News Stories

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Might makes Right

Maybe in your eyes, and maybe that's how the results play out. But in my mind, where some ideals still exist, I disagree

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Maybe in your eyes, and maybe that's how the results play out. But in my mind, where some ideals still exist, I disagree

Ideals exist but if you look at the result of record human history form the last 3 thousands years. The results say Might Makes Right.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

No, it isn't. Don't you see how giving them the land would sap a lot of power from Hamas? How it would hurt their 'cause,' and how less people would become radicalized in the first place?

we pulled out of Gaza and gave them that entire territory.
far from weakening the extremists, it made them even MORE popular because they were able to say "see, though our actions we DROVE the Israeli's out of Gaza, now we just have to keep pressuring and eventually the Jews will all pack up and go back to Poland"
one year later, you had the first election in the Palestinian's history
end result being Hamas winning.
and it had so many members joining the groups militant arm in Gaza, that it would actually capable of pulling a coup and taking over the entire area by force.

similar events in Lebanon happened after we pulled out of there without first securing a peace treaty (this time with Hezballah claiming victory and gaining strength for it)

history has already shown that your theory doesn't hold water.
if anything, making one sided concessions without securing political treaties first only farther radicalizes our enemies.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Maybe in your eyes, and maybe that's how the results play out. But in my mind, where some ideals still exist, I disagree

when the UN decided to partition the area to two states, the arab's resopnded by trying to forcefully take OUR half
would that have been right ?

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Ideals exist but if you look at the result of record human history form the last 3 thousands years. The results say Might Makes Right.

I'm all too aware. Doesn't mean I'm going to begin believing that myself. It almost seems like you are suggesting we shouldn't bother trying to stop bad things from happening if they are likely to occur.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

when the UN decided to partition the area to two states, the arab's resopnded by trying to forcefully take OUR half
would that have been right ?

No, it wouldn't have been. You must have some misconception as to my beliefs on the issue. But since I'm not going to convince you of anything, and I know your stance on things, I'll leave it here.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

No, it wouldn't have been. You must have some misconception as to my beliefs on the issue. But since I'm not going to convince you of anything, and I know your stance on things, I'll leave it here.

look, i think i DO get your point, so i'll admit this much
the Palestinians DID get the short end of the stick in the way history ended up taking place.
but i will qualify this with two statements

1)the war that ended up screwing the palestinians out of their half, was not started by us, but rather by the arabs who tried to rob us of our half.

2)the palestinians got a considerable longer part of the stick then WE would have gotten had we lost.

because lets be perfectly perfectly honest here.
you and i both know that had the arabs won the 1948 war, then 62 years later, people would not be discussing the possibility of forming a jewish state in the area.

good night

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

1)the war that ended up screwing the palestinians out of their half, was not started by us, but rather by the arabs who tried to rob us of our half.

That other people screwed them first doesn't make it right for Israel to continue to screw them.

2)the palestinians got a considerable longer part of the stick then WE would have gotten had we lost.

Red herring

because lets be perfectly perfectly honest here.
you and i both know that had the arabs won the 1948 war, then 62 years later, people would not be discussing the possibility of forming a jewish state in the area.

good night

Sure there would be. Zionists had been talking about it for decades before. There's no reason to believe they'd stop talking about it after being so close to achieving their goal.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Sure there would be. Zionists had been talking about it for decades before. There's no reason to believe they'd stop talking about it after being so close to achieving their goal.

i seriously doubt there will be much negotiation with the Arab about establishing a Jewish state if the arab had won the war.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

off topic but every country in the world today exist because sometime in the past it was strong enough to stop a invading army. otherwise they would gone to dust like Phoenicians, Magyar and Babylonians.

Not mine. We got waxed because Mountbatten decides to let his balls shrink and allow imperialist Japanese to run all over us, and when he realises they outnumber the Japs 4:1, it's already too late. They lost a shipping lane.

