Quote: Original post by Valderman

Quote: Original post by owl

Quote: Original post by Valderman

Quote: Original post by owl
Hey, if the suit doesn't fit, don't wear it. What I said is statistically true whatever your girlfriend's father is violent or not.

Statistically, everything wrong with the world is the fault of "the muslims?" I'd love to see those statistics.

Did I say that or are you trollin' me?

Did I misunderstand? The way I got it was that you claim that statistically, every major conflict in the world is the fault of "the muslims." Was that incorrect? If so, please do correct me. And produce the statistics you're referring to.

*sigh*

Quote: According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, 32 armed conflicts were underway in 2000; more than two thirds involved Muslims. Yet Muslims are only about one fifth of the world�s population.

About the author

owl: Inevitably it's somehow America's fault. Or, failing that, Colonial Europe's ;)

Quote: Original post by LessBread
"We boarded the ship and were attacked as if it was a war," the officer said. "That will mean that we will have to come prepared in the future as if it was a war."

Instead of commandos, they'll send... super commandos?

Quote: Original post by Iftah
The blockage was a worthy attempt to weaken the Hamas control, and to (make easier the) release of the captured soldier Gilad Shalit. The blockage failed those two goals, but the public opinion here in Israel is something along "the blockage should continue until Gilad is returned", in essence Isarelies don't feel guilty for the blockage because by clinging it to Hamas's prisoner, so in Israeli eyes it is Hamas who actually controls the continuation of Gaza blockage.

So why not offer to lift the blockade on condition that Shalit is returned? I feel like if Israel, right now, made that offer, it would greatly improve its standing. After all, how can "peace" activists object to the returning of a POW to his family?

I don't know if Hamas would actually do it. But even if they didn't, I think it would drive a wedge between those who support Gaza for purely humanitarian reasons, and those who support Gaza because they want to see Israel suffer.

Quote: Original post by Straudos

Quote: Original post by Iftah
The blockage was a worthy attempt to weaken the Hamas control, and to (make easier the) release of the captured soldier Gilad Shalit. The blockage failed those two goals, but the public opinion here in Israel is something along "the blockage should continue until Gilad is returned", in essence Isarelies don't feel guilty for the blockage because by clinging it to Hamas's prisoner, so in Israeli eyes it is Hamas who actually controls the continuation of Gaza blockage.

So why not offer to lift the blockade on condition that Shalit is returned? I feel like if Israel, right now, made that offer, it would greatly improve its standing. After all, how can "peace" activists object to the returning of a POW to his family?

I don't know if Hamas would actually do it. But even if they didn't, I think it would drive a wedge between those who support Gaza for purely humanitarian reasons, and those who support Gaza because they want to see Israel suffer.

The negotiations between Israel to Hamas aren't public knowledge, but from what leaked, Israel offers to lift the blockade AND release hundreds of prisoners in exchange to Shalit, Hamas demands are higher.

Quote: Original post by owl
*sigh*

Quote: According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, 32 armed conflicts were underway in 2000; more than two thirds involved Muslims. Yet Muslims are only about one fifth of the world�s population.

About the author

I can't believe I'm actually replying to this, but that was a really cute article. It would have made a very good social sciences piece for a 7th grader, yet embarrasing for someone with a PhD. Unfortunately, any later than 7th grade and you'd have to critically analyze your data, and provide sources and definitions; something the author doesn't do at all. In order for that middle school piece to be taken seriously, it would have to include sources for the claims made, along with definitions for terrorism, armed conflict, guerilla war, civil war and war in general (pro tip: don't quote an article that lists a "war against Christians" as an actual war if you don't want to come off as a complete simpleton.)

For a quite amusing example:

Quote: Tribal. Religious, ethnic, political and cultural divisions within the Muslim world stimulate violence between Muslims.

Just the same as tribal, religious, political and cultural divisions between any other arbitrarily chosen demographic group stimulates violence. Why is this sentence even there?

Overall, the author has pretty much picked an arbitrary set of data points (if they can be called even that, considering that there's no definition for what constitutes a data point in your "statistics") that just so happened to support his point, then put it down as fact. I can't see any statistics whatsoever.

Perhaps you're unaware that at least in Europe, who is shock full of muslims according to some, muslims account for a grand 0.4% of terrorist activity? (Since your grade school opinion piece talks quite a lot about "islamic terrorism.") How does this mesh with your assertion that muslims hate everything and are prone to blow stuff up?

Quote: Yes, contrary to your indoctrination, what fundamental beliefs people hold about morality and society do influence how their societies operate.

Tell me, what fundamental beliefs about morality and society does Islam embody that christianity doesn't?

Quote: Original post by Iftah

Quote: Original post by Straudos

Quote: Original post by Iftah
The blockage was a worthy attempt to weaken the Hamas control, and to (make easier the) release of the captured soldier Gilad Shalit. The blockage failed those two goals, but the public opinion here in Israel is something along "the blockage should continue until Gilad is returned", in essence Isarelies don't feel guilty for the blockage because by clinging it to Hamas's prisoner, so in Israeli eyes it is Hamas who actually controls the continuation of Gaza blockage.

