|
[Add 'IMO' to the end of any sentence that starts with a capital letter.]
It's a cycle. Blaming it all on any one factor, including religion, is just an attempt to put a label on something that's not so easily defined. It's completely understandable that a child who'se lost a parent or sibling (or multiple family members) might grow up to fear and hate the people responsible, and that applies to Israeli and Palestinian children. For many, it's a revenge-killing Hatfield/McCoy conflict writ large.
According to the Bible, people in that region have been mandated by God to destroy each other for many thousands of years, with specific instructions to deal with shortages in their population by seeking out members of their same faith of different tribes and killing all their men, married women and male children, and kidnapping all their unmarried women to take as wives. This wasn't even 'accepted,' it was *mandated* for the tribes to kill each other off and steal each others women to rape and carry home.
From these humble beginnings, we have the same stock that have become both sides in the current conflict.
They still solve problems by killing people, and entire generations have grown up being victimized and terrorized by others, externalizing their fear into persecution and violence against anyone they consider a threat. Any leader on either side who stands up and says, 'Can we at least act like human beings and stop killing each other?' gets shot by extremists of his own people, who profit from a climate of fear and insecurity.
Sixty years ago, a people were herded into concentration camps and ghettos and forced to live and die in terror and uncertainty. Today, it's a different brown-skinned semetic people who are trapped in a cycle of terror and uncertainty, herded into ghettos and walled off from the world (while their jailors are trapped in a prison of fear, of their own making, no less victims than those they have ghettoized).
Nothing has changed, really. Just different uniforms on the camp guards. It wouldn't be any better if the Palestinian were in charge either, because, while the Palestinians tend to be fairly decent people, their 'cause' is a rallying cry across the Arab world, and hot-tempered foreign fighters who have zero investment in peace crom from all over the Middle East to make things worse and break any attempts at truce or cease-fire that are attempted. They think they come to 'save' the Palestinians from Israeli 'persecution,' but all they do is make things worse. The worst enemies the Palestinians have come from Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. to 'save them from the oppressors' by waging war on their soil.
To the average Palestinian mother, the jihadists are about as welcome as US and Soviet forces were welcome to the average Vietnamese mother. Yet more foreigners come to fight their wars by proxy on another persons land, turning their lives into hell over some political rubbish that means nothing to someone trying to protect and feed their family (and instead gets to watch them get shot to death). It's not even a rare thing. The average Kashimiri probably wouldn't shed any crocodile tears if India and Pakistan fell off the face of the earth and stopped fighting to 'save them.'
|
. . . one side shoots bottle rockets . . .
A Qassam rocket, the weapon of Hamas, contains from .5 kg (for the Qassam 1) to 10 kg (for the Qassam 3) of explosives.
15 people have been killed by them since their introduction in 2001.That you would describe them in such a way demonstrates either willful ignorance, willful deception, callous inhumanity towards the victims of this terror weapon, or some combination of those three.
|
|
[Add 'IMO' to the end of any sentence that starts with a capital letter.]
As long as you say "with all due respect" it does not matter what you say?
According to the Bible, people in that region have been mandated by God to destroy each other for many thousands of years, with specific instructions to deal with shortages in their population by seeking out members of their same faith of different tribes and killing all their men, married women and male children, and kidnapping all their unmarried women to take as wives. This wasn't even 'accepted,' it was *mandated* for the tribes to kill each other off and steal each others women to rape and carry home.
Really?
Do please cite the chapter and verse of that particular instruction if you can.Sixty years ago, a people were herded into concentration camps and ghettos and forced to live and die in terror and uncertainty. Today, it's a different brown-skinned semetic people who are trapped in a cycle of terror and uncertainty, herded into ghettos and walled off from the world (while their jailors are trapped in a prison of fear, of their own making, no less victims than those they have ghettoized).
What ghettos?
What herding?What walling off from the world?
The Palestinians could have a country if they wished. Calling it a ghetto is an insult to their self-determination.
The Arabs expelled Jews within their borders following the 1948 War. If such "herding" is so offensive to them, why do they engage in it?
The walls between Israel and the Palestinian territories separate those countries. Palestinians still have access to Jordan and Egypt. If, as with the case with Egypt, those countries also have sufficient issues with the Palestinians to build walls to control travel, such should be taken up with those countries.
The worst enemies the Palestinians have come from Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. to 'save them from the oppressors' by waging war on their soil.
