Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 206 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
tboin4 (100 D)
24 Jan 09 UTC
Swapping land
In a game. If I own both say Galicia and Warsaw, could I do warsaw-galicia and galicia-warsaw?
7 replies
Open
SrgtSilver64 (335 D)
24 Jan 09 UTC
Request unpause please
Im not saying unpause just yet but can a mod look into game id http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=8084 and just unpause it if Russia doesnt come back in a few days. Thanks.
0 replies
Open
Spell of Wheels (4896 D)
24 Jan 09 UTC
Could a Moderator unpause this game
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=8220

This game was paused since Bunny was banned. Everyone except France has agreed to resume and he was NMR in the spring.
0 replies
Open
wideyedwanderer (706 D)
24 Jan 09 UTC
Needed
Player to take over a CD France. Good position. Game is almost over. France and I were allies, and were about to force a stalemate.

http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=7793&msgCountry=Global
5 replies
Open
figlesquidge (2131 D)
24 Jan 09 UTC
Old Guard
The games coming up saying "newbies only" etc lead me to do this. Next friday I'd like to start a couple of new games, and I was wondering:
Can I find 7 people with 3-digit ID's? How many of us are left?
3 replies
Open
andersred (152 D)
24 Jan 09 UTC
Question re winning points
Can someone explain how I have got to 106 points please?
4 replies
Open
amonkeyperson (100 D)
24 Jan 09 UTC
Why?
What were the reasons Tarablus got banned?
19 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
30 Dec 08 UTC
Palestinians, Israel, the US, England, and the World- The Crisis
This thread is to discuss the current situation on the Gaza Strip, who you think is right and wrong, if you think there is a right or wrong, and what you predict the world will do and what you think the world should do

Try to be somewhat respectful, even if it's hard; I know it's a hot issue for some (me included) but do try and stay somewhat civil.
Page 16 of 21
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Ivo_ivanov (7545 D)
09 Jan 09 UTC
I'm on Israel's side on this one. From my perspective, the only way how you can think they are the guily ones is if you believe that:
1. The palestinians have a just claim on this land, and that the current situation is not ok (which I do)
2. They have the right to use force (which I don't)

The fact that someone stole (was given actually) your house does not give you the right to go there with a knife, break in, try to kill him, and then complain they shot at you. And bringing your kid alone is not a good idea either.
Chrispminis (916 D)
09 Jan 09 UTC
How would you deal with someone stealing your house then? If you try to punch him out of your house is the invader any more justified in shooting back at you? It seems you would define force as physical violence. I would say that force can come in more varied forms...
Ivo_ivanov (7545 D)
09 Jan 09 UTC
All I am talking about is the last couple of weeks. What happened some 60+ years ago is a separate issue (related, but separate).
My only point was that it seems kind of wrong to accuse the person in the house for having the bigger gun and the determination to use it.

Apart from this - I do not approve the use of force - unless it's for self-defence. This is self-defence for me.
Chrispminis (916 D)
10 Jan 09 UTC
I agree that Israel has the right to defend itself. I'm just saying that I believe that Palestine has that same right. I'm not accusing Israel of having a bigger gun. I'm pointing out that if Israel gets to escalate then why doesn't Palestine?

They both have legitimate claims to self defense. In a perfect situation they would both waive their rights to "self defence".
sagittarius (0 DX)
10 Jan 09 UTC
This thread is way too long and tedious to scroll thru.
Let's end it or start a new one.
I only read like the last 3 and first 3 posts...
Sorry, but didn't have all day, lol.

Israel should allow UN Peacekeepers and ALL Journalists into their war of terror and illegal weapons.
The world has a right to know.
They wanted us to know about the Holocaust so why shouldn't we know about the one they are committing?

Food for thought.
Denzel73 (100 D)
10 Jan 09 UTC
They obviously have something to hide. Strange of them to think much can remain hidden in 2009...
sagittarius (0 DX)
10 Jan 09 UTC
Well, it's because of censorship-
Of course they have something to hide.
I wonder how many poor people have died in the last few days, more than the total number of Israelis since 1948 i would imagine, including the 1967 war.

