500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground

[anastrophe]

spot wrote:

The word of the day remains "disproportionate". Exercising an ability to kill or destroy on such a scale merely hands the moral ascendency to the other side on a plate.


really? you actually think that way about the matter? even when, as is the case in the lebanon conflict, the one side purposefully places civilians directly in harms way, by launching their rockets from apartment buildings? besides being morally reprehensible acts of cowardice, it seems they're accomplishing their goal of bamboozling world opinion by saying "see? see? those nasty israelis killed all these civilians! that we purposely painted a big red target on by launching our rockets from their homes".

let me guess - the retort will be that israel should just let the missiles rain down upon their civilians. that's okay - killing jews is okay, since they don't belong there to begin with.

[anastrophe]

Scrat wrote: I'll quote that Jewish Rabbi again.



"The lives of a MILLION ARABS are not worth the FINGERNAIL of ONE JEW."



:p


yup. and you'll find similar (albeit reversed) comments from the mullahs all over the middle east.



difference: i've yet to hear of an israeli suicide bomber in damascus. or baghdad. or beirut. or cairo. or riyadh.



but perhaps your intel is better.:yh_doh

[Issie]

anastrophe wrote: uh - you are aware that's not a validated image? it's just an image posted to a hosting service?



you are aware that the entire region was known as palestine before it became israel?
Urmmm Yes, I did know that. ...do you think I wrote Palestine on the map I posted....christ you`re even in denial of that :rolleyes:

http://www.mideastweb.org/misrael.htm

[Bill Sikes]

anastrophe wrote: (Spot saying the Israeli tactics are "disproportionate")

really? you actually think that way about the matter?


Spot did mention:

spot wrote: As a point of information, the current total of Palestinian dead in Gaza since June 25th is now 319, most of whom are (as usual) unarmed non-combatant civilians killed at a distance (from the BBC radio news last night). Not intending their particular deaths scarcely excuses the matter. The only casualty I know of on the Israeli side around Gaza is a single soldier shot by his own side.

The equivalent total in the Lebanon since July 12th exceeds 600 by some margin. Perhaps if someone sees a snapshot figure for that total, or for that of Israeli civilian deaths - I have seen 27 mentioned - they might post it here.


It does look rather disproportionate, doesn't it.

[anastrophe]

Issie wrote: Urmmm Yes, I did know that. ...do you think I wrote Palestine on the map I posted....christ you`re even in denial of that :rolleyes:


sorry, but unidentified 'documents' in this day and age don't exactly thrill me. it is *trivially* easy to modify images in photoshop, and it is done constantly. a great many fabricated documents have been circulated widely on the internet, with the intent to defame and ridicule people falsely - so widely that most people no longer are aware that they're forgeries.

[anastrophe]

Scrat wrote: No, my knowledge of the physics of warfare is better.



Suicide bombers are a predictable solution to a military problem. How do you strike at a superior enemy?



The Vietnamese did it, sappers would strap bomb/mines to themselves and throw themselves onto wire entanglements and attack command posts strongpoints ect.



It's a simple matter of expediency. A solution to a problem.



It's also better than any multimillion dollar cruise missile you can buy.



Make no mistake, there are plenty of Jews who would do the same thing had they reason too. The same goes for anyone.


baloney. the suicide bombers aren't going after military targets. they get on commuter busses, you ass.

[anastrophe]

Scrat wrote: Just like the Israeli airforce levels whole apartment buildings filled with Palastinian families to get one minor Hamas flunky.



Don't you get it yet?




you know, i think you've convinced me. death to israel! death to zionism! kill all the jews!



that make you happy?

[anastrophe]

Scrat wrote: Why don't we just get rid of the whole lot? Regardless of what they wear on their heads.



It's not like they are capable of solving the problems on their own. :-3


and you of course, from your high position in the west, are going to make the decisions for them. funny how 'US stop interfering with other countries' is the chant sometimes, yet then you propose "we" just kill them all. brilliant.



how about if the rest of the world just butts out completely? influence for or against the palestinians, influence for or against the israelis, from everywhere? would that suit people? or is it "US stop arming israel!!! iran please keep arming hezbollah."



the minute you say 'destroy them all' you've invalidated any preference or derision you've shown for one side or the other.

