And this of course explains why they turn away UN trucks of food? Or prevent the Palestinian people from buying basic building supplies, fuel and medicines?
So do I read what you're saying correctly. The correct response to aggression is non-violence, and the Israeli government should not have committed a military response to the rocket attacks?
Such venom and sarcasm in response to my statements of fact. I'll roll your multiple posts into one and reply to both here, ignoring statements with zero information-content such as "Don't worry, you'll get this eventually" and random bolding of words as if emphasising my point undermines it somehow.
1) A non-violent response can begin at any time. The recent ceasefire was a perfect example, but instead The Plaestinians broke said ceasefire WITH VIOLENCE.
A ceasefire is exactly that - an agreed pause in an ongoing confrontation so that negotiations can be held. It is not, in itself a peace. A six-month pause was agreed during which it was hoped that negotiations could proceed. Unfortunately, Israel took the opportunity to blockade food supplies from Gaza. At the end of the agreed period, Hamas said they would like to continue the ceasefire with their sole condition being that more food be allowed into Gaza. If you can accept these facts yet still exonerate Israel from blame for the renewed violence, then I don't know what you would consider wrong.
2) Unless people such as yourself stop pretending violence is somehow justified for your side but not for the other, the only thing you'll get is more violence.
Only an idiot would starve a people and not expect them to retaliate in some manner. The ruling party of Israel are not idiots, I therefore conclude that they want to have an ongoing conflict which shores up support for their party.
Israel is a state actor. It's response to attacks on its citizens are limited to primarily those available to police and armed forces. A non-violent response to someone who is actively seeking to wipe you off the earth is a bit difficult to coordinate, eh?
And you have the gall to accuse me of bias? Let's consider the meaning of the above statement. "It's response is limited to those available to armed forces." You think responses available to armed forces are "limited?" Responses available to armed forces include tank shells (which have been used), missiles launched from helicopters and jets (which have been used), sniper teams targeting key political figures (which have been used). In what possible way does saying the Israeli government has limited its response to "those available to armed forces" make them sound like they're exhibiting restraint. And as to "a non-violent response to someone who is actively seeking to wipe you off the earth is a bit difficult to coordinate", consider the following: You say its difficult to have a non-violent response to someone who is trying to wipe you out and then blame Hamas for responding with violence when Israel tries to do exactly that to them. And has Hamas tried to wipe out Israel from the "face of the Earth"? Absurd! You have a poverty-stricken small group armed with a smattering of cold war relics on one side and a wealthy nation of seven million on the other supplied with the very latest in US military technology and nuclear weapons on the other. And you accuse Hamas of trying to wipe Israel off the planet? Hilarious! The only side wiping people out en masse is Israel. Of course Hamas stated they didn't recognize Israel's right to exist. But then again, senior Hamas figures also stated they would consider mutual co-existence if they could only have peace. But you pick the comments that support your case, not those that are most likely.
War is always wrong, but so far I understand jews much better than palestinians.
The Israeli government does not speak for all Jewish people and a criticism of it is not a criticism of the wider jewish people, much as that government loves to pretend it is the case. The ruling party of Israel no more speaks for Jews everywhere, than a screaming White Supremacy group speaks for white people everywhere or the Nation of Islam speaks for Black people. Don't allow them to convince you otherwise. Israel has about five million jews living there. There are at least thirteen million worldwide and that's just the self-identifying visible, jews. There are plenty more if you're just counting jewish descent.
And Hamas was elected because they were seen as less corrupt than Fatah who pretty much do as Israel tells them. The Palestinians might currently wish Israel was gone (who would blame them with so many of them dying every day), but that's a far cry from trying to wipe the country out let alone being able to. Even Hamas itself has said it is willing to discuss a two-state solution with the continuance of Israel. Unfortunately, that didn't go down well and invited a new round of siege. It seems that Israel likes its demon enemy.
Just to add some supporting information to illustrate their point, some might be surprised to know that US soldiers are currently stationed in Egypt where they patrol that country's border with Gaza, making sure neither people nor food supplies can pass.
