit were illegal. He was Israeli soldier, not citizen. In war, it just common things to do. After all, if you watched Gilad video recently. There's no abused and injury found on him. How about hundreds of Palestinian civilians that were being kidnapped and jailed for year? Those are not 'blatant violation of international humanitarian law' ?

Anyone could make hundred lists of Israel violation, including destroying 48 Palestinian villages. Not including to neighbor countries like Jordan and Syria.
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/017EEFB458011C9D05256722005E5499
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf
Both of them are from UN. One is report from Jew, Goldstone's report.

Don't always revert back to history which do not bring any solutions. Don't condemn one side only, see whole thing like Goldstone. In my opinion, they should just implement UN GA Resolution 181. It's quite fair for both sides, which Jerusalem become international zone.
http://www.medea.be/index.html?page=2&lang=en&doc=166


SeraphAlford wrote:

That’s exactly what they’re doing. They’re so caught up with Israel that they don’t even pay attention to Hamas’ troopers killing Palestinians in the street. Need I remind you that it was Hamas that, during its coup, stole TV vans and used them for gang-warfare style drive by shootings and typical terrorist car bombings?


There's no Hamas killing their own people in the street. The video you're going to post here is propaganda which is flawed.


SeraphAlford wrote:

There’s something I find fairly amusing about that statement. You apparently didn’t do a lot of research, or if you did your source was just a pro-Palestinian propaganda page. Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace prize along with the Israeli president Shimon Peres and the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for joint efforts at Oslo. Following Oslo there were attempts at Arafat’s life and Hamas began challenging Fatah’s authority.


There's something I find someone ignoring something behind Oslo Accord after Noble Awards taken place. Both of them were killed while Israel PM being assassinated with gunfire by Orthodox Jews and Palestinian Leader being poisoned by unknown person. Clearly, both of them were being opposed. Orthodox Jews were the ones that disagree about it, while Palestinian people agreed. As we know, there's no Oslo Accord. What remains are suffering people under suppression.


SeraphAlford wrote:

Yasser did not want to make peace.

“We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem.” Yasser Arafat

“And when we signed the accord in Oslo, if any has an objection to that agreement, I have a hundred.” Yasser Arafat.

"Combat, combat, combat! Jihad, Jihad, Jihad!" Yasser Arafter (okay, so I don't know the context of THIS one but I thought it would be funny to include it.)

Abd Al-Bari Atwan is a famous pro-Arab/Muslim journalist and personal friend of Yasser and during an interview that was aired Feb 16, 2006 he stated:"

When the Oslo Accords were signed, I went to visit [Arafat] in Tunis. It was around July, before he went to Gaza. I said to him: We disagree. I do not support this agreement. It will harm us, the Palestinians, distort our image, and uproot us from our Arab origins. This agreement will not get us what we want, because these Israelis are deceitful.

He took me outside and told me: By Allah, I will drive them crazy. By Allah, I will turn this agreement into a curse for them. By Allah, perhaps not in my lifetime, but you will live to see the Israelis flee from Palestine. Have a little patience. I entrust this with you. Don't mention this to anyone. Always remember this. Sometimes, when I would criticize him strongly, he would say to me: Do you remember the promise I made, Abd Al-Bari?”


I can't surely what he said is true. Arafat signed Oslo Accords and applied everything correctly, while the Israelis who assassinated their PM Itzhac Rabin and made the peace deal was not being implemented. Arafat wanted the peace with Israel but Israel being controlled by their Orthodox who doesn't want to share their land.

On 9 September 1993, Arafat issued a press release stating that "the PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security"

Numerous leaders within the PLO and the PA, including Yasser Arafat himself, have declared that the State of Israel has a permanent right to exist, and that the peace treaty with Israel is genuine. Some Palestinian officials have stated that the peace treaty must be viewed as permanent. According to some opinion polls, a majority of Israelis believe Palestinians should have a state of their own a major shift in attitude after the Oslo Accord even though both Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres opposed the creation of a Palestinian state, both before and after the Accord.


SeraphAlford wrote:

You should read Mao Zedong's "On Protracted War," or if you're not ready for such tedious writing Carlos Marighella "mini-manual of the urban guerrilla," both of which are still used by terrorists today. They talk about phase warfare, gradually exhausting your enemies, delegitimization, and engaging in strategic diplomacy to win the overall victory and eventually eradication of opposition.

It’s very basic modern guerilla warfare and the very tactics that the Palestinians are employing today.