[koan]

Let's talk about what's valid and what isn't valid for a moment.

anastrophe's philosophy:

If you make a statement you should post a source, but not all statements need a source, just the ones he decides on and anastrophe is exempt from this rule.

If you quote internet sources it can be assumed you don’t read books by legitimate authors.

If you read a book by someone he doesn’t know then the author is likely a quack or, at best, an amateur. This really only applies if he doesn’t agree with what the book says.

If you read a book by an author with credentials, the credentials mean nothing if an internet site says they are biased. This really only applies if he doesn’t agree with what the author says.

Members need to print bibliographies and footnotes for any post he chooses to examine (a record of transactions at the local library would perhaps help as well), and we should take his judgment of sources as the final word.

Anastrophe has sources, he just won’t tell us what they are because it’s more fun watching us scramble¦but he has them¦lots of them. We’re just not deserving enough to be told what they are.

koan's philosophy:

Nothing can be discussed without making a statement or asking a question as a starting point.

Since I can’t show a forum member the book I’m holding in my hand, it suffices to find an internet source that says the same thing. The book still exists, for better or worse.

Telling a poster what their position or intentions are and then ripping this “straw man apart is a logical fallacy. (anastrophe has scattered much hay in the last few weeks)

Every source has a critic somewhere on the planet but criticism does not negate the information.



Since anastrophe presents himself as an authority in many political matters discussed on this forum, we are entitled to a full breakdown of his credentials before accepting him as a legitimate source.

If you catch anastrophe with wrong information he will tell you that he did it on purpose.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: If you catch anastrophe with wrong information he will tell you that he did it on purpose.


prove it. i want to see your source.



:yh_rotfl

[anastrophe]

what's amusing is that koan chose to post that carefully crafted bit of strawman-ery of her own immediately after i posted a "source" of identical 'credential' to hers - an opinion piece, posted from that persons point of view.



which one do we believe? i believe the truth of the matter lies somewhere between the two opinions.



we know which opinion koan subscribes to, she's already stated it quite clearly. israel's claims to any land are "bs". the hashemite king's words are incorruptible. how else are we to interpret her statement re the king's opinion piece that "I defy you to find a history of such plain honesty elsewhere."



oh, indeed.

[koan]

anastrophe wrote: how else are we to interpret her statement re the king's opinion piece that "I defy you to find a history of such plain honesty elsewhere."


And you know the King of Jordan wasn't being honest because? The essay is called "As the Arabs See the Jews" he didn't call it "The Facts About the Jews". My opinion is that it clarifies the way the arabs see the jews. It is specifically an opinion piece. Because I wanted to know not "how anastrophe thinks the Arabs see the Jews" or "how the Jews think the Arabs see the Jews" I wanted to know "how the Arabs see the Jews".

Where is your problem with this?

I didn't say that your source was lying, I'm saying it doesn't negate what was said by King Jordan. And I do thank you for posting a source. It doesn't happen much anymore. We now know how the Jews think the Arabs see the Jews. Would you also like to add how anastrophe thinks the Arabs see the Jews so we can have it complete.

I'll start.

How koan thinks the Arabs see the Jews: The way the Arab said.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: And you know the King of Jordan wasn't being honest because?
i'm terribly sorry - i can't seem to find where i said that the hashemite king wasn't being honest. must be my presbyopia.





The essay is called "As the Arabs See the Jews" he didn't call it "The Facts About the Jews".
yet you presented it as if it were an unimpeachable source of fact on the matter.





My opinion is that it clarifies the way the arabs see the jews.
no, it does not. it merely provides one man's opinion of how he sees the jews, and how he believes other arabs see the jews. can you not make that distinction? are you aware that he was assassinated by a palestinian, because he believed the king was going to negotiate a peace with israel (which he likely would have, if not assassinated). interesting. assassinated by a palestinian. not, remarkably enough, by a jew. go figure!





I didn't say that your source was lying, I'm saying it doesn't negate what was said by King Jordan. And I do thank you for posting a source. It doesn't happen much anymore. We now know how the Jews think the Arabs see the Jews.
what pathetically transparent equivocation.



the king: "how the arabs see the jews"

the jew: "how the jews think the arabs see the jews"



you don't see the incongruity of your interpretation?





