Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Intolerance on Digital Spy?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-01-2007, 16:37
Defianttothend
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 316
Glib one liners also show an increadable lack of originality.

Last edited by Defianttothend : 07-01-2007 at 16:42.
Defianttothend is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 07-01-2007, 16:38
Trojan_Jockey
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by Defianttothend
Glib one liners also show an increadable lack of origanality.
Not if they're original
Trojan_Jockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2007, 16:39
micra
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: AKA Roosevelt Von Micra (III)
Posts: 4,091
Originally Posted by Defianttothend
Glib one liners also show an increadable lack of origanality.
Who where what when?
micra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2007, 16:43
Smeggypants
Banned User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Universe
Posts: 15,526
Originally Posted by jer1956
I think you should have complained about "Inflammatory Posts" not "Intolerant". There is nothing wrong with having an opinion and sticking too it. But you shouldn't start a thread knowing it will inflame emotions and result in personal attacks.
Sorry, but the only people that can be blamed for making personal attacks are those MAKING the personal attacks.
Smeggypants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2007, 16:48
Smeggypants
Banned User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Universe
Posts: 15,526
Originally Posted by Cornucopia
I just think that anti-Americanism is so rife (with some justification) that people are prepared to believe anything (see the other thread about 9/11 hoax).

I would say you are right - that it was simply complacency. However, the small spark of conspiracy theorist has to at least admit other possibilities where they don't contradict the available evidence.
The evidence of Christian Extremist agression in the middle east is hardly hidden. There was a huge motive to engineer an attack on the US Homeland in order to muster public opinion against Islam.

Personally I think judging the Christians 'complacent' in allowing Islam to attack is a bit naive. They aren't stupid. Anyone being aggressive towards an enemy is never complacent that it would never fight back.
Smeggypants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2007, 17:35
jer1956
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by Smeggypants
Sorry, but the only people that can be blamed for making personal attacks are those MAKING the personal attacks.

Oh Dear, not one for accepting the obvious consequnces of ones action if you can find someone else to blame. You could become PM one day!
jer1956 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2007, 17:41
Smeggypants
Banned User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Universe
Posts: 15,526
Originally Posted by jer1956
Oh Dear, not one for accepting the obvious consequnces of ones action if you can find someone else to blame. You could become PM one day!
I couldn't. I'm irreligious.
Smeggypants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2007, 19:37
Cornucopia
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,568
Originally Posted by Smeggypants
The evidence of Christian Extremist agression in the middle east is hardly hidden. There was a huge motive to engineer an attack on the US Homeland in order to muster public opinion against Islam.
I think the point is that just because a potential motive exists, it doesn't make it true. As I said, the best analysis using evidence available at the moment is that it was complacency, arrogance perhaps, but not conspiracy as such.

And what of London and Madrid in the conspiracy theory scenario?


On the Middle East issue, someone has suggested that the question "Why has no-one admitted the Palestinians as citizens?" shows my true colours. Which are what exactly?

Yes, I think it would be fantastic to arrive at a peaceful two-community, one-country solution, but I don't think Isreal's neighbours would allow this, even if Israel agreed (which is unlikely). So why is it not the humanitarian solution to simply allow the Palestinian communities free access to migrate to Egypt or Jordan?
Cornucopia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2007, 19:49
bonpenny
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 469
I mean this as a valid question, because I don't know the answer: When there is newsreel footage from the Middle East, and there are sometimes hundreds of young men waving rifles etc around - what jobs do these people do, or would they do if peace ever came?
bonpenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2007, 20:09
Cornucopia
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,568
This is what I meant when I wrote about the "permeability" of military and civilian boundaries in times of conflict. People who are working civilians, pick up a weapon and instantly transform into freedom fighters/militants/terrorists(*)

There is also significant unemployment amongst the Palestinian communities - around 40% - partly as a consequence of Isreali economic and military activity.

(*) depending on your viewpoint.
Cornucopia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 11:38
jer1956
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by Cornucopia
Yes, I think it would be fantastic to arrive at a peaceful two-community, one-country solution, but I don't think Isreal's neighbours would allow this, even if Israel agreed (which is unlikely). So why is it not the humanitarian solution to simply allow the Palestinian communities free access to migrate to Egypt or Jordan?
So is the international community yet again to treat Isreal as "special" and condone Ethnic Cleansing, something condemmed everywhere else?

There is no defence of saying "they would do it us". Problems are for solving, not excuses for doing nothing.
jer1956 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 22:23
Cornucopia
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,568
I take it you're referring to the creation of Israel in 1948? If so, I think we're heading for a history lesson.

"After the United Nations proposed to partition the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab, the Arabs refused to accept it and the armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq, supported by others, attacked the newly established State of Israel which they refused to recognize." Wikipedia.