Talking guerrilla warfare to Indonesian people is just like a novice talking to master. While Mao Zedong used it against Japanese for less than 100 years, we had been used it for 300 years against Portuguese and Dutch colony. Do I have to learn from Mao Zedong's book while he studied it from Indonesian people? While his tactics were being opposed to its own people, we implemented it entirely to Dutch and Portuguese. For our independence and sake of people against colonizations. Who is that Brazilian again? lol. joke.

However, it would be better if you refer to Robert Grainger Ker Thompson, a British expert of counter insurgency in Malaya Emergency. He made several guidelines of how guerrilla warfare works. The classic one, but it describes the main elements of how guerrilla warfare works.


SeraphAlford wrote:

Here are some more fun quotes to demonstrate what I am talking about:



The Palestinians under Arafat were the ones who carried out the Munich Massacre. They also carried out the hijacking of an Austrian passenger plane (look up Sabena Flight 572,) and threatened to crash it into Tel Aviv. Black September, after all, was just a subgroup of Arafat’s Fatah.

Arafat made promises of peace in English and on the official record, but behind the scenes this was all a farce, a blatant contrivance. In Arabic he proclaimed destruction.

As far as Hamas goes, they began rallying against Arafat and challenging the authority of Fatah after the signing of the Oslo Accords.

Who started the war? The Nazis started the war, the Arabs brought it to the Greater Middle East, and it continues to this day.


As I said above, while Arafat tried to make Oslo Accord to be realized along with Israel PM, other just loved to make propaganda which doesn't have any evidence. The two leaders wanted to end this, while the two group trying to prevent it. Don't blame the two leaders which had tried for cost of their lives, blame two groups which are really ignorant towards each others. They used to lived together after all.


SeraphAlford wrote:

There have been some martial conflicts that we left unresolved, but it wasn’t getting involved itself that was the problem. It was getting involved half-heartedly. America has good intentions when we start these conflicts, but then we the people remember…oh yeah, I’m selfish. Fuck the Iraqis, fuck the South Vietnamese, and fuck the South Koreans I don’t want to invest money in their liberation.

On the flip side we’ve also accomplished quite a lot from our meddling. Roosevelt of course got the South American countries out of debt, stabilized, and cleaned of corruption. Before he even became President we had already liberated the Philippines from Spanish occupiers and managed to give the people there medicine, clean water, power, roads, and the equipment they needed to establish a secure and self maintaining, modern economy.

World War I would’ve ended very differently if we hadn’t gotten involved. We liberated France, Africa, and China in WWII. In the Korean War we liberated South Korea, remains liberated today. In the Vietnam War we liberated South Vietnam for about five minutes. In The Gulf War we liberated Kuwait and saved Saudi Arabia, successfully preventing Saddam from taking control of the Muslim Capital of the World and 50% of the world’s oil supply.

In the Cold War we liberated East Germany and Eastern Europe from Stalin and his “Iron Curtain.”


I know, many of war that brought good resulted. To destroy tyranny, to destroy regime and to destroy a single mustache person. That's why people of the world looked US as world police during WW II. It will be good if they always do that, like in Philippines. However, when it comes to Soviet and Cold War, it always not with good intentions. Soviet and America competed each other to gain control and influence to the rest of the world with their block policy.

Korean Peninsula, Gulf War, German, Vietnam and many other places had being playing ground for both nations to attack each other indirectly by supporting nations that could care less about it as long as they receiving aid. Soviet and America loved to killed each other by toying another nation, as results killing their own countrymen. Just because both of them have different ideology and hating each other. The rest of the world suffered just for their children play.

Isn't this the very same method US using in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan? By making them killing their own people, make a 'legitimate' government versus resistance movement opposing foreign invasion and make them grow tired and weak, US gained most control in those nations. Making such chaos and dispute resulting in children have to hold weapons and killing their own childhood friends are absolutely violation of international humanitarian law. Just be how you used to be, helping other nation without any 'hidden agenda' and personal interest without being biased to oneside. US surely would be loved around the world.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/12/09

DomFortress wrote:

What's your definition of war then? The last time we actually got a real official war situation that I remember was the Gulf War at the start of 1990's. Which actually putted Iraqis' army at war with the rest of the UN member states(citation). And that was all due to how Iraq and Iran never did see each other eye-to-eye even after an official UN ceasefire on 1988(citation).

Therefore I think you should redefine your definition of war, because only nations can officially declare war against one another. While war is just another form of diplomacy, when nations stopped communicating officially.

