Caligula
Maximus
Lets look at some things from a perspective that isn't mired in BS and opinion.
It depends, and no. In that order.
This most recent cease fire was broken when Hamas launched rockets, so if you want to get technical then, yes. That was the major escalation point in the most recent flair up of violence. Since that was the topic in question, I feel it is a legitimate answer.
That said, have you ever heard of "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies", AKA the "Hitler card"? Quite simply, it states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Here's a perfect description of this analogy fallacy:
"The Hitler Card is often combined with other fallacies, for instance, a weak analogy between an opponent and Hitler, or between the opposition political group and the Nazis. A related form of fallacious analogy is that which compares an opposition's actions with the Holocaust. This is a form of the ad Nazium (<-- lol) fallacy because it casts the opposition in the role of Nazi. Not only do such arguments assign guilt by association, but the analogy used to link the opposition's actions with the Holocaust may be superficial or question-begging.
Just saying.
It's interesting that you mention this.
"Palestine" (a place which has had pretty nebulous boarders for most of its history) is a region which has been occupied by quite a few different peoples. Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Ottomans, the British, Muslims, Crusaders, and yes even ancient Israelites (Google "Judeah" sometime) have all laid claim to that land over the past couple millennia.
Now, I'm more than certain that every single one of those peoples had their own reasons as to why that land is "theirs" (because "god" said so, right?). Furthermore, basically every single civilization which has laid claim to that land has taken it by force. So who is to say whom is right? Is it simple a matter of "I was there first"? Because guess what? Neither the Palestinians nor the current state of Israel can claim that.
In any regard, I'm rather glad that the Native Amercians who used toown occupy the land I'm living on now, aren't sending over small pox infested blankets to my house in some bitter cycle of revenge and hate.
Perhaps we should ask all native peoples everywhere what they think about your sentiment regarding retaliation and murder? Which native peoples should we start with? The Hmong in Cambodia and Vietnam? Native Hawaiians in Hawaii? How about the aborigines in Australia? The Inuit and Mettis tribes who used to live in whats now Canada? The Guianas and Amazonians in South America? I suppose you could also take your pick of the literal dozens of indigenous Siberian tribes which were systematically crushed, dispersed and killed by the Russians as well.
Eye for an eye. It's historically always worked out for the better. Right?
"God given rights..."
This has been the rally call for almost every major conflict in that region. It is also the worst excuse for violence since the history of mankind began.
"God said I should build a temple here."
"God said I should destroy your temple and build a mosque."
"God said this land is my land, not your land!"
"God said WE are the chosen people!"
"Pass the bullets and bombs, god said its cool to kill those people!"
"God said you're going to hell for not believing what I believe!"
"God hates fags!"
Sigh.
Sorry my friend, but you don't get land rights because a burning bush told your great, great, great grandfather it was his to live on... Nor does it give you carte blanche to kill anyone who doesn't value your old wives tale.
"Palestine" isn't a country, and Im not talking about the UN not recognizing it as such. It's been considered a "region" of land with widely varying boarders throughout basically all of recorded Human history. What you're talking about here is a rather ill-defined plot of land which has been "home" to countless peoples and civilizations.
I fail to see the connection between these two statements. Unless you are trying to say that Hamas is willingly taking civilian casualties in order to mobilize its populous into joining, your point was lost on me.
Also, while its obviously not as cut and dry as simply saying "all Palestinian civilian casualties are a direct result of Hamas using human shields", you cant state that it isn't a major contributing factor.
Of course, at the same time, you cant fault Hamas for using such a tactic. Its a rather sound plan and has been shown to be effective in terms of gaining political advantages and international sympathy.
Oh you mean the Israeli interrogator that was accused of sticking things up a a captive operative's butt? I'm interested to know whats going on in your head when you can say that's worse than this:
How does that even make sense?
Bro, I think you need to step back and look at things from a different perspective. The bias here is clouding your vision a little, IMO. I find it impossible to fathom that any rational person can honestly believe Israel is going after Palestinians due to some homicidal predisposition.
Is that really the point? I honestly don't think death toll is the issue here, for either side.
Ah, but allow me to digress...
I now have a quick question for anyone who knows (I honestly don't)... how many cease fires have been brokered and then broken between Israel and the Palestinians? Out of those times, who was the first side to break said cease fire and actually lob weaponry at the other? How many peace deals have been attempted and which side declined each time? Which side offers concessions to the other more often in attempt to quash the issue?