Hmmm, what are they up to with their American overlords, the only nation fully supporting them?????
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
10 Jan 09 UTC
And here comes the firestorm, so i'll answer this bit by bit (if I read all the posts and try and make a huge post I always forget someone or something)

@Chrispminis, your first comment after mine:

I mean Hamas, acting on behalf of the Palestinians, rebelling against ISRAEL, not Palestinians rebeling against Hamas.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
10 Jan 09 UTC
@maniac:

When I say that if it is a revolution sponsored by the Palestinian people the average Palestinian civilian should be fair game, I do NOT mean children.

A better word to make my point- the average Palestinian citizen, not the children, but the legal adults (children may technically be citizens, but do not apply here as I do mean the legal adults who are sponsoring the revolution.)

My rationale?

Consider every war, for the most part, since the 18th Century, and certainly since the Napoleonic Wars. Prior to this, war meant man on man, state on state- it was a rare occurance that the housing and cookeries and farms and such areas would be attacked, and, if such an attack on civilian land was made, it was either done without much emphasis, or for racial/religious reasons (ie, Romans destroying and enslaving all of Jerusalem's Jews and their areas, Rome leveling Carthage in the Third Punic War, the mass killings of the opposing sides' "heretics" and "infidels" and Jews in the civilian population in the first four Crusades, etc.)

Wars such as the American Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars changed all that.

In the Revolution, the citizens became PART of the war effort, supplying the troops with housing, food, supplies- the Continental Army survived in large part due to the aid of the mothers and farmers of America (especially early in the war before the militia really gelled into a military of veterans.)


Now, when one country invades another, the supplies are considered fair game, to cripple the enemy- and thus, the civilians become game too (perhaps not quite "fair," per se, but at least the farmers and suppliers are targets for a reason other than just a racial/religious reason, though that can still play a factor- and, in any case, lest it be said again: WAR IS NOT FAIR.)

Thus, my hypothesis is a simple if-then statement: IF the Palestinians support Hamas and thus are fighting a Revolution and supplying Hamas with troops, ammunition, food, etc., THEN they and their homes are part of the war effort on behalf of Hamas, and thus the homes at least become legitimate targets for Israel (ugly as it may sound, one way to win is by starving the enemy, so if Palestinians are backing Hamas and Israel chooses as a result to try and bomb food centers and starve Hamas and Palestine out..... it may be ugly and not fair to the kids, but it is a fair consequence to citizens partaking in a revolution and again- WAR IS NOT FAIR; NO ANSWER WILL EVER BE 100% FAIR TO EVERYONE.)
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
10 Jan 09 UTC
@Darwyn and sean:

"Part of the reason I no longer watch the news on TV and have instead relied on the internet is because of the obvious pro-Israel slant.

Someone needs to present the other side. And I have chosen to do that."

"this was a good report about the very same issue on Al Jazeera"

And Al Jazeera, an Arab news organization, DOESN'T have a slant? They're as slanted as Foc- just a 180 degree flip: radical Republicans for war war war at the first sign of danger (THAT's is going to give me some backlash) and radical Arabs for anti anti anti America and anti anti anti Israel.

Darwyn, just because you get your facts from a source other than a news station doesn't mean they're unbiased; ALL news stations, even CNN, have slants. I expect your response is, "Well, that's why I use more than one" and I couldn't agree more.

sean....... if you watch Al Jazeera (what's that translated, by the way, to digress a bit, I've just always wondered as a matter of interest) you really must watch some other channels to balance out the unequality (same goes for Fox viewers.)

In my experience, the two stations I think are slanted, but at least provide opposing slants so as to provide contrast and thus SOME actual truth (in short, my main channels) are
CNN and BBC (VERY good, if you've never tried it, you should.)
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
10 Jan 09 UTC
@Darwyn:

"I'd like to point out your other comment from much earlier in this thread as well...

'While the loss of civilian life is a tragedy, voting for a government you know would war with your neighbors makes you somewhat complicit'

AKA, they deserved it.

Your true colors have been revealed Dingleberry. You must be proud."


So if I vote for the Neo-Nazi Regime KNOWING that a perfect clone of Hitler will be in place and that this will lead to 6 million innocent dead (let's just say they're not the Jews this time, or the gypsies and gays before you try that 'The Holocaust was overblown cop-out) and a war the next day, NO ONE on this board would blame me?

If I vote for a regime knowing with full certainty it will lead to war and death, I'm still off the guilt hook?