Israel left Gaza three and a half years ago. Other than providing them with fuel, water, and electricity (for FREE) Israel has had no involvement with Gaza, other than retaliating for rocket strikes. Until two weeks ago, that retaliation was usually limited to simply withholding the free fuel, water, and electricity.
If this is so, then why has the Israeli military deliberately targeted Gaza's power infrastructure, blowing up local power stations and stopping aid packages providing food and medicine? You make it sound as though Israel generously supports a destitute population, but in fact, they artificially limit how many supplies are allowed in, US soldiers are stationed in Egypt to keep its border with Gaza sealed after an incident a couple of years ago where local people opened it and Palestinians nipped across to buy groceries, fuel, concrete mix (believe it or not), etc. before returning. Their retaliation was not "simply withholding free fuel, water and electricity" but also food and preventing the importing of non-free supplies, even free aid from other countries, with the use of force.
What are they "defending themselves" from? Oh right, retaliation from their rocket attacks.
It's a lot harder to play the victim when you chose the path of violence in the first place.
Well actually, the latest bout of fighting was begun when the Israeli government attempted to topple the elected government of the Palestinians. The recent "first place" that you refer to was simply the end of a short, agreed ceasefire to encourage negotiation. Hamas (the elected Palestinian government), stated that they wished to continue the ceasefire but demanded that the Israelis allow food to be imported into Gaza. That was fair enough given that they had blockaded the place and the people were starving. Unfortunately, they refused and so the agreed ceasefire came to its end. When starving, violence is to be expected. And it surely was expected (and counted on) by the ruling Israeli party who have elections coming up and are capitalising on their image of being strong.
Imagine how this conflict would go if the Palestinian's weren't so cowardly and instead used non-violent protests. You know, like Gandhi.
That's a little difficult seeing as they are walled in. They can protest all they like but no Israeli is going to see it.
Nah, that kind of stuff never works.
I am a very great admirer of Ghandi and have read a large biography of his life and beliefs. I find it odd that you are so quick to condemn violence by some of the Palestinians, but not the aggression of the Israeli government. Ghandi abhored violence.
Yep - you definitely should have, but you more than make up for it by attempting to counter the Israeli government's attempts to portray Jewish = Supporter of Israeli Government. To provide a little balance, there are some pretty nasty people who pretend that they represent the Arab people when they clearly are some its worst enemies (Egyptian rulership, I'm looking at you). Would it kill the Egyptians to open the Gaza gate and let some aid and supplies through? Well no, it wouldn't, but it might cost them some favours from the US government.
You got to admit though, it's a lot easier to play the victim when you're starving, walled into a tiny area and can only defend themselves with scraps of old military hardware and bits of rubble against a rich country armed with the latest in US air power that assassinates their democratically elected leaders.
Linux users are normally people who have gone beyond what they were presented with and explored other possibilities (else they would be using Windows). That attitude is an indicator of intelligence. Linux also requires having self-educated oneself on how to manage the system for most of us. That attitude is also an indicator of intelligence. So it's reasonable to guess that statistically, Linux users may be from the intelligent segments of society. But it's only a small part of the larger set of intelligent people. Using Linux might be a clue that someone is smart, but using Windows is not a sign that someone is not.
I'm afraid Kagura has it right. I am the parent poster and you've read into my post something that isn't quite there. I simply observed that getting the people of the US factionalised into two groups allows you to pull the same shit with either party and you don't get more than 50% resistance to it because people feel obliged to defend their side. Every time a Democrat or Republican politician does something bad, they get vigorously attacked by the supporters of the other faction. But the attacks usually encompass not just that politician and his action, but the entire party and its supporters. The supporters respond naturally to defend themselves regardless of whether they are right or wrong. This happens in both directions. Thus even when an action is bad for the majority of the electorate, you have 50% of the population under pressure to defend it. That is why the factionalisation of America is bad for all. That and the problem that when a third party tries to emerge, something that would break up the power blocks allowing more flexibility in political positions, it is viewed as a threat by whichever party currently has most to lose.
