Terrorism of Zionism

[mike435]

PART III

[*]When you're dealing with power, you run the risk to oppress others. When someone has a nuclear bomb as a deterrent, then you become scared to go against that country even if that country acts unjustly. So that country has an easier time to act unjustly: to allow more settlements, to be more racist, to treat people more harshly. The next debate question here is clearly, doesn't Israel abuse its power of having a nuclear weapon? [/LIST]

This hate trickles down to innocent civilians in the form of "collateral damage". And do they really have a right to hate Hamas and Islamic Jihad- a hate that explicitly causes the loss of innocent life- as opposed to being against their policies?

To say that a violent act is just, you have to prove that it is the only way. For example, if you have a choice between a violent act and a non-violent act, and both bring about the same result, clearly the non-violent act would be better.

Some people believe that Israel's methods are the only way for defense. This includes the methods of labeling complex and partly community-based organizations as terrorists, and extreme violence and threats for the purpose of deterrence, among other things.

Do you agree that these are the only way?

Actually, there is evidence to suggest that Hezbollah does not do this. The other issue is that Hezbollah is largely community based.

Look you have seen video from the iaf after the missile launcher has launched its missile they run right into apartment building, they go in to cemeteries and next to masks.
Hezbollah does community based things like counter fitting money and passing it out or taking Iranian money and passing it out. Also I have stated more reasons in the pervious statement above why Hezbollah is not community based. And if you have evidence about Hezbollah not hiding please share.

What gives them that right? To tell people to leave from their homes and country.

Nothing gives Israel this right. But if you are being attacked and you can identify the area of were these attacks are coming form, and you can neutralize it to prevent more attacks it would be immoral of you not to act on that to save your own citizens, even if it is at the cost of temporarily or to extreme permanent displacement.
A life any life is more important than displacement.

So the life of an occupying soldier with a technologically-advanced lethal weapon is more important than the life of an oppressed child with a rock?

Life is life. But if you can protect your self you should very well do so. The Israeli soldier and the teen with rock is not so simple. Fist off the Israelis go very much based on experience if they see that before a Palestinian kid with a rock was able to heroically kill the technology advanced better trained Israeli solder with more advanced weapons, they will be damn to let that mistake be repeated again.
And still they use warning and rubber bullets and tear gas before they start actually shooting if they were to shoot of first account of threat there would be thousands of young palastinians ding every day , I mean it literally 1000s everyday. These clashes are so common it unbelievable.

Normally they don't, but what's the evidence that Israel did not do this? Can I quote you on your assertion that the European Jews that made Israel were not racist against Muslims?

Many Israelis that I've argued with get around this issue by saying that in fact Muslims are inferior in their culture and that gives Israeli the moral high ground, kind of like the justification for killing American Natives or "Indians".

If you stand on your original point that European Jews were not racist against Muslims before coming to Palestine, we can research the issue.

Ramin you come from a concrete prospective and considering European mentality as much as I hate I will agree with they may have hated or were racist towards palastinians, but even so that was then. That was 60 years ago. It is not the progressive politically correct Israel of today. But even thene they let the native arabs to participate in there political system and protected their rights as well. Israel has a ministory of religion that has rabis, muslim emams and Christian priest that make religious based policy or defend religious rights of the people.

I do believe that the Palestinian have an inferior culture, not the Muslim. Also believing some one has an inferior culture is not wrong. But even if someone does have an inferior culture you still have no right or justification to treat theme less or abuse theme. Your job should be to also try to elevate their culture. Also culture only becomes inferior toanother were it will be endangering lifes and coexistence.

The question is why do they hate and how can it be reconciled?

I think I have answered this question above. But one way of reconciliation is education. Which the palastinians are in dire need.

Both sides have been overly conservative at times, but Israel is the occupier and oppressor against the Palestinians. It is more natural for Palestinians to be more conservative.

[mike435]

That's a good goal, but I'm say its too high to ask for this on a silver platter. Palestinians are upset about being displaced by Israelis and it is natural for them to be upset about that and not right away recognize Israel. Time will help, but Israel does not even allow the clock of reconciliation to start due to not negotiating without their preconditions.

First of all, its interesting that the end of your sentence has a twist "because they are Israelis". Its not because they are Israelis, its because Israel has forcibly occupied their land and is oppressive. In any case, it would be preferable for Israel that their kids and women don't die and this is another good goal. How does this relate to negotiations though?

I dint intended it to be a twist there. I do believe that those people living in Haifa, telaviv, and jeruslam are Israelis. The ones in the west bank yes they are fearfully living their.

Where have the Palestinians lied? And we haven't established that Israel does not lie.

Media is usually a tool for misrepresentation of issues and currently undermines global and local democratic processes.

