Israel civ

[gsmoove23]

So sorry, I've gotta write shorter posts.

[Solomyr]

No kidding about the shorter emails...it will take me a while to reply to that, it it's not going to come all right but oh man, something’s you said are just out of this world! I will take you statements about the Six-day war first:

The fact is Israel did attack first, but what is the best defense? An offense. Which is what Israel did in '67. During the build up to the war, numerous terrorist/commando raids were made on Israel from Egypt. Provocations. Syria meanwhile was shelling Israeli farms and kibbutzim from the Golan Heights. Provocation. In May of '67 Egypt and Syria began massing troops on the Israeli border. Provocation. And two weeks before the war, Egypt closed the straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping, and all shipping going to Israel. This alone is an act of war . The closing of the straits was not a little thing. It cut off Israel’s route to Asia, and it's main supplier of oil, which at the time was Iran. This act alone was enough for Israel to attack after warnings, and combined with the massing of troops on the borders, posed a serious threat to Israel’s existence. Israel was not the power it is considered today. Even today, its numbers are smaller than the surrounding Arab nations. Egypt alone had ~700 fighters, were as Israel had a mere 200. It’s a simple matter of attrition.

And let us be clear about Israel’s capture of Jerusalem. Jordan had been in control of the old city and west bank since '48 (by the way, did they grant the Palestinians their own state, or help build infrastructure, NO). When Israel attacked Egypt and Syria, it sent cables to Jordan saying it would not attack Jordan if Jordan didn't attack Israel. Their is a lot of evidence, that King Hussein was duped by Nasser, whose generals were probably lying to him, into believing that Israel was being crushed in the Sinai and with this, Jordan began shelling Jerusalem. Israel did not initiate the fighting with Jordan.

And what are these provocations from Israel you speak about? Responding to terrorist/commando raids on Israeli citizens? Responding to shelling of farmers? Just because the bulk of the fighting happened on the other side of a line doesn't mean it wasn't defensive. As a civ player, you should know that all to well.

I am happy to discuss the rights and wrongs and the ins and outs of the current conflict. But history must be understood, and not the lies and revisions that seem all too prevalent today.

No apologies for the long post. I will not allow people to remained misinformed.

[sabrewolf]

solomyr: you're one of these people who sees israel-critical comments as anti-semitic propaganda...

in that case one should call your opinion fashistoid or nationalistic.
but i don't think that's fair either and although it's tempting to say and think so, seeing your posts, i refuse to call you and your one-sided opinions like that.

i prefer the style you used in your last post. it's a different view on the '67 war. although i don't agree (after all, i'm biased by our european anti-semitic propaganda), i believe everyone is free to express their own opinion.

i have just one plea to you: don't openly deny historical facts... in my country you get punished if you do so. some revisionists have already been prosecuted.

[Kingof the Apes]

Originally posted by Solomyr
Jordan had been in control of the old city and west bank since '48 (by the way, did they grant the Palestinians their own state, or help build infrastructure, NO).

The strange thing is, they probably could have killed a large number of them and no one would be suprised. If a dictatorship commits an atrocity, people in the world think "oh, what do you expect.They're a dictatorship, you cant expect any better of them." Like the Fundamentalist government in Civ2. But when a Democracy even declares war, no atrocities, people in the world think "They should behave better, after all, they are a Democracy."

[Zero]

I strongly recommend that most of you read and post in bloodbath in Gaza thread for although talking about middle east crisis may not be offtopic, this kinda debate is everywhere (opposition to arab and many other i dont participate in.) And beside it would be ncie if we talked about Israeli civilization for once instead of middleeast issue for once.

As for my position on the issue? Well I believe my view doesnt have any affect on how it 'should' be (and it shouldnt) but answer is not so clear to me after I have heard all sides on the issue as you people put it. I don't see how I can pull of a extreme view without exhausting myself being doubted by legitimate counter-arguements given by others. Kudos for you people who keep standing up to your own beliefs!

EDIT: Oh and solomyr, I dont bash Israeli democracy. I would give equal and legitimate arguement and counter arguement for both sides but since your pro israel, Your doing that job for me. So it seems like every statement I make is for Palestinian. I mean when I talk about issues in the this thred, Im rarely intersted in what my view is or convincing other of my view, I'm interested in getting the truth (is there such a thing). I said I wasn't convinced not because of evidence you provided, but I have not heard of counter evidence given by opposing side that allows me to make my decision. You can't just have a prosecutor in court. Both side has to be represented for decision to be made no? I wasn't downplaying your statement, I just don't wanna buy your words without having heard the other side.