What you have taken from my post is relevant, but not exactly what I meant. On Slashdot, which I think has more of a bias against Bush than for, then it may be correct to say that Obama gets off lighter for doing wrong than Bush. The reverse will be true in some other circles. But I would not equate the this with the Invasion of Iraq. And I like to think that, scary though it is, Slashdot as a whole has less bias in either direction than a lot of other places. I, like many posters here, have no allegiance, only principles. It's that attitude that the USA needs, imo.
He wasn't "partisan whining" (as far as I can tell). He was just observing the lack of complaints and guessing that there would be a lot greater suspicion and condemnation if Bush had done this. And I think it's fair to say he's right. That doesn't mean that it would be better or worse if the Republicans had done this.
Well it certainly sends a strong message to the rest of the International Community. US space programme to be done under the auspices of their military - nice and unambiguous.
Well that's the point of the factionalisation and faux-rivalry of US politics, isn't it? To get people so divided into their allegiance to a party name that you can then pull the same shit with either party and only 50% of the people will complain whilst the rest are obliged to rationalise it somehow.
I think not only the quality casting leads to the shows great popularity, but that they actually have decent story arcs. There are some howlers, but there are also some great moments. In "The Last of the Time Lords" where Martha Jones returns to confront the Master, the Doctor derisively asks the Master if he really thought that the Doctor would have asked her to bring a gun. The contempt in the word veritiably drips off Tennant's tongue and you know, exactly, that this wouldn't be in character for the Doctor's beliefs and he finds his own solution based on people's hope (and cleverness). So many programs and films today have no greater sophistication in their heroes than the ability to get back up after being shot and throw one last heroic punch. The Doctor is a character who wins without the cheating power of plot (mostly) but rather through staying a few steps ahead of his adversaries. That's why two of his best enemies are the Daleks (unreasoning military force, creating the tension between intellect and violence) and the Master (the clash of two equally powerful intellects).
Don't forget that he is a Brit. Different (lower) prettyboy standards.
By lower, you mean actually allowed to look like a human being you'd want to date, rather than a giant set of ultra-white teeth jammed in a tanned manequinn?
I don't mind the increaing youth of the Doctor so much as the increasing sexualisation. David Tennant was good. Christopher Eccleston is a very good actor and played the part very well, though the character wasn't that charismatic (deliberately on his part, I think). But what we've seen starting with Eccleston and much increasing with Tennant, is increasing sexual tension on the part of the doctor and his increasingly sexually interested companions. That undermines the alienness of the Doctor and I'd like to see things return to a slightly more aesexual footing. (Not that I couldn't watch Freeman Agyeman all day long). The most important thing to me though is that a regeneration results in a different character. That was always one of the most interesting aspects of the regeneration - not the physical change, but that the doctor seemed to actually recreate himself quite radically sometimes. That was a bit lost with the Eccleston - Tennant transition. They were both very similar. What I'd really like to see with Matt Smith is him come across as a genuinely new person. Still intelligent, still resolutely pacifist, but with his own set of mannerisms, relationships with people (it would be interesting to see him relate to former companions as if he were meeting them for the first time in some ways). I will wait and see. I'll certainly want to see the new episodes to judge for myself.
As I said, I was making rational points and being polite, whilst the above is neither. It's really just a hugely inelegant way of conceding the argument.
"no you arent".
ill be dropping this thread. you are deliberately or unknowingly failing to understand.
You have three times got factual information fundamentally wrong. Pointing that out is not "deliberately failing to understand." You also put the quote "no you aren't" up there, but I did never said these words in my post. That's misrepresentation or else you got confused with another poster. I've been fairly polite in my posts, whilst you began by declaring how desperate I was to post a "knee-jerk" response. I'll be happy to discuss this further politely if you wish. No offence has been meant.
Yep - Microsoft designed their sites specifically to be broken in Opera (not sure about Netscape and Firefox wasn't around then, afaik). It wasn't remotely accidental - the default style sheet *worked* in Opera, but if it detected the browser from the User Agent string, the server specifically returned one that wouldn't. I was highly critical of them for that at the time. I have no allegiance - only principles.;)
technical consideration is the outdatedness and exploitable nature of ie6. not win2k. and win2k is microsoft's own operating system, despite that it doesnt support ie6. google is not obliged to make chrome work with anyone else's product, so its irrelevant.