A culture being "messed up" is a relative term. You must be comparing with someone else. But no comparison is justified because culture goes through natural evolution and just because some have had more opportunities to improve their culture than others doesn't make them better.

The reason why Israelis have lasted this long, may last even longer, and their main righteousness, clearly comes from their persecution during the Holocaust. But just because there's one righteous thing doesn't mean they are fully righteous.

The US, Canada, Turkey, Christianity and Islam and many more empires have lasted far longer than Israel and they have done so through not only righteousness, but also genocide.

What's a terrorist mentality. Give me your step by step breakdown of Hamas's mind state.

Inevitably you'll find righteousness and anger just like Israel. Or no? Please provide me with a better alternative to this view if you don't agree.

No problem... We've clearly advanced the discussion. Many of the disagreements seem researchable and prone to further development and discovery with research evidence from psychology and history.

Everything here is something that can be verified if there is disagreement. I just want to make clear where we disagree before we embark on extra effort and research. For my part, I can take care of bringing the research evidence if we find the clear points of disagreement between us.

This clearly requires an open mind. The law of human nature and that of human progress and discussion requires that, even if you're right, that you explicitly accept the possibility that you might be wrong in case that you are.

If you agree with this last statement and apply it, it will make the rest of the conversation easy and enjoyable while also providing a source of pride for all. Finding the truth, making it more precise and refining it, accepting one's imperfections and vagueness in knowledge and language, clearly has great ramifications for the person and the person's future, family and humankind. Though it is not expected that such changes occur in a day, the will to it may be good enough.

Having said all this, this may be the most enjoyed conversation I've ever had, as you have shown many of the above signs. As for me, I beat myself in the head before conversation so that my opinions do not become mere habit and they go under reasoned scrutiny again, even if they are right...

Last thing I would say is if you think you're repeating stuff for me, don't give up. Even if I really didn't give a good reason for not accepting your point, it is human nature that knowledge comes from repetition.

Do you agree that palastinians are doing more har to theme selfs that the Israelis are doing to theme?

Do you agree that a good number of palastinians want to see the destruction of Israel, a good amount that is a credible amount,

[mike435]

I do believe we are advancing if I seem hardheaded I swear to you it is not because I am blindly accepting something nor do I believe the same about you. Please don’t give up and continue the discussion, I am not just enjoying it but learning about both sides and both type of mindsets. Talking to you has made me see why to people can have opposing viewpoint and both can be right from their own prospective.

I think one reason for this is peoples basic beliefs and principles after you have responded I will open up another thread were we will go over our basic beliefs, principles and personal philosophy.

This is what I mean

One sees suicide bombing as moral heroic and a way to save lies. Believe it or not this guy is correct
But another sees suicide bombing as immoral selfish and devastating to all sides
He is also so correct were they are wrong is the filter is the lens they look through which is made up of their basic beliefs, principles, and culture.

And it is there that one is superior or inferior.

Looking forwarded to you response please when you are multi quoting me even if you are gone response to one statement from a paragraph include the whole paragraph.

Looking forwarded to your response

[mike435]

i was reading post 103 i had made a mistake their is correction thing their.

[zubin]

See... that's the problem with the use of the word terrorism. I made absolutely no moral justification of "terrorism" or "Hamas' terrorism", not did I indicate in any way that I would be defending these concepts, and only based my argument on a logical and scientific analysis of Israel and Hamas' actions. Yet, you say I am defending or may consider the defense of terrorism" and "Hamas' terrorism".

I'm sure your anger and frustration are justified. You might be justified in anger and frustration, and it may be hard for any human being in your position not to involve these in dialogue. But this should not overrule logic during a logical and scientific discussion. It throws trust right out the window.

You have a clear hate of Hamas, and I believe this over-ruled the logical analysis of our discussion, as you took my hypothesized comparison between Hamas' mind, actions and situation with Israel's as a defense or possibility of defense of "terrorism" or "Hamas' terrorism".

In case you didn't know, terrorism is taken generally to be a very negative thing, make people's faces cringe in disgust at the people its associated with. It may be just a word, but it has this cruel effect.

There is nothing in my behavior that comes even close to the wording of your statement above. You might sincerely not care about looking into your biases and prefer even a baseless cohesion against evil, but I strongly recommend that for justice, your own enlightenment, and positive coexistence, that you take the route of stringently objective wording and discussion.

Whether you meant it or not, you totally misrepresented my points with this statement and to be honest I don't know if I can trust you or anyone else on logical discussion of this issue anymore. I don't want to start a logical and objective discussion with someone, with the aim of getting our minds clear, to share perspectives, and ultimately, for peace, and then be accused of possibly defending terrorism.