And that includes a few idiots who think that putting giant guns on a small piece of rock behind the main island would deter an invasion.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Sure there would be. Zionists had been talking about it for decades before. There's no reason to believe they'd stop talking about it after being so close to achieving their goal.

According to historical records, they have been talking about that since hundred of years. Minus all that fantasy and magic from the Quran, it seems that the Jews had been wanting a state for themselves since Muhammad cut them up into nomadic tribes for not paying tribute to the Muslims, who had a large control of the ME back in the BC era.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i seriously doubt there will be much negotiation with the Arab about establishing a Jewish state if the arab had won the war.

He said discussing the possibility, not making serious progress towards it. There would certainly be some discussions though. The religious right in the US would still support the possibility of making a Jewish state. Plus, we can't really predict how things would go there at all. The region could see constant fighting between the neighboring arab states for control, as a bad end, or a secular state that's open to Arab and Jewish settlement. Granted the later isn't nearly as likely as the former.

[Ascaloth]

Well, this latest spat over the Israeli-Palestinian issue has made for good "e-dick contest" reading lately for the most part, but I just can't let this go.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Don't be snarky. A country that was 'created' by Western nations less than 100 years ago is pretty debatable whether it should exist, in my eyes.

Oookay. The country I reside in currently, Singapore, just celebrated its 45th anniversary of independence. Therefore, according to your logic, Singapore's right to existence is 'debatable'.

Gee, I'm sure Old Man Lee would be glad to hear that.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

off topic but every country in the world today exist because sometime in the past it was strong enough to stop a invading army. otherwise they would gone to dust like Phoenicians, Magyar and Babylonians.

Hot damn! We didn't even get our independence by pushing back an invading army; we're only independent because Malaysia told us to GTFO!

Hey guys, who wants to try and invade us? We need some justification for our existence!

[aruchan]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

That other people screwed them first doesn't make it right for Israel to continue to screw them.



Red herring



Sure there would be. Zionists had been talking about it for decades before. There's no reason to believe they'd stop talking about it after being so close to achieving their goal.

Jews have had it in their prayers--they still do--to go back to the holy land of Israel. So it isn't like this is some new phenomenon; it just became organized in the late 1800s.
The world is about people screwing other people. All over. All the time. The Jews were the original inhabitants of the land, who then got screwed by the Babylonians, and then by the Romans, and then again by the Muslims, and then again by the Christians in the crusades, and finally got to come back 2000 years later.

Jerusalem is a complex issue. It probably should have International City status or whatever the UN wants to call it, but it's not like that will ever happen.
And yet? I've visited Israel and I'm perfectly happy to call the US my home. (Although I like New Zealand better, sorry.)

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by aruchan

Jews have had it in their prayers--they still do--to go back to the holy land of Israel. So it isn't like this is some new phenomenon; it just became organized in the late 1800s.
The world is about people screwing other people. All over. All the time. The Jews were the original inhabitants of the land, who then got screwed by the Babylonians, and then by the Romans, and then again by the Muslims, and then again by the Christians in the crusades, and finally got to come back 2000 years later.

Jerusalem is a complex issue. It probably should have International City status or whatever the UN wants to call it, but it's not like that will ever happen.
And yet? I've visited Israel and I'm perfectly happy to call the US my home. (Although I like New Zealand better, sorry.)

no they weren't, as much as the jewish lobby like you to believed there was someone there even earlier that the jew screw over.

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

no they weren't, as much as the jewish lobby like you to believed there was someone there even earlier that the jew screw over.

But the original owners of that land were possibly the Sumerians, or so I believe.

[cors8]

Originally Posted by Hooves

But the original owners of that land were possibly the Sumerians, or so I believe.

Were the Jews even there prior to Exodus? They committed some pretty bad atrocities to the natives in the course of conquering/claiming the land post-Exodus.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Oookay. The country I reside in currently, Singapore, just celebrated its 45th anniversary of independence. Therefore, according to your logic, Singapore's right to existence is 'debatable'.