You are making absolutely no sense at all now. No one has said that Google is obliged to make Chrome work on Win2k. What exactly do you think you are arguing against?
You have again got your facts wrong. It is Google Chrome that is not supported on Win2k. Now what are these technical considerations that mean putting up links to Firefox and Chrome (the two Google controlled browsers) and not IE7?
I don't disagree with anything you said there - all fair and balanced. And I have full respect for your closing two words. I was originally just observing a sneaky play by Google and commenting on what outrage there would have been if Microsoft had done it with Hotmail (and I don't think I'm wrong in that prediction). My second post was just pointing out the errors and misrepresentation that some annoyed respondent made.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, I don't think there's anyone posting on this story that you haven't called "fucking stupid". Well, except for yourself, of course. ;)
And this of course explains why they turn away UN trucks of food? Or prevent the Palestinian people from buying basic building supplies, fuel and medicines?
So do I read what you're saying correctly. The correct response to aggression is non-violence, and the Israeli government should not have committed a military response to the rocket attacks?
A sad state of affairs when factual information is modded as flamebait.
Such venom and sarcasm in response to my statements of fact. I'll roll your multiple posts into one and reply to both here, ignoring statements with zero information-content such as "Don't worry, you'll get this eventually" and random bolding of words as if emphasising my point undermines it somehow.
A ceasefire is exactly that - an agreed pause in an ongoing confrontation so that negotiations can be held. It is not, in itself a peace. A six-month pause was agreed during which it was hoped that negotiations could proceed. Unfortunately, Israel took the opportunity to blockade food supplies from Gaza. At the end of the agreed period, Hamas said they would like to continue the ceasefire with their sole condition being that more food be allowed into Gaza. If you can accept these facts yet still exonerate Israel from blame for the renewed violence, then I don't know what you would consider wrong.
Only an idiot would starve a people and not expect them to retaliate in some manner. The ruling party of Israel are not idiots, I therefore conclude that they want to have an ongoing conflict which shores up support for their party.
And you have the gall to accuse me of bias? Let's consider the meaning of the above statement. "It's response is limited to those available to armed forces." You think responses available to armed forces are "limited?" Responses available to armed forces include tank shells (which have been used), missiles launched from helicopters and jets (which have been used), sniper teams targeting key political figures (which have been used). In what possible way does saying the Israeli government has limited its response to "those available to armed forces" make them sound like they're exhibiting restraint. And as to "a non-violent response to someone who is actively seeking to wipe you off the earth is a bit difficult to coordinate", consider the following: You say its difficult to have a non-violent response to someone who is trying to wipe you out and then blame Hamas for responding with violence when Israel tries to do exactly that to them. And has Hamas tried to wipe out Israel from the "face of the Earth"? Absurd! You have a poverty-stricken small group armed with a smattering of cold war relics on one side and a wealthy nation of seven million on the other supplied with the very latest in US military technology and nuclear weapons on the other. And you accuse Hamas of trying to wipe Israel off the planet? Hilarious! The only side wiping people out en masse is Israel. Of course Hamas stated they didn't recognize Israel's right to exist. But then again, senior Hamas figures also stated they would consider mutual co-existence if they could only have peace. But you pick the comments that support your case, not those that are most likely.
The Israeli government does not speak for all Jewish people and a criticism of it is not a criticism of the wider jewish people, much as that government loves to pretend it is the case. The ruling party of Israel no more speaks for Jews everywhere, than a screaming White Supremacy group speaks for white people everywhere or the Nation of Islam speaks for Black people. Don't allow them to convince you otherwise. Israel has about five million jews living there. There are at least thirteen million worldwide and that's just the self-identifying visible, jews. There are plenty more if you're just counting jewish descent.
And Hamas was elected because they were seen as less corrupt than Fatah who pretty much do as Israel tells them. The Palestinians might currently wish Israel was gone (who would blame them with so many of them dying every day), but that's a far cry from trying to wipe the country out let alone being able to. Even Hamas itself has said it is willing to discuss a two-state solution with the continuance of Israel. Unfortunately, that didn't go down well and invited a new round of siege. It seems that Israel likes its demon enemy.
