I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Gorilla Mask

Extreme Humor

Oddee

Free Samples

123 Games

FreeGame Heaven

Viva La Games

Funny Games

DailyFreeGames

Fresh Pics

Funny Stuff

Gig Posters

Funny Videos



Back to Listing

Some Truth About The Israeli Attack

Hits: 5831 | Rating: (3.1) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: NNoamfer
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Monday, November 19, 2012 1:54:30 AM
Damn, 5Rats, I was trying to get off this subject, but you just had to spout more crap, didn't you?

#1 Only a small portion of the land is "disputed" (the West Bank) and that is just by the Israelis themselves. The UN, the EU, the ICoJ all consider it to be OCCUPIED territory. Even the Israeli High Court of Justice says the West Bank is held under "belligerent occupation."

#2 Who invaded Israel in 1967? Citations please! We all know the 6-Day War was a PREEMPTIVE war, those lands were not 'Liberated'. What a crock!

#3 Oslo I or Oslo II? And please cite your source for that 90%+ claim. We all know that is one of those "pulled from your ass" statistics. The Oslo accords were destined for failure from the start. Though the initial agreements made by both sides were encouraging, the deal depended on a gradual buildup of trust, but there were no mechanisms for arbitration or correction of disputes. Both sides broke their promises.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 26626 Posts
Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:22:16 PM
and land acquired through peaceful negotiation and democratic process (the UN).

And again @chalket, I point out that the PLO Refused the peaceful deal & continued it's WAR on Israel.
Israel SIGNED and passed Oslo! All the PLO had to do was stop attacking! Now it doesn't matter since the other side refused, it no longer applies to Israel, eh?

I used to LAUGH when "pro-PLO-nicks" used to accuse the IDF of "violation of the Oslo Accord".
MSM reporters, the CBC, local peace-activists, lefites of various stripes...

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 26626 Posts
Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:09:52 PM
Every bit of land is accounted for and (ostensibly) owned and controlled by one internationally-recognized country or another.

@chalket: This is true! I say this ALL the time! It is vital to understand this in the I/P conflict.
And that was true in 1967 when Israel appropriated all that extra territory.

This is FALSE: Here's why:
#1 The land is "disputed" not "occupied". There's a HUGE legal difference! Get the terms right!
#2 Israel was INVADED in 1967, those lands were captured by ARABS and then 'Liberated' by Israel! Again it's a world of difference!
#3 The Oslo accord GAVE Palestinians 90%+ of everything they wanted, on a silver platter! They refused it (since it didn't include the destruction of Israel...)

They have no one to blame but themselves. Or other Arabs/Muslims...

OutWest
Male, 50-59, Western US
 548 Posts
Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:30:32 AM
LOL... He is very fair and balanced.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 1:47:02 PM
@chalket

Ah, wonderful. I accept your admission of defeat. I know I've critized the contents of your message relentlessly, however, I must give you credit for how often you said it. Your twisted view of reality is a delight to pull apart.

I admit I did laugh out loud at your "clearly outmatched" bravado though!

Wonderful; I was concerned that you had begun to take it poorly. Not you though @chalket! You certainly took this beating like a champ.

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 1:39:13 PM
Wow, as I said before, I give you props for your ability to twist words and logic. Well done! I will no longer argue with your twisted preconceptions, since you fail to concede even the simplest of concepts. I give in to the shear weight of your piles of bullpoo. Your ideas of morality are warped at best, so enjoy your laughter however you choose to justify your fallacies. Good day and good bye, this discussion is over. (I admit I did laugh out loud at your "clearly outmatched" bravado though!)

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 1:36:28 PM
Give up old man! Not only do I think faster than you, but I type faster as well!

Or carry on. I can use the fun; it isn't often I get to argue with someone so intellectually... lacking.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 1:34:27 PM
In this day and age there is an international community that is supposed to supersede any one country's power

Ah, and this is working out how then? I suppose everyone in the UN was cool with invading Iraq, you know, since it happened anyways? Simply because you want something to be true does not make it so. Then again, you are of that mentality apparently.