A more rose-colored view than usual, Darwyn.........
Denzel73 (100 D)
10 Jan 09 UTC
Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة‎, al-jazīrah, IPA: [aldʒaˈziːra], which usually means "The Island" in Arabic but more commonly known in Gulf Arabic as "The Peninsula" – referring to the Qatar Peninsula in the Gulf region, is a television network headquartered in Doha, Qatar.
Denzel73 (100 D)
10 Jan 09 UTC
From the news:

"The Israeli death toll reached 13: Nine soldiers killed in combat in Gaza, and three civilians and a soldier who were killed by militant rocket fire into Israel."

So, logic says that if Israel was interested in minimizing Israeli casualties, the best thing to do would be do to nothing. If they did nothing for past 14 days, Hamas would fire significantly smaller number of rockets into Israel, probably producing less then 4 casualties.
Denzel73 (100 D)
10 Jan 09 UTC
Not to mention that 33% of Israeli military casualties in Gaza came from a single "friendly" tank shell.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
10 Jan 09 UTC
@Denzel73:

Logic does NOT say that Israel would've minimalized casualties by not fighting back in retaliation.

By your logic, they should just let Hamas fire their rockets (going to the UN doesn't count, they've done nothing of practiacl help, that much has been established) and allow minor damage, a few casualties, and a state of terror about when another missle will strike all throguhout Southern Isreal.

Appeasemet, Denzel73?

Appeaement?

Appeasing Hamas- and with "only a few" Israeli casualties? Do Israeli lives count less than Palestinian ones?

And in any case- appeasement DOESN'T WORK: it didn't work for Neville Chamerlain, as any Englishman, Holocaust survivor or historian will tell you, and it won't work here.
Mick (630 D)
10 Jan 09 UTC
I think it would be a helpful starting point for people on this site to examine international humanitarian law (the law of war) in deciding the legitimacy or not of Hamas/ IDF actions - This is a fairly unbiased system of law that all nations in question have agreed to adhere to.

As opposed to drawing their conclusions from some simplistic, subjective, morally dubious theory they've cobbled together on the spur of the moment - as seems to be the tendency of the idiotic armchair napolean brigade so populous on this forum.

Even a cursory examination will show that the Israeli Forces are flagrantly in violation of the law and are committing numerous war crimes.

also if anyone cares to look there are striking parrallels between the invasion and destruction of Gaza and the Suppression by German Forces of the warsaw uprising in 1944.

Anyone who is truly pro-israel will be dismayed by the actions of the Israeli army and administration. All these actions are succeeding and doing is engendering hatred in the next generation of their neighbours. Even their military victories are merely creating political disadvantage - Hamas is not an army, it is a broadbased political movement with a military wing, In 5 years time after the atrocities that have ocurred there will be many more recruits than have been killed and the sponsors of Hamas will be more determined than ever to arm them.

If you're American please please please look at alternative media and ask yourself why are there demonstrations against these attacks in every single country in the world. Oh and lastly shame on all those public representatives for their morally reprobate motions of support.for the attacks
urallLESBlANS (0 DX)
11 Jan 09 UTC
Obiwan:
Appeaement?

Appeasing Hamas- and with "only a few" Israeli casualties? Do Israeli lives count less than Palestinian ones?

This is a different type of appeasement. Germany was a nation bent on war, and had outrageous demands. The Palestianinans not Hamas only want what they were promised and what they deserve. Are you saying that the Palestinians should not have soveriegnty over their own land? Israel can afford to give in to some of their demands. They cannot afford to give in to the demands of Hamas. But I believe appeasing the Palestinian people and appeasing Hamas don't have to be entirely the same thing. If Hamas were still in power after that and still had the support of the people in eliminating Israel, then Israel would have every right to invade and eliminate Hamas and to help establish a better government. IF ANYTHING Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank (and in the past Sanai and Golan Heights) is much more like the appeasement given to Germany. However I understand the reasoning for having a buffer as security.

As for the Israeli life versus the life of a Palestinian; that argument is completely shot considering the proportion of lives lost in this conflict. Israel obviously places the lives of its own citizens over the lives of Palestinians. Israel invaded Lebanon for what two soldiers? The question is not whose life is more important, but who can afford the sacrifice? If it were any other Arab nation I would not say this.

