|
The Difficult Topics
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 09-11-2012 20:11
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3936
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
sieve wrote:
cactus-jack wrote:The only "bad" thing about them might be whaling.
Don't forget the hákarl.
And the "Penis museum".
Come to think of it, they're more like the Axis of Evil than anything else.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
|
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 09-11-2012 20:13
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
jph27 wrote:
Turns out the guy who is nearest to my political ideals got less than 4,000 votes in the US election. Glad I'm not American. 
Who would that be? A candidate that insignificant is only listed as "other" on wikipedia
In fact, I think more people voted for "Hugh Jass" than voted for your person
Edited by Levi4life on 09-11-2012 20:13
|
| |
|
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 09-11-2012 20:17
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3936
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
As I see it there is a bit of a problem when it comes to these candidates who recieve something like 0.5% of the votes.
They have no power regardless of the result, yet they can have an impact on the result between the Democrats and Republicans.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 10-11-2012 08:34
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
cactus-jack wrote:
sieve wrote:
cactus-jack wrote:The only "bad" thing about them might be whaling.
Don't forget the hákarl.
And the "Penis museum".
Come to think of it, they're more like the Axis of Evil than anything else.
An evil island, where have I seen that before?  |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 23-11-2024 08:29
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| jph27 |
Posted on 10-11-2012 08:45
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7339
Joined: 20-03-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
Levi4life wrote:
jph27 wrote:
Turns out the guy who is nearest to my political ideals got less than 4,000 votes in the US election. Glad I'm not American.
Who would that be? A candidate that insignificant is only listed as "other" on wikipedia
In fact, I think more people voted for "Hugh Jass" than voted for your person
Stewart Alexander. |
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 10-11-2012 09:03
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Fun fact: I live not very far from him. Me and about 18 million other people
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 10-11-2012 09:50
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
That is a fun fact... |
| |
|
|
| acac |
Posted on 14-11-2012 18:35
|
Domestique
Posts: 654
Joined: 20-09-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
well its been a sure thing for some time now but no one knew when.today the IDF and hamas started a new fight.its been reported that the israeli air force killed Ahmed al-Jabari (hamas armed forces general) while also killing 2 other high ranked hamas militants.the IDF spokeman said about half an hour ago that the goals are:
1)destroy hamas tunnels and bases.
2)restore the peace to southern israel.
thats all i know for not but the prime minister has just went into the press confress.
anyone has an opinion on it?
EDIT:its named Operation Pillar of Cloud.
the minister of defence said that the goals are:
1)reducing the amount of rockets lunched into israel.
2)reduce the hamas will to fight.
3)restoring the fear hamas had after the latest fight.
he also said that this is just the start of the fight
Edited by acac on 14-11-2012 18:43
|
| |
|
|
| jph27 |
Posted on 14-11-2012 18:46
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7339
Joined: 20-03-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
My opinion is that Israel should be gracious for the fact that they are in control of Palestinian land, and shouldn't try to steal even more land from them. Yes, after WW2 a safe haven was needed for the Jewish community, but taking Palestinian land wasn't the way to do it. |
| |
|
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 14-11-2012 19:08
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3936
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well, how else are you going to create a new nation without taking land from someone else?
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
|
| |
|
|
| acac |
Posted on 14-11-2012 19:12
|
Domestique
Posts: 654
Joined: 20-09-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
what land do you two talk about?
most of what we now know as israel was given to us by the UN after the british mandet ended and the rest was taken in the first israeli-arab war, that was started by the arabs. |
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 14-11-2012 19:25
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
But holding on to the land that "was taken in the first Israeli-Arab war" has resulted in regional instability. Hamas is relevant because of the Palestinian plight. Iran is a relevant power in the region because of the Palestinian plight.
If you want to solve the conflict, remove the incompatibility. In recent years, the main incompatibility has been settlements. The world has very little sympathy for Israel anymore.
|
| |
|
|
| acac |
Posted on 14-11-2012 19:49
|
Domestique
Posts: 654
Joined: 20-09-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Levi4life wrote:
But holding on to the land that "was taken in the first Israeli-Arab war" has resulted in regional instability. Hamas is relevant because of the Palestinian plight. Iran is a relevant power in the region because of the Palestinian plight.
If you want to solve the conflict, remove the incompatibility. In recent years, the main incompatibility has been settlements. The world has very little sympathy for Israel anymore.
i half agree with you.
on one side its true that if the Palestinians want to have a nation,they need to work for it and not sit around wating for someone else to do the job for them.
on the other side if the Palestinians want to get a nation with conflicts,then why do they send rockets at civil towns?it should be hamas vs IDF and not hamas vs regular man, women and children.
now as for the settelments:
the west bank is divided into 3 parts.
there is area A-under complete Palestinian control(their own rules and police)
area B-under israeli laws but with Palestinian police and courts.
and then there is area C-under israeli laws and israeli control.
areas A and B are technically not a part of any nation, but it is refferd to as israel.area C is a part of israel and settelments there are very legit.in areas A and B are arguable, but sadly the Palestinian leadership want to freeze those for half a year just to get the peace talks started.a few years ago israel has agreed to to that but the Palestinians just came with unreasonable offers.after the 6 half freeze ended,the Palestinians asked to do it again only to once more come with odd offers.israel has just lost faith in the current Palestinian leaders. |
| |
|
|
| Atlantius |
Posted on 14-11-2012 19:54
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6795
Joined: 21-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
acac wrote:
what land do you two talk about?
most of what we now know as israel was given to us by the UN after the british mandet ended and the rest was taken in the first israeli-arab war, that was started by the arabs.