Ya know what would be really nice? If you could argue for case of pro Palestinian for me and give me counter-arguements to ur case. Doing that once in awhile could prove to others your not just extreme biased.

And bloodbath in Gaza is not Israeli bashing thread either. first few pages is pretty bad since some guy who bluntly accuse of everyone as being israeli basher, but last few pages are pretty good when everything settles down and people talk like gentlemen.

[Zero]

Originally posted by XarXo


Is not faith, is an inductive process, that could be deducted and posteriorly verifyied with logical treatment.

My point, you have to have faith in logic! since thats wat is reliant on!

Do you hold wat is to be true soley on logic? Doesn't logic prove itself to be illogical sometimes?

Where does logic come from? is it universal? What is logic? Why are you so sure of this logic you call can be applied to answer the questions?

Goingback to senses, IF logic is derived from our observation of the world through our senses, well senses have been known to be flawed since it can be 'tricked'.

EDIT: i notice that no one answers my annoying-like questions... I asked previously is it unjust simply because it is commonplace to think as unjust. since someone pointed out wisely that its not simply just because it is commonplace to bomb civilians. It seems as people act as it is unjust because it is commonplace to think it wise. If absolute truth DOES exist, answer should be no. Then I question why we think of bombing civilian as being unjust.

[XarXo]

Originally posted by Calc II
My point, you have to have faith in logic! since thats wat is reliant on!

So, whatever that you can't touch, doesn't exist? logical process doesn't exist by itself, is obtained from a dualist reflect of a logical unitary question. For example, "This car is blue?" First you need to unitarize the question, find the borders of the area affected by the question. So, is the car, the part thats visibile, non-internal, no wheels, no focus, no lights, etc... Blue?

Originally posted by Calc II
Do you hold wat is to be true soley on logic? Doesn't logic prove itself to be illogical sometimes?

Logic is never illogic, is the question that is not enough concrete (the inductive process is erroneous). Logic is used to verify the relation between two known concepts, never for discover.

Remember, firstly induce, secondly deduce.

Originally posted by Calc II
Where does logic come from? is it universal? What is logic? Why are you so sure of this logic you call can be applied to answer the questions?

What is: Life, Gravity, Light, Dark Matter, etc...

Originally posted by Calc II
Goingback to senses, IF logic is derived from our observation of the world through our senses, well senses have been known to be flawed since it can be 'tricked'.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by XarXo
Logic is used to verify the relation between two known concepts, never for discover.

Remember, firstly induce, secondly deduce.

If you start off with no known concepts how can you ever build up anything? - conclusion - everything is built on a house of cards.

Therefore to make science and their logical premises useful, you must assume they are accurate enough for their purpose. You can test to see how wrong they are and refine them, but they have never been 'correct'. Thus it requires faith that the underlying principals used are not fundamentally flawed.

Of course this kind of faith is more 'justified' than religous faith, but it is faith nonetheless.

[Solomyr]

sabrewolf,

i honestly don't see where you are getting your opinions of me. despite what you have said about me, i do not take all critisim of israel as anti-semetic. you want to talk pros and cons of israeli tactics, i'm game. you want to talk about the extremly poor job the israeli gov't has done building a fence, right on. you want to bash and insult the #^(&$& settlers who are holding the rest of israel hostage in the terriories and fighting with the IDF and police and attacking olive-picking Palestinians, i will not only bash them with you, i will say openly that the IDF needs to crack down on these religious zealots harder than they crack down on Hamas.

But, if you want to compare israel with the PA, or if you hold israel more accountable in the balagan (fu*k -up) that is the middle east, if you cry for UN instectors to protect the palestinians, yet do not do the same when israeli non-combatants die on their way to work, than this is what i fight against. You know me so well to say i am the boy who cried wolf? you have spent so much time talking with me to make a judgement on who i am and how i react to things based on a few posts? if so, you are too wise a man to waste his time in this forum, and you should, for the good of man kind, become a leader of people.

but since i doubt you can actually read me, and since i doubt the people who actually know me would say i am "one of these people who sees israel-critical comments as anti-semitic propaganda", i will take your ignorant comments in stride, and now, having pointed out your dumb-ass words, ask you to explain them.

and what is your view of the '67 war? i know not of these israeli 'provocation' people speak about. what historical facts am i openly denying? are you denying that closing the stairts of tiran was not an act of war? are you denying that comments by nasser should not have scared israel? what are you saying?