I think one thing we have not discussed is that the Palestinians should also give in, which could also potentially help the problem. Now I'm not a very good online researcher, so I'd like to ask, what caused the formation of Hamas? At what point did this conflict change between Israel versus the Arab League to Israel versus Hamas, Hezbollah, and other organizations with the support of Iran, Syria and other nations? What really caused the Palestinian people to be so angry (other than the initial establishment of Israel)? Could it have something to do with the massacres and deportations, maybe the settlement of Palestinian lands by right wing Israelis. Just as chrispminis states, "I'm pointing out that if Israel gets to escalate then why doesn't Palestine?" If Palestine should be the one to stop first, as you claim, why shouldn't Israel be the one to stop and make some sacrifices.

You also quoted Darwyn quoting dingleberry etc. I think you're missing the point there, (while he didn't state it specifically, I thought it was implied) that not all the Palestinians voted for Hamas and even less are supporting Hamas directly and without being forced. So many civilians do not deserve to be treated like fair game. I admit it is hard to determine that. As you say war isn't fair, but this does not mean that Israel is not responsible for the reduction of civilian losses, and the actions of a few should not determine the punishment of so many thousands of innocent civilians (not in this current incident obviously). I recognize that they are paranoid, but that is just another reason to avoid this invasion, out of responsibility.

Your election of Hitler comparison was also very different from the election of a group that seems to cause about one dozen Israeli deaths a year. While I'm sure they would if they would cause another holocaust if they could, they obviously don't have the potential.

While doing my insufficient researching, I came accross this quote from a respected Arab historian, that I have read before. While it is hard for anyone to argue that there isn't bias in this or anything spoken, written, recorded, etc, I believe this should illustrate many of our views. By the way I feel much the same way about our own (US) military policy, not to say that some wars aren't necessary.
"The Israeli policy of punitive counterattacks (or state terrorism) seems to be to try to kill anywhere from 50 to 100 Arabs for every Jewish fatality. The devastation of Lebanese refugee camps, hospitals, schools, mosques, churches, and orphanages; the summary arrests, deportations, house destructions, maimings, and torture of Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza..these, and the number of Palestinian fatalities, the scale of material loss, the physical, political and psychological deprivations, have tremendously exceeded the damage done by Palestinians to Israelis.” Edward Said, “The Question of Palestine.”

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html
A pro-Palestinian site (obviously biased) but uses mostly quotes, even from pro-Palestinian Jews and former Israelis.
diplomat1824 (0 DX)
11 Jan 09 UTC
It's way easier than everyone realizes.

Hamas started to shell Israel. Israel retaliated. Why should we (uninvolved countries) stop Israel's retaliation? How many times does it take to figure out that attacking Israel is an extremely BAD idea?
Treefarn (6094 D)
11 Jan 09 UTC
As I read this thread about people reading different news sources, and as I hear Israel getting crucified in the media. I am reminded of past events.

While undoubtedly there are a lot of civilians that have died and while there are presumably some evil soldiers in the Israeli army (as there are in American and British army in Iraq and Afghanistan), the bulk of the soldiers are just good boys. Watching the evening news in America, you don't hear the stories of the American soldiers fighting the war 'properly' (not sure else how to phrase that, hope you understand what I mean), you hear about Lindey England and those who should be rightly jailed. But I digress...

Regardless of what news you are reading, take it all with a grain of salt. When a UN truck gets shelled and 'eyewitnesses' (who are obviously on one side of the war or the other - they weren't UN employees) tell a story, and it gets picked up on every major news source, remember there is another side. And for those who feel the western media is pro-Israeli, read on.

The 'Jenin Massacre' occurred in the West Bank in 2002. Israel was crucified for a massacre of civilians. Hundreds, even thousands of civilians killed. War Crimes! The Hague! Palestinians witnesses claiming this and that, and the UN backing up whatever they say.

A month later, it turned out not to be true. It turns out there was a surprising well-matched opposition, and while there were civilian casualties, there was no massacre. But here is what the 'Standard' of England had to say.

4/13/02 Estimates of the dead in the battle of Jenin range from 150 to several hundred.