You forgot to note the Egyptians and Jordanians dividing and annexing their country between 1948 and 1967.
To the average Palestinian mother, the jihadists are about as welcome as US and Soviet forces were welcome to the average Vietnamese mother.
Which of course is why they did not vote for Hamas in the last election.
Oh wait, they did.
|
As long as you say "with all due respect" it does not matter what you say?HhHAhHAhahAha!
With all due respect, George Bush was the stupidest president in American history and everyone who voted for him is a slack jawed inbreeding mouth breather IMO.
How was that?
With all due respect, I agree with you 100% IMO.
|
|
. . . one side shoots bottle rockets . . .A Qassam rocket, the weapon of Hamas, contains from .5 kg (for the Qassam 1) to 10 kg (for the Qassam 3) of explosives.
15 people have been killed by them since their introduction in 2001.That you would describe them in such a way demonstrates either willful ignorance, willful deception, callous inhumanity towards the victims of this terror weapon, or some combination of those three.
Wait... 15 deaths in 8 years?
By way of comparison, the Consumer Product Safety Commision reports 26 fireworks-related deaths in the US between 2001 and 2005 (5 years). So I guess the comparison doesn't seem that ludicrous to me.
SOURCE: http://www.cpsc.gov/library/2005fwreport.pdf
With all due respect, I agree with you 100% IMO.As long as you say "with all due respect" it does not matter what you say?HhHAhHAhahAha!
With all due respect, George Bush was the stupidest president in American history and everyone who voted for him is a slack jawed inbreeding mouth breather IMO.
How was that?
With all due respect, that was about the most ignorant statement that I've seen on these boards.
|
|
With all due respect, that was about the most ignorant statement that I've seen on these boards.With all due respect, I agree with you 100% IMO.As long as you say "with all due respect" it does not matter what you say?HhHAhHAhahAha!
With all due respect, George Bush was the stupidest president in American history and everyone who voted for him is a slack jawed inbreeding mouth breather IMO.
How was that?
Which statement? The one about "with all due respect", the one about George Bush, or the one about agreeing 100%?
With all due respect, I agree with you 100% IMO.As long as you say "with all due respect" it does not matter what you say?HhHAhHAhahAha!
With all due respect, George Bush was the stupidest president in American history and everyone who voted for him is a slack jawed inbreeding mouth breather IMO.
How was that?
Haha I deleted it but you caught me!
Which statement? The one about "with all due respect", the one about George Bush, or the one about agreeing 100%?With all due respect, that was about the most ignorant statement that I've seen on these boards.With all due respect, I agree with you 100% IMO.As long as you say "with all due respect" it does not matter what you say?HhHAhHAhahAha!
With all due respect, George Bush was the stupidest president in American history and everyone who voted for him is a slack jawed inbreeding mouth breather IMO.
How was that?
Bush
. . . one side shoots bottle rockets . . .A Qassam rocket, the weapon of Hamas, contains from .5 kg (for the Qassam 1) to 10 kg (for the Qassam 3) of explosives.
15 people have been killed by them since their introduction in 2001.That you would describe them in such a way demonstrates either willful ignorance, willful deception, callous inhumanity towards the victims of this terror weapon, or some combination of those three.
No, I deliberately used that term to put them into context against the weapons that America has manufactured and Israel has deployed. I am not callous and I am not inhuman, despite what you perceive.
I could just as easily call you callous and willfully ignorant, as you continue to turn a blind eye to the civilian casualties in Palestine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With all due respect, that was about the most ignorant statement that I've seen on these boards.
Well aside from the fact that it was a joke that was deleted immediately because it WAS inflammatory... There are far more ignorant things in the archives, dude.
For the record Garydee, a lot of people I love and respect voted for Dubya, but if you want to get all crazy about a deleted post I can't stop you.
How about dropping some artillery on a UN school...
With all due respect, that was about the most ignorant statement that I've seen on these boards.Well aside from the fact that it was a joke that was deleted immediately because it WAS inflammatory... There are far more ignorant things in the archives, dude.
For the record Garydee, a lot of people I love and respect voted for Dubya, but if you want to get all crazy about a deleted post I can't stop you.
If it was a joke it was in very bad taste. I do not like Obama in the least and I would never make a joke like that about his voters. However, I do appreciate the deletion. Thank you.
|
|
If it was a joke it was in very bad taste. I do not like Obama in the least and I would never make a joke like that about his voters. However, I do appreciate the deletion. Thank you.With all due respect, that was about the most ignorant statement that I've seen on these boards.Well aside from the fact that it was a joke that was deleted immediately because it WAS inflammatory... There are far more ignorant things in the archives, dude.