How koan thinks the Arabs see the Jews: The way the Arab said.


and we're all so proud of you. next, tell us why you support hezbollah.

[koan]

It is a fact that the King of Jordan represents the POV of the Arabs he rules over. That's what being King gives him the authority to do: Speak on behalf of his people

I did know that he was murdered by Arabs. It actually proves what he says because they didn't want him to give any land away.

Who murdered Kennedy? Does that mean that he didn't represent the American majority opinion?



I don't support hizbollah. I believe you want people to believe I support hizbollah so that they will disregard anything else I have to say. There goes another scarecrow.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: It is a fact that the King of Jordan represents the POV of the Arabs he rules over. That's what being King gives him the authority to do: Speak on behalf of his people


you see no difference between a ruler's opinion and the opinion of his subjects or citizenry? fascinating. so let me follow this through then. if the canadian prime minister said that he wanted to bomb japan just for the fun of it, because he believed that's what his citizens wanted, then you would then hold that opinion too - because if the leader said it, it implicitly represent the opinion of all his people?



you are digging yourself an even deeper rhetorical hole than you claim i'm in!





I did know that he was murdered by Arabs. It actually proves what he says because they didn't want him to give any land away.


but wait! i thought his opinion represented those of the arabs! so if he came to decide, later in life, that peace with the jews would be a good thing - as did his grandson, who later fulfilled that wish - then, well, that does *not* represent the opinion of his people? well which is it for crying out loud? does he speak for his people or not?



this is just too delicious to pass up, so i'll quote you again:



koan wrote: It is a fact that the King of Jordan represents the POV of the Arabs he rules over. That's what being King gives him the authority to do: Speak on behalf of his people


therefore, since the king of jordan had decided to negotiate peace with israel and the jews, then that was explicitly per your construct here - the POV of the arabs he ruled over, and he was speaking/working on behalf of his people in wanting to do so.









Who murdered Kennedy? Does that mean that he didn't represent the American majority opinion?


hope the sides of the hole you're digging don't fall in on you.





I don't support hizbollah. I believe you want people to believe I support hizbollah so that they will disregard anything else I have to say. There goes another scarecrow.


okay. so we have your statement then. "I don't support hizbollah". fair enough. does that mean you condemn what they are doing in attacking israel? again, you've prattled on about how peaceful means can solve problems. both hezbollah and israel should lay down their weapons. people acting in concert non-violently can effect change. someone has to start - so, would you be in favor of hezbollah immediately disarming, laying down their weapons, and refusing to attack israel, no matter what?

[anastrophe]

Scrat wrote: Okay Anastrophe we are going in circles.



What is the solution to this problem in your opinion?



You know mine. We (I mean the world in general, outside of the Mideast) need to go in and take over the area by force if necessary and basically police it until they (Palastinians and Israelis) learn to live together.


fair enough. i think sovereign nations should work out their own differences.



this will bring the inevitable 'well then mr. smarty pants, what about iraq'.



let me put it this way. for all of our moral outrage, and taking of sides, the actual, dumbfounding fact and reality is this:



for the overwhelming majority of people on forumgarden, for the overwhelming majority of people in the US, canada, the UK, australia, china, etc etc etc - for the vast majority of people on earth: you could live your entire life, from cradle to grave, and never ever have your life affected in any tangible way by what goes on in the middle east.



i'm not kidding. with the exception of oil, which is truly little more than "look who won that lottery", we could all be blissfully ignorant of the millenia of infighting in the middle east, and it wouldn't challenge how we get up in the morning, pull our on our trousers or skirts (i prefer pleated, myself), and go about our daily lives.



that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about it. but with the exception perhaps of golem, who may at this very moment be taking his life into his hands in the actual grit of war, few of us, or our opinions, really matter.

[anastrophe]

while i will never support the notion that israel should be wiped off the map, as so many suggest be done, i do think that jerusalem and immediate surroundings should ideally be some kind of international city. accomplishing would probably be if not monumental, impossible. but jerusalem is holy to three of the worlds religions. it should be freely available to them all.



i don't know if i'll live to see that day, sadly.

[koan]

Does public opinion matter?

If it didn't why are there so many polls?