This is one of the biggest problems the world at the moment and clearly an impediment to peace. The word terrorist has simply replaced the word Hitler, though the latter is still often used. Right when one is asked to justify their actions they say, "because they other people are terrorists".

This makes discussion impossible... The word terrorist should always be scrutinized for inhumane applications.

What is deceptive about the system?

Israel's system becomes deceptive when combined with its strong military might, its US-support, and its constant claim of superiority over other Middle East cultures. It is deceptive in that its combination with these other elements makes people want to change their way of life out of fear instead of out of genuine feelings and logic. It also undermines the efforts of people working towards change internally in surrounding countries.

This deception might not be intentional, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. It would mean that Israel has to be careful how it uses her power and ideology.

Also, whether it started off Marxist or not, it is currently claiming the superiority of liberal democracy (just like you have) and it is this system that the US is also trying to compel other, "lower cultures" to adopt.

If you are going to respond, please analysis my above paragraphs point by point.

If the goal is disturbance of the Israelis it can be carried out by attacking power facilities, military targets

With what comparable conventional military? How would this be effective?

And you're saying that power facilities are more definitive of the country of Israel than a downtown district? When one thinks about "the country of France", for instance, one thinks of its cities and normal daily life. So the fact that Hamas has often attacked Israeli districts can easily be reflective of their opposition to the country of Israel. And you admit that this is indeed their opposition.

This may be true, but why should Hamas or other organizations take a chance? Has Israel expressed a clear seriousness and willingness towards Palestinian justice, which would include land, refugees, respect and rights? If they haven't communicated this crystal-clearly, how can responsible Palestinian organizations know that non-violence will be more effective? Just trust an organization that ravished their rights, lives and land?

Also look how bad and negative HAMAS is that wants destroy Israel existence.

When did they say they want to destroy Israel? The current position is non-recognition, not destruction. Big difference man!!!! And in the past, when you bring me evidence that they said this, what was the context? What was the intention? Was it to gather voter support? Was it to empower Palestinians? Or was it a dead serious priority? If it was a dead serious priority, then where's the evidence that they had the military capability and support to destroy Israel?

How dare they?

By way of these four reasons:

1. Israel is sitting on their land

2. Israel is oppressing them

3. Israel has stripped them away from their dignity and rights

4. Israel does not seem to be trustable as an administrator of justice

Just because of the fact they want to destroy Israels existence I think its enough for it to loose all legitimacy.

Again, you haven't established the fact that their die-hard, and end all goal is the utter and complete destruction of Israel. In fact, they have indicated that though they don't recognize Israel, that they do not seek Israel's destruction, but rather, seek 1967 borders and policies for their own state.

You really believe that, is that why they put rat poison in bombs when they blow it at a discovers or in a bus, if one wants to disturb you can do it with out violence.

They want to disrupt the existence of the country of Israel, because as it stands now, it seems illegitimate. Their reason for putting in rat poison is this.

Violence will make a bigger sound and get more attention at the beginning but after that, the violence takes a way from the cause and directs its momentum towards defense and forces the Israeli to watch out for himself because now he is threatened.

One can easily abuse the notion of a threat for their own gains and to delay justice. You know that. So you have to show me that Israel is not doing this before I consider your reasoning against violence seriously.

I personally believe that the way Hamas conducted many attacks was not necessary. But this by itself does not make Hamas worse or more responsible than Israel or other countries and factors involved, and does not justify the current labels, conditions, and attitudes towards Hamas that are impeding solutions for everyone's peace and quiet.

Yes Israeli military options is less terrorizing. It is not systematically targeting Palestinians, it goes after the Hamas, Islamic jihad and other terrorist groups and it goes after theme with all its might. I can see that when tanks and soldiers come in to their town how terrorizing that is but it is still less.

How is it less terrorizing? It kills people who are innocent and under occupation, as well as people who are respected in the Palestinian community. It is not even close to a necessary procedure, nor effective or just.

Again, you're basing your whole argument on the idea that Hamas' target is civilians and not the country of Israel with civilians as a part of it. But granted, in and of itself, Hamas' action is more terrorizing than Israel's and has a clearer target at civilians, however minor the distinction may be. But Israel is also a nuclear power that is occupying Palestine, regulating the every day lives of innocent palestinians, oppressing palestinians, is disrespectful, all while they use totally unnecessary, vengeful force that ends up killing children and devestating an already devestated country, and with the added factor of having been rooted in a style of violence very similar to Hamas', as well as cultural racism.

Well your statement in its self is true, but what is Islamic republic defending, is the defending of that interest worth gaining a bomb and disrupting the balance of power in the region.