That's the land we're talking about...
UN didn't just happen to have a piece of land which didn't belong to any country at the time. The first Israili-Arab war was a result of this.
And the bit about "what we now know as israel" is a question of definition:
The continuing settlements, the wall and a good number of wars started by Israel doesn't really help improving your relations with your neighbours and the rest of the world.
If deciding to move into a neighbourhood, where you're unwanted to begin with you should really try making friends in stead of trying to beat you next-door neighbour up...
And by the way:
acac wrote:
3)restoring the fear hamas had after the latest fight.
...is pretty much the definition of terrorism.
Edit:
acac wrote:
(...)on the other side if the Palestinians want to get a nation with conflicts,then why do they send rockets at civil towns?
Why does Israel?
Edited by Atlantius on 14-11-2012 19:56
|
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 14-11-2012 20:17
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
acac wrote:
Levi4life wrote:
But holding on to the land that "was taken in the first Israeli-Arab war" has resulted in regional instability. Hamas is relevant because of the Palestinian plight. Iran is a relevant power in the region because of the Palestinian plight.
If you want to solve the conflict, remove the incompatibility. In recent years, the main incompatibility has been settlements. The world has very little sympathy for Israel anymore.
i half agree with you.
on one side its true that if the Palestinians want to have a nation,they need to work for it and not sit around wating for someone else to do the job for them.
on the other side if the Palestinians want to get a nation with conflicts,then why do they send rockets at civil towns?it s hould be hamas vs IDF and not hamas vs regular man, women and children.
now as for the settelments:
the west bank is divided into 3 parts.
there is area A-under complete Palestinian control(their own rules and police)
area B-under israeli laws but with Palestinian police and courts.
and then there is area C-under israeli laws and israeli control.
areas A and B are technically not a part of any nation, but it is refferd to as israel. area C is a part of israel and settelments there are very legit.in areas A and B are arguable, but sadly the Palestinian leadership want to freeze those for half a year just to get the peace talks started.a few years ago israel has agreed to to that but the Palestinians just came with unreasonable offers.after the 6 half freeze ended,the Palestinians asked to do it again only to once more come with odd offers.israel has just lost faith in the current Palestinian leaders.
1st bold: Work for it? How? If Palestinians want their own country, and their territory is dominated by what most of the world sees as an illegal occupation, then doesn't it make sense that they respond with violence? I don't think any people, no matter how industrious, could make a functioning country when their original territory has been punched full of holes by an occupying force.
2nd bold: I don't want to defend the attacking of civilians, but I think Hamas would argue that Israel commits acts of violence on the Palestinian people every day of the occupation. It's a matter of perspective. One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Ireland's war for independence is a perfect example. Michael Collins and the IRA were deemed terrorists because they opposed the British regime. Now we generally consider them heroes. The IRA rarely went toe to toe with the British Military, because they knew they couldn't win. When they did try, it always ended in tears.
3rd bold: I would disagree fundamentally here. In most of the world, the West Bank is known as an occupied territory, and therefore not part of Israel. It is a part of what should be Palestine, but is controlled by Israeli forces, and in many parts(the best parts) occupied by settlements of artificially transplanted Israeli civilians. Settlements are permanent. Why would Palestine agree to any terms if they saw that the best they could get are the sloppy seconds that the settlers didn't want?
Edited by Levi4life on 14-11-2012 20:19
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 14-11-2012 20:35
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
acac wrote:
the minister of defence said that the goals are:
1)reducing the amount of rockets lunched into israel.
2)reduce the hamas will to fight.
3)restoring the fear hamas had after the latest fight.
he also said that this is just the start of the fight
From what I got on T.V. here, from a foreign expert : Hamas has gotten missiles with 3 different ranges in Gaza.
The first kind has been used a lot these last few years and their range is 10 km max.
The second range from 10 to 30 km and have seldom been used.
Lately they've gotten Iranian missiles with 100 km range or something, making them technically able to bomb Israel's capital Tel Aviv.
Israel have tolerated the use of the first two kind of missiles, having air strikes as the sole answer to them. But the use or probable use of the last kind of missiles would mean a terrestrial strike, which apparently is going to happen very soon.
That's for the technical aspect of it.
No matter what a disgusting person a Hamas military leader might be, bombing his car to murder him might be a good riddance for a few minutes, but all non violent Palestinian people are just going to grow more hatred for Israel and will be even more likely to become violent. That strategy can only work on very short term and is disastrous on the long term.
