10-29-2002, 09:30 AM | #31 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
[ 10-29-2002, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ] |
|
10-29-2002, 09:35 AM | #32 | |
Ninja Storm Shadow
Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 62
Posts: 3,577
|
Quote:
Don't say I didn't warn you people [/QUOTE]Davros, It been my experience in life the most close minded are the ones that complain about others being close minded. In a like manner the most arguementative are the ones that say to another "all you want to do is argue" while ignoring their own argueing. It takes at least two to disagree, how they handle the disagreement determinds weither or not the disagreement is an arguement.[/QUOTE][img]smile.gif[/img] Interesting points you raise JD, and I'll debate them with you if I may as I have always known you to listen and think on both sides of the discussion. A prime tenet of my proposal is that a clear correlation has been established, whereby it is the custom of one party to steadfastly take unalterable positions on numerous discussion topics. For confirmatory evidence I cite the following "because some times I do just stir the pot (yes I can admit it)". Before I get accused of quoting out of context, I am at pains to point out that whilst the above quote has been cut from a larger statement, the communicative purpose has not been altered, and it nevertheless openly confirms something of which many of us were aware. Our combative interlocutor, in the most basic on venacular, "enjoys a good stoush". I quite admire the first point you make - I'll even go so far as to wholeheartedly endorse it [img]smile.gif[/img] . The most close minded are the ones that complain about others being close minded. Of course, if I were to go back over the many and varied posts by our good friend on such topics as atheism, public health care, and (gasp) gun control - I am confident that you would often come across words like "your missing my point", "you have no idea what you are talking about", "you don't understand", "you're still not listening to me", ....... really, need I go on? Don't take my word for it though - set yourself the task of looking through those threads and seeing how often that theme comes through. Of course the big M wasn't the only one saying those sort of things - they come when either side fails to see the others' point - look for a consistent correlation though, and judge for yourself. Onwards then to your last statement - "It takes at least two to disagree, how they handle the disagreement determinds weither or not the disagreement is an arguement." First of all an apology [img]smile.gif[/img] for including your spelling mistakes in my quoting - I am however hoping to enrol in Father Bronze's Grammarian Brigade. I ask you this - how often have you known our good friend to be prepared to disagree? How many times have you seen him say "well I think we will have to agree to disagree on that". The mantra that he seems to live by is "my way or the highway". You may not see things from my perspective JD, and if you don't, then we will have to agree to disagree. Looking forward to your rebuttal though, and an open exchange of viewpoints on the topic [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Davros, Good post Thank you, I do try to see things for the other side (as best I can give human limitations) even if I don't agree the conclusions reached. I understand the feeling of going round and round on certain topics and with certain parties. Lord there's probibly quite a few that feel the same about me. I've dicovered there are people on the board that because of, political, phisophical, or even writing styles, I butt heads with. I'm not perfect at it, but I've tried, without being rude, to ignor their posts and prevent a posible clash. I see the problem with the spelling errors, you're using the Queen's English, I'm using the bastardized version "American Redneck" My conclusions on the subject of the middleast are fairly much in line with the historical stance MajiK stated. On a highly emotional subject like the Middleast I try to stay away form the feelings and emotions aspect of the disagreement, because by their very nature feelings and emotions are subjective. Is a Stoush anything like a Scrap?
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts |
|
10-29-2002, 09:52 AM | #33 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I neither hate Arabs nor do I love jews any more than I hate or love any other group. I suppose I am just a tad biased against Iraqi's, Libyans and Iranians since part of my personal life has been involved in hostilities with these nations. Im also miffed at Al-Queda, but they are a multi-national group so can't pin that on any group of people. Ahh well. Im glad you responded but hope you will actually read what I posted and not just skim over it. |
|
10-29-2002, 09:54 AM | #34 |
Symbol of Bane
Join Date: November 26, 2001
Location: Texas
Age: 75
Posts: 8,167
|
Unlike some people here, I have no problem with conquest of land by military force. If they can keep it, well and good. I had to laugh at your reply, MagiK, to the question of what would happen if the Israelis did drive every Palestinian out of their territories. Mine is simpler: nothing except some wailing in the leftist press, who are pacifist anyway, so there would be no action taken. The Arabs would be too cowed by the Israeli victory to do anything. But, they don't, which I think is damn moral of them.