What Ahmadinejad would say to you is that they are defending the cultural and territorial rights of their country, and that they are not seeking a nuclear bomb.

Though this defending comes with the abhorrent baggage of violation of fundamental human rights, what do you say to these other things that they are defending?

Also, many would agree that there needs to be a balance of power in the region in the form of less power to Israel against palestinians, if not against anyone else.

The Islamic republic is not under any threat from anyone.

The Bush and Israel policies are against the Islamic republic's existence. How is that not a threat?

[zubin]

Good for them. But violence can only be a temporary solution. Also, Israel is arguably abusing the right to self-defense. For example, the kidnapping of a nuclear and technologically advanced state's soldier does not threaten the existence of that state.

That kind of an idea for this region is a very romantic one. Especially de-nuke.
How can you do that how can you reconcile with out knowing that what you are doing what you will be giving up wont be a loss.

You de-nuke as a condition for peace. But this has not been put on the table.

Remember Israelis will be gamboling their only chip of bargaining and they are gamboling their country.

Accepted

If there are no precondition there is no way of a gurenting a positive result,.

What do you mean precondition here? Do you mean there should be conditions to talks or that there should be conditions of outcome? If you are talking about conditions of outcome, ofcourse those are important if they are reasonable. If you are talking about conditions of talking, that's nonsense. There's nothing wrong or destructive with talking. One can after talking theoretically go back and purchase eight more nuclear warheads.

This hate trickles down to innocent civilians in the form of "collateral damage". And do they really have a right to hate Hamas and Islamic Jihad- a hate that explicitly causes the loss of innocent life- as opposed to being against their policies?

Look at my quote. I did not say that the hate for Hamas trickles down to hate for Palestinian civilians. I said the hate for Hamas trickles down to death of palestinian civilians.

if hamas is community why is it willing to drag the Palestinian economy and life to shit just so it wont give up it terror manifest

There's never just one cause to anything. There are always multiple causes. One might say the whole global economics system is flawed and that's the main fault, or that Israel's oppressive existence is the main fault. You have given no reason why Hamas should be the blame for the Palestinian economy. Regarding "terror manifest", why not be scientif and say "justice and liberation manifest with the use of violence, which includes civilians, as one method" instead?

Such a constitution is overboard, is not feasible or just. But there's no evidence to suggest that human beings can not negotiate and change, or that these grand proclomations are not for practical, empowering purposes rather than permanent ideological purposes.

Hezbollah does community based things like counter fitting money and passing it out or taking Iranian money and passing it out.

Are you saying Hezbollah does not fund infrastructure in health, education and urban planning?

And if you have evidence about Hezbollah not hiding please share.

I don't necessarily take this the article per se as evidence. It is more the logic that if Hezbollah hid behind civilians during attacks, they would lose their reputation with that community. Yet their reputation is stronger.

Even here, I said "some" evidence and don't take this article as proof, though it raises the question:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/28/hezbollah/

Nothing gives Israel this right. But if you are being attacked and you can identify the area of were these attacks are coming form, and you can neutralize it to prevent more attacks it would be immoral of you not to act on that to save your own citizens, even if it is at the cost of temporarily or to extreme permanent displacement.

That's a lot of if's. The other if I would put in there is if Israel had no other choice but to prompt an exodus in order to bring peace to its citizens. Both this is unexamined as of yet, and the idea that neutralizing some Hezbollah leaders will "prevent more attacks" as you put above. The valid criticism of this view is that you're just cutting off the head of the tapeworm and it will grow back fiercer than over. So your if's are controversial at best.

Fist off the Israelis go very much based on experience if they see that before a Palestinian kid with a rock was able to heroically kill the technology advanced better trained Israeli solder with more advanced weapons, they will be damn to let that mistake be repeated again.

Wow. I can't believe you just justified that a technologically-advanced Israeli solder has the right to kill a Palestinian child!!!

Some problems:

1. Anyone can claim that their life is threatened by someone else as a way of escaping their own responsibility. How is it that the Israeli solider is not doing that here with a palestinian child?

2. If a palestinian child has been successful at killing an Israeli soldier with a rock it doesn't mean that their intention was killing that soldier. It also doesn't justify killing the next palestinian boy with a rock, who might not have the intention or luck to kill the Israeli soldier.

3. An occupying force is arguably at fault of their own deaths when committing unjust actions. What is the context of the solider-child interaction? How was the solider's presence justified and the army's actions justified at the time?

I do believe that the Palestinian have an inferior culture

How is the Palestinian culture more inferior than Israel's?

Also believing some one has an inferior culture is not wrong. But even if someone does have an inferior culture you still have no right or justification to treat theme less or abuse theme. Your job should be to also try to elevate their culture.