For the record Garydee, a lot of people I love and respect voted for Dubya, but if you want to get all crazy about a deleted post I can't stop you.
Sorry for perpetuating the inflammatory bad joke.
|
|
No, I deliberately used that term to put them into context against the weapons that America has manufactured and Israel has deployed. I am not callous and I am not inhuman, despite what you perceive.
And yet people die from what you call "bottle rockets".
And yet people suffer from post traumatic stress disorder from what you call "bottle rockets".And yet people have their homes and livelihood destroyed by what you call "bottle rockts".
Where is your context in that?
I could just as easily call you callous and willfully ignorant, as you continue to turn a blind eye to the civilian casualties in Palestine.
Could you?
Really?Do please quote that for me.
I will help you:
It is indeed a horrific war crime that Hamas continues to use human shields in Gaza, as well as commits perfidy by concealing its fighters in civilian clothes.
It is equally horrific and criminal that the UN plays along with Hamas, refusing to condemn them and their attacks, and failing to properly protect civilians they take under their protection from infiltration by Hamas fighters, as well as keeping Hamas fighters from launching attacks near UN facilities, both of which invite and permit response from Israel, causing civilian casualties which are the responsibility of Hamas and the UN to try and prevent.
Holding the people truly responsible, both morally and legally, for the civilian casualties in Gaza is not turning a "blind eye" to them, despite what you perceive and assert.
|
|
Haha I deleted it but you caught me!
You did, but for those who do not watch Will Ferrell movies:
That turn of phrase comes from the movie Talledega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.
The context was him calling his sponsor an idiot and worse while using that disclaimer, and asserting that its use meant whatever he said could not be construed as insulting under any circumstances.
|
|
Wait... 15 deaths in 8 years?
By way of comparison, the Consumer Product Safety Commision reports 26 fireworks-related deaths in the US between 2001 and 2005 (5 years). So I guess the comparison doesn't seem that ludicrous to me.
SOURCE: http://www.cpsc.gov/library/2005fwreport.pdf
Do you need to add in the injuries, the psychological after-effects, and the property damage to take it seriously?
How many deaths would be enough for you to invalidate it?
Sorry for perpetuating the inflammatory bad joke.If it was a joke it was in very bad taste. I do not like Obama in the least and I would never make a joke like that about his voters. However, I do appreciate the deletion. Thank you.With all due respect, that was about the most ignorant statement that I've seen on these boards.Well aside from the fact that it was a joke that was deleted immediately because it WAS inflammatory... There are far more ignorant things in the archives, dude.
For the record Garydee, a lot of people I love and respect voted for Dubya, but if you want to get all crazy about a deleted post I can't stop you.
I should be the one that apologizes. I shouldn't blow my stack like that.
If it was a joke it was in very bad taste. I do not like Obama in the least and I would never make a joke like that about his voters. However, I do appreciate the deletion. Thank you.
"If it was a joke"?
Garydee, the reason I posted it was because I wholeheartedly agree (God forbid) with Sam's point that couching your posts in qualifications like "IMO" and "With all due respect" doesn't excuse anything.
As usual I pushed it right to the wall with something that was CLEARLY not serious. Hey, yes I hate Bush so I picked on him. But I'm sure scarcely any Bush voters have inbred and only a small minority are mouth breathers - so if anyone takes that seriously they're having a little trouble seeing that the joke is aimed at Dubya. So how about this: with all due respect, Obama voters are just a bunch of terrorist loving jello spined commies.
Whatever.
Reading over my rather tired jab at (possibly) America's worst president ever, I predicted that the irony-blind among my republican brethren would take it seriously and get REALLY offended, as you have demonstrated, so I deleted it.
And for the record, I specialize in bad taste.
I think it has gotten to the point where this thread just needs to die.
Please? No more!
Cool. I'm sorry, Garydee. My uncle and a really close friend voted for Bush and they both stand by their decision AND yet still regret it. What has happened in American in the last 8 years can't be boiled down. It was emotional, it was messed up on all sides, and here's to something better coming along, whatever it may be.
Haha I deleted it but you caught me!You did, but for those who do not watch Will Ferrell movies:
That turn of phrase comes from the movie Talledega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.