4/14/02 More than 100 Palestinians died, perhaps twice that number, many of them civilians...The Palestinians have called it a 'massacre', alleging that their houses were bulldozed with families still inside, that helicopters fired indiscriminately on a civilian area

4/16/02 When the international media cannot be kept out any more and the pictures of horror are published, two possible versions may emerge: Jenin as a story of massacre, a second Sabra and Shatila; and Jenin, the Palestinian Stalingrad, a story of immortal heroism. The second will surely prevail....A few dozen Israelis killed, many hundreds of Palestinians dead.

4/16/02 Palestinians accuse Israel of a massacre, and there are convincing accounts from local people of the occasional summary execution.

4/17/02 "Israel faces rage over 'massacre'" A senior Palestinian, Nabil Shaath, accused Israel of carrying out summary executions and removing corpses in refrigerated trucks. He said close to 500 people had been killed.

4/21/02 Whatever crimes were committed here - and it appears there were many - a deliberate and calculated massacre of civilians by the Israeli army was not among them.

4/23/02 The Red Cross says Israel breached the Geneva conventions by recklessly endangering civilian lives and property. Amnesty International says the Israeli authorities gave civilians trapped in the camp no opportunity to escape.

5/6/02 Despite flimsy evidence British papers jumped the gun to apportion blame when a West Bank refugee camp was attacked, says Sharon Sadeh. As a result, the reputation of the press has been damaged

6/3/02 The second factor was the hasty claims - made by Palestinian and Israeli spokesmen in the absence of concrete facts - that hundreds of Jenin's inhabitants had been killed. Given the world's inflated expectations, the talk of a massacre seemed grossly disproportionate once the camp was opened to scrutiny. The casualties sustained by the Israeli army, including 23 soldiers killed, only fed the view that Jenin was a messy but essentially fair fight.

The massacre theory was soon discounted. The numerical threshold, wherever it lay, had not been crossed - and neither, argued Israel, had the moral threshold. This position was justified by Israel's assertion that almost all of Jenin's victims were fighters. The evidence from UNRWA, however, is that at least a quarter of the dead were women, young children, pensioners or disabled, as were many of the injured.

8/1/02 A UN report into the fighting in the Jenin refugee camp will reject Palestinian claims of an Israeli massacre, but will criticise both sides for putting civilian lives at risks, western diplomats said today.

The violence in the camp came during an Israeli offensive in the West Bank, launched after a suicide bomb attack that killed 29 Israelis.

The Jenin incursion, which began in early April, was the heaviest fighting in Israel's six-week campaign that began on March 29 this year. The Israeli army lost 23 soldiers in the camp and, in the weeks after the battle, the Palestinian cabinet minister, Saeb Erekat, said that 500 people had been killed.

The UN report, prepared by the secretary general, Kofi Annan, after Israel refused a fact-finding mission access to the camp, said 52 Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by April 18, and that up to half may have been civilians.
--------------------------------------

The Mohammed Al-Dura case is another example. This tragic case is still under dispute (and is running through French courts).
--------------------------------------

So take all news with a grain of salt.
urallLESBlANS (0 DX)
11 Jan 09 UTC
Ok so maybe a dozen Israeli deaths a year at the hands of terrorist organizations is too low, but I'm having trouble finding any estimates.

And I'd like to add about my point about why the Palestinians are angry: I think both sides are really to blame for the rise of these terrorist organizations. But it really once again stems back to the Zionist movement and the Palestinians' anger over being kicked off their land. If you're willing to admit that maybe, just maybe Israel didn't have the complete right to take the land, but they live there now so they have the right to live there now and have their own government, then why don't the Palestinians have the same right?

Thank you treefarn; you make a great point.
urallLESBlANS (0 DX)
11 Jan 09 UTC
Well, I suppose they do have their own government now to a certain extent, I suppose that is an imperfect argument.
Invictus (240 D)
11 Jan 09 UTC
This will all end when one side wins and the other loses. It's horrible, but that's the only way any conflict can be resolved.

What good is a UN ceasefire? It just gives each side more time to plot what to do to the other next. Let them fight it out and settle it for good.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
11 Jan 09 UTC
@urallLESBIANS

"This is a different kind of appeasement."

So are you actually in favor of, as cliche as it is to say, "negotiating/giving in to terrorists"? (And to be clear by terrorists I mean Hamas, not the Palestinian people.)

"Are you saying that the Palestinians should not have soveriegnty over their own land?"