The former Israeli Defense Minister says:

Israel cannot afford to stand against the entire world and be denounced as the aggressor.

-Moshe Dayan

he seemed to think it mattered.



The problem with letting them fight it out on their own is that one side has nuclear weapons.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: Does public opinion matter?



If it didn't why are there so many polls?



The former Israeli Defense Minister says:



Israel cannot afford to stand against the entire world and be denounced as the aggressor.

-Moshe Dayan



he seemed to think it mattered.





The problem with letting them fight it out on their own is that one side has nuclear weapons.


thats it! move on to the next topic, since i spanked you so bad on your last line of "thinking".

[anastrophe]

Scrat wrote: I don't see the Palastinians/Arabs and Israelis working out anything.



This is like a 3 edged sword. The world at large needs to be that 3rd edge, not on Israels side, not on the Palastinian side but no the side of a solution.



Did it ever occure to you that they have been fighting each other for so long that they may not know how to achieve peace?



When in the last 60+ years has that area not been in some form of conflict?



Look at Russia. There are all kinds of people living there with all kinds of religions and beliefs but with the exception of the Trans Caucasus region it is a very stable area. In Soviet times Chechneya was stable.



They need someone/something strong enough to stop what is going on and allow wounds inflicted by both sides to heal.



Can you agree in some ways with this?


i guess you missed my dozen or more postings pointing out that egypt's been at peace with israel for 28 years, and jordan's been at peace with israel for 12 years. i'm not sure how you could have missed them. it's very odd. it's as if you just don't want to hear it, since it doesn't fit your prejudice.

[koan]

Maybe the Islamic countries should unite and make one big country and allow Israel the 1948 borders. There's not much left of Palestine anyway. And I believe the stories that Israel has managed to do what no one else has: unite the Arabs.

The idea that Jerusalem should be overseen by the UN is not new. It's in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine or United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947. It is and was a good idea.

[Issie]

The peace with Egypt is very fragile.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 42,00.html

[anastrophe]

i'd like to know the source site for the attachment in this post if possible:



http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... 8&p=360591



thanks.

[anastrophe]

ah, never mind on that request for source of the map. found it. the delightfully bigotted and divisive site www.jewwatch.com .

[koan]

A map with Palestine on it:

source: (had to scan this because...it came from a book...yes, I read them)

A History of God, Karen Armstrong

Attached files

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: A map with Palestine on it:



source: (had to scan this because...it came from a book...yes, I read them)



A History of God, Karen Armstrong


what's your point? was someone claiming palestine didn't exist?



the ancient hebrews lived in egypt, palestine, israel, phoenicia, for about 700 years, from 1275 to 586 BC - across the reign of the regions by the hittites, the phoenicians, the assyrians, and the chaldeans. after the persians conquered the chaldeans they allowed the hebrews to return to palestine, where they've live continuously to this day. the hashemite king's dismissal of the fact that jews have lived there continuously is unsurprising. he characterized the region as 'solid, uninterrupted arab occupation for 1300 years', as if to suggest there wasn't a jew to be found there during that interval. regrettably, earlier he had pointed out that at the end of world war II, when the british arrived in palestine, "they found 500,000 Arabs and only 65,000 Jews". I don't think he was being intentionally misleading by dismissing as non-existent the more than ten percent of the population who were jews. It was merely an inconvenient bit of information. from the perspective of a monarch, that the jews had only ruled for some 70 years was the only datapoint of legitimacy - what other perspective would a monarch have? of course, the palestinians themselves have never had a rule of any kind. none. they have lived there, but they have always been ruled by others. another inconvenient point. by that measure, israel's 70 years of rule trumps their zero.

[anastrophe]

Scrat wrote: It looks pretty accurate.


general rule of thumb, irony division:



any site that has to state at the top of the page "This is NOT a hate site. This is a scholarly research archive of articles. " is a hate site.

it's an exercise in hatred and bigotry. Not a single thing to be found on it is anything other than hatred of jews. if it were a scholarly research archive, it would include things like, you know, good things jews have done, of which it should not need to be said, but there are many.

the site is filth. if you like getting your perspective from the bottom of a public toilet, feel free.

