Quake3World

yeah i get your point. Well, at least the palestinians voted unanimously on the recent elections, didnt they.

Maybe, but It's going to take a lot more than that. The political battle between the PA and HAMAS combined with the occasional petty tit-for-tat suicide attacks that the world is sick of hearing about pretty much proves they are not as unified as they need to be. Of course, if HAMAS can do what the PA couldn't--ignite popular, united support--without resorting to it's old tactics of sending boys strapped with bombs to target civilians, then the situation might turn around. Since HAMAS has shown its capacity for violence, it would be bloodier and more proactive than the PA could have ever done. Israel should have bartered a peace deal when HAMAS was just a radical "terrorist" organization and not a popular political power. The fact that HAMAS continually tried to derail peace negotiations while fostering public political support suggests to me that they are power hungry and out for themselves, not the best interests of the people they're responsible for.

Dave wrote: If the fight is unfair, it's because the Palestinians lack the unity that was key to the final decolonization of Vietnam and victory against Apartheid.

don't forget the billions of US annual aid to israel...

also - kinda hard to unite when you live in the conditions the palestinians live in. Many people talk about how they're an angry divided people, but are blissfully unaware of what life is actually like for them.

I also believe that for peace to emerge, a sincere apology or at least public admission of guilt must be put forth by israel for basically coming in and kicking people out of their own land and homes.

Aye, but I am aware. I've heard the stories of losing livelihoods, living in border refugee camps, feeling the shame of having to work in a factory in Israel, the list goes on...

You're right, the peace process needs Israel to be a willing party, but groups like HAMAS haven't exactly helped foster that willingness. Now that it group in a position of legitimate power (whatever that is) it will be interesting to see how they make the transition from mafia-like protectors to mainstream government.

Oh and that 'billions of dollars' is irrelevant. I've never been a firm believer in throwing money at a problem. Solutions to problems more often than not rely on commitment, ingenuity and desire, not purchasing power. Money is an aid, of course, but it's not the deciding factor.

Dave wrote:
You're right, the peace process needs Israel to be a willing party, but groups like HAMAS haven't exactly helped foster that willingness. Now that it group in a position of legitimate power (whatever that is) it will be interesting to see how they make the transition from mafia-like protectors to mainstream government.

yea it will be interesting to see if this will inspire Hamas to evolve into a relatively peaceful entity.

Oh and that 'billions of dollars' is irrelevant. I've never been a firm believer in throwing money at a problem. Solutions to problems more often than not rely on commitment, ingenuity and desire, not purchasing power. Money is an aid, of course, but it's not the deciding factor.

what i meant is that you can't ignore the billions of dollars that make it a very unfair fight...

True, you can't ignore the money, but you also have to be aware that there is almost no such thing as a 'fair fight' when war and politics are involved.

there should also be some consideration of money from Russia and the EU and Iran/ other close Arab neighbours to the palestenians, also Israeli and USA monies to them (although these last 2 were probably protected from weapons spending).

Dave wrote:

lebomb wrote:Im glad you mention North Vietnam. They beat the US silly in that invasion they did a few years ago, tet style. And the americans still dont learn, still invading countries. Its sad.

No shit retard, that's why I brought it up. The fact that they beat the US is irrelevant in the context of this discussion. The fact that a powerful foe can be beaten is relevant, which you seem to have just ignored.

Newsflash: War is not fair. Show me a fair war and I'll show you a stalemate. It was called the Cold War, perhaps you remember it.

Gimme a break Daev, the NVA didn't beat us, we beat ourselves.

Nightshade wrote:

Dave wrote:

lebomb wrote:Im glad you mention North Vietnam. They beat the US silly in that invasion they did a few years ago, tet style. And the americans still dont learn, still invading countries. Its sad.

No shit retard, that's why I brought it up. The fact that they beat the US is irrelevant in the context of this discussion. The fact that a powerful foe can be beaten is relevant, which you seem to have just ignored.

Newsflash: War is not fair. Show me a fair war and I'll show you a stalemate. It was called the Cold War, perhaps you remember it.

Gimme a break Daev, the NVA didn't beat us, we beat ourselves.

Is it any different? One society was fragmented and the other stayed together... I know I don't have to remind you how long the war lasted.

its so fucking obvious these cartoons were planted by cia or whoever...its part of the pysch ops of planting bs in foreign papers...especially since they have been reprinted over and over...this covert shit is getting out of control and will prolly backfire...been working pretty good so far...that billionaire killed in lebonon was obviously cia, most of the beheadings and ied's in iraq are cia....fake reporters and news...etc etc...