|
10-29-2002, 09:57 AM | #35 | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Quote:
PS. can you spell S. A. R. C. A. S. M. ? |
||
10-29-2002, 10:03 AM | #36 | |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
Again - one last time - the action taken by Israel in 1967 was the annexing of land. They had originally taken much more, but then retreated to Golan Heights, Gaza, and West Bank, the occupied territories. Living there, controlling Palestinians there, acting as a sovereign there, and settling there is... let me say it once more only... ILLEGAL. Oh, hell let me drive it home: il·le·gal Pronunciation Key (-lgl) adj. Prohibited by law. Prohibited by official rules. Illegal under the UN Charter and many other treaties, though most all others get absorbed by the UN Charter, which I'm probably gonna end up posting here some day to get the class to pay attention. That's why they don't call it "New Israel." That's why they make excuses regarding these lands. Everyone knows it was illegal. It is tantamount to annexation. It is the conquest of land - whether or not behind a thin facade. Maybe you think it *should be* legal, like some people think [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img] should be legal, but it's not. What's worse, unlike the aforementioned drug law, this law applies to Israel for one reason only, the same one reason the UN Charter applies to any nation: THEY SIGNED AND AGREED TO IT. So, it's not just illegal, it's also the breaking of an oath, a bond. Would it be nice if Israel could keep the land as a "buffer zone?" Well, maybe, and they do. But, I'm sure Pakistan thinks Kashmir would make a great "buffer zone," but it doesn't mean they own it (of course in that situation at least the location of the border is in dispute, whereas with Israel it's all very clear). The peace between Egypt, the original 1967 instigator who was set invade, and Israel has worked out well, even though they *hate* each other. Maybe something like that perhaps. But, I see this as one of the world's everlasting conflicts. From the European world's point of view (and I include it's imperial offshoots of like mind, government, and economy), it's the story of the Crusades going on and on ad infinitum and ad nauseum. From the middle eastern point of view, it's more like the continuation into the modern day of the old testament stories of once-tribal peoples chasing each other all around the subcontinent and taking turns enslaving each other. Someone mentioned the Romans and that rowdy "Christ" cult. I'm not saying it was in reference to the relative age of Christianity vis-a-vis Muslinism, but if it was let's try to remember that Muslinism did come much later in time that Judaism, and in fact is a spin-off of Christianity. The point... erm, rather question, I'm getting around to here is one as to the religious vs. ethnic source of the fued. Isn't this fued so old and long-lasting due more to historically ethnic reasons rather than religious ones? I guess I'm not to up-to-speed on the birth of Muslinism, and maybe I should shut up now before I show my ignorance on that particular topic. |
|
10-29-2002, 10:05 AM | #37 | |
White Dragon
Join Date: October 19, 2001
Location: York, UK.