Just to add some supporting information to illustrate their point, some might be surprised to know that US soldiers are currently stationed in Egypt where they patrol that country's border with Gaza, making sure neither people nor food supplies can pass.
If this is so, then why has the Israeli military deliberately targeted Gaza's power infrastructure, blowing up local power stations and stopping aid packages providing food and medicine? You make it sound as though Israel generously supports a destitute population, but in fact, they artificially limit how many supplies are allowed in, US soldiers are stationed in Egypt to keep its border with Gaza sealed after an incident a couple of years ago where local people opened it and Palestinians nipped across to buy groceries, fuel, concrete mix (believe it or not), etc. before returning. Their retaliation was not "simply withholding free fuel, water and electricity" but also food and preventing the importing of non-free supplies, even free aid from other countries, with the use of force.
Well actually, the latest bout of fighting was begun when the Israeli government attempted to topple the elected government of the Palestinians. The recent "first place" that you refer to was simply the end of a short, agreed ceasefire to encourage negotiation. Hamas (the elected Palestinian government), stated that they wished to continue the ceasefire but demanded that the Israelis allow food to be imported into Gaza. That was fair enough given that they had blockaded the place and the people were starving. Unfortunately, they refused and so the agreed ceasefire came to its end. When starving, violence is to be expected. And it surely was expected (and counted on) by the ruling Israeli party who have elections coming up and are capitalising on their image of being strong.
That's a little difficult seeing as they are walled in. They can protest all they like but no Israeli is going to see it.
I am a very great admirer of Ghandi and have read a large biography of his life and beliefs. I find it odd that you are so quick to condemn violence by some of the Palestinians, but not the aggression of the Israeli government. Ghandi abhored violence.
Yep - you definitely should have, but you more than make up for it by attempting to counter the Israeli government's attempts to portray Jewish = Supporter of Israeli Government. To provide a little balance, there are some pretty nasty people who pretend that they represent the Arab people when they clearly are some its worst enemies (Egyptian rulership, I'm looking at you). Would it kill the Egyptians to open the Gaza gate and let some aid and supplies through? Well no, it wouldn't, but it might cost them some favours from the US government.
You got to admit though, it's a lot easier to play the victim when you're starving, walled into a tiny area and can only defend themselves with scraps of old military hardware and bits of rubble against a rich country armed with the latest in US air power that assassinates their democratically elected leaders.
Just saying, you know?
Linux users are normally people who have gone beyond what they were presented with and explored other possibilities (else they would be using Windows). That attitude is an indicator of intelligence. Linux also requires having self-educated oneself on how to manage the system for most of us. That attitude is also an indicator of intelligence. So it's reasonable to guess that statistically, Linux users may be from the intelligent segments of society. But it's only a small part of the larger set of intelligent people. Using Linux might be a clue that someone is smart, but using Windows is not a sign that someone is not.
I'm afraid Kagura has it right. I am the parent poster and you've read into my post something that isn't quite there. I simply observed that getting the people of the US factionalised into two groups allows you to pull the same shit with either party and you don't get more than 50% resistance to it because people feel obliged to defend their side. Every time a Democrat or Republican politician does something bad, they get vigorously attacked by the supporters of the other faction. But the attacks usually encompass not just that politician and his action, but the entire party and its supporters. The supporters respond naturally to defend themselves regardless of whether they are right or wrong. This happens in both directions. Thus even when an action is bad for the majority of the electorate, you have 50% of the population under pressure to defend it. That is why the factionalisation of America is bad for all. That and the problem that when a third party tries to emerge, something that would break up the power blocks allowing more flexibility in political positions, it is viewed as a threat by whichever party currently has most to lose.
What you have taken from my post is relevant, but not exactly what I meant. On Slashdot, which I think has more of a bias against Bush than for, then it may be correct to say that Obama gets off lighter for doing wrong than Bush. The reverse will be true in some other circles. But I would not equate the this with the Invasion of Iraq. And I like to think that, scary though it is, Slashdot as a whole has less bias in either direction than a lot of other places. I, like many posters here, have no allegiance, only principles. It's that attitude that the USA needs, imo.
Regards,
H.