Gee, I'm sure Old Man Lee would be glad to hear that.

Well, we got our way around by playing nice with everyone. We didn't go anti-Malaysia right after they kick us out, neither do we evict every single Chinese affiliated with the communists when we left M'sia in 1965.

And we let everyone serve in the National Service - sorta like the Swiss; we don't give a shit which race or religion that 18-year-old male belongs to, he still picks up the damn rifle and run in boots for 3 years (reduced to 2 now, with a $6,000 compensation package. Damn!).

Unlike the local history books, I don't blame the British for running out on us when the Japs came. Lord Loser Mountbatten sent them a WITHDRAW ORDER and sent the leftover troops to fight Rommel in Africa. The better ones were drawn into OSS under Force 136, and a few chose to stay behind - like John Davis, who later went to fight communists in the Emergency after the war.

There is one part that really pissed the Malaysians off - when it is revealed in the 1980s that we invited the Israelis to provide instruction for us and our AMX-13 light tanks. Malaysia didn't had time to think of plans about destabilising the Lee regime, they are too busy holding off the commies during the Malaysian Emergency, and subsequently, preventing the Vietnam War up north from spilling the communist influence over.

Conclusively, we thrived by playing nice. So did our neighbours. The ME didn't - the first thing they do in 1948 is declare a damn war. Idiots.

Hot damn! We didn't even get our independence by pushing back an invading army; we're only independent because Malaysia told us to GTFO!

Hey guys, who wants to try and invade us? We need some justification for our existence!

Unless you count the Pacific Theater with the Allies bashing through Midway from Guadalcanal to Tarawa, and that we are still considered a British Colony back then, we did push back our invaders back in WWII.

But then again, most of those guys who pushed the Japs out of SEA are Aussies and Americans. The Brits are up far North killing Krauts in North Africa and Normandy.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Oookay. The country I reside in currently, Singapore, just celebrated its 45th anniversary of independence. Therefore, according to your logic, Singapore's right to existence is 'debatable'.

Gee, I'm sure Old Man Lee would be glad to hear that.

You're taking what I'm saying out of context. And you should know what I'm referring to. Singapore was expelled from Malaysia due to various conflicts, of which I'm sure you know more than I - I'm just aware one of the reason was ethnic due to Malays being preferentially treated. That's ironic, considering how out of context you've taken my post. Singapore was created in part to avoid ethnic conflict, whereas the creation of Israel started a still ongoing conflict. Yeah, go back and read all my posts. I might not be right about everything, but I stand by that statement.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

You're taking what I'm saying out of context. And you should know what I'm referring to. Singapore was expelled from Malaysia due to various conflicts, of which I'm sure you know more than I - I'm just aware one of the reason was ethnic due to Malays being preferentially treated. That's ironic, considering how out of context you've taken my post. Singapore was created in part to avoid ethnic conflict, whereas the creation of Israel started a still ongoing conflict. Yeah, go back and read all my posts. I might not be right about everything, but I stand by that statement.

The reason wasn't just ethnic - the coverage of the riots are blown out of proportion. Nobody shouted "Merdeka" in Singapore when it came to the riots - in fact nobody wants to be separated.

Another major issue is the creation of a free market - Singapore's products still face tariffs even after the merger, meaning which the Singaporean workers get paid less for what they do as their companies have to foot the bill for the export tax.

Besides, I think it is the way you phrased your statement :

Don't be snarky. A country that was 'created' by Western nations less than 100 years ago is pretty debatable whether it should exist, in my eyes.

We are somewhat created by the Brits, Dutch and Spanish in the 1800s during the colonial age. In 1959 when Singapore gained self-governance, the British weren't exactly willing to let go of this place, namely because :

1. We are a strategic port. Calling at our port generates a free-stream of income by taxing shipping and repairs.
2. Communism - Vietnam war is brewing up North. Coming down South means Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei would be trapped in between the Indonesian Communists - perfect for the entire SEA and the world sea trade lane to be painted red.
3. Singapore still contains a bunch of idiot population with no idea of how the world event is turning after WWII (compared to today, we are still idiots who don't know much of the world, but still better than that time).

