Ride for Palestine 2009

mikedobson

toontra,

wilderness not filling up any time soon.

jam1e

mikedobson wrote:

...and justice?

jam1e - what is the intemt of a burglar? To get rich or to break the law?

Oh here we go again - another dubious analogy...

Your refusal to accept that other people can have a view which differs from yours is getting a bit weird.

You know my opinon, I know your opinion, I understand it but I don't share it. Fine, I'm happy with that state of affairs. We're both rehashing the same argument so let's follow the advice of everyone else, express our hope that there is a truly peaceful outcome and just call it a day.

If you want to carry on the argument add this...

Jam1e replies:

I won't support anyone who brainwashes kids into blowing up non-combatants no matter how legitimate their cause.

...to your signature so you can pretend I've replied to your post.

alfablue

NickCalv wrote:

Wish I hadn't bothered reading some of the posts here. I only read page 1 after seeing the topic on the main BikeRadar site, but clearly some real f*cking idiots (special mention goes to gkerr4) frequent this forum - makes me remember why I stay away from forums and the general losers who frequent them and have their silly little arguments with each other.

Over and out. For good.

Nick, I have found this thread to be very informative, with some very thought provoking and well argued posts, even where they suggest contradictory views, and I have learned a lot. This sort of debate is worth having, unless we just prefer to stick our heads in the sand - I would suggest that we all have a responsibility at least to consider the problems of the world, however divorced we may feel from them. The discomfort the debate may engender probably reflects the complexity of the situation, there seem to be easy answers (X stop doing Y to Z etc), but the reality shows it is far from simple to achieve. On the whole I don't think the contributors are losers, and the arguments are far from silly. I agree that gkerr4's contribution fell below the quality threshold, but for the most part there is a lot of good material, I just regret that it is tending towards personal abuse in places.

Anyway, I am sure you won't be persuaded to stay, but I don't think things are as dire as you suggest.

Mark_K

alfablue wrote:

NickCalv wrote:

Wish I hadn't bothered reading some of the posts here. I only read page 1 after seeing the topic on the main BikeRadar site, but clearly some real f*cking idiots (special mention goes to gkerr4) frequent this forum - makes me remember why I stay away from forums and the general losers who frequent them and have their silly little arguments with each other.

Over and out. For good.

Nick, I have found this thread to be very informative, with some very thought provoking and well argued posts, even where they suggest contradictory views, and I have learned a lot. This sort of debate is worth having, unless we just prefer to stick our heads in the sand - I would suggest that we all have a responsibility at least to consider the problems of the world, however divorced we may feel from them. The discomfort the debate may engender probably reflects the complexity of the situation, there seem to be easy answers (X stop doing Y to Z etc), but the reality shows it is far from simple to achieve. On the whole I don't think the contributors are losers, and the arguments are far from silly. I agree that gkerr4's contribution fell below the quality threshold, but for the most part there is a lot of good material, I just regret that it is tending towards personal abuse in places.

Anyway, I am sure you won't be persuaded to stay, but I don't think things are as dire as you suggest.

+1 well said i have also found this thread very intresting and have learnt from it! Just keep the personal insults out of it because i'm sure the mod's are watching this thread like hawks and fair play to then for letting it run 8)

mikedobson

jam1e

I'll drop it when you condemn Israel for its oppression and slaughter of Palestinians, that's the just thing.

It's not a question of nuance or opinion, this isn't the euro or celebrity big brother. If you are prepared to accept that the Palestinians have a legitimate right to resist their occupation we can find some common ground. I already condemned suicide bombing pages ago, I 've only kept up the argument because your own is full of holes!

At the moment you're supporting one side's attrocities while condemning the other's with NO understanding of why it might take place. It's rather like a parent walking in on two kids and seeing one hitting the other and sending it to its bedroom while being oblivious that the other child has spent the preceding hour pushing its sibling's head down the toilet!

Toontra made the point on this thread some time ago that right thinking people have a blind spot when it comes to the Middle East. I think he's right and I feel that maybe you have one. But I don't doubt for one moment that you are not a murderer and are in fact a compassionate and broad minded man (we are both roadies after all!).

The death ratio so far this year in Gaza is 250 - 1 in favour of the Israelis. It's been roughly 80 - 1 since 1948. Whatever the merits of your position vis a vis suicide bombings, please god keep these numbers in mind too.

Shalom

mikedobson

jam1e

I'll drop it when you condemn Israel for its oppression and slaughter of Palestinians, that's the just thing.

It's not a question of nuance or opinion, this isn't the euro or celebrity big brother. If you are prepared to accept that the Palestinians have a legitimate right to resist their occupation we can find some common ground. I already condemned suicide bombing pages ago, I 've only kept up the argument because your own is full of holes!

At the moment you're supporting one side's attrocities while condemning the other's with NO understanding of why they might take place. It's rather like a parent walking in on two kids and seeing one hitting the other and sending it to its bedroom while being oblivious that the other child has spent the preceding hour pushing its sibling's head down the toilet!