[Solomyr]

Calc, it is far to easy to argue the palestinian side. they should have their own nation, they should have self determination. they shoudl not live under israeli control. these things are given. and these things were being worked out in negotiations. they were taking to long you say? the US war for independence lasted seven years, how many revolotions did france have before a democracy actually got going? G-d, look what germany had to go through, and put Europe through before a democracy and self determination settled out. Jews worked for 60 years improving the land before Israel became a nation. the palestinains had everything going for them. money was coming in, peace was at hand. settlements were workign agasint this you say? maybe they were, maybe they weren't. maybe they forced the arab world to realize that the Jews weren't going to be pushed into the sea, and they weren't going to be bleed dry over years. and if the settlements made the palestinans fearful, call it motivation to work towards a state, nothing else seemed to work.

look, i will cry out at the disrespect Hamas and PIJ show for human life. i will point out to that it is children that they target. and it is sad. but the most tragic asspect of the last two years has been the complete 180 of the palestinian nation. they were so close. and arafat couldn't make the jump to statesman.

if israel is gulity of anything, it is letting arafat and his thugs back into Palestine. Israel, the US, Russia and the EU should have been working with the leadership of the first intafada at Oslo, not the exiled murders in Tunis. maybe if that had been the case, we could all be enjoying some hooka together now, instead of mincing words.

the palestinain case for their own state is strong, and not in question here, or at least to me. But their choice to use violence is what i condem, and a huge factor of why i support Israel in this conflict. if Arafat had become another Ghandi, or Martin Luther King, and lead non-violence, non-cooperation protests, and Israel invaded Hebron and Nabulus, i would hide my face. but Arafat chose violence, he taught his people to hate. he taught them the exact things he should not have taught them if he actually cared for them. that is the saddest thing of all in this situation, that people were taught hate.

[gsmoove23]

Solomyr,

In regards to your response to my response about 67 let me be clear that my only arguement was to point out other opinions on the matter. Few wars are onesided affairs and most have people on both sides who are pushing for them. For instance, Moshe Dayan, huge hawk in the lead up to 67 and much like Sharon before the invasion of Lebanon. Few wars leave any of its leaders with clean hands and this is the only reason I react so strongly to mention of a defensive war in 67. I'm sure most Israelis didn't want it, but that meant little to those who did.

Cross border attacks were common on both sides leading up to the war but as always where the retaliation begins is another matter. Many of the attacks were carried out by Pal refugees who had lost their homes in 48, many others were killed for trying to sneak back across the lines to visit family.

One particularly famous Israeli attack in the then Jordanian West Bank was at Qibya, where Ariel Sharon himself lead the much vaunted Commando 101 unit in a pre-dawn attack on a village where 69 people were killed. No guns or evidence of militants were found. Most of the victims were women and children.

Of course the UN was quick to come down on Israel and do an investigation on the affair where they didn't come down on fractious bands of militant pals who carried out equally heinous crimes. This is precisely because Israel does claim to be a democracy and is held to a higher standard because of it(and then theirs also the little bit about keeping OPEC nations happy).

As for comparative militaries, the arab nations had the numbers but you must know this is misleading, Israel had technological superiority and spent far more on its military budget then all of the arab nations combined, with considerable US support.

[XarXo]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


If you start off with no known concepts how can you ever build up anything? - conclusion - everything is built on a house of cards.

Therefore to make science and their logical premises useful, you must assume they are accurate enough for their purpose. You can test to see how wrong they are and refine them, but they have never been 'correct'. Thus it requires faith that the underlying principals used are not fundamentally flawed.

Of course this kind of faith is more 'justified' than religous faith, but it is faith nonetheless.

The problem is that you mix two things, one is the amount of nouns, adjectives, numbers and other symbols and symbol codes that we use to represent the world. The other is the reality itself. The idea is that this amount represent the reality just because a lot of people say "red" when watch blood.

The reality is equal in atomic stage (easily classifiable) beacuse we see a universe pattern that contains a lot of emptyness, when more empty is something, more easily could be interpreted (but only itself, no the complex that it forms, like a large mollecule).