"trying" is a relative term. There many different types of trying to elevate a culture, including genocide. How is a culture to properly elevate another culture?

one way of reconciliation is education. Which the palastinians are in dire need.

What's wrong with palestinian education? I'm just curious what you mean.

[zubin]

Good for them. But violence can only be a temporary solution. Also, Israel is arguably abusing the right to self-defense. For example, the kidnapping of a nuclear and technologically advanced state's soldier does not threaten the existence of that state.

That kind of an idea for this region is a very romantic one. Especially de-nuke.
How can you do that how can you reconcile with out knowing that what you are doing what you will be giving up wont be a loss.

You de-nuke as a condition for peace. But this has not been put on the table.

Remember Israelis will be gamboling their only chip of bargaining and they are gamboling their country.

Accepted

If there are no precondition there is no way of a gurenting a positive result,.

What do you mean precondition here? Do you mean there should be conditions to talks or that there should be conditions of outcome? If you are talking about conditions of outcome, ofcourse those are important if they are reasonable. If you are talking about conditions of talking, that's nonsense. There's nothing wrong or destructive with talking. One can after talking theoretically go back and purchase eight more nuclear warheads.

This hate trickles down to innocent civilians in the form of "collateral damage". And do they really have a right to hate Hamas and Islamic Jihad- a hate that explicitly causes the loss of innocent life- as opposed to being against their policies?

Look at my quote. I did not say that the hate for Hamas trickles down to hate for Palestinian civilians. I said the hate for Hamas trickles down to death of palestinian civilians.

if hamas is community why is it willing to drag the Palestinian economy and life to shit just so it wont give up it terror manifest

There's never just one cause to anything. There are always multiple causes. One might say the whole global economics system is flawed and that's the main fault, or that Israel's oppressive existence is the main fault. You have given no reason why Hamas should be the blame for the Palestinian economy. Regarding "terror manifest", why not be scientif and say "justice and liberation manifest with the use of violence, which includes civilians, as one method" instead?

Such a constitution is overboard, is not feasible or just. But there's no evidence to suggest that human beings can not negotiate and change, or that these grand proclomations are not for practical, empowering purposes rather than permanent ideological purposes.

Hezbollah does community based things like counter fitting money and passing it out or taking Iranian money and passing it out.

Are you saying Hezbollah does not fund infrastructure in health, education and urban planning?

And if you have evidence about Hezbollah not hiding please share.

I don't necessarily take this the article per se as evidence. It is more the logic that if Hezbollah hid behind civilians during attacks, they would lose their reputation with that community. Yet their reputation is stronger.

Even here, I said "some" evidence and don't take this article as proof, though it raises the question:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/28/hezbollah/

Nothing gives Israel this right. But if you are being attacked and you can identify the area of were these attacks are coming form, and you can neutralize it to prevent more attacks it would be immoral of you not to act on that to save your own citizens, even if it is at the cost of temporarily or to extreme permanent displacement.

That's a lot of if's. The other if I would put in there is if Israel had no other choice but to prompt an exodus in order to bring peace to its citizens. Both this is unexamined as of yet, and the idea that neutralizing some Hezbollah leaders will "prevent more attacks" as you put above. The valid criticism of this view is that you're just cutting off the head of the tapeworm and it will grow back fiercer than over. So your if's are controversial at best.

Fist off the Israelis go very much based on experience if they see that before a Palestinian kid with a rock was able to heroically kill the technology advanced better trained Israeli solder with more advanced weapons, they will be damn to let that mistake be repeated again.

Wow. I can't believe you just justified that a technologically-advanced Israeli solder has the right to kill a Palestinian child!!!

Some problems:

1. Anyone can claim that their life is threatened by someone else as a way of escaping their own responsibility. How is it that the Israeli solider is not doing that here with a palestinian child?

2. If a palestinian child has been successful at killing an Israeli soldier with a rock it doesn't mean that their intention was killing that soldier. It also doesn't justify killing the next palestinian boy with a rock, who might not have the intention or luck to kill the Israeli soldier.

3. An occupying force is arguably at fault of their own deaths when committing unjust actions. What is the context of the solider-child interaction? How was the solider's presence justified and the army's actions justified at the time?

I do believe that the Palestinian have an inferior culture

How is the Palestinian culture more inferior than Israel's?

Also believing some one has an inferior culture is not wrong. But even if someone does have an inferior culture you still have no right or justification to treat theme less or abuse theme. Your job should be to also try to elevate their culture.

"trying" is a relative term. There many different types of trying to elevate a culture, including genocide. How is a culture to properly elevate another culture?

one way of reconciliation is education. Which the palastinians are in dire need.

