+5 insightful my ass, you mods are fucking idiots.
It's no wonder this place is dying, between the idiotically partisan moderation and the stupid posters like yourself, who the fuck would want to wade through the crap to get to something useful.
"As a potential Johnny foreigner, I will spend my hard won Euros somewhere else."
Please do, you won't be missed.
Of course, you're lying, and this story has fuck all to do with a decision to come to the US you may or may not have actually made, but it's funny that you'd choose to say the same retarded shit that pops up immediately in these conversations.
In ALL serioussness, if this trivial bit of beauracracy GENUINELY causes you to stay away, we're glad about it.
"You did indeed suggest it. For example Israel has suggested negotiating for a peacful settlement and not meant it, so suggesting something does not mean you will behave in way you propose."
Absent any evidence of my behavior, your baseless assumptions are more telling about you than they are about me.
"The events of history and poor decisions of the past influence and create the problems of today. How quickly you are to write off history."
What they're doing isn't working. As to "quick to write off history" well, sure if you think considering thousands of years of failed action and deciding to act differently that you have for thousands of years is "quick", but most people are smarter than that.
"Do you tell your doctor not to look at your past medical records? I hope not."
Do you live your life by stupid inaccurate analogies? I hope not.
See the reason your analogy fails (apart from being puerile) is tat I HAVE CONSIDERED HISTORY, AND IT SAYS THAT THESE PARTIES ENGAGING IN VIOLENCE DOESN'T WORK.
A better analogy would be insisting on getting penicillin from my doctor for treating something, even though penicillin hasn't EVER WORKED in the past for treating my illness.
Based on what follows that sentence, no you don't.
"The correct response to aggression is non-violence"
I don't do that crap with the generalities. I'll speak to THIS situation, and it appears that non-violence is an answer to the problem in THIS situation.
"and the Israeli government should not have committed a military response to the rocket attacks?"
Never said anything on this one way or the other nor do I intend to, but the options of a state are different, as are the priorities.
My point was and is that Palestinians should engage in nonviolence instead of what they're doing currently.
The politics of the situation haven't been discussed at all, at least by me.
So that ridiculous, idiotic, retarded knee-jerk response people like you enjoy using in cases like this fails because you haven't bothered to actually pay attention to the posts on the subject.
Perhaps you should try for something more useful than "I know you are but what am I" hen you troll someone in the future.
"What you seem to be saying is that unless every single one of the millions and millions of Palestinians renounce violence then, according to your definition, all Palestinians are using violent approaches."
No, that's not what I'm saying, that's what you need me to say for your argument to work.
"Your definition of non-violence (that every single one of the millions and millions of Palestinians renounces violence)"
That's NOT my definition of non-violence, that's a bullshit made up definition that you need to use for your argument to not be wrong.
Please try again after reading and ACTUALLY COMPREHENDING my points.
A policy of strict non-violence TODAY moots everything you posted.
If the Palestinians engaged in a policy of non-violence, then the stupid justifications of current violence by Israel as a result of historical differences would evaporate.
"Well, Hamas shelled us three years ago" is FAR FAR FAR less of a justification that "Hamas shelled us yesterday".
In other words, you posted a long winded reply that really has fuck all to do with my point.
"A ceasefire is exactly that - an agreed pause in an ongoing confrontation so that negotiations can be held."
And the Palestinians DID NOT STOP. AT ALL.
"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. "
Despite the fact that Hamas had been firing rockets into Israel during the entirety of the "ceasefire".
"But you pick the comments that support your case, not those that are most likely."
And you leave out facts that destroy your case.
That said, I haven't picked ANY comments. Not a single one. You have to pretend I have, so you can accuse me of cherrypicking, but you're simply lying here.
Which makes me say "good day", as I have no tolerance for people who will lie to make their points like you have.
"I searched pretty heavily for evidence of Hamas forcing people to be human shields but couldn't find any."
ANY evidence, or "evidence that I am satisified with"? If it's "ANY" you need to get better at web searching. If it's "evidence I'm satisfied with" then you're on your own, as you've displayed a level of bias that would be impossible for any evidence to overcome.
"but all of the evidence on that page is calls for people to voluntarily be human shields."
And by voluntarily, you mean "volunteer or risk the wrath of Hamas and their supporters".
"So, actually, the Palestinians are trying both violent and non-violent approaches"
No, they aren't.
ANY attempt at non-violence protest is immediately and totally undermined by accompanying violence. You cannot have any credibility when you are protesting non-violently in one place, and using violence in another
It's one or the other, and Palestinians chose violence.
And it's really telling how many people cam out of the woodwork to defend violence, or give lame idiotic excuses for why non-violence won't work.