Which is also how and why I define extremists from both the Hamas and Fatah faiths as terrorist factions, because the ex-president of Palestinian Yasser Arafat actually wanted peace with Israel(citation).

Or so we thought.



War can be created as long as humans live. Any dispute from both side which resulting to injured victims and killed victims could be define as war. A tribe that happened to dislike other tribe in same region for such trivial matter can conduct war against each other.

Many method of war, look at wider scope. There's war that only stares to each other could be defines as war, like cold war. Many forms of war. We could just look at it, without being biased to one side which could leads to another war.
Posted 11/12/09 , edited 11/12/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

What's your definition of war then? The last time we actually got a real official war situation that I remember was the Gulf War at the start of 1990's. Which actually putted Iraqis' army at war with the rest of the UN member states(citation). And that was all due to how Iraq and Iran never did see each other eye-to-eye even after an official UN ceasefire on 1988(citation).

Therefore I think you should redefine your definition of war, because only nations can officially declare war against one another. While war is just another form of diplomacy, when nations stopped communicating officially.

Which is also how and why I define extremists from both the Hamas and Fatah faiths as terrorist factions, because the ex-president of Palestinian Yasser Arafat actually wanted peace with Israel(citation).

Or so we thought.



War can be created as long as humans live. Any dispute from both side which resulting to injured victims and killed victims could be define as war. A tribe that happened to dislike other tribe in same region for such trivial matter can conduct war against each other.

Many method of war, look at wider scope. There's war that only stares to each other could be defines as war, like cold war. Many forms of war. We could just look at it, without being biased to one side which could leads to another war.

If you count it that way, then you might as well throw in tribal wars, gang wars, and even economic commerce as conflicts that could result into wars that can produce human victims. Don't just stop at Cold War.

But the fact is, unless those said conflicts could escalate themselves into a coup that can overthrow a nation's governing body. They won't result into a full-blown crisis that could very well pin nations at war against each other. After all, unless the majority people of a democratic nation wish for war against another nation, say the majority of Palestinians as well as Israelis all wish to go into war against the other nation. Then by all means let them have their war. Because that is what humans live for as "victims of war" according to you now, isn't it?

Therefore I'll ask you once again, since my definition of war is "just another form of diplomacy, when nations stopped communicating officially", can you reconsider your definition of war? Because obviously, the situation you're describing that "war can be created as long as humans live" isn't very realistic at all. When I know just exactly what is it like to be a victim of Cold War.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/12/09 , edited 11/12/09

SeraphAlford wrote:




Vietnam is a good example. I've seen interviews with pilots from Vietnam (in one of the greatest documentaries ever "Hearts and Minds") and they expressed how guilty they felt for dropping cruel types of bombs (ones that are meant for human targets) on completely non-militant, innocent, simple Vietnamese people, like farmers, children and women. I briefly studied the Vietnam war in school and it seems to be one of the most horrifying things the US has done, and the reasons for starting it seem very suspicious. It seems like there was such strong opposition to it for good reason.

And also, what was your explanation for the disgusting post-war foreign affairs, other than the wars? Installing/supporting/funding dictators, genocide, war crimes, etc. And with Saddam Hussien, the support was there not only during the war, but while he was gassing Kurds and generally being an evil dictator.

???
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/13/09

DomFortress wrote:

If you count it that way, then you might as well throw in tribal wars, gang wars, and even economic commerce as conflicts that could result into wars that can produce human victims. Don't just stop at Cold War.

But the fact is, unless those said conflicts could escalate themselves into a coup that can overthrow a nation's governing body. They won't result into a full-blown crisis that could very well pin nations at war against each other. After all, unless the majority people of a democratic nation wish for war against another nation, say the majority of Palestinians as well as Israelis all wish to go into war against the other nation. Then by all means let them have their war. Because that is what humans live for as "victims of war" according to you now, isn't it?

Therefore I'll ask you once again, since my definition of war is "just another form of diplomacy, when nations stopped communicating officially", can you reconsider your definition of war? Because obviously, the situation you're describing that "war can be created as long as humans live" isn't very realistic at all. When I know just exactly what is it like to be a victim of Cold War.


I thought we all know that. There's no need to widen as it is common knowledge. What matters is the interest behind those wars. What caused those war? What kind of people who've committed war? What possible options we can offer to solve the wars? What we can do to avoid more losses from both sides and to civilians? There must severe answers need to be fulfilled and listened to stop it completely.