That's why they have the power to force the payment you've already committed to.

Potentially with violence, yes? Ah, so it is the forceful, and potentially violent taking of capital from one person by a country. So again, you have proven my point.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 1:31:47 PM
There is a difference between land acquired at gunpoint and land acquired through peaceful negotiation and democratic process (the UN).

Absolutely. However, the land has still been acquired regardless (this eludes you for some reason...). In addition, how Democratic and peaceful was the forceful taking of land?

Here, let's use the logic from your analogy earlier. So, it's wrong if I beat you up and steal your house. However, if I hold a conference with the town and everyone (except you) agrees that it should be my house, then you are OK with this? This is cool by you, eh? Force is force regardless of how it is applied.

but that doesn't mean they don't have the same moral obligations

I never once said they do. Again, you're incorrectly extrapolating. I said that any governments ONLY responsibility is to protect the rights of its constituents.

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 1:29:06 PM
I am saying that a country has only the responsibility to look out for it's constituents.


Again, you are wrong. In this day and age there is an international community that is supposed to supersede any one country's power, an organization entrusted to intercede on behalf of the less powerful. I know you don't accept the UN and that it rarely works as it should, but the world powers at one time agreed that their unfettered power was dangerous to the world and thus there should be a means of reining in those powers.

If you do not pay your taxes, what is the result?


But the fact remains that you (or your elected representatives) agreed to pay it. That's why they have the power to force the payment you've already committed to.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 1:27:28 PM
@chalket

Wow, so much to correct...

Well c'mon now, get to you. Don't let me stop you. Oh, that's right... you don't really have anything. Good talk.

Actually, my reply to your "zero chance of recovering it etc." was "That seems to me exactly what the Palestinians have been trying to do, in their limited, underfunded way. etc"

Interesting that, of all of my five posts full of rebuttals, this pertains to none. Either way, I am all too happy to take you to task on this as well.

Follow closely. You are arguing a moral stance. You suggest that, well there were international laws for Israel... so there! My argument is literal. In 1967, who TOOK the land? Israel did; Israel took the land. Since Israel TOOK the land, who then HAD the land? It's Israel. Great, so Israel was the owner.

Let me ask you this, does it suck being wrong all the time?

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 1:19:36 PM
a large powerful force (the UN), forcefully taking a redistributing land...


There is a difference between land acquired at gunpoint and land acquired through peaceful negotiation and democratic process (the UN). Why does that keep escaping you? WWII was just the tipping point, the causation is not nearly that simplistic.

Countries obviously have more power than individuals, but that doesn't mean they don't have the same moral obligations. Just because they CAN do something doesn't mean they should. As I have said before, there are international standards of what countries should and should not do. Israel broke those rules (with no consequence) and have been oppressing the occupied people ever since. Somehow to you that is okay, because it is a nation doing it to individuals. I can't agree with that logic.

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 1:11:02 PM
@HumanAction
Wow, so much to correct...
Actually, my reply to your "zero chance of recovering it etc." was "That seems to me exactly what the Palestinians have been trying to do, in their limited, underfunded way. etc"

You say there is no longer a question about the current owner. You are wrong. Yes, the U.S. government now "owns this land." At the time it was stolen from the natives, there was no accepted international ban on stealing land. In 1967, when Israel stole the Palestinian territory, there were common laws and bans on that very practice. The two are not equatable in the least.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 10:00:51 AM
Hey guys, what did I miss?

Well, I've been spanking @chalket for the last day or so. It's been good for a few laughs.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5745 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 8:53:09 AM
Hey guys, what did I miss?

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13604 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 7:41:33 AM


HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 6:31:02 AM
@chalket

At this point, I think you should consider giving up. You are clearly outmatched and I am concerned that your pride and/or feelings may end up being hurt.