"You Fucking Piece Of Garbage (Score:-1) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 10, @12:40PM (#26399553)
What a piece of shit you are.
Someone needs to drag your fucked in the head ass to Palestine and see first hand what it is like to live under constant Israeli Terrorism that is funded and supported by the world's sole superpower.
Would put an immediate end to the revolting garbage you are spewing you FUCKING HUMAN TURD."
I talk about non-violent protest, and a supporter of Palestine responded with that. That pretty much says it all.
"What happens at these non-violent protests, such as demonstrations against the construction of the "security wall" in the West Bank? The protesters get stoned by right wing Israeli settlers, or are dispersed by tear gas and rubber bullets from the Israeli army
Which is EXACTLY what they want.
Then some fucking imbecile fires off some rockets at Israel and undoes every single bit of sympathy those people who got stoned and shot at earned with their blood.
Slashdot Mirror
For being completely ignorant of both DivX and how to use a search engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DivX
+5 insightful my ass, you mods are fucking idiots.
It's no wonder this place is dying, between the idiotically partisan moderation and the stupid posters like yourself, who the fuck would want to wade through the crap to get to something useful.
"As a potential Johnny foreigner, I will spend my hard won Euros somewhere else."
Please do, you won't be missed.
Of course, you're lying, and this story has fuck all to do with a decision to come to the US you may or may not have actually made, but it's funny that you'd choose to say the same retarded shit that pops up immediately in these conversations.
In ALL serioussness, if this trivial bit of beauracracy GENUINELY causes you to stay away, we're glad about it.
"You did indeed suggest it. For example Israel has suggested negotiating for a peacful settlement and not meant it, so suggesting something does not mean you will behave in way you propose."
Absent any evidence of my behavior, your baseless assumptions are more telling about you than they are about me.
"Well, an unsecured point means big brother can't track who exactly is using it "
SO does a secured access point.
You lied about me.
Why would you think I'd engage you in conversation after you openly lied about me?
We're finished.
"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. ;)"
That's not being fair, that's lying.
In other words, "I have DEFINITELY NOT called everyone engage in this discussion "fucking stupid", and by suggesting such, you are a LIAR."
"I can see you are the type of person with whom non violence would fail totally."
Um, I SUGGESTED IT, so that kind of makes you look like a fucking idiot.
You really can't read worth a fuck can you AC?
"The events of history and poor decisions of the past influence and create the problems of today. How quickly you are to write off history."
What they're doing isn't working. As to "quick to write off history" well, sure if you think considering thousands of years of failed action and deciding to act differently that you have for thousands of years is "quick", but most people are smarter than that.
"Do you tell your doctor not to look at your past medical records? I hope not."
Do you live your life by stupid inaccurate analogies? I hope not.
See the reason your analogy fails (apart from being puerile) is tat I HAVE CONSIDERED HISTORY, AND IT SAYS THAT THESE PARTIES ENGAGING IN VIOLENCE DOESN'T WORK.
A better analogy would be insisting on getting penicillin from my doctor for treating something, even though penicillin hasn't EVER WORKED in the past for treating my illness.
"So do I read what you're saying correctly."
Based on what follows that sentence, no you don't.
"The correct response to aggression is non-violence"
I don't do that crap with the generalities. I'll speak to THIS situation, and it appears that non-violence is an answer to the problem in THIS situation.
"and the Israeli government should not have committed a military response to the rocket attacks?"
Never said anything on this one way or the other nor do I intend to, but the options of a state are different, as are the priorities.
"It helps the government keep an eye on everyone."
HOW? This is the second time you've made that bullshit claim, and the second time I've called you on it.
Take your meds guy.
"it's another way of removing anonymity"
Please explain, in a way that those of us who aren't completely wrapped in tin-foil from head to toe, can understand.
As I see it, a secured access point is no lees anonymous than an unsecured access point.
"Because you're clearly unbiased."
I am and you can't demonstrate otherwise.
My point was and is that Palestinians should engage in nonviolence instead of what they're doing currently.
The politics of the situation haven't been discussed at all, at least by me.
So that ridiculous, idiotic, retarded knee-jerk response people like you enjoy using in cases like this fails because you haven't bothered to actually pay attention to the posts on the subject.
Perhaps you should try for something more useful than "I know you are but what am I" hen you troll someone in the future.
You're dismissed.
Nothing you posted there has ANYTHING to do with my points.
Why are you AC's all so fucking stupid?
"What you seem to be saying is that unless every single one of the millions and millions of Palestinians renounce violence then, according to your definition, all Palestinians are using violent approaches."