The context was him calling his sponsor an idiot and worse while using that disclaimer, and asserting that its use meant whatever he said could not be construed as insulting under any circumstances.
Never seen the movie. Understood the point.
"Us and Them"
(Waters, Wright) 7:40
Us, and them
And after all we're only ordinary men.
Me, and you.
God only knows it's not what we would choose to do.
Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
moved from side to side.
Black and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who.
Up and down.
But in the end it's only round and round.
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
The poster bearer cried.
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside.
"I mean, they're not gunna kill ya, so if you give 'em a quick short,
sharp, shock, they won't do it again. Dig it? I mean he get off
lightly, 'cos I would've given him a thrashing - I only hit him once!
It was only a difference of opinion, but really...I mean good manners
don't cost nothing do they, eh?"
Down and out
It can't be helped but there's a lot of it about.
With, without.
And who'll deny it's what the fighting's all about?
Out of the way, it's a busy day
I've got things on my mind.
For the want of the price of tea and a slice
The old man died.
plucked from: http://www.pink-floyd-lyrics.com/html/us-and-them-dark-lyrics.html
Cool. I'm sorry, Garydee. My uncle and a really close friend voted for Bush and they both stand by their decision AND yet still regret it. What has happened in American in the last 8 years can't be boiled down. It was emotional, it was messed up on all sides, and here's to something better coming along, whatever it may be.
That's cool. As I said I overreacted. We Bush supporters have been getting sensitive because we and our president have been attacked constantly. I can't even enjoy reading the journals from any game writers because most of them are liberals and they spend time taking jabs at Bush. I just grow tired of it.
|
|
Numbers 31 is one example of such an instruction.
Really?
You said:According to the Bible, people in that region have been mandated by God to destroy each other for many thousands of years, with specific instructions to deal with shortages in their population by seeking out members of their same faith of different tribes and killing all their men, married women and male children, and kidnapping all their unmarried women to take as wives.
However, that is not what happens in Numbers 31.
That chapter covers the war against the Midianites which was caused by the Midianite priest Balaam trying to curse Israel during the conflict with the Moabites, whose women the Israelite tribes had lusted after, and who subverted them to worship Baal Peor, which caused a plague.So while indeed they killed all the men and married women, keeping the unmarried women as war booty, it was not by direction to deal with a population shortage.
Nor does it indicate the soldiers took the women as wives, which would have been interesting in how 12,000 soliders managed to marry 16,000 women, as well as how the entire community of Israel managed to "marry" the 16,000 women that were their share.
And equally critically, they were definitely not people of the same faith.
So you will have to do better than that.
I get that being condescending and elitist is all part of your internet style, but it takes the shine off of the hauteur when you're wrong.
Funny, but given the events actually described in that chapter, I was thinking the exact same thing about you.
However, if you would like to try again, feel free. It will be amusing to see how many times you get it wrong.Oh, and just in case, read it for yourself so you do not have to take my word or it.
|
With all due respect, I agree with you 100% IMO.As long as you say "with all due respect" it does not matter what you say?HhHAhHAhahAha!
With all due respect, George Bush was the stupidest president in American history and everyone who voted for him is a slack jawed inbreeding mouth breather IMO.
How was that?
With all due respect he has yet to make The List[url] yet.
Although his [url=http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070216/16president.pierce.htm]ancestor did.
|
|
With all due respect he has yet to make [url=http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/worstpresidents/]The List[url] yet.
I notice Carter is in 11th place, and 3rd place in their poll.
Appropriate, as his failures are the direct cause of the miliary options Bush became involved with in Afghanistan and Iraq.
...(and Iran is not a dictatorship)...
In name only, perhaps. In reality, the Islamic clerics who came into power after the fall of the Shah's regime are fairly tight fisted in running the political process. Any political parties deemed to "western", secular, or liberal are routinely disqualified from elections, if not banned outright. This leaves a slate of Islamic parties, from moderate/conservative to fundamental on the ballots. The people of Iran basically have a choice of what level of Sharia they care to live under, not an actual choice of the direction their society will move in.
I feel your getting hung up on the fact that the Supreme Leader can circumscribe who can be president. I'd say thats just a function of their democracy. Essentially its a two power system, similar in some respects to what we see in many western countries. For example France elects both a President and a Prime Minister and one is generally considered a more powerful position then the other (can't remember which one at this time however).