The aggressors were the Arab nations, against the will of the UN. I guess the removal of Palestinian citizens could count as ethnic cleansing in a very broad sense, but then maybe not, since the Palestinians were part of the aggressor group.

I suppose we can't ignore the fact that the Arab nations sided with the Germans in WW2 and the Ottoman Empire with Germany in WW1. They were therefore disadvantaged consistently throughout the inter-war period.

Last edited by Cornucopia : 08-01-2007 at 22:26.
Cornucopia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 22:33
jer1956
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by Cornucopia
I suppose we can't ignore the fact that the Arab nations sided with the Germans in WW2 and the Ottoman Empire with Germany in WW1. They were therefore disadvantaged consistently throughout the inter-war period.
Those Arabs which did fight where considered second class, like all non European races. Instead of being invited to frame the future of the Post Ottoman Arab World with European victors, they where listened too and dismissed. No one wanted to hear that recreating Isreal could only lead to trouble.
jer1956 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 22:44
jer1956
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by Cornucopia
"After the United Nations proposed to partition the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab, the Arabs refused to accept it and the armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq, supported by others, attacked the newly established State of Israel which they refused to recognize." Wikipedia.
Shove that US written Pro Isreali crap.

You need a history lesson.

After WW1 there where only 750000 Jews in Palestine, an Arab province of the Ottoman Empire. France and Britain took on the job of creation new nations out of the old Ottoman Empire. Britain was given Palestine to turn into a Nation. Heavily influenced by the Zionist Movement Britain accepted the idea of splitting Palestine into two, the so called Balfour Doctrine a rediculouse idea considering the number of Jews. The Britsh allowed Jewish Immigration, such as the Kibutz movement to flurish, to jusify the creation of a Jewish State based on the increassing number of Jews.

After WW2 Britain needed some kind of legal framework for it's continued twin state solution in Palestine, and the UN obliged. By 1948, the Year BOTH states where due to come into existence, it was clear the Arbs still refused to accept an idea inposed upon them by Westerners influenced by Zionists. Britain said they couldn't deliver, and left the mess to the UN. The 1948 War started soon after.

Last edited by jer1956 : 08-01-2007 at 22:55.
jer1956 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 22:50
Cornucopia
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,568
Originally Posted by jer1956
The 1948 War started soon after.
The 1948 war was instigated by Arab aggressors soon after.
Cornucopia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 22:58
jer1956
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by Cornucopia
The 1948 war was instigated by Arab aggressors soon after.
Who had the situation forced on them by Bullies like Britain! They had every right to fight fairly and be appluaded for it. If someone had said half of England belongs to the Celts, and that the Irish are to allowed to immigrate into it as their decendents, we would fight as well!

Far too many Americans still believe that Isreal has always existed since it's founding. They think Isreal was a subjicated Nation fighting for their Freedom after the end of the Ottoman Empire. In 1919 the Jews where just another group of people in Palestine with their own religion, along with Muslims and Christians, a minorty group I might add.

Last edited by jer1956 : 08-01-2007 at 23:18.
jer1956 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2007, 21:15
Cornucopia
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,568
I think my point really is about exactly that kind of perception. Whilst sources like Wikipedia state history in a way that is sympathetic to Israel, this will no doubt continue.

You may say that allowing the status quo to continue will effectively allow Israel to benefit from past "ethic cleansing" but the alternative is currently unimaginable with the relative positions of Israel and their Arab neighbours in the eyes of the West.
Cornucopia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 10:28
jer1956
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by Cornucopia

You may say that allowing the status quo to continue will effectively allow Israel to benefit from past "ethic cleansing" but the alternative is currently unimaginable with the relative positions of Israel and their Arab neighbours in the eyes of the West.
My point was that "ethnic cleansing" is something we we shouldn't ecourage, just like terroism, by ignoring it when it happens. The UN charter isn't suppossed to allow those who legitimately occupy an ememies land in the course of a defensive war to hang on to it indefinitely. To suggest that those displaced in such a War should be re-homed by others is just legitimising this form of "ethnic cleansing".
jer1956 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 20:09
Cornucopia
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,568
I don't disagree with that as a principle - it would be great if the UN and world powers operated with that kind of integrity.

How do you see the situation proceeding?
Cornucopia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2007, 10:49
nathanbrazil
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Isle of Wight, UK
Posts: 7,305
Originally Posted by etldlrl
That doesn't mean that anybody in their right mind really believes that the USA did it to itself.
The USA did not 'do it to itself' as that would require extraordinary competence. But I am convinced that a handful of top people within the US administration orchestrasted various drills and simulations on that day, which in turn allowed 9/11 to happen. Why? Because it provided the trigger event to launch the PNAC agenda. Not a theory, but something that has actually happened, and continues to happen.
nathanbrazil is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41.