Nightshade wrote:Comparison for what? What the hell's your point? I mention the Taliban and you start talking about the origins of the US. How is old American assholery relevant to this conversation?

My point's fairly clear: as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the US is run by a bunch of religious fanatics too - it's just that at this point in history, your bunch of religious fanatics are winning.

BTW, those cartoons were fucking offensive. While there's political capital being made off it, that newspaper should be ashamed of itself. It pretty much comes under the heading of inciting racial hatred, which is an exception to the free speech laws at least in this country.

You're missing the point, which is that they're setting fire to things etc. because it's the only way they ever get to express any political opinion in those countries.

I really don't see why those cartoons are more offensive than any other religious cartoon depicting, for example, the pope or jesus. *shrug*

What if someone posted a cartoon of a donkey wiping its ass with the american flag? That would be freedom of speech too right? Or an oil pumping machine up george w bush's ass? Offensive but protected by the 1st amendment right?

r3t wrote:I really don't see why those cartoons are more offensive than any other religious cartoon depicting, for example, the pope or jesus. *shrug*

because there's nothing in the christian religion that specifically forbids it.

having said that, been talking to a muslim colleague about it and he said pretty much the same as the akond i spoke to ages ago - that it could be argued that the rules are really for muslims and non-muslim subjects in muslim countries.

r3t wrote:I really don't see why those cartoons are more offensive than any other religious cartoon depicting, for example, the pope or jesus. *shrug*

wow...ignorance is bliss for this moron...

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=3565

lol...

Geebs wrote:

Nightshade wrote:Comparison for what? What the hell's your point? I mention the Taliban and you start talking about the origins of the US. How is old American assholery relevant to this conversation?

My point's fairly clear: as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the US is run by a bunch of religious fanatics too - it's just that at this point in history, your bunch of religious fanatics are winning.

BTW, those cartoons were fucking offensive. While there's political capital being made off it, that newspaper should be ashamed of itself. It pretty much comes under the heading of inciting racial hatred, which is an exception to the free speech laws at least in this country.

You're missing the point, which is that they're setting fire to things etc. because it's the only way they ever get to express any political opinion in those countries.

Ok, your point wasn't very clear in your initial post. I haven't seen the cartoons, but I don't give a shit if they were offensive. There's a fine line between political correctness and 'inciting hatred', and muslim isn't a race. It's not just these cartoons, it's been numerous other instances as well. Recall the Miss Universe pageant in Africa a couple years back?
And I cry horseshit regarding your claim that setting fire to things is the only form of political protest they have. What's wrong with demonstrations?

I'm pretty sure that whenever groups try to "demonstrate" in middle-eastern countries they are met with violence. Hence when they go out to demonstrate the do so violently in order to counteract the force trying to disperse them.

tnf wrote:

R00k wrote:Yea as far as the story and the monotheism, Islam is probably more believeable than christianity due to the fact that it doesn't require belief in a magic man walking around on earth, turning water into wine, healing people and rising from the dead.

However it still hinges on the whole man-in-the-sky bit.

No just on his prophet mohammed. You aren't seriously trying to rationalize which "faith" is more believable based on the story they espouse are you?

Only in relative terms - they're all pretty unbelievable to me.

I'm only talking about believing in the literal sense here though. The fundamentalist style.

Memphis wrote:

R00k wrote:Of course my driveway was private property so I could have kicked him off it, but that's beside the point.

I'll piss if he cursed your driveway

Oh shit. I better wash it down with some garlic, heartsbane and ether tonight when I get home.

r3t wrote:I really don't see why those cartoons are more offensive than any other religious cartoon depicting, for example, the pope or jesus. *shrug*

What, implying that all muslims are terrorists and putting devil horns on the prophet isn't offensive? I've not recently seen any cartoons depicting Jesus anally raping a baby, so I cry double standards here

Get real. Are you going to tell me that I'm implying that all muslims are terrorists if I draw a cartoon of a muslim wearing a bomb vest?
Why must it be that a cartoon lampooning muslim fundamentalist extremists has to be aimed at all muslims?

Geebs wrote:

r3t wrote:I really don't see why those cartoons are more offensive than any other religious cartoon depicting, for example, the pope or jesus. *shrug*

What, implying that all muslims are terrorists and putting devil horns on the prophet isn't offensive? I've not recently seen any cartoons depicting Jesus anally raping a baby, so I cry double standards here

Maybe the fact that I don't give a fuck about religion has something to do with it, but I've seen enough cartoons depicting Americans as war mongering destroyers of peace and can't remember seeing anyone trying to bomb Dutch news paper offices.