That, plus the logic of endless revenge on both sides make it look like the Israel vs Palestine conflict will never be solved. |
| |
|
|
| acac |
Posted on 14-11-2012 20:37
|
Domestique
Posts: 654
Joined: 20-09-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Atlantius wrote:
acac wrote:
what land do you two talk about?
most of what we now know as israel was given to us by the UN after the british mandet ended and the rest was taken in the first israeli-arab war, that was started by the arabs.
That's the land we're talking about...
UN didn't just happen to have a piece of land which didn't belong to any country at the time. The first Israili-Arab war was a result of this.
And the bit about "what we now know as israel" is a question of definition:
The continuing settlements, the wall and a good number of wars started by Israel doesn't really help improving your relations with your neighbours and the rest of the world.
If deciding to move into a neighbourhood, where you're unwanted to begin with you should really try making friends in stead of trying to beat you next-door neighbour up...
And by the way:
acac wrote:
3)restoring the fear hamas had after the latest fight.
...is pretty much the definition of terrorism.
Edit:
acac wrote:
(...)on the other side if the Palestinians want to get a nation with conflicts,then why do they send rockets at civil towns?
Why does Israel?
first of all i will talk about the maps.in the one on the far left(1946) that land was indeed mostly ocupied with Palestinians but they didnt have a state.the so called "palestine" never happend.at the time the brits ruled there but since no one was happy they asked the UN to find a soulotion.
that leads me to the second map,the UN plan to divide israel into a Palestinian state and a jewish state.once again, no one was happy and the Palestinians(along side other nations) opend a war that ment to them all or nothing.they got nothing...
the 3rd map was after the six day war. israel takes the golan heights for syria,sinai from egypt(out of the map) and jerusalam from jordan.that war started after a last minute call off by egypte caused some concern in israel.
and then we have the final map.israel as we know it today. the Palestinians want the rest of the west bank and east of jerusalam.
now i want to talk about the thing you wrote:
And the bit about "what we now know as israel" is a question of definition
do you mean there is an argument if a state called israel exists?if so, then talking to you about the conflict is a waste of our time.
now you said that we came into a place where we are not wanted is worthless and offensive.do you say that becuse the arabs hate us we should leave?once again,if that is what you ment then talking to you about it is a waste of time.
now you said the 3rd goal is the definition of terrorism.by what i know terrorism is against civiliance,hamas i know as a terror-army.
and last but not least you said israel attacks civiliance.that is also not true.hamas is working from schools,playgrounds,streets and civil homes.attacking the hamas means that anyone around them gets hit.and you might say that in that case israel should not attack,but gusse what?hamas should work only from is bases and not anywhere near hospitals,schools and un buildings. |
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 14-11-2012 20:42
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
On your last point, you said that Israel doesn't attack civilians, then in the next sentence explained why civilians get hurt by Israeli retaliation.
|
| |
|
|
| acac |
Posted on 14-11-2012 20:46
|
Domestique
Posts: 654
Joined: 20-09-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
acac wrote:
the minister of defence said that the goals are:
1)reducing the amount of rockets lunched into israel.
2)reduce the hamas will to fight.
3)restoring the fear hamas had after the latest fight.
he also said that this is just the start of the fight
From what I got on T.V. here, from a foreign expert : Hamas has gotten missiles with 3 different ranges in Gaza.
The first kind has been used a lot these last few years and their range is 10 km max.
The second range from 10 to 30 km and have seldom been used.
Lately they've gotten Iranian missiles with 100 km range or something, making them technically able to bomb Israel's capital Tel Aviv.
Israel have tolerated the use of the first two kind of missiles, having air strikes as the sole answer to them. But the use or probable use of the last kind of missiles would mean a terrestrial strike, which apparently is going to happen very soon.
That's for the technical aspect of it.
No matter what a disgusting person a Hamas military leader might be, bombing his car to murder him might be a good riddance for a few minutes, but all non violent Palestinian people are just going to grow more hatred for Israel and will be even more likely to become violent. That strategy can only work on very short term and is disastrous on the long term.
That, plus the logic of endless revenge on both sides make it look like the Israel vs Palestine conflict will never be solved.
first of all, the capital of israel is jerusalam and not tel aviv.
2nd,the first type you wrote is called qassam and it is indeed pretty much a worthless rockt(they make them at their homes).
the 2nd type is called grad,and in fact that is the most used one they have.
the 3rd on is called frag 3 or something like that,and most of it(reportedly)
has been bombed in the first air strikes.those have been the fear of the israeli goverment and public and it is indeed likely that they will be used.
and for the last thing you wrote,i have always said that in the current behaviors of both sides a peace agreement will never be reached.but who know, elections are coming up on both sides,maybe the next leaders will get along. |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 14-11-2012 20:53
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
acac wrote:
first of all, the capital of israel is jerusalam and not tel aviv.
Nope, only Israel and its blindest supporters claim that. Tel Aviv is recognised internationally as Israel's capital, not Jerusalem.
acac wrote:
but who know, elections are coming up on both sides,maybe the next leaders will get along.
If Hamas is likely to lose, I'm not sure their replacement will be any better for the perspectives of peace.
In Israel, the result is expected to be relatively close to what it is now, so...  |
| |
|