I'd be interested to see that breakdown.
It depends, and no. In that order.
This most recent cease fire was broken when Hamas launched rockets, so if you want to get technical then, yes. That was the major escalation point in the most recent flair up of violence. Since that was the topic in question, I feel it is a legitimate answer.
That said, have you ever heard of "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies", AKA the "Hitler card"? Quite simply, it states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Here's a perfect description of this analogy fallacy:
"The Hitler Card is often combined with other fallacies, for instance, a weak analogy between an opponent and Hitler, or between the opposition political group and the Nazis. A related form of fallacious analogy is that which compares an opposition's actions with the Holocaust. This is a form of the ad Nazium (<-- lol) fallacy because it casts the opposition in the role of Nazi. Not only do such arguments assign guilt by association, but the analogy used to link the opposition's actions with the Holocaust may be superficial or question-begging.
Just saying.
It's interesting that you mention this.
"Palestine" (a place which has had pretty nebulous boarders for most of its history) is a region which has been occupied by quite a few different peoples. Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Ottomans, the British, Muslims, Crusaders, and yes even ancient Israelites (Google "Judeah" sometime) have all laid claim to that land over the past couple millennia.
Now, I'm more than certain that every single one of those peoples had their own reasons as to why that land is "theirs" (because "god" said so, right?). Furthermore, basically every single civilization which has laid claim to that land has taken it by force. So who is to say whom is right? Is it simple a matter of "I was there first"? Because guess what? Neither the Palestinians nor the current state of Israel can claim that.
In any regard, I'm rather glad that the Native Amercians who used to
Perhaps we should ask all native peoples everywhere what they think about your sentiment regarding retaliation and murder? Which native peoples should we start with? The Hmong in Cambodia and Vietnam? Native Hawaiians in Hawaii? How about the aborigines in Australia? The Inuit and Mettis tribes who used to live in whats now Canada? The Guianas and Amazonians in South America? I suppose you could also take your pick of the literal dozens of indigenous Siberian tribes which were systematically crushed, dispersed and killed by the Russians as well.
Eye for an eye. It's historically always worked out for the better. Right?
"God given rights..."
This has been the rally call for almost every major conflict in that region. It is also the worst excuse for violence since the history of mankind began.
"God said I should build a temple here."
"God said I should destroy your temple and build a mosque."
"God said this land is my land, not your land!"
"God said WE are the chosen people!"
"Pass the bullets and bombs, god said its cool to kill those people!"
"God said you're going to hell for not believing what I believe!"
"God hates fags!"
Sigh.
Sorry my friend, but you don't get land rights because a burning bush told your great, great, great grandfather it was his to live on... Nor does it give you carte blanche to kill anyone who doesn't value your old wives tale.
"Palestine" isn't a country, and Im not talking about the UN not recognizing it as such. It's been considered a "region" of land with widely varying boarders throughout basically all of recorded Human history. What you're talking about here is a rather ill-defined plot of land which has been "home" to countless peoples and civilizations.
I fail to see the connection between these two statements. Unless you are trying to say that Hamas is willingly taking civilian casualties in order to mobilize its populous into joining, your point was lost on me.
Also, while its obviously not as cut and dry as simply saying "all Palestinian civilian casualties are a direct result of Hamas using human shields", you cant state that it isn't a major contributing factor.
Of course, at the same time, you cant fault Hamas for using such a tactic. Its a rather sound plan and has been shown to be effective in terms of gaining political advantages and international sympathy.
Oh you mean the Israeli interrogator that was accused of sticking things up a a captive operative's butt? I'm interested to know whats going on in your head when you can say that's worse than this:
How does that even make sense?
Bro, I think you need to step back and look at things from a different perspective. The bias here is clouding your vision a little, IMO. I find it impossible to fathom that any rational person can honestly believe Israel is going after Palestinians due to some homicidal predisposition.
Is that really the point? I honestly don't think death toll is the issue here, for either side.
Ah, but allow me to digress...
I now have a quick question for anyone who knows (I honestly don't)... how many cease fires have been brokered and then broken between Israel and the Palestinians? Out of those times, who was the first side to break said cease fire and actually lob weaponry at the other? How many peace deals have been attempted and which side declined each time? Which side offers concessions to the other more often in attempt to quash the issue?
I'd be interested to see that breakdown.
Last edited by a moderator:
.