As I said, there's many form of wars but wars always has interests and reasons who conducted it. We can't say it completely Israel and Palestinian wanted war each other. That's not form of communication we should used. You should look the reasons behind and studied about Israel-Palestine deeper than just saying they're doing war just they feel like it.

War is being founded by humans, interpreted by humans, committed by humans, conducted by humans, being manipulated by humans, just for their personal interest, for fulfilling their desires, for accomplishing their hidden agenda, for gaining their own prosperity by causing several death to humans, causing destruction where humans gather, make distinction between humans, making humans live in miserable life, making this world not a right place for humans to live.
Posted 11/13/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

If you count it that way, then you might as well throw in tribal wars, gang wars, and even economic commerce as conflicts that could result into wars that can produce human victims. Don't just stop at Cold War.

But the fact is, unless those said conflicts could escalate themselves into a coup that can overthrow a nation's governing body. They won't result into a full-blown crisis that could very well pin nations at war against each other. After all, unless the majority people of a democratic nation wish for war against another nation, say the majority of Palestinians as well as Israelis all wish to go into war against the other nation. Then by all means let them have their war. Because that is what humans live for as "victims of war" according to you now, isn't it?

Therefore I'll ask you once again, since my definition of war is "just another form of diplomacy, when nations stopped communicating officially", can you reconsider your definition of war? Because obviously, the situation you're describing that "war can be created as long as humans live" isn't very realistic at all. When I know just exactly what is it like to be a victim of Cold War.


I thought we all know that. There's no need to widen as it is common knowledge. What matters is the interest behind those wars. What caused those war? What kind of people who've committed war? What possible options we can offer to solve the wars? What we can do to avoid more losses from both sides and to civilians? There must severe answers need to be fulfilled and listened to stop it completely.

As I said, there's many form of wars but wars always has interests and reasons who conducted it. We can't say it completely Israel and Palestinian wanted war each other. That's not form of communication we should used. You should look the reasons behind and studied about Israel-Palestine deeper than just saying they're doing war just they feel like it.

War is being founded by humans, interpreted by humans, committed by humans, conducted by humans, being manipulated by humans, just for their personal interest, for fulfilling their desires, for accomplishing their hidden agenda, for gaining their own prosperity by causing several death to humans, causing destruction where humans gather, make distinction between humans, making humans live in miserable life, making this world not a right place for humans to live.

You are only seeing the half truth, not the whole picture. When those that waged wars among themselves are weaklings who lacked the strength to overcome their own self-pity. They victimized others through war because they thought of themselves as martyrs for their own cause.

Which is precisely why President Obama rejected "all Afghan war options"(citation), when "the White House's focus appears to be shifting toward the political side of the equation: Can the Afghan government become a credible partner or is it a source of weakness to be continually exploited by the Taliban insurgents?"(citation)
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/13/09

DomFortress wrote:

You are only seeing the half truth, not the whole picture. When those that waged wars among themselves are weaklings who lacked the strength to overcome their own self-pity. They victimized others through war because they thought of themselves as martyrs for their own cause.

Which is precisely why President Obama rejected "all Afghan war options"(citation), when "the White House's focus appears to be shifting toward the political side of the equation: Can the Afghan government become a credible partner or is it a source of weakness to be continually exploited by the Taliban insurgents?"(citation)


You are only stated it by not experience it yourself. Those who participated in wars believe in their way to achieve their freedom, either it's wrong or right. We can't saying they're completely right or wrong, after all. Those are several causes and more complicated reasons that will be affected to their whole life. Those who are in completely in their luxury seat and in comfortable place would never understand their 'strength'.

I can't believe current Afghan President, Ahmad Karzai who manipulated vote to win his presidential election which is being proven by UN. His competitors, knowing that refused to be a candidate again. Therefore, according to him, current Afghan government is illegitimate. How about the fact that Obama considering options that include adding 30,000 or more U.S. forces to Afghanistan? That's not war options?
Posted 11/13/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

You are only seeing the half truth, not the whole picture. When those that waged wars among themselves are weaklings who lacked the strength to overcome their own self-pity. They victimized others through war because they thought of themselves as martyrs for their own cause.