[anastrophe]

Scrat wrote: Some of the most valuable kinds of evidence are found in toilets Anastrophe. I have seen the map in other places, Newsweek I believe a few years ago.




my comments have nothing to do with the map. they have to do with the site. i don't dispute the validity or lack thereof of the map. i find it interesting that it hasn't been updated in seven years, and jewish hate sites seem to have an inordinate fondness for it.





It's a map, not an industrial sized oven.



Get a grip on your red herrings.


what red herring is that?

[anastrophe]

Scrat wrote: Just because you don't like the site doesn't mean the map is not worthy of any type of consulting.



Don't try to alter its credibility by pointing out the site. You know that's what you are attempting.



By the way it was Time Magazine I saw it in. Not Newsweek.


i repeat: it's a shame the map ends in 1999. because in so doing, it ignores all of israel's pullouts from gaza and west bank. which, i think, is why it's so highly favored at the hate sites. if it included a map of today - showing israel's pullout - it would reduce its impact as a propoganda tool.



we can learn from history. and we can distort by eliding some of history.

[koan]

anastrophe wrote: what's your point? was someone claiming palestine didn't exist?


yup

Bronwen wrote: Show me, please, in any contemporary bookstore, or any newsstand, a map or an atlas or a gazeteer that lists Palestine


then you questioned the source of Scrat's map (lord knows why) now you say you don't have a problem with the map. but Bronwen might since it didn't come from a bookstore or newsstand. Mine came from a book. Did I mention that I read books yet?

what's my point? the post wasn't directed at you anastrophe.

[koan]

I'd like to see a map since the pulling out period. Since it sounds so gosh darn important. You brought it up, anastrophe. Go fetch.

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: yup




nope. better reread bronwen's post. it was easily misunderstood though, so i can see the confusion. bronwen was pointing out that no contemporary map refers to the region as palestine.



your response was to post a map of the region as it was a thousand or so years BC. uh, okay.





then you questioned the source of Scrat's map (lord knows why)
ahem. *you* posted the map in question.





now you say you don't have a problem with the map.


you might interpret it that way. the point, if you will, is that while the map itself may be accurate, it is an inaccurate - and i happen to believe purposely so - representation of the state of things now, because it excludes the last seven years of israel trying to appease its neighbors in the name of peace.





but Bronwen might since it didn't come from a bookstore or newsstand. Mine came from a book. Did I mention that I read books yet?


well then, perhaps i misunderstood bronwen in that case. i was under the impression that bronwen meant that maps of the region as it is today do not refer to it as palestine. if bronwen meant that no book has ever referred to it as palestine (which would be an odd suggestion), then, well, i just don't know.





what's my point? the post wasn't directed at you anastrophe.


so what?

[anastrophe]

koan wrote: I'd like to see a map since the pulling out period. Since it sounds so gosh darn important. You brought it up, anastrophe. Go fetch.


if i could find one, i would. thus the nature of my beef about the existing map, easily found on a plethora of anti-israel, anti-jew websites.



it is a matter of record that israel has been pulling out of gaza and the west bank. it's been, you know - in the news for a while now. they forcibly removed their own settlers, over great objections. or do you doubt even that?

[Bronwen]

Issie wrote: Show me, please, in any contemporary bookstore, or any newsstand, a map or an atlas or a gazeteer that lists Palestine. There ain't no such place, not politically, only historically.



Click on image to enlarge

http://www.mideastweb.org/misrael.htmAnd you are trying to prove...what? A 'Palestinian' website is not a contemporary bookstore or newsstand. I'm referring to current, politically accurate publications, not propaganda material or historical artifacts.

I hope that the 'Palestinains' do eventually get their own Israel-protected state in the West Bank. What they CALL it is beside the point. They can call Arafatia for all I care.

At the risk of being repetitious, here are the two key points:

1. The Palestinians had their state served to them on a silver platter in 1948. It was Jordan, not Israel, who disputed the land allotted to them. Since then they have had several chances to re-establish their claim legitimately and have squandered every one by continuing acts of wanton terrorism against Israeli civilians.

2. A Palestinian state that would be nothing more than a haven for murderous terrorists from all over the Islamic world is a non-starter. That will NEVER happen. A Palestinian state can ONLY be established with Israel's help and support. Will that happen? It's up to the Palestinians.