He wasn't "partisan whining" (as far as I can tell). He was just observing the lack of complaints and guessing that there would be a lot greater suspicion and condemnation if Bush had done this. And I think it's fair to say he's right. That doesn't mean that it would be better or worse if the Republicans had done this.
Well it certainly sends a strong message to the rest of the International Community. US space programme to be done under the auspices of their military - nice and unambiguous.
Well that's the point of the factionalisation and faux-rivalry of US politics, isn't it? To get people so divided into their allegiance to a party name that you can then pull the same shit with either party and only 50% of the people will complain whilst the rest are obliged to rationalise it somehow.
I think not only the quality casting leads to the shows great popularity, but that they actually have decent story arcs. There are some howlers, but there are also some great moments. In "The Last of the Time Lords" where Martha Jones returns to confront the Master, the Doctor derisively asks the Master if he really thought that the Doctor would have asked her to bring a gun. The contempt in the word veritiably drips off Tennant's tongue and you know, exactly, that this wouldn't be in character for the Doctor's beliefs and he finds his own solution based on people's hope (and cleverness). So many programs and films today have no greater sophistication in their heroes than the ability to get back up after being shot and throw one last heroic punch. The Doctor is a character who wins without the cheating power of plot (mostly) but rather through staying a few steps ahead of his adversaries. That's why two of his best enemies are the Daleks (unreasoning military force, creating the tension between intellect and violence) and the Master (the clash of two equally powerful intellects).
By lower, you mean actually allowed to look like a human being you'd want to date, rather than a giant set of ultra-white teeth jammed in a tanned manequinn?
I don't mind the increaing youth of the Doctor so much as the increasing sexualisation. David Tennant was good. Christopher Eccleston is a very good actor and played the part very well, though the character wasn't that charismatic (deliberately on his part, I think). But what we've seen starting with Eccleston and much increasing with Tennant, is increasing sexual tension on the part of the doctor and his increasingly sexually interested companions. That undermines the alienness of the Doctor and I'd like to see things return to a slightly more aesexual footing. (Not that I couldn't watch Freeman Agyeman all day long). The most important thing to me though is that a regeneration results in a different character. That was always one of the most interesting aspects of the regeneration - not the physical change, but that the doctor seemed to actually recreate himself quite radically sometimes. That was a bit lost with the Eccleston - Tennant transition. They were both very similar. What I'd really like to see with Matt Smith is him come across as a genuinely new person. Still intelligent, still resolutely pacifist, but with his own set of mannerisms, relationships with people (it would be interesting to see him relate to former companions as if he were meeting them for the first time in some ways). I will wait and see. I'll certainly want to see the new episodes to judge for myself.
As I said, I was making rational points and being polite, whilst the above is neither. It's really just a hugely inelegant way of conceding the argument.
You have three times got factual information fundamentally wrong. Pointing that out is not "deliberately failing to understand." You also put the quote "no you aren't" up there, but I did never said these words in my post. That's misrepresentation or else you got confused with another poster. I've been fairly polite in my posts, whilst you began by declaring how desperate I was to post a "knee-jerk" response. I'll be happy to discuss this further politely if you wish. No offence has been meant.
Yep - Microsoft designed their sites specifically to be broken in Opera (not sure about Netscape and Firefox wasn't around then, afaik). It wasn't remotely accidental - the default style sheet *worked* in Opera, but if it detected the browser from the User Agent string, the server specifically returned one that wouldn't. I was highly critical of them for that at the time. I have no allegiance - only principles.
You are making absolutely no sense at all now. No one has said that Google is obliged to make Chrome work on Win2k. What exactly do you think you are arguing against?
You have again got your facts wrong. It is Google Chrome that is not supported on Win2k. Now what are these technical considerations that mean putting up links to Firefox and Chrome (the two Google controlled browsers) and not IE7?
I don't disagree with anything you said there - all fair and balanced. And I have full respect for your closing two words. I was originally just observing a sneaky play by Google and commenting on what outrage there would have been if Microsoft had done it with Hotmail (and I don't think I'm wrong in that prediction). My second post was just pointing out the errors and misrepresentation that some annoyed respondent made.