Which is precisely why President Obama rejected "all Afghan war options"(citation), when "the White House's focus appears to be shifting toward the political side of the equation: Can the Afghan government become a credible partner or is it a source of weakness to be continually exploited by the Taliban insurgents?"(citation)


You are only stated it by not experience it yourself. Those who participated in wars believe in their way to achieve their freedom, either it's wrong or right. We can't saying they're completely right or wrong, after all. Those are several causes and more complicated reasons that will be affected to their whole life. Those who are in completely in their luxury seat and in comfortable place would never understand their 'strength'.

I can't believe current Afghan President, Ahmad Karzai who manipulated vote to win his presidential election which is being proven by UN. His competitors, knowing that refused to be a candidate again. Therefore, according to him, current Afghan government is illegitimate. How about the fact that Obama considering options that include adding 30,000 or more U.S. forces to Afghanistan? That's not war options?

A believe that ends up making people to freely expressing themselves by killing others is not the teaching of life, but war. Or are you saying that not all people have the right to live? How and why do you think that there are those who became so extreme?

And what's wrong with Obama "to think about carefully: as a : to think of especially with regard to taking some action", aka consider, and then reject all war options? Is that you being unrealistic again?
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/13/09

DomFortress wrote:

A believe that ends up making people to freely expressing themselves by killing others is not the teaching of life, but war. Or are you saying that not all people have the right to live? How and why do you think that there are those who became so extreme?

And what's wrong with Obama "to think about carefully: as a : to think of especially with regard to taking some action", aka consider, and then reject all war options? Is that you being unrealistic again?


If you don't know that much, I will tell you. A war doesn't necessary to kill but to gain goals that needs to be fulfilled because of self interest or because that's their rights. I believe I said this :

War is being founded by humans, interpreted by humans, committed by humans, conducted by humans, being manipulated by humans, just for their personal interest, for fulfilling their desires, for accomplishing their hidden agenda, for gaining their own prosperity by causing several death to humans, causing destruction where humans gather, make distinction between humans, making humans live in miserable life, making this world not a right place for humans to live.

Study it carefully, deeper and subjectively to know whole reasons and causes of war. As war comes from humanity, thus by learning ourselves and others, we can fully understand and embrace all elements of humans. As well as their reasons, of why what how. War for some people are reasons of life, those are including soldiers to protect their country after being invaded by foreign countries, such as mine in south-east asia region also struggled to fight colony. Therefore, those who fight to defend themselves are being granted by their own people but seeing it as terrorist by invader. That's why the way you look it up, could change the meaning of terror in whole.

If that so, why Obama doesn't consider to pull back NATO and US troops as well for his 'options', replaced it by UN as neutral troops and give all oil back to people of Iraq and Afghanistan? Does he 'consider' that? Doesn't 'con-si-der' mean to think about carefully, to regard or treat in an attentive or kindly way, to come to judge or classify, to gaze on steadily or reflectively. ?
So please tell me, how come his 'con-si-de-ra-tion' by sending more troops can solve problems in kindly way?
Posted 11/16/09 , edited 11/16/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

A believe that ends up making people to freely expressing themselves by killing others is not the teaching of life, but war. Or are you saying that not all people have the right to live? How and why do you think that there are those who became so extreme?

And what's wrong with Obama "to think about carefully: as a : to think of especially with regard to taking some action", aka consider, and then reject all war options? Is that you being unrealistic again?


If you don't know that much, I will tell you. A war doesn't necessary to kill but to gain goals that needs to be fulfilled because of self interest or because that's their rights. I believe I said this :

War is being founded by humans, interpreted by humans, committed by humans, conducted by humans, being manipulated by humans, just for their personal interest, for fulfilling their desires, for accomplishing their hidden agenda, for gaining their own prosperity by causing several death to humans, causing destruction where humans gather, make distinction between humans, making humans live in miserable life, making this world not a right place for humans to live.

Study it carefully, deeper and subjectively to know whole reasons and causes of war. As war comes from humanity, thus by learning ourselves and others, we can fully understand and embrace all elements of humans. As well as their reasons, of why what how. War for some people are reasons of life, those are including soldiers to protect their country after being invaded by foreign countries, such as mine in south-east asia region also struggled to fight colony. Therefore, those who fight to defend themselves are being granted by their own people but seeing it as terrorist by invader. That's why the way you look it up, could change the meaning of terror in whole.

If that so, why Obama doesn't consider to pull back NATO and US troops as well for his 'options', replaced it by UN as neutral troops and give all oil back to people of Iraq and Afghanistan? Does he 'consider' that? Doesn't 'con-si-der' mean to think about carefully, to regard or treat in an attentive or kindly way, to come to judge or classify, to gaze on steadily or reflectively. ?
So please tell me, how come his 'con-si-de-ra-tion' by sending more troops can solve problems in kindly way?

