Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
WHY ISN'T THERE A THREAD ON THIS WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE
and what with the Palestinians pushing for recognised Statehood in the UN it was fairly predictable that something was likely to kick off in Gaza
Netanyahu is such a cunt
murder for votes
and Mark Regev is a cunt too
You're never going to meet him
Well done Israel, you've def made life safer for your citizens and helped to strengthen your security
War of course!
The American election was a few days ago.
as far as I'm aware, Israel are the ones in the wrong and ought to just let Palestine have the disputed territory, but Israel are backed by western governments because they're effectively a crucial foothold in the region for 'the west'.
though the aggression is coming from both sides, Israel are a regional superpower and they're being totally unreasonable.
however, Israel have to be aggressive because they're a Jewish state in a heavily Muslim region. it's quite reasonable for them to act like they do when you take into context.
ultimately, a concession to Palestine could either soothe tensions or weaken Israel's position.
I know how in the fucking wrong Israel are
what was it like? I have only seen it on the TV or read about it in papers.
Obviously any loss of life is pretty terrible but I'd make sure you know the figures before you start comparing the actions of Israel and Palastine.
even-handed views being aired in this thread.
DIS IS IN WORKING WITH ISRAEL!
israelly gonna kick off now
not trolling, serious question.
what would be the benefit of keeping up to date with these events?
aside from, 'current affairs man, you need to know...etc etc'
it's just the same shit, over and over, no?
why should i take notice?
And that would drag the US in, and third world wars suck
I think your 'aside from' is the key thing really.
they're the harlem globetrotters of regional superpowers.
I don't see why someone can't just tell them. I'll go over and tell them.
*patapatapatapatapata* <-- body parts raining down
*waits for the end*
I'm going to delete the replies to him and see if that fixes it.
probably for the best
It just looked like we were engaging in some surrealist humour in a thread about people being brutally killed. :-/
Does this mean we can potentially fix busted threads? If deleting even more content counts as fixing, IDK
So god knows what's going on.
ie: The teacher says that there are only apples in the canteen. The school kids bitch and whine that there is only apples in the canteen. They haven't been to the canteen or seen it. Some eat sandwiches outside of the canteen but still bitch and whine.
are you saying that to form an opinion on anything you need to have direct experience of it
Or at least hold back from making statements that are based on assumptions.
I was told by someone in position of authority (based on knowledge) that the big bang happened, but I never experienced the big bang so I can't say if it happened or not
is is this a gross misinterpretation of your point?
You do not SHOUT about it as you do not fully understand it. You do not enter into entrenched heated arguments about it as you do not fully understand it; Imagine a courtroom if it makes it easier.
You can suggest that you believe that this or that is correct, you can state the reasons why but if you cannot explain it fully you have no business in getting annoyed and attacking others with the knowledge you cannot or do not understand.
You may say that this is bollocks and I am full of shit but it is a good way to stop arguments by people who do not know much but like the confrontation. It would also protect the people who have knowledge and a point but do not have the backing.
Feel free to prove me right.
imagine I'm a world renowned physicist. say I literally had a clue about that which I am talking. I say the big bang exists. BUT I still never experienced the big bang.
so basically you're making a number of distinct claims:
1) you shouldn't argue about things you have no knowledge of
2) you can't have an opinion on something you have no direct experience of
3) without experience you can not possibly fully understand something and explain something
4) experience means you fully understand and can explain something
5) that if you have an opinion that differs from the Comedian you don't fully understand the subject
all of which are nonsense apart from point 1
that often direct experience doesn't afford you the sense of perspective to make properly considered judgements.
Have belief, have an opionon. Do not argue a point you do not know about based on a majority or one source.
I have been to Israel. I have lived there. I know what it is like there. Most people here have not. I think that counts for something. Take it or leave it.
Oh wait, you've not.
An interesting mistake, though.
and means that you have something invaluable to add to any debates on the subject, but people form opinions by having debates/discussions/arguments and their opinions can be changed by people challenging things they say, not by being told not to express themselves because someone else knows better.