Afterall, no man twice the elder of his opponent feels good about such a trashing as this.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 6:27:46 AM
[quote">I still say you were "somewhat correct"[/quote">
... and you're still wrong. Here is your list of countries: Source

Do you suppose the dissolution of the USSR was nonviolent? (Answer: Yes you do suppose this, incorrectly).

Israel was birthed from violence. It was a violent act that gave sympathy to them, and it was a violent redisribution of land.

Now, the original Czechoslovakia was born from the post-WWI dissolution of Austria-Hungary. A Soviet takeover occurred post-WWII and it became the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. How is this non-violent? Without these acts of violence, would the most recent "peaceful" division have occurred? (Nope...)

Why did East Timor declare independence? Porteguese occupation and violence.

Lastly, please refer to my words. I did, in fact, say ALMOST every coun

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 6:14:25 AM
Are you really saying if an individual steals from another it is morally bad, but if a country steals from another country it is morally good?

What an illogical conclusion (and a false dichotomy). I am saying that a country has only the responsibility to look out for it's constituents. I did not say it was morally correct. Please find that section in my wording and post it so I can show you that you are being foolish.

In my opinion, YOUR logic is poor.

Well, we are all entitled to our opinions - just not our own facts.

The country doesn't take our money, we give it freely (if grudgingly).

This is known as willful ignorance. If you do not pay your taxes, what is the result? Ah yes, they are either FORECFULLY taken or you go to jail. Yes, your logic is marvelous.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 6:10:09 AM
And that was true in 1967 when Israel appropriated all that extra territory.

So you are suggesting that, a large powerful force (the UN), forcefully taking a redistributing land, isn't a forceful act? Also, can you please describe what event triggered sympathy for the Jewish? Was that event (Hint: WWII) forceful?

that the rules are different for a country than for an individual

Are you denying this? Countries can create legislation that affects the entire constituency. Can you? (The answer is no). So what have we learned then? Ah, yes, countries play by different rules than individuals. So again, I'm correct.

No, I was trying a simple analogy to show you how silly your comment was.

You missed a word. It was a simple FALLACIOUS analogy. Your analogy suffered from the fallacy of division, hence, it was silly.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 6:02:37 AM
@chalket

You started this off by calling me naive to think that one country stealing land from another seems cruel

Once again, you are wrong. You attacked one of my claims (that was to FoolsPrussia). Hence, YOU started this. Your original attack was over this:

I would certainly fight back. However, if they have taken an occupied that land and I have zero chance of recovering it, then I would not march around insisting that it is my land.

Somehow, from this, you extrapolated a moral stance on the issue, even though I stated this earlier:

It's fine to debate whether or not it was just or moral to take the land in the first place, but there is no longer any question about the current owner. Just as the US government owns this land, Israel owns that land.

inversegrav
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 773 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 3:47:17 AM
this asshats first comment was enough for me.:
disproportionate attacks??????????

You try to murder me and if I return the favor I am not allowed to actually do it?

Rot in hell

Vimto
Male, 40-49, Europe
 2676 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 3:38:55 AM
You don't eat pigs,
We don't eat pigs,
It seems it's been that way forever

So if you don't eat pigs,
And we don't eat pigs,
Why not, not eat pigs together?

avail9988
Male, 18-29, Australia
 678 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 2:19:53 AM
fcuk them both.

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2481 Posts
Friday, November 16, 2012 1:53:10 AM
"The country can (and does) take our money to provide healthcare for others."


In my opinion, YOUR logic is poor. The country doesn't take our money, we give it freely (if grudgingly). We, as a society, have agreed (through our elected representatives) that the government deserves a certain amount of our money to provide a variety of services and benefits. You may not like paying it, but that is the system which WE have created and agreed to, it is not stolen and therefore not analogous to someone stealing your wallet.

"I am entirely correct."

You said "Almost every country was formed this way." I still say you were "somewhat correct" since many countries have been formed peacefully; via treaty (as in Israel), division (the Czech Republic and Slovakia), negotiation (East Timor), or dissolution (the old Soviet Union became 15 new countries). Sorry, but that is far from "entirely correct."

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.