The Supreme Leader is elected by the people of Iran, Indirectly anyway. He's elected by the Council of Experts and the Council of Experts is elected by the people - they have elections every 8 years or so. Hence if you want a western orientated Supreme Leader with a very liberal interpretation of Shi'ite Islam then you vote for some one that shares these ideals when you place your vote for your member of the Council of Experts. In fact a fairly significant minority of members of The Council of Experts either have a fairly liberal interpretation of Shi'ite Islam or would like to see better relations with the West. This was important during the last election of a Supreme Leader in that the really hard line conservative candidates lost and a generally more middle of the road Supreme Leader was elected.
Thus the Council of Experts has some aspects in common with British or Canadian Democracy were the people vote for MPs but the MPs choose who will be the Prime Minister (though in Canadian (and maybe British Politics ass well, I'm not versed in their system) politics its not just the MPs that choose a leader - its the political party itself and there are lots of stake holders).
Not exactly my ideal form of democracy but it is democracy - the people choose both who will be President and who will be the Supreme Leader.
|
|
I feel your getting hung up on the fact that the Supreme Leader can circumscribe who can be president.
I feel may be getting hung up on the fact that there are elections.
The Assembly of Experts selects the Supreme Leader.
The Supreme Leader selects 6 members of the 12 member Guardian Council.
The Guardian Council determines who is allowed to run for the Majlis (parliament), Presidency, and Assembly of Experts.
The Supreme Leader also selects the head of the judiciary, who selects the list from the the Majlis elects the other 6 members of the Guardian Council.
Overall the process is about as "democratic" as that of the Soviet Union.
Ali Hoseyni Khamenei, the current Supreme Leader, is hardly a middle of the road type. (And aside from Ruhollah Khomeini choosing then renouncing a successor, there has been only one actual election for a successor.)
|
|
...(and Iran is not a dictatorship)...
In name only, perhaps. In reality, the Islamic clerics who came into power after the fall of the Shah's regime are fairly tight fisted in running the political process. Any political parties deemed to "western", secular, or liberal are routinely disqualified from elections, if not banned outright. This leaves a slate of Islamic parties, from moderate/conservative to fundamental on the ballots. The people of Iran basically have a choice of what level of Sharia they care to live under, not an actual choice of the direction their society will move in.
I feel your getting hung up on the fact that the Supreme Leader can circumscribe who can be president. I'd say thats just a function of their democracy. Essentially its a two power system, similar in some respects to what we see in many western countries. For example France elects both a President and a Prime Minister and one is generally considered a more powerful position then the other (can't remember which one at this time however).
The Supreme Leader is elected by the people of Iran, Indirectly anyway. He's elected by the Council of Experts and the Council of Experts is elected by the people - they have elections every 8 years or so. Hence if you want a western orientated Supreme Leader with a very liberal interpretation of Shi'ite Islam then you vote for some one that shares these ideals when you place your vote for your member of the Council of Experts. In fact a fairly significant minority of members of The Council of Experts either have a fairly liberal interpretation of Shi'ite Islam or would like to see better relations with the West. This was important during the last election of a Supreme Leader in that the really hard line conservative candidates lost and a generally more middle of the road Supreme Leader was elected.
Thus the Council of Experts has some aspects in common with British or Canadian Democracy were the people vote...
You forgot to mention the fact the clerics allow the civilian government to rule but can overrule any decision made by the 'elected government' and can suspend their constitution at any time they wish, that makes Iran a dictatorship.
I prefer not to get drawn into this discussion, but I do wish to know one thing, since I have seen Samuel Weiss contribute a lot to these discussions.
I would ask Samuel, what do you believe is a fair and just resolution to this conflict that could satisfy all parties? Forget what exists today. If you had the power to enforce your own version of what a peaceful resolution would be, what form would it take?
I am not challenging you in any sense. I'm just trying to understand your point of view.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
veector,
I believe Sam's rather elaborate solution is on the other thread.
The prologue of Hammer's Slammers, says "Wars begin with one side believes they have an advantage over the other, or wishes to commit suicide (and even Massada didn't begin as a suicide attempt)."
So assuming Hamas isn't willing to commit suicide, what advantage do they have?
I'm more distressed that Gaza is still standing, Shalit is still being held by Hamas, and President Obama's first phone call as President was to the head of the PLO.
As to Monotheism vs Polytheism, the thread is incorrect for two reasons.
1) The official Islamic line is that Allah = God. So it's both monotheism.
2) You forgot Henotheism, which I subscribe to.
