Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Israel-PA talks to resume in June

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    This originated between you and Pari, and will let you sort the details, but, from my perspective and from the perception we get it is like Pari said. In general Gaza is way more dangerous then WB. Look at historic data, not at one month period.

    If you want to argue new trends and that something changed and now WB is more hostile, you will need a larger period to comment on it.

    In general, in the past, WB seemed like more peaceful part then Gaza.

    Would you argue Sweden or UK are not safe if we come out with the statistics from a selected period of time from there (one week during riots)?
    Again, you are ignoring what I said. It seems to be a running trend in the last couple of days..... I've already conceded that it may very well be that Gaza is the more dangerous of the two, but that doesn't make the West Bank safe. A Black Mamba is potentially much more dangerous than a Burmese Python, but does that mean that the Python can't strangle you and lead to your death if you let it slide around your house, even if you have the Black Mamba perfectly locked up and contained?

    I have one problem, and one problem only: Pari's claim that the West Bank is safe. I'll agree that in the long term, on average it is safer than Gaza, but by no means is it safe. The only way you can back up a claim that the West Bank is safe is if you also argue that 200+ Molotov cocktails and 60+ injured in one month equals "safe".

    I think this is only the third or fourth time I've made the same argument, so I figure I've still got 2 or 3 more times until someone gives me a decent answer....
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

    Comment


    • #47
      You are making a lot of fuss over something that is obvious. Among some regular people it would have been valid. But we know each other and don't have to be strict.

      From what I can read we are in agreement, not sure for Pari, however :)
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by zraver View Post
        You could make that distinction, you just don't want to. It is important information to help delineate between cases. Becasue say for example 101 of the molotovs follow settler violence, then it would appear that the peace breakers were Israeli, not Palestinian in which case the WB would be "peaceful if not for violent settlers. Not exactly the type of image you want others to have now is it.

        PCHR Weekly Report: 11 Palestinian civilians, including 9-year old girl, wounded by Israeli troops - International Middle East Media Center

        Seems at least some of those Molotovs, as well as shootings and kidnappings (literally kidnapping- abducting children) was done by Israelis and the IDF... so who is breaking the peace?
        No, looking at the report, there is no way for me (or anyone) to make that distinction. The report merely lists the amount and type of attacks, not the circumstances leading up to it nor the subsequent reactions to the attacks. So no, it's not a question of wanting to or not wanting to, it's a question of can't. But thank you, for reading a report in Hebrew, my mother tongue, and telling me what I can or can't do with that report. Thank god you're here!!!!!

        Furthermore, after reading your post (conveniently, by a group that has been known to lie and has been caught lying many times), there is one mention of Molotov cocktails, and one mention of stones being thrown. That was for the period of a week. Let's expand that over a month, and you have four Molotov cocktails and four cases of stone throwing. What is your point? What about the other 1,100+ incidents? or are those not important?

        Besides, and I do wish I could stop repeating this ad-nauseum, but it seems that for some reason the folks here don't want to listen:

        There is only one core issue being debated at the moment: Is the West Bank safe or not? I claim it isn't, Pari claims it is. If it is, then how do excuse 200+ Molotov cocktails and 60+ injured in a one month period? I honestly could not care about anything else at the moment. If you were driving down the road and there was a clear, immediate and present danger of having stones or a Molotov cocktail thrown at you, would you consider yourself to be living in a safe area?
        Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

        Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Doktor View Post
          You are making a lot of fuss over something that is obvious. Among some regular people it would have been valid. But we know each other and don't have to be strict.

          From what I can read we are in agreement, not sure for Pari, however :)
          That's all I want, is an answer to Pari's claim. He claims the West Bank is safe, I claim it isn't. Not safer than, not used to be safe, not better negotiation partners. Is it safe, yes or no?
          Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

          Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
            There is only one core issue being debated at the moment: Is the West Bank safe or not? I claim it isn't, Pari claims it is. If it is, then how do excuse 200+ Molotov cocktails and 60+ injured in a one month period? I honestly could not care about anything else at the moment. If you were driving down the road and there was a clear, immediate and present danger of having stones or a Molotov cocktail thrown at you, would you consider yourself to be living in a safe area?
            If previously in the same area I'd been shot at,it's a big step wrt security.And the most important part is that nobody can drive or walk in a bad area and complain about violence.From that report alone,it's more dangerous to walk in Marseille,Detroit or any gipsy community.You don't have to go there.Neither do the settlers.
            Those who know don't speak
            He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

            Comment


            • #51
              Again, that's not the question. Is it safe or not? Yes or no?

              We can argue ideology, settlement, if it's ok to be bullied out of your home, and everything else you want, but first, please, I beg you, I beseech by, for the love of Cthulhu and all else holy, answer the question: Would you call the West Bank safe or not?
              Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

              Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                Again, that's not the question. Is it safe or not? Yes or no?

                We can argue ideology, settlement, if it's ok to be bullied out of your home, and everything else you want, but first, please, I beg you, I beseech by, for the love of Cthulhu and all else holy, answer the question: Would you call the West Bank safe or not?
                You want a straight answer in a matter that is relative.There is no such thing as 100% security or 100% danger.
                Those who know don't speak
                He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                Comment


                • #53
                  So answer the question as it was originally asked. Would consider an area that has registered 200+ Molotov cocktails and 60+ injured in a one month period safe?

                  Let's take it away from relative and move it towards specifics: Would you live an area registering those kinds of numbers of attacks? Would you consider it a safe area to raise your family?
                  Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                  Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                    Let's take it away from relative and move it towards specifics: Would you live an area registering those kinds of numbers of attacks? Would you consider it a safe area to raise your family?
                    People are raising families there.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                      Again, you are ignoring what I said. It seems to be a running trend in the last couple of days..... I've already conceded that it may very well be that Gaza is the more dangerous of the two, but that doesn't make the West Bank safe. A Black Mamba is potentially much more dangerous than a Burmese Python, but does that mean that the Python can't strangle you and lead to your death if you let it slide around your house, even if you have the Black Mamba perfectly locked up and contained?

                      I have one problem, and one problem only: Pari's claim that the West Bank is safe. I'll agree that in the long term, on average it is safer than Gaza, but by no means is it safe. The only way you can back up a claim that the West Bank is safe is if you also argue that 200+ Molotov cocktails and 60+ injured in one month equals "safe".

                      I think this is only the third or fourth time I've made the same argument, so I figure I've still got 2 or 3 more times until someone gives me a decent answer....
                      By your standard New Zealand isn't safe. People are murdered here all the time. Houses are firebombed, people attacked, tourists raped and murdered, buildings fall on people etc etc etc. Strangely enough we still manage to negotiate treaties.
                      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                      Leibniz

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by bigross86 View Post

                        There is only one core issue being debated at the moment: Is the West Bank safe or not? I claim it isn't, Pari claims it is. If it is, then how do excuse 200+ Molotov cocktails and 60+ injured in a one month period? I honestly could not care about anything else at the moment. If you were driving down the road and there was a clear, immediate and present danger of having stones or a Molotov cocktail thrown at you, would you consider yourself to be living in a safe area?
                        Second core issue, one you keep ignoring, if it is unsafe- who holds the lions share of the blame? If the violence is predominantly from settlers to Palestinians, and/or concentrated around a few high-profile right wing extremist settlements then your narrative of who to b lame for it being unsafe is in question.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          What started out as a decent-well-intentioned I/P thread is now thoroughly trashed. The same tired shit. May as well flush this turd.
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Yep, just like here Kerry's left with both sides as intransigent as ever.
                            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                            Leibniz

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X