What's wrong with palestinian education? I'm just curious what you mean.



How did this turn into a discussion about hate? You originally said:

You are objective can you tell me in the past how many times the palastinians have cooporated with israelis in the peace process. Or made copremises legitimate compromises,
When the palastinians were about to get the best deal of their life time they refused it.
Both sides have been overly conservative at times, but Israel is the occupier and oppressor against the Palestinians. It is more natural for Palestinians to be more conservative.

Then I replied that it is more natural that palestinians be more conservative in their acceptance of Israel, as they have just been brutally dispaced by them. They need to make sure they get a just solution considering all that's been taken from them.

[zubin]

[that last message is a double post. Moderator, please delete the post before this one]


You can't put your military on alert during negotiations? That's not "letting your guard down".

I dint intended it to be a twist there. I do believe that those people living in Haifa, telaviv, and jeruslam are Israelis. The ones in the west bank yes they are fearfully living their.

You said that Hamas is engaging in violence "just because those people are Israelis". That's not the reason why Hamas engages in violence. Hamas engages in violence in order to pressure a just solution with the current Israeli state.

Here is my opinion on culture. I think every culture is on a path to better but. There are cultures that are superior. The Christian culture of showing love to convert is superior to the radical Islamic culture of jihad to convert people. And people should change..
This idea does not mean that I rule relativism out of the way I think it is a combination of both.

Are you saying that love is better than violence of that Christianity is better than Islam? There's a big difference...

You don't know what Hamas' mindset is yet you base your labelling of them being terrorist as based on their mindset:

In my opinion a terrorist mentality in one sentence is
One or group who specifically, willingly, consciously, and efficiently kills for the sake of killing the innocent to destabilizes, to advance and force an ideology upon someone else. They do their killing for the sake of killing when they have other alternatives.

So how do you know Hamas's will and consciousness if you don't know their mindset?!!

How is it that a Hamas person "brings it upon themself" to die? Doesn't Israel bring death directly to their door?

I'm saying that the mindset of both Hamas and Israel seems to be a combo of hate and righteousness. If not, explain to me how so.

If you care about sharing perspectives, I would avoid anything close to accusing someone of defending terrorism. Certainly, if I was talking to someone else about this, unfortunately mostly Israelis and neo-cons, they would say I'm defending terrorism. I hope you are genuinely different and can stop short of accusing someone of something during a logical discussion. If more people stop short in such a way, there will be a closer prospect of peace.

Talking to you has made me see why to people can have opposing viewpoint and both can be right from their own prospective.

But often only one is truly right isn't it?

I think one reason for this is peoples basic beliefs and principles after you have responded I will open up another thread were we will go over our basic beliefs, principles and personal philosophy.

There's no evidence for this last claim. It may be that most if not all our points of dispute are over researchable things. All the questions I ask of you address the assumptions in your comments that you haven't clarified yet. We can only know whether we are both right or only one, or neither of us, if we examine those underlying assumptions in logic.

I honestly don't know whether to look forward to your response or not. I feel that the respect has been broken, though it is not only recoverable but desirable to be recovered because we have both committed to objective discussion. Furthermore, I don't think I've experienced or may experience in the future a discussion of this quality if things so far have been genuine. Why? Because if we both claim to want the truth, then we can research issues we're not sure of as exposed by this discussion and find the truth.

I apologize if it takes me long to respond. These are complicated issues. There are many points. And we are not face to face so to communicate easier. I am also very busy. I suggest that we not put a timeframe on the discussion. Also, if you think a point is not that important, or our disagreement not that great, just skip if you'd like and we'll move into more important issues.

Just a point of clarification that I am definately still interested in this discussion. And last:

when you are multi quoting me even if you are gone response to one statement from a paragraph include the whole paragraph.

what do you mean? paragraphs are made of premises and conclusions. I pick out some premises and some conclusions so to focus on that point and so we can research it if we're unclear about the answer to it. If you explain this a bit more, I'll be sure to incorporate your preference. What I can say for now is refer back at previous messages if there is a problem.

[mike435]

wow just read it been waiting for it

there is so much i want to counter on that i dont even know how to orginize it.

if you dont mined would be ok if we select perticular things from now on
example you pick some points that you really want me to explain my position and i will pick some point that i want to explain my position in.

why dont you repost things that you really want me to explain my self in.
if you want all i am ok with that too.

[zubin]

wow just read it been waiting for it

there is so much i want to counter on that i dont even know how to orginize it.

if you dont mined would be ok if we select perticular things from now on
example you pick some points that you really want me to explain my position and i will pick some point that i want to explain my position in.

why dont you repost things that you really want me to explain my self in.
if you want all i am ok with that too.