No, that's not what I'm saying, that's what you need me to say for your argument to work.
"Your definition of non-violence (that every single one of the millions and millions of Palestinians renounces violence)"
That's NOT my definition of non-violence, that's a bullshit made up definition that you need to use for your argument to not be wrong.
Please try again after reading and ACTUALLY COMPREHENDING my points.
"Where/When was the first place?, and by who?"
Doesn't matter.
A policy of strict non-violence TODAY moots everything you posted.
If the Palestinians engaged in a policy of non-violence, then the stupid justifications of current violence by Israel as a result of historical differences would evaporate.
"Well, Hamas shelled us three years ago" is FAR FAR FAR less of a justification that "Hamas shelled us yesterday".
In other words, you posted a long winded reply that really has fuck all to do with my point.
God why are you people so totally incapable of reading worth a fuck?
The first idiot AC made the claim that nonviolence doesn't work.
I gave example of why he was wrong.
Your moron ass AGREED with me, but your reading comprehension is so shitty that you didn't realize it.
No wonder you posted AC, you must know you're a fucking idiot.
"A ceasefire is exactly that - an agreed pause in an ongoing confrontation so that negotiations can be held."
And the Palestinians DID NOT STOP. AT ALL.
"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. "
Despite the fact that Hamas had been firing rockets into Israel during the entirety of the "ceasefire".
"But you pick the comments that support your case, not those that are most likely."
And you leave out facts that destroy your case.
That said, I haven't picked ANY comments. Not a single one. You have to pretend I have, so you can accuse me of cherrypicking, but you're simply lying here.
Which makes me say "good day", as I have no tolerance for people who will lie to make their points like you have.
"I searched pretty heavily for evidence of Hamas forcing people to be human shields but couldn't find any."
ANY evidence, or "evidence that I am satisified with"? If it's "ANY" you need to get better at web searching. If it's "evidence I'm satisfied with" then you're on your own, as you've displayed a level of bias that would be impossible for any evidence to overcome.
"but all of the evidence on that page is calls for people to voluntarily be human shields."
And by voluntarily, you mean "volunteer or risk the wrath of Hamas and their supporters".
Not even close to the same thing.
Last, this is for you
http://news.google.com/news?q=hamas+using+human+shields&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title
Go ahead and dismiss the evidence you don't like, your bias kind of makes your opinion irrelevant anyway.
I agree with pretty much everything you've said there.
My point from the beginning was to question the efficacy of the current protests versus non-violent protests and their history of success.
I strongly suspect the situation would be much different if the Palestinians were able to mount an effective campaign of non-violence.
If nothing else, the equivocation from people who support Israel would vanish, and the Palestinians would look like the victims they are.
"rocket and mortar fire all but completely stopped"
I sincerely doubt you'd be satisfied if the shelling of YOUR house had "all but completely stopped"
"So, actually, the Palestinians are trying both violent and non-violent approaches"
No, they aren't.
ANY attempt at non-violence protest is immediately and totally undermined by accompanying violence. You cannot have any credibility when you are protesting non-violently in one place, and using violence in another
It's one or the other, and Palestinians chose violence.
And it's really telling how many people cam out of the woodwork to defend violence, or give lame idiotic excuses for why non-violence won't work.
"You Fucking Piece Of Garbage (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 10, @12:40PM (#26399553)
What a piece of shit you are.
Someone needs to drag your fucked in the head ass to Palestine and see first hand what it is like to live under constant Israeli Terrorism that is funded and supported by the world's sole superpower.
Would put an immediate end to the revolting garbage you are spewing you FUCKING HUMAN TURD."
I talk about non-violent protest, and a supporter of Palestine responded with that. That pretty much says it all.
T
"What happens at these non-violent protests, such as demonstrations against the construction of the "security wall" in the West Bank? The protesters get stoned by right wing Israeli settlers, or are dispersed by tear gas and rubber bullets from the Israeli army
Which is EXACTLY what they want.
Then some fucking imbecile fires off some rockets at Israel and undoes every single bit of sympathy those people who got stoned and shot at earned with their blood.
"If you and most people you know had someone close to them murdered by the Israeli army, I suspect you'd find it hard to think about non-violence."
Not at all, non-violent protests work so I'd win.
Winning in the end is what matters, not vengeance.
At least to me.
You seem to have different, less civilized priorities
""Non-violent response" like mothers with babies in arms standing in the way death machines so they are forced to mow down innocent people?"
Yes.
"The Palestinians are doing that as well and are being demonized for using human shields."
You seem to be having difficulty thinking intelligently.
A person you force into a building to be killed by the military of the country you just fired rockets at is NOT a non-violent response.