What is the Taliban insurgents but a terrorist group that's exploiting the Afghan government; a rather weak democratic government with a corrupted president according to you here. And if so, do you think that such as it is, the current Afghan government can stabilize its country without the help of US foreign aid policy to Afghanistan? Which created and funded these expensive yet necessary programs. Can all these programs stay active at the hands of the current Afghan government administration? When the Taliban insurgents are targeting these programs as well as the Afghan democratic movement.

Therefore what exactly is your decision after considering all those facts? When the US troops are now in Afghanistan for security reason, such as countering the attacks conducted by the Taliban insurgents on the US foreign aid programs as well as the Afghan democratic movement.

"Borrowed strengths don't last." -by yours truly-
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/16/09 , edited 11/17/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote: There's not much we can talk about Deutschland Herbst actually. I knew this thread when nobody have posted yet. This was merely history lesson. And you're already stated it was wasting time. I post here because you associated this with Muslims being terrorist in your edit. Well, yeah. I know about your method in most of your thread. Let's talk it again.


I’d like to start by apologizing for my late reply. I’ve been a bit under the weather lately. I am also sorry to say that I’m having a little trouble understanding you again. English is such a slippery language. Misplacing or forgetting a single comma can completely change the meaning of a sentence. I know this is your second language, and I’ll do my best, but I highly recommend that you copy and paste your posts into a spelling and grammar checker. That’s what I do, it’s very handy.

Anyway, I think that there’s a lot to discuss. There’s plenty to investigate and muse upon concerning German Autumn. The initial post certainly was part history lesson; I don’t see anything wrong with that. But, there’s still plenty that hasn’t been touched upon. We could, for example, discuss radicalism in general. We could discuss anti-capitalism. Somebody asked why the terrorists abducted German citizens to negotiate for Palestinian prisoners in Turkey! We can talk about it a lot. There just seems to be a lack of interest.

I don’t think I associated being a Muslim with terrorism. Maybe I should go back and read my edit. It has been a long time since I looked at it. I went back and looked at my edit, and you clearly didn’t read what I had to say. I was actually defending conservatives and Muslims in that statement by pointing out that, contrary to the stereotype, many terrorists are actually non-religious/non-Muslim liberals. The media often portrays terrorists as right-wing fundamentalists or as Muslims radicals. Apparently this isn’t true.


Therefore, was that has anything to do with current Palestinian with Nazi?


I’m sorry. This is one of the places where I’m having trouble understanding you. Are you asking me what the Arab involvement with the Nazis then has to do with the Palestinians of today? Well, it’s a relevant historical fact crucial to understanding the nature of Israel’s birth. It is also important to put the nakba in context. It’s also very difficult to argue that the Palestinian Arabs were the victims whenever they were attempting to eradicate an entire culture, whenever they allied themselves with history’s most hated dictator, and whenever they were campaigning for genocide. What does the ethnic cleansing of Israel in 1948 have to do with the Israelis of today? It’s relevant to looking at the conflict as a whole.

Looking at the quoted section, it occurs to me that you may be asking what the Palestinians of today have to do with the Nazis. Well, they’re still organized under the offspring of the Arab Nazi forces and their government is still proliferating the same Palestinian-nationalist/Arab-Nazi ideology. They’re also fighting with the same goals, the eradication of Israel and extermination of ethnic Jews from historical Palestine.

On an individual level, of course, many are completely innocent. But their suffering is brought on them by their government. There would’ve been peace; they would have Gaza and the Westbank, had they not elected Hamas. Israel gave them Gaza and was in the process of giving them Westbank and then they elected Hamas and illegally abducted Gilad.


Jews and Muslims used to lived together there. British Army […] broke their peace. Using political moves [they] tried to break them apart.


The Jews and the Muslims had lived together in relative peace for a very long time, but years before the British arrived in the region there was already a mutual, racial animosity between the Jews and the Arabs.

When they did finally show up, the British actually tried to reestablish and maintain peace. They even had some success during the former half of the twentieth century. I see where you’re coming from when you say that they were trying to drive people apart, but I think you’re mistaken. The problem wasn’t that the British had some strange desire to engender racism. No, they were just too optimistic. Anytime somebody would start a riot the British would just give in and meet the demands of every terrorist involve. They thought that by doing this they would keep everybody happy and pacified. Instead, they taught the Arabs and the Jews that if you want something done the best way to do it is to get violent. So, that’s what both groups did, and the rest is history.