Sure. My main question for you for now is why Israel shouldn't negotiate with Hamas directly, regardless of Hamas' stance, and make the key compromises of 1967 plus the return of at least a large portion of refugees and prisoners which Hamas demands.

[mike435]

Dear Mike apparntly we were both wrong on hamas or so far
i just read the wikipedia artical on hamas and apperantly they want all of israel and not just the "occupied territories"

also the reason they target israeli civilian is because they see them as ex military so its lagitimate for theme. again notic its disrupt israel by killing for the sake of killing
anyways wikipedia should be consumed with cution so now i am checking out the hamas website hopefully i can read its charter and the articals refranced in wikipedia.
after i read the charter on hamas i will respond to the above question

[mike435]

Ramin check this out on hamas front page

Gaza - Secretary-general of the Islamic Jihad Movement Dr. Ramadan Abdullah Shallah has affirmed that the "myth" of the Hebrew state will come to an end soon, and that his Movement will never recognize it at all cost.

look i couldnt fined the charter instead i have done some other research i went to this website http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/#5 a nonpartison group every were i have turned so far the say the same thing hamas objective is the destruction of israel, I think their is enogh evidance now to accept that hamas is a terrorist group, sure they do social work but they are a terrrorist group. HAMAS is a terrorist group, an anti human terrorist group, and normally i dont evan enage in conversations were people remotly want to give attention or a right or legitimization to HAMAS, but becuase i have faith in your "seeking the truth" and respect for you i will continue

Now that we are cleare on hamas let me start answering the question

Sure. My main question for you for now is why Israel shouldn't negotiate with Hamas directly, regardless of Hamas' stance, and make the key compromises of 1967 plus the return of at least a large portion of refugees and prisoners which Hamas demands.

Why should you when the groups leaders either say or endorse the saying of those that seek the destruction of Israel.

Why should you when the group says they will never recognize israel

why should you wehn they target civillians to disrupt isral you can attack israeli socioty by making peoples lifes misrable you dont have to kill them. Attacking infurstructor is one way of damaging a peoples cohironce.

Why should you when they say they can never live side by side with the enemy

why should you when they say we will rais the banner of allah all over palastine


and lets say israelis became so insane to negotiate with hamas and decided to go back to 67 lines do you think thene than they will stop no the first generation maybe but the second generation will be bread into thinking the rest of the land is theirs to.

YOU CANOT NEGOTIATE WITH A TERROTIST GROUP ESPECIALY ONE THAT HAS FUNDIMENTL ABSTRACT IDIOLOGY.
HAMAS IS NOT SECULAR THEY BELIVE IN THEIR CAUSE NOT JUST BY NATIONALISM BUT THEY ARE VERY COMMITED TO THEIR ABSTRACT IDIOLOGIES OF "RAZING THE BANNER, ALL OVER PALASTINE" THIS MEANS THEY WILL NEVER BE SATISFIED EVEN IF THEY DO GET THE LAND THEY WANT GETTTING LAND FOR THEME IS JUST HALF THE EQUATION. Do you know why israel performed very poorly t its last campaighn agaist hezbolah because it was the first time that their enemy utside of the boarder was not fighting for nationalisom but idiology. That war was not over teritory it was just over we hate israel lets fight them. LOOK WHEN PEOPLE ARE SO COMMITED TO THE AFTER LIFE THE REASONING VISION FOR LIVING IN THIS LIFE FOR THEM BECOMES VERY BLURED. AND UNFORTANITLY ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISOM IS VERY MUCH FOR THE AFTER LIFE. THis is the same as fundemantal orthidox jewish mined set that every inch of israel is theirs because of theire covanant with G-d. But thank g-d the majority of israel is rational and when need be even with force they kick these guys out of the terotory or illigal settelment. Jusnt in the next two weeks israel will uproot some settelers from the west bank.

I now apperitiate my opposition on hamas even more. The image painted by the media isnt that off.

Ramin will you ever negotiate with someone if they are constanly slaping you in the face, even thogh you have taken a property of theirs and they want it back. Will you first defend your self or start talking while being slaped in the face.

that is what is happeaning to israel righ now.

also if you still see it the other way please please reply and comment and show me why Israel should talke to HAMAS? I am not talking about the palastinian people but HAMAS. But if you belive that hamas and the palastinian people go hand in hand because hamas was elected throgh a fair election and is the repersantative of the palstinians people then fine we shall see that hamas and palastinian people are the same. But i do not want to see it like that

Look this is what it comes to

Israleis Zionist see their future coexcisting with the palastinian, the israeli government sees this and the overwelming majority of israelis see this as well

HAMAS does not recognize israel, does not see a future with the israelis and wants the country destroyed

NOW I ASK YOU WHY SHOULD ISRAEL NEGOTIATE WITH HAMAS?