So why not offer to lift the blockade on condition that Shalit is returned? I feel like if Israel, right now, made that offer, it would greatly improve its standing. After all, how can "peace" activists object to the returning of a POW to his family?

I don't know if Hamas would actually do it. But even if they didn't, I think it would drive a wedge between those who support Gaza for purely humanitarian reasons, and those who support Gaza because they want to see Israel suffer.

The negotiations between Israel to Hamas aren't public knowledge, but from what leaked, Israel offers to lift the blockade AND release hundreds of prisoners in exchange to Shalit, Hamas demands are higher.

But why not make that public then!? Why not go out in front of the cameras and say, right now, "We are prepared to lift the blockade in exchange for the safe return of Gilad Shalit, who has been held as a hostage in isolation illegal without access to the Red Cross or any other humanitarian group for 4 years."

If you're a peace activist, how do you respond with anything less than full support? And if Hamas says no, then what do you do? Do you support Hamas's decision? Do you chastise them?

Israel so far has done an excellent job of uniting everyone against it. Sunnis and Shiites. Europe and Iran. Peace activists and Hamas. It's about time it starts driving a wedge between these groups. It's about time it communicates its viewpoints instead of saying "Screw you guys, we've got a right to defend ourselves."

Quote: Original post by Valderman

Quote: Original post by owl
*sigh*

Quote: According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, 32 armed conflicts were underway in 2000; more than two thirds involved Muslims. Yet Muslims are only about one fifth of the world�s population.

About the author

I can't believe I'm actually replying to this, but that was a really cute article. It would have made a very good social sciences piece for a 7th grader, yet embarrasing for someone with a PhD. Unfortunately, any later than 7th grade and you'd have to critically analyze your data, and provide sources and definitions; something the author doesn't do at all. In order for that middle school piece to be taken seriously, it would have to include sources for the claims made, along with definitions for terrorism, armed conflict, guerilla war, civil war and war in general (pro tip: don't quote an article that lists a "war against Christians" as an actual war if you don't want to come off as a complete simpleton.)

For a quite amusing example:

Quote: Tribal. Religious, ethnic, political and cultural divisions within the Muslim world stimulate violence between Muslims.

Just the same as tribal, religious, political and cultural divisions between any other arbitrarily chosen demographic group stimulates violence. Why is this sentence even there?

Overall, the author has pretty much picked an arbitrary set of data points (if they can be called even that, considering that there's no definition for what constitutes a data point in your "statistics") that just so happened to support his point, then put it down as fact. I can't see any statistics whatsoever.

Perhaps you're unaware that at least in Europe, who is shock full of muslims according to some, muslims account for a grand 0.4% of terrorist activity? (Since your grade school opinion piece talks quite a lot about "islamic terrorism.") How does this mesh with your assertion that muslims hate everything and are prone to blow stuff up?

Quote: Yes, contrary to your indoctrination, what fundamental beliefs people hold about morality and society do influence how their societies operate.

Tell me, what fundamental beliefs about morality and society does Islam embody that christianity doesn't?

You're an ass. I provided you with an article from a very distinguished figure, from where you can follow your own research if you were really interested in knowing the truth. Instead, you recur to ad hominem attacks and you provide NOTHING to support your point of view. Don't bother replying to this because you just got to bore me within two posts.

Quote: Original post by ValdermanYup. Hundreds of trucks for 1.5 million people. Trucks not carrying, for example, cement, which is sorely needed to rebuild the region after Israel's armed incursions in 2008.

Cement prohibition actually makes sense. Houses can be built without cement (using wood for example), but bunkers and tunnels cannot be built without cement (in the sandy ground of Gaza).

-

The Palestinians greatest luck is that their conflict partner is Israel, the thorn of the Arab world. If it was any other nation vs nation we wouldn't have a thread about it and it wouldn't reach the news.

I wonder what the great humanitarian Turkey would do if there was a relief convoy on way to Kurdish areas when it imposed its military controlled closed zone and killed 37,000 Kurds, displacing thousands of villages.

Quote: I provided you with an article from a very distinguished figure

Distinguished or not, the article you provided was, simply put, garbage, for the very reasons I stated.

Quote: from where you can follow your own research if you really were interested about the truth.

How? As you might recall, every single statement in the article is unsourced. By randomly typing his assertions into Google? Please.

You asserted there were statistics to support your claims about Islam, yet when asked to produce them you put forward an article full of unsourced anecdotes about vaguely defined "conflicts" and demand it to be accepted as truth because the author is a "very distinguished figure" and that I do my own research to find that your assertions are true. That's not how it works, pal.

Quote: Instead, you recur to ad hominem attacks and provide NOTHING to support your point of view.

I'm not the one claiming a group of 1.5 billion people, or at least a majority thereof, is to blame for the majority of all violence on the planet. When you're making such a bold claim, you'd better have something other than proof by authority to back it up.

By the way, why would your unsourced opinion piece make great evidence for your "statistics" when you're not accepting actual statistics that show the opposite of what you claim?