As to Monotheism vs Polytheism, the thread is incorrect for two reasons.1) The official Islamic line is that Allah = God. So it's both monotheism.
2) You forgot Henotheism, which I subscribe to.
Hi Matthew,
I am aware that Islam is a monotheistic religion, and I think that is clear in the OP.
As for Henotheism, I was completely unaware of this term until now. Thanks for pointing it out. I would consider it a form of polytheism, but that doesn't mean that you have to.
What is interesting is that in virtually EVERY conflict there is, stands get taken and alliances made ACCORDING TO RELIGIOUS LINES. Sure, there is discussion about money, power, past wrongs, ethnic hatreds, injustice, justice, fear, and so on, but really, what side someone ends up supporting fits with and only with what religious persuasion they ascribe to. See the situations in conflicts like Pakistan/India (Pakistan was created because the indian muslims wanted their own country), Northern Ireland (A majority of protestants in the area was the main reason why the lines were drawn the way they were when Ireland was split), Balkan (Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia split down religious lines, if I recall Catholic christians/Orthodox christians/Muslims), and so on, and so forth.
Religion IS an absolutely central factor in more or less all conflicts we see in the world, today and in the past.
And yet, when an analysis of the conflict is made, it's ALWAYS blamed on something else. I guess people don't like to place the blame on religion.
As has been stated before in this thread: ANY fanatic belief WILL cause violence in the wrong circumstances. Today, the most likely fanatic belief we see around us is religious in nature.
Naturally, there are other forces, more sane approaches to religious belief. However, religions today are very monolithic. It's extremely rare that more moderate factions in a church actively state that they don't support the more fanatic groups within the same church.
To my thinking, that's a shame, because it instead shows us that the moderate factions share, and WANT TO share, the responsibility for what the fanatics say.
|
|
Thus the Council of Experts has some aspects in common with British or Canadian Democracy were the people vote for MPs but the MPs choose who will be the Prime Minister (though in Canadian (and maybe British Politics as well, I'm not versed in their system) politics its not just the MPs that choose a leader - its the political party itself and there are lots of stake holders).
The parties in the UK elect their leader in advance of a General Election, and go into the campaign with the message that, 'if we win the majority, this will be the Prime Minister'.
I suppose, theoretically, a party could go to the polls, saying, 'We don't have a leader, we haven't settled on a direction, or a vision; we'll sort all that out after we win'. But the chances of them winning, with an attitude like that, would be slim to none.
|
|
Hamas's victory that they're looking to achieve is basically what Quadary was advocating (although maybe not exactly so; I'm not a mind-reader). They want to provoke Israel into attacking, get as much violence on film as possible, and win a propaganda victory. If they can win over enough of the western populace, those countries might stop giving the support Israel needs to defend itself, and then Hamas could actually start the genocide they envision as their end goal.
One small point I'd like to make on the Palestinian side, is that Hamas was elected in a fairly legitimate election process. The reason the regular populace favored them was because Hamas organized a lot of public works projects, building roads, utilities, and community centers.
The idea that it is unfair for Israel to use disproportionate force is ludicrous. If they were only using homemade rockets and small arms, there would be far more innocent deaths on both sides. The fact is that Israel obtains precision and high-tech weapons from western allies which results in fewer deaths when the IDF retaliate and target the rocket-launching sites in Gaza.
The IDF works hard to counter this propaganda, although it cannot neutralize it entirely. I'm told the IDF releases much video of its own air-strikes on its own YouTube channel to show many of the buildings they struck (including some UN buildings) had Hamas members or others firing rockets from them, minutes or seconds before their destruction.
LINKIFIED
|
|
veector,
I believe Sam's rather elaborate solution is on the other thread.
It was not that elaborate.
So assuming Hamas isn't willing to commit suicide, what advantage do they have?
Why do you assume that?
"If one day ... Of course, that is very important. If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality. "
"Technically" that is Iran pledging the suicide of Hamas on the behalf of Hamas, but there it is.
You can do your own searching for the leader of Hamas making it clear that they love death more than Israelis love life.
So you should start considerations along that line with "Accepting that Hamas is willing to commit suicide . . ."
And, in fact, giving the greater number of Muslims, they do in fact perceive that as their "advantage".
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Touche' Sam *laugh*
I should have said overly optimistic, as it required the UN and Hamas/PLO/Iran et al. to act like civilized institutions.