I paraphrased your quote. You also made mention of the Nazi, but since the Jews and the Arabs were at each other’s throats before the British arrived it’s quite clear that they were at each other’s throats before the Nazi political party was even founded. Hitler did work with the Arab-Nazis to eradicate the Jews, but whenever he used politics to incite the Jews into action he was usually demanding they attack the British in the area.


Yes, Palestinian were contributing in killing Jews with Nazi.


The Arab nationalists/leaders and Muslim extremists in general were assisting Hitler’s advance.


As Jews were contributing in killing Palestinian with British Empire first.


Actually, according to the Haycraft Commission summary report:


The racial strife was begun by the Arabs, and rapidly developed into a conflict of great violence between Arabs and Jews, in which the Arab majority, who were generally the aggressors, inflicted most of the casualties.


It then elaborates:


The fundamental cause of the riots was a feeling among the Arabs of discontent with, and hostility to, the Jews, due to political and economic causes, and connected with Jewish immigration, and with their conception of Zionist policy as derived from Jewish exponents


I don’t know where you got this idea of a joint operation between the Jewish ethnicity and the British Empire to massacre the Palestinians. In reality the British often turned a blind eye to Arab violence against the Jews while cracking down on Jewish violence against the Arabs. I’ll provide some historical examples.

In 1920 the first major riots during the Mandate Period erupted and Arabs began massacring Jews in the streets. The British authorities did not intervene. During this same period of time, however, they arrested Vladimir Jabotinsky and other Jews were arrested for their efforts to organize a federation of Jewish self defence groups.

In 1921 the Arabs again initiated race riots slaughtering the Jews, this time in Jaffa. In order to appease the extremists Sir. Herbert Samuel and Winston Churchhill issued the White Paper of June, 1922 which enacted state level discrimination against the Jews to restrict their immigration into the area.

You must remember that Sir. Herbert Samuel was the High Commissioner of the British Mandate. He was also the man who pardoned al-Husayni for his massacres of the Jewish on “Bloody-Passover,” and appointed him Grand Mufti of Jerusalem after the previous Mufti had passed away.

The British appeased the Arab extremists by discriminating against the Jews because that was their method of keeping peace. If they met everybody’s demands then nobody could be angry, right? Wrong, it didn’t work quite they way they’d hoped.


Also sentiments from people that can't interpret Qur'an properly, hating current Jews because of what they did in thousand years ago is just stupid


Who says that they’re the ones who cannot interpret the Qur’an? It seems very arrogant of you to say that your perspective is the only right perspective and that anybody who disagrees with it is simply incapable of comprehending something. Maybe the Qur’an does call for violence and it is you peaceful Muslims who have it wrong? That’s what the violent Muslims say.


Those were all in the past. Dragging past's events just to make current situation worse is not right.

You’re only saying that because the past events in question were Arab crimes. You’re completely happy whenever we’re talking about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine or when you’re accusing the Jews of having stolen their land.


But bringing all peace that happened in the past is a reminder that peace is possible. Yeah, politics from certain influence groups always prevent that to happened.


Ryu, you brought up the peace in an attempt to absolve the Arabs/Muslims of guilt and instead blame their crimes on a conspiracy of foreigners to turn the Jews and Arabs against one another. You did not bring it up to argue that peace can be attained in the future and you know it, I know it, anyone who read your post knows it.


I wanted to talk about possible solutions, not spouting all sins from the past from both sides.


You were the one who brought up the past.


Ryutai-Desk wrote: The question is who started this war first

You’re only backing out now because I’m better informed than you are and because the historical facts aren’t in your favor.


It's quite amusing, you saying the abduction of Gilad Shalit were illegal. He was Israeli soldier, not citizen. In war, it just common things to do. After all, if you watched Gilad video recently. There's no abused and injury found on him. How about hundreds of Palestinian civilians that were being kidnapped and jailed for year? Those are not 'blatant violation of international humanitarian law' ? Anyone could make hundred lists of Israel violation, including destroying 48 Palestinian villages. Not including to neighbor countries like Jordan and Syria.