Toontra made the point on this thread some time ago that right thinking people have a blind spot when it comes to the Middle East. I think he's right and I feel that maybe you have one. But I don't doubt for one moment that you are not a murderer and are in fact a compassionate and broad minded man (we are both roadies after all!).

The death ratio so far this year in Gaza is 250 - 1 in favour of the Israelis. It's been roughly 80 - 1 since 1948. Whatever the merits of your position vis a vis suicide bombings, please god keep these numbers in mind too.

Shalom

mikedobson

jam1e

I'll drop it when you condemn Israel for its oppression and slaughter of Palestinians, that's the just thing.

It's not a question of nuance or opinion, this isn't the euro or celebrity big brother. If you are prepared to accept that the Palestinians have a legitimate right to resist their occupation we can find some common ground. I already condemned suicide bombing pages ago, I 've only kept up the argument because your own is full of holes!

At the moment you're supporting one side's attrocities while condemning the other's with NO understanding of why they might take place. It's rather like a parent walking in on two kids and seeing one hitting the other and sending it to its bedroom while being oblivious that the other child has spent the preceding hour pushing its sibling's head down the toilet!

Toontra made the point on this thread some time ago that right thinking people have a blind spot when it comes to the Middle East. I think he's right and I feel that maybe you have one. But I don't doubt for one moment that you are not a murderer and are in fact a compassionate and broad minded man (we are both roadies after all!).

The death ratio so far this year in Gaza is 110 - 1 in favour of the Israelis. It's been roughly 80 - 1 since 1948. Whatever the merits of your position vis a vis suicide bombings, please god keep these numbers in mind too.

Shalom

mikedobson

Sorry about the repetition the site diid it not me!

jam1e

For the love of god!

Just accept that we have OUR OWN VIEWS and we're not going to change each others minds. Hell, I've not even tried to change anyones mind, think what you want - I don't care!

I've reiterated my point several times, you refuse to understand it. You claim it's based on a lack of understanding, I believe it's based on the principal that certain acts can be understood but never justifed.

I think deciding who has the blindspot depends which side of this argument you're on...

mikedobson

so you support the murder of children?

jam1e

No. However, you seem to find it justifiable if it fits in with a cause you believe in.

mikedobson

Good, that's good. So you'll condemn Israel for murdering children?

If you go back you'll see my condemnation of suicide bombings, unlike your own justification of accidental civilian deaths!

redddraggon

There maybe a close line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter", but I've got to say to that a lot of the attacks carried out by some of the Palestinians are definitely more "terrorist" than "freedom fighter". And comparisons between Hamas and the Maquis aren't great, the maquis generally attacked military (German/Vichy) targets, knowingly blowing oneself up on a bus full of civilians is not exactly the best way to garner sympathy for your cause is it?

It's not black and white, and the Israelis may not be going about it the right way (I think they are operating from an American manual), but they are a slightly less dark shade of grey in my eyes.

Now, how about a peace ride for Zimbabwe, DR Congo, etc too?

jam1e

Edited to add: Clearly this was to MikeDobson, Someone else got in 1st!

So if I said -

"I condemn the deliberate targetting of innocent civillians by any side in any conflict"

You'd agree?

mikedobson

and what exactly would make them less grey? Killing 500 Palestinians for every one Israeli, or maybe 1000? Taking more Palestinian land, removing more Palestinian rights? Building more illegal settlements? Reneging on even more international agreements? Breaching more UN resolutions? Starving more Gazans? Exactly what, in your opinion, would Israel need to do to be more bloody and venal than it already is?

mikedobson

jam1e

Certainly, I'd agree even more if you named the sides.

jam1e

Brainwash a kid, stick him on a bus and tell him to blow himself up when it's full. Then tell him that in return his family will get some food and he'll be a hero...

jam1e

Ok, do you agree with...

"I condemn the deliberate targetting of innocent civilians by Israel, Hamas and any other supporter of the "Palestinian cause"?

mikedobson

...how would you tell him that after you'd stuck him on the bus?

So, apparently, you can't bring yourself to condemn Israel. Why? Would it perhaps be that in so doing you might have to accept that the truth is more convoluted and multi-faceted than you feel comfortable admitting?

If you lived in a country totally controlled by another whose army regularly attacked you, killed your fellow citizens, denuded you of all power, economic, military and otherwise, disabled your ability to defend yourself, who consistently refused calls by the rest of the world to moderate its behaviour, who stole your property, imposed it's laws on you, circumvented your right to free assembly and movement, was armed and funded by the world's onlly hyper power, who possessed nuclear missiles while you had stones, what would you do? Accept it? Know when you're beaten? Come on, you know as well as I that you would not.

mikedobson

why the quote marks around Palestinian cause? You don't think they have one? Seriously?

As previously stated I condemn the killing of ALL civilians. I especially condemn it when it's a government policy.

jam1e

Er unless I'm mistaken I included Israel in my post... (You want to watch that blindspot)

I wouldn't admit I was beaten, nor would deliberately blow up innocents. Only one of these is true of Hamas.