[donsaeid]

Israel never will accept a rightess peace with palestinians! because then israel will become a apartid country!

and something war with lebanon proved was that israel is no longer that tough war machin they were!!! battle on Lebanon was for Israel as Battle of Stalingrad was for Hitler!!!

[mike435]

Ramin check this out on hamas front page

Gaza - Secretary-general of the Islamic Jihad Movement Dr. Ramadan Abdullah Shallah has affirmed that the "myth" of the Hebrew state will come to an end soon, and that his Movement will never recognize it at all cost.

look i couldnt fined the charter instead i have done some other research i went to this website http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/#5 a nonpartison group every were i have turned so far the say the same thing hamas objective is the destruction of israel, I think their is enogh evidance now to accept that hamas is a terrorist group, sure they do social work but they are a terrrorist group. HAMAS is a terrorist group, an anti human terrorist group, and normally i dont evan enage in conversations were people remotly want to give attention or a right or legitimization to HAMAS, but becuase i have faith in your "seeking the truth" and respect for you i will continue

Now that we are cleare on hamas let me start answering the question



Why should you when the groups leaders either say or endorse the saying of those that seek the destruction of Israel.

Why should you when the group says they will never recognize israel

why should you wehn they target civillians to disrupt isral you can attack israeli socioty by making peoples lifes misrable you dont have to kill them. Attacking infurstructor is one way of damaging a peoples cohironce.

Why should you when they say they can never live side by side with the enemy

why should you when they say we will rais the banner of allah all over palastine


and lets say israelis became so insane to negotiate with hamas and decided to go back to 67 lines do you think thene than they will stop no the first generation maybe but the second generation will be bread into thinking the rest of the land is theirs to.

YOU CANOT NEGOTIATE WITH A TERROTIST GROUP ESPECIALY ONE THAT HAS FUNDIMENTL ABSTRACT IDIOLOGY.
HAMAS IS NOT SECULAR THEY BELIVE IN THEIR CAUSE NOT JUST BY NATIONALISM BUT THEY ARE VERY COMMITED TO THEIR ABSTRACT IDIOLOGIES OF "RAZING THE BANNER, ALL OVER PALASTINE" THIS MEANS THEY WILL NEVER BE SATISFIED EVEN IF THEY DO GET THE LAND THEY WANT GETTTING LAND FOR THEME IS JUST HALF THE EQUATION. Do you know why israel performed very poorly t its last campaighn agaist hezbolah because it was the first time that their enemy utside of the boarder was not fighting for nationalisom but idiology. That war was not over teritory it was just over we hate israel lets fight them. LOOK WHEN PEOPLE ARE SO COMMITED TO THE AFTER LIFE THE REASONING VISION FOR LIVING IN THIS LIFE FOR THEM BECOMES VERY BLURED. AND UNFORTANITLY ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISOM IS VERY MUCH FOR THE AFTER LIFE. THis is the same as fundemantal orthidox jewish mined set that every inch of israel is theirs because of theire covanant with G-d. But thank g-d the majority of israel is rational and when need be even with force they kick these guys out of the terotory or illigal settelment. Jusnt in the next two weeks israel will uproot some settelers from the west bank.

I now apperitiate my opposition on hamas even more. The image painted by the media isnt that off.

Ramin will you ever negotiate with someone if they are constanly slaping you in the face, even thogh you have taken a property of theirs and they want it back. Will you first defend your self or start talking while being slaped in the face.

that is what is happeaning to israel righ now.

also if you still see it the other way please please reply and comment and show me why Israel should talke to HAMAS? I am not talking about the palastinian people but HAMAS. But if you belive that hamas and the palastinian people go hand in hand because hamas was elected throgh a fair election and is the repersantative of the palstinians people then fine we shall see that hamas and palastinian people are the same. But i do not want to see it like that

Look this is what it comes to

Israleis Zionist see their future coexcisting with the palastinian, the israeli government sees this and the overwelming majority of israelis see this as well

HAMAS does not recognize israel, does not see a future with the israelis and wants the country destroyed

NOW I ASK YOU WHY SHOULD ISRAEL NEGOTIATE WITH HAMAS?

looking forwared to your responce

also look if you belive that hamas can be negotiated with tell me how and why it is very possible that i dont see it.

[zubin]

looking forwared to your responce

also look if you belive that hamas can be negotiated with tell me how and why it is very possible that i dont see it.

I already responded to this. It is needless to say that one does not need to take a strictly literal interpretation of a resistance movement.

I suggest we continue our discussion where we left off. We're back at the starting point after all that hard work,

Ramin