It's quite amusing, you saying the abduction of Gilad Shalit were illegal. He was Israeli soldier, not citizen. In war, it just common things to do. After all, if you watched Gilad video recently. There's no abused and injury found on him. How about hundreds of Palestinian civilians that were being kidnapped and jailed for year? Those are not 'blatant violation of international humanitarian law' ? Anyone could make hundred lists of Israel violation, including destroying 48 Palestinian villages. Not including to neighbor countries like Jordan and Syria.


Actually, I agree with you. I think a lot of international laws are silly. There have been plenty of times in which I have discovered something is illegal and found it amusing. For example, leaving the lights on through the night in a prison full of captured enemy combatants is illegal. It’s a violation of international law.

Your above statement contains a straw-man tactic. To avoid facing and admitting that what Hamas did was wrong you change the topic and start trying to focus on unrelated Israeli crimes. You keep saying that I’m reverting to history. I’m not reverting to anything. I’m simply following the conversation. You asked why the Palestinians are suffering and I showed you the historical source of their agony.

That the kidnapping of Gilad and the conditions he is being kept in violate international law is not in question. That you don’t realize this demonstrates you haven’t even done surface level research. Just take a look at the Wikipedia page on the topic. Even there they point out that:

Hamas has refused requests from the Red Cross (ICRC) to allow visits by the ICRC. Several human rights organizations have stated that the terms and conditions of Shalit's detention are contrary to international humanitarian law


In a little bit I’m going to post some links from international humanitarian rights organizations. Read them and you will see that the abduction and conditions of Gilad and his captivity respectively are contrary to international law. This is a fact. Even in that goldstone report you cited the United Nations demanded Gilad’s release, as seen here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/15/un-gaza-war-israel-hamas

Yes, Israel has violated many international laws on many occasions. I never said that they did not. Why’re you spouting off past sins? Well, because once again you’re trying to distract people from seeing the clear truth.


There's no Hamas killing their own people in the street. The video you're going to post here is propaganda which is flawed.


Ryu, many of our sources are actually the same. The fact finding mission to Gaza demanded the release of Gilad and described his confinement as contrary to international law. The videos being posted on youtube come from Palestinians trying to speak out and defend themselves. They’re the truth. Remember when I said I would post some links demonstrating the illegality of Gilad’s confinement? Well this document is the report filed from a Human Rights Watch investigation into the mistreatment of Palestinians.

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/62090/section/3


Hamas forcefully seized control in Gaza



it has conducted arbitrary arrests of political opponents, tortured detainees, clamped down on freedom of expression and assembly, and violated due process rights enshrined in Palestinian law



In general, abuses in Gaza by Hamas forces tend to be…more intense: arbitrary detentions accompanied by severe beatings and, as in two cases documented by Human Rights Watch, gunshots to the legs. In at least three cases, detainees have died…from torture


It says that Hamas has made no efforts to prosecute any of its own forces for the:


serious abuses committed during the heavy fighting in Gaza in June 2007, including summary executions, maiming and torture




There's something I find someone ignoring something behind Oslo Accord after Noble Awards taken place. Both of them were killed while Israel PM being assassinated with gunfire by Orthodox Jews and Palestinian Leader being poisoned by unknown person. Clearly, both of them were being opposed. Orthodox Jews were the ones that disagree about it, while Palestinian people agreed. As we know, there's no Oslo Accord. What remains are suffering people under suppression.


That’s called prejudice profiling. The actions of a couple individuals have nothing to do with their entire group. A lot of terrorists are Muslim, but I don’t claim that Muslims support terrorism and want death. Similarly, just because a couple extremists were orthodox Jews doesn’t mean that all Orthodox Jews are against peace. Anyway, I can get the statistics for you. But we both know what they’re going to say. The Palestinians didn’t want Oslo. We both know that. The Israelis pretty much split fifty-fifty.


I can't surely what he said is true. Arafat signed Oslo Accords and applied everything correctly, while the Israelis who assassinated their PM Itzhac Rabin and made the peace deal was not being implemented. Arafat wanted the peace with Israel but Israel being controlled by their Orthodox who doesn't want to share their land


You just don’t want to believe. You only accept what you want to be true. The guy has no reason to lie. He’s certainly not pro-Israel, and in fact Arafat made public statements confirming it. Arafat did not pursue peace; it’s well known that he didn’t pursue peace. He engineered the massacre of Israel’s Olympic athletes. Look at all the quotes I presented you with where he himself boasts that he had no real intention of peace!

Anyone who knows anything about guerilla warfare knows that strategic diplomacy like the Oslo Accords for the Palestinians is a crucial aspect of this method.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.