The advantages that I see Hamas having are 1) the UN hates Israel 2) Europe increasingly hates Israel 3) Israel's biggest ally just had their CIC call the PLO as his first call as President. Considering he 'forgot' to call India after he was elected, I wonder who the frak is advising him.
|
|
Touche' Sam *laugh*
I should have said overly optimistic, as it required the UN and Hamas/PLO/Iran et al. to act like civilized institutions.
Right, that is what I meant for classification. (There is really no way to convey the tone for that.)
The advantages that I see Hamas having are 1) the UN hates Israel 2) Europe increasingly hates Israel 3) Israel's biggest ally just had their CIC call the PLO as his first call as President. Considering he 'forgot' to call India after he was elected, I wonder who the frak is advising him.
Ya know . . .
I can see the reasoning. It is a major leverage option play, but I can see it. The question is where it goes from there. If it is not properly followed up on it will pretty much create a total disaster.We shall see.
I feel your getting hung up on the fact that the Supreme Leader can circumscribe who can be president.I feel may be getting hung up on the fact that there are elections.
The Assembly of Experts selects the Supreme Leader.
The Supreme Leader selects 6 members of the 12 member Guardian Council.
The Guardian Council determines who is allowed to run for the Majlis (parliament), Presidency, and Assembly of Experts.
The Supreme Leader also selects the head of the judiciary, who selects the list from the the Majlis elects the other 6 members of the Guardian Council.Overall the process is about as "democratic" as that of the Soviet Union.
Ali Hoseyni Khamenei, the current Supreme Leader, is hardly a middle of the road type. (And aside from Ruhollah Khomeini choosing then renouncing a successor, there has been only one actual election for a successor.)
He's Middle of the road for Iranian Politics, not for the West of course.
I'd not agree that its in the same vein as the Soviet Union of the CCP because there is universal suffrage. With the Soviet Union and the CCP you must be a member of the party to vote with Iran everyone gets to vote though many who would like to run are disqualified.
|
|
He's Middle of the road for Iranian Politics, not for the West of course.
Iranian politics includes royalists like the late Shah Reza Pahlavi at one end of the spectrum.
With that as contrast, Khamenei is not even middle of the road for Iranian politics.I'd not agree that its in the same vein as the Soviet Union of the CCP because there is universal suffrage. With the Soviet Union and the CCP you must be a member of the party to vote with Iran everyone gets to vote though many who would like to run are disqualified.
A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
It remains a rubber stamp vote for candidates approved by a specific oligarchy based on adherence to a specific ideology.
You forgot to mention the fact the clerics allow the civilian government to rule but can overrule any decision made by the 'elected government' and can suspend their constitution at any time they wish, that makes Iran a dictatorship.
I think your missing my point - the clerics are elected by the people themselves. They are themselves a branch of the government. A branch that has the power to over rule another branch of the government and to change or modify the constitution.
He's Middle of the road for Iranian Politics, not for the West of course.Iranian politics includes royalists like the late Shah Reza Pahlavi at one end of the spectrum.
With that as contrast, Khamenei is not even middle of the road for Iranian politics.I'd not agree that its in the same vein as the Soviet Union of the CCP because there is universal suffrage. With the Soviet Union and the CCP you must be a member of the party to vote with Iran everyone gets to vote though many who would like to run are disqualified.A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
It remains a rubber stamp vote for candidates approved by a specific oligarchy based on adherence to a specific ideology.
I think your significantly overestimating the amount of agreement and consensus this group has within its members. There are a significant number of political factions within Iran and that includes the the Council of Experts. There is no all prevailing ideology that they all agree on.
|
|
I think your significantly overestimating the amount of agreement and consensus this group has within its members. There are a significant number of political factions within Iran and that includes the the Council of Experts. There is no all prevailing ideology that they all agree on.
I think you are significantly ignoring the amount of circular approval involved in the process.
Once a Supreme Leader is chosen, he has an overwhelming influence on who is approved to be elected to the Council of Experts in the future. That determines who is selected for the Council of Guardians who determine who can stand for election, and around and around it goes.And in fact, there is a prevailing ideology that they must all agree on, that of the Islamic revolution.
I think your missing my point - the clerics are elected by the people themselves. They are themselves a branch of the government. A branch that has the power to over rule another branch of the government and to change or modify the constitution.
Yet again, it is a branch that is self-selecting for its replacements, making the pretense of election a sham.
Universal suffrage is irrelevant without access to running for office.