1962/1963 is the big year when Singapore merged with Malaysia. Communists around the world are scared stiff because of Malaysia's hard stance against communism, which means that the entire of SEA can effectively become an Islamic Caliphate through mass-deportation of the Chinese, should a hardcore religious leader take head.

I am pretty much a good living example of how the events of racism is actually orchestrated by ambitious politicians who wanted to seize state control - I have Malay blood in my veins, but none of my direct ancestors have been force-converted to Islam upon marriage. The main reason why "western created states of less than 100 years old" can have a potpourri of races and still live in peace is because of mutual respect at the micro-level communities (and a certain level of enforcement at the macro-level of state, I love the ISD).

Israel's conflicts are considered diplomatic rather than civil, considering the fact that the Druze or Arabs aren't exactly complaining about the Palestinian issue (other than Iran supplying Hamas with rockets and bombarding their real estate properties). Neither are the minorities denied the freedom of faith unlike Iran (where Jews and Bah'ai practictioners are prosecuted by the Shi'ites).

The right of statehood is to be earned by the tenacity of the citizens and their willingness to be excluded from a more biased set of politics. The Jews and the Druze have a sort of "blood-pact" when the Syrians abandoned the latter, who defected to the Israeli side. Similarly, there is a number of Malays during the separation who chose to take up the Singaporean citizenship since they are not considered immediate citizens if they lived in Singapore, and people from other races who chose to take up a Singapore citizenship to escape the "bumiputera" policy.

What builds a state is a desire for citizenship - it is not "created" by a former occupying power or such. Otherwise, why Jefferson is willing to take the Declaration of Independence to the Brits back in 1776?

[ChainLegacy]

Well, thanks for the information, it is interesting. I don't really follow your line of reasoning, though. Israel is like the United States, a large amount of the population were not native to the region and the people who were native weren't given much of a say in the situation. And like I said earlier, I don't agree with what was done to the Amerindians, even though I am American, so you'll have a hard time convincing me what was done to the Palestinians is a-okay. Either way, I don't dispute Israel's right to exist, as I've tried to reiterate several times. I'm just trying to give some inkling towards the rationale of disgruntled Palestinians.

[james0246]

In other non-Israel news (of which there is an entire world full of):

It's finally happened, Neflix has killed Blockbuster: Blockbuster files for bankruptcy in US.

The Dallas, Texas-based company said it had made the decision as part of attempts to cut its debts and restructure the business.

Agreements with its creditors will allow it to cut its debts from nearly $1bn to about $100m, Blockbuster said.
---
"The process announced today provides the optimal path for recapitalising our balance sheet and positioning Blockbuster for the future as we continue to transform our business model to meet the evolving preferences of our customers," Jim Keyes, Blockbuster's chief executive said.

Analysts say Blockbuster has struggled with the increased competition in the online rental market in recent years.

When it launched its own online DVD subscription service in 2004, it was already several years behind the US market leader, Netflix, which launched in 1999.

And this is what Bankruptcy is supposed to do. Blockbuster will take a break, and come back with a new business model to properly compete with Netflix. And from that competition, prices will be lowered (or services raised - Blockbuster, you could become the 1st Video Game and DVD online rental center, much the same as you were the first real video and video game rental store), and the consumers will be all the happier (I haven't been a fan of Blockbuster for years, but I still use them when I want to grab a new release (which is almost impossible to do through Netflix)).

[killer3000ad]

Google wins Youtube copyright case in Spain

In short, the ruling says Google is not responsible for user content on Youtube that contains copyrighted material, rather the court says that it is the responsiblity of the copyright holder to identify infringements of it's copyrights.