As for 'one source'. This is a conflict that has been going on for a long time and a variety of opinions are expressed through a variety of media so I wouldn't assume that people are entirely ignorant.
Of course you live there counts for something, but it doesn't mean you have to live there in order to contribute something to a debate.
but you ignored most of my points are still esentially saying:
no one can possibly have and be able to express an educated opinion (on Israel/Palestine), unless you've experienced living in Israel first hand.
which is stupid no matter which way you look at it
Cos I'd imagine most of the Sun City revellers of the early 80s didn't have a fucking clue how life was in Soweto at the time
I have not been making statements for or against anyone or detailing any information other than what I know.
Have you been there?
both sides out in force, police everywhere. definitely building to a head
does it count as genocide if two different ethnicities/nationalities/I'mnotactuallysurewhattocallthem get destroyed in the process?
I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't or that it should be a question of philosophy.
Like the gypsy/jew things the Nazis were into.
I particularly liked this bit from the history section:
"Hitler's rise to power, combined with Zionist activities to sabotage efforts to place Jewish refugees in western countries, led to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, and conflict grew."
Really? Zionists sabotaged the attempts by Jews to resettle in Europe, outside of Nazi Germany? ......
especially compared to most other anti-Israel websites haha :-S
Of course it's partisan but at least it's just leftist americans, doesn't trace back to mental far-right christian antisemites trying to sell you colloidal silver. :-S
I just found that history page a bit odd... I see there's am more detailed one there too. Maybe I'll see if that reads a bit better.
over the Jewish invaders because they got there first?
I'm a bit confused when did the Arab 'invaders' get there? You mean in the 7th Century? The Jews invaded that land way before that so technically they got there first, but you're going way back into the BCs.
FWIW I think the point of that site (they claim to be Jewish but who knows) is to say there's no prior claim to land you can use as a basis for sorting this out.
in respect of any conflict.
Which brings us back to why you think that's all the site is saying?
TBH I'm not really sure what point you're making. I assume you're just being an implied contrarian for the fun of it.
so I can cover the current economic crisis in Spain if need be.
OR SOME NONSENSE
so not watching clips
dont care if soemthing reminds you of totally baseless notion of
tho actually might because the wikipedia page for the word 'Joke' must be one. :)
you were in charge when the car was invented, the first time someone crashed, died, got run over would you have supported making cars illegal?
I think its a give to say that direct experience is not necessary to make an informed opinion. In fact, having direct experience can sometimes lead to fucking stupidity and the creation of crazy laws based on irrational personal judgements (of course no person would ever claim their own irrationality). But you are saying its impossible to make a factual statement (But its OK to have an 'opinion?') about something without direct experience. (perhaps you're not saying that but that's what it looks like)
Where as aruments just launch into facts or regurgitated information. I think.
Your idea is sound if the infomation provided is unbiased but then again the people hearing it will be biased themselves most of the time; due to experience or previous biased information. Hence why I say what I say.
By Sir Gerald Kaufman, a Jewish MP and pro-Palestinian.
Guess some might find it a bit controversial, he sometimes is.
He certainly doesn't hold back there, does he?
and contains some details not very widely reported
It's not actually true that it hasn't covered the killings of civilians in Gaza. But it's trying to present a massively one-sided conflict as being between two equivalent sides. Which presumably is due to its charter but is a massive problem in situations like this when one side is so clearly inflicting far more damage.
which seems to being repeated by some; a woman on Radio 4 this morning said 66We need to do to Gaza what the Russians did to Chechnya.99
Who knew a thread about Israel and Palistine would lead to such arguements?
like tel- avivv rather than tel- aveeve ?
fair to say al jabari probably deserved it. but then israel are pretty shitty too, aren't they?
but never mind
but in any case it could play a part in the holding - or otherwise - of an uneasy ceasefire during the week or so that the vote on Palestinian statehood could come up at the UN