The emptyness is (probably) the distance where matter can't exist in the form of the thing that we are looking, so, the emptyness between two atoms is just the area where matter/time can't put another atom.

This is very important, it guides us to a reticular (infinitely huge, but...) strucure for see and classify the universe.

The most important thing in the world actually is the Periodic Table and particule classification. This is the base for undersant the universe.

Beafore them, the humans discovered the forces in the matter (gravity, electromagnetic, etc...). Some properties like light, the wave system, potential and cynetical energies, etc...

But not only phisical, all the sciences discovered new words for explain waht they see. Also, the creation of machines opened our mind to new thing like lights that we don't see (but other animals yes), sounds, effects, sensations, etc...

All this expanded our languages (and this is why languages are so important for me ) and with the differents interpretatuions of each language give us a total vision that surely matches an important % of the universe.

With the Internet we can join all the knowledge and obtain the major ideas.

And, faith is not here, just because this kind of "faith" that you say usually destroy the base of itself.

See the geocentric/heliocentric (actually gravicinecticocentric) controversial in the XVI-XVII-XVIII centuries, is a perfect example of the science problem with the "faiths".

Remember that faith is believe in something that can't be proved. And science is not something to "believe", is something that test things, and probably the result will be a bad one for your actual faith.

[gsmoove23]

Calc,
In regards to your question about the truth and just and unjust action its too deep for me. While I tend to shy from absolutes an individual must rely on certain points of faith to navigate the world and while I'm in danger of taking an absolute view here, IMHO all knowledge is based on a foundation of faith. I used to think of it as a bad word when just beginning to realize I was an atheist but soon realized that I still had central beliefs that I could not prove to be true or just, but simply knew. One is the golden rule. Thou shalt not do unto others...

Talk about off-topic at least I tried to keep it short this time. By the way, where to find this Bloodbath in Gaza you speak of.

[Dauphin]

The problem is that you mix two things, one is the amount of nouns, adjectives, numbers and other symbols and symbol codes that we use to represent the world. The other is the reality itself. The idea is that this amount represent the reality just because a lot of people say "red" when watch blood.

When I refer to science I am refering to idea such as Newtonian mechanics or quantum mechanics or etc. In such a system the words or symbols used are irrelevant - it is the underlying principle they represent that are important. Newton's apple could have been green, red or even bright pink - science would predict they fall in the same manner.

The reality is equal in atomic stage (easily classifiable) beacuse we see a universe pattern that contains a lot of emptyness, when more empty is something, more easily could be interpreted (but only itself, no the complex that it forms, like a large mollecule).

The emptyness is (probably) the distance where matter can't exist in the form of the thing that we are looking, so, the emptyness between two atoms is just the area where matter/time can't put another atom.

This is very important, it guides us to a reticular (infinitely huge, but...) strucure for see and classify the universe.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. It doesn't seem to make any sense.

The most important thing in the world actually is the Periodic Table and particule classification. This is the base for undersant the universe

The periodic table is not the most important thing. Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity are the two cornerstones of science today. The periodic table is a classification of emergents from QFT

But not only phisical, all the sciences discovered new words for explain waht they see. Also, the creation of machines opened our mind to new thing like lights that we don't see (but other animals yes), sounds, effects, sensations, etc...

All this expanded our languages (and this is why languages are so important for me ) and with the differents interpretatuions of each language give us a total vision that surely matches an important % of the universe.

With the Internet we can join all the knowledge and obtain the major ideas.

Semantics are not the realm of science. Why do you claim them to be? You can call things whatever you like - scientific theories/principles won't change because of them.

See the geocentric/heliocentric (actually gravicinecticocentric) controversial in the XVI-XVII-XVIII centuries, is a perfect example of the science problem with the "faiths".

Geo-centricity and helio-centricity are both valid ways of viewing the universe. Its all about frames of reference - it just so happens that the former is far harder to work with than the latter when dealing with planetary motion.

Conversely when calculating where to fire artillery shells it is far easier to assume the globe is not rotating and there is a Coriolis force. You are not wrong to assume this.

Remember that faith is believe in something that can't be proved

But it can be disprooved.

Newtonian mechanics has been disproven. Therefore people who used it when they believed it to be fundamental were doing so on faith.

[Dauphin]

To me, it boils down to this. No fundamental theory can ever be proven, therefore they, and everything based upon them, is always taken on faith. The degree of confidence (or 'faith') in the theory varies depending on how well tested a theory/belief is.