The quotation marks were to highlight that the phrase "Palestinian cause" was being used as a catch all expression relating to all aspects of the conflict whether in Israel, Gaza or elsewhere.


How to make the Israelis more venal etc...

Brainwash a kid, stick him on a bus and tell him to blow himself up when it's full. Then (after you've told him that but before he's set of on his misguided rampage, the blowing up bit is yet to happen, however the being told to do it has happened - understand?) tell him that in return his family will get some food and he'll be a hero...

mikedobson

jam1e

Our posts crossed, hence the needless repetition.

You state what you would not do, what would you do?

You also say you would not deliberately kill civilians (and I'm sure you wouldn't), but I thought we'd agreed that the French Resistance did? Knowingly launching attacks in which civilians are killed - albeit collaterally or mistakenly - is still deliberate.

jam1e

Look it's simple.

I would not target purely civilian targets. I would be willing to accept a degree of collateral damage dependent on the value of the main target.

To use your dubious WW2 analogy...

Would I have blown up Hitler if he'd been in a classroom full of kids and nuns?
Yes.

Would I have blown up a train carrying the entire German High Command but which was also carrying civilians?
Yes.

Would I have blown up a lone German infantryman if he was stood talking to a single child?
No.

Would I have deliberately targetted civilians?
No.

Deliberately targetting innocents as a matter of policy is very different to unavoidable collateral damage caused during an attack on a military target, a fact you alone seem incapable of grasping.

As we continue to simply argue over this point I see no real value in continuing this discussion.

mikedobson

So you would plan and commission acts that deliberately killed civilians.

We're not arguing, that's the point! I am saying that you would deliberately kill civilans and you are saying you would deliberately kill civilians.

Moreover, what WOULD you do if you were a Palestinian living in the conditions described (numerous times) above?

toontra

jam1e wrote:

Look it's simple.

It's not simple at all. How do you know what the target has been each time an Israeli missile has been fired or bomb dropped? You are taking their work that they only target "terrorists". You haven't the faintest idea what their definition of a terrorist is or how good their intelligence is. That's in the fairest light. What if their real intention was just to give the Palestinians a bloody nose, just for the sheer hell of it, with indiscriminate carnage? You have no way of knowing if that was their intention, have you? You are prepared to take their PR at face value, apparently.

One thing is sure - if their intention is to kill "terrorists" then they are grossly incompetent as the overwhelming number of victims are civilians. Please drop this nonsense about "intent" - I've given you countless reasons already why it is not valid. Merely repeating it in bold letters shows that you are prepared to cut Israel slack in a way you are not Hamas. That's your opinion (wrong in my estimation), but it's certainly not "fact".

And stop shouting.

jam1e

I'm saying there is a moral difference between considering innocent civilians as a legitimate target in their own right and killing civilians during an attack on a military target.

Intending to kill Hitler and having to accept some collateral damage to a cafe full of kids is one thing.
Intending to kill a cafe full of kids is another.

If I were a Palestinian I'd fight back as well but it sure as hell wouldn't be in the way Hamas are doing.

Targetted attacks on

Military targets? Yes.
Governmental? Yes.
Infrastructure? Yes.
Random innocent people on a bus? No.

Anyway, regardless of the immorality of their tactics, you can't argue they've been particularly effective as they're now crammed into Gaza and getting hammered day and night - a worse position than they started in.

So do you accept there is a moral difference between targetting purely civilians and causing civilian deaths during an attack on a military target?

toontra

You haven't addressed a word I wrote. You are merely repeating yourself, practically verbatim, in a succession of posts, as if by repetition it will become fact.

You either won't, or can't, follow an argument so I'm out, with you at least.

mikedobson

toontra

In fairness I think Jam1e was replying to my post...

jam1e,

What was the point of attacking military targets and causing civilian deaths in Vichy France? Not the specific aim of any particular attack, the overall strategy

toontra

mikedobson wrote:

toontra

In fairness I think Jam1e was replying to my post...

jam1e,

What was the point of attacking military targets and causing civilian deaths in Vichy France? Not the specific aim of any particular attack, the overall strategy

If so, apologies.

Justpush

jam1e wrote:

IMHO the main difference between the 2 sides killing is intent. The Israelis intend to kill terrorists and kill innocents by mistake, Hamas etc pretty much just want to kill anyone Jewish, regardless of age, profession etc.

...

To take you back to your orignal point.

Is this 'intent' to 'kill an innocent by mistake' caused by :-
1.Preventing ambulances from reaching dying people of which there are numerous incidents.
2. Damaging ambulances
3.By shooting at humanitation aid workers
4. Preventing medical supplies into Gaza

All these FACTS are well documented by the Internatinal Red Cross.
All these are crimes against international humanitarian law.
I've not seen one word of condemnation of these barbaric atrocities by you. Worse still you use inhuman sanitised phrases like ''collateral damage.''

I call it state terrorism and slaughter.

Sir, I have read many of your posts and find your views totally unacceptable and myopic in the extreme.