Age: 41
Posts: 1,815
|
Quote:
I think the question here is not: "Who are they to have the right to create a state for themselves?", but instead: "Who are you that you can deny the right of any peoples to a state?". But they are both pretty pertinent I suppose. Don't get me wrong, I am still firmly in the belief that the Palestinians have had a hell of a rough time of things over the years, and I would consider myself "on their side" quite definately. However, I don't think I can support the view that the Jews should give up the whole of Isreal. The Occupied territories - yes, the illegal settlements - yes, everything - no. And MagiK - the illegal settlements are the ones being created pretty much daily in Arab territory against the wish of the United Nations and causing the relocation and often death of hundreds of Palestinians. Not the same thing as the Occupied territories, as you seem to believe. They are isolated pockets in Palestinian territory that are heavily protected by the army - its a similar tactic as was used by the settlers of North America to take land off of the Indians. It goes a bit like this: 1. Make a peace treaty or agreement of some kind marking out who is allowed to live where and which bits of disputed land should be controlled by whom. 2. Make no effort whatsoever to enforce this on your side. I.e. let people attempt to settle land not technically part of the state. 3. The enemy attack these people as they are on their land and trying to evict people from it. 4. Send in a whopping great army and pummel the enemy in the area concerned into submission. Self defence is the justification - you have to defend your citizens. 5. After killing lots of people make a new peace treaty, however this one considers the land previously owned by your enemy that the settlers invaded as either disputed or simply yours. The enemy aren't in position to argue as they have been slaughtered. 6. Repeat from step 1 until all opposition is futile. Its effective, thats precisely my problem with it. Its also illegal, which I'm not too keen on either. [ 10-29-2002, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]
__________________
[img]\"http://img1.ranchoweb.com/images/sproutman/certwist.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br /><i>\"And the angels all pallid and wan,<br />Uprising, unveiling, affirm,<br />That the play is the tragedy, man,<br />And its hero the Conquerer Worm.\"</i><br /> - Edgar Allan Poe |
|
10-29-2002, 10:16 AM | #38 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Don't say I didn't warn you people [/qb][/QUOTE]Davros, It been my experience in life the most close minded are the ones that complain about others being close minded. In a like manner the most arguementative are the ones that say to another "all you want to do is argue" while ignoring their own argueing. It takes at least two to disagree, how they handle the disagreement determinds weither or not the disagreement is an arguement.[/qb][/QUOTE] [img]smile.gif[/img] Interesting points you raise JD, and I'll debate them with you if I may as I have always known you to listen and think on both sides of the discussion. A prime tenet of my proposal is that a clear correlation has been established, whereby it is the custom of one party to steadfastly take unalterable positions on numerous discussion topics. For confirmatory evidence I cite the following "because some times I do just stir the pot (yes I can admit it)". Before I get accused of quoting out of context, I am at pains to point out that whilst the above quote has been cut from a larger statement, the communicative purpose has not been altered, and it nevertheless openly confirms something of which many of us were aware. Our combative interlocutor, in the most basic on venacular, "enjoys a good stoush". I quite admire the first point you make - I'll even go so far as to wholeheartedly endorse it [img]smile.gif[/img] . The most close minded are the ones that complain about others being close minded. Of course, if I were to go back over the many and varied posts by our good friend on such topics as atheism, public health care, and (gasp) gun control - I am confident that you would often come across words like "your missing my point", "you have no idea what you are talking about", "you don't understand", "you're still not listening to me", ....... really, need I go on? Don't take my word for it though - set yourself the task of looking through those threads and seeing how often that theme comes through. Of course the big M wasn't the only one saying those sort of things - they come when either side fails to see the others' point - look for a consistent correlation though, and judge for yourself. Onwards then to your last statement - "It takes at least two to disagree, how they handle the disagreement determinds weither or not the disagreement is an arguement." First of all an apology [img]smile.gif[/img] for including your spelling mistakes in my quoting - I am however hoping to enrol in Father Bronze's Grammarian Brigade. I ask you this - how often have you known our good friend to be prepared to disagree? How many times have you seen him say "well I think we will have to agree to disagree on that". The mantra that he seems to live by is "my way or the highway". You may not see things from my perspective JD, and if you don't, then we will have to agree to disagree. Looking forward to your rebuttal though, and an open exchange of viewpoints on the topic [img]smile.gif[/img] [/qb][/QUOTE] [img]smile.gif[/img] I would love to meet you in real life and have a most wonderful debate with you [img]smile.gif[/img] I would ask though that you take your critique of me, my posting styles (or lack of) to your own thread. This is not what this thread is for. Take also your objection for my points of view and the fact that I actually try to communicate with people who make it necessary for me to write the phrases you so goshly have taken out of context. Please feel free to talk behind my back so to speak and criticize me with all your little friends but really I must protest if you continue public personal attacks I will have to report a TOS violation. [ 10-29-2002, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ] |
|
10-29-2002, 10:22 AM | #39 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
10-29-2002, 10:46 AM | #40 | |
Anubis
Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: Up in the Freedomland Alps
Age: 59
Posts: 2,474
|
Quote:
__________________
[img]\"http://grumble.free.fr/img/romuald.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br />The missing link between ape and man is us. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|