If you mean Gaza- I think Palestinians SHOULD be in charge there, not Hamas (they DO have different leaders.....)

If you mean Israel- I will never say Israel should not be a "Jewish State," for it is the only land that was ever at any point truly Jewish in its control and culture. Poland, Russia, Germany, France, even America- they are places where Jews have lived, but not Jewish in their nature, not "home." To put it in perspective- for a Zionist, America and Poland and England and all the other lands with Jewish populations are like apartments, varying in their quality and comfort but not "home"- Israel is home.

However, I DO think Palestinians should live in Israel. As equals; at the moment they are second class because they and Israel refuse to share the land and Israel has control, so Palestinians are crippled economically- and no personal equality can be accomplished before economical salvation for Palestine is achieved.

And as much as Hamas or anyone else may promise it, war with Israel will NOT bring economical or any kind of equality- just death.

Israelis and Palestinians must live together Israel as equals. Palestinians, in the end, MUST have representation in the Israeli government. And Israel, of course, must retain its representation.

In short- Palestine and Israel can become one, but it must "remain" Israel- a Jewish State. Israel, America, and enough of the West will never accept an Israel that no longer is the homeland and state of the Jews.

And yet that does not mean that Palestinians must be second-class. Again, Palestinians can and should have a fair and equal economic chance and equal rights, and must have representation. And perhaps, if peace is achieved, someday a PALESTINIAN may rule the Jewish State.

A seemingly impossible event- but ten years ago, a black U.S. president seemed just as unlikely.

A Palestinain leading the Israelis and Palestinians, an Israeli leading Palestinians and Israelis.

And perhaps, in time, the Land of the Jews may become the Land of God, the peaceful religious center that it was meant to be, a land where Jerusalem holds both the Dome of the Rock and a long-waited rebuilt version of The Temple of Solomon- THE Temple of the Jews, a land where Palestinians and Israelis and all-comers or Abrahamic faith drink together, play together, fight togehter- STAND TOGETHER.

But before even the first glimmer of hope of such an Israel, of such a Land may be discussed or seen, the back-and-forth war must stop, and Hamas MUST be destroyed- so Israel may breathe a sigh of relief and so the Palestinian President may again begin talks with Israel and the West (with England, France, and an Obama-led America leading the way as mediators) to reunite the Land of Abraham's Children.

A nice dream, albeit a little religious- and if you wish to use that fact to detract from and quibble over this idea, this dream, than jsut remember that this entire WAR for 60-on years is not just the least bit religious itself, and that even if you do not care for the religions in play in this conflict, one must yet realize they ARE a cause and MUSR be a solution in this conflict.
diplomat1824 (0 DX)
12 Jan 09 UTC
Let's go for 600, everyone! Just type jibberish, if nessecary.
Mick (630 D)
12 Jan 09 UTC
A few facts::

80% of those killed thus far have been civilians. With at least 25% of them children

Israel is largely responsible for the creation of Hamas, in a similar fashion to the role played by the American administration in creating the Taleban. From 1987 onwards It promoted them as a means to undermine palestinian unity and the PLO just as America trained the Mujihadeen...Dr Frankenstein doesn't seem to like its monster anymore.

The present President of Palestine, Abbas or Abu Mazen, is the one president in the world more derided by his own citizens, unreflective of their views and incapable of getting support for his action than George W Bush.

Hamas is a popular political movement (with a militant wing) that was democratically elected in Gaza and whether people like it or not it represents the opinion of a large number of palestinians. you must make a distinction between its military and civilian wings. Pretending that a janitor or a teacher or a nurse that are members of hamas are somehow equivalent to a fighter is ludicrous. Unless you are going to wipe out the entire population, the killing of militants will only bring more to their ranks. The attacks are radicalising and entrenching hatred in the general population and moderate and progressive idigenous voices who offer an alternative to Hamas will now be smothered

As an occupying power Israel has obligations laid down in law for the treatment of gazas citizens. For decades it has effectively controlled the borders, sea and airspace. Israel for the past few years has turned gaza into a concentration camp - More than 50% of Gazans are unemployed, Israel has directly stopped citizens from taking up education scholarships, undergoing medical treatment, engaging in trade with anyone outside of Israel.

It has grossly exagerrated the number of rocket attacks it faces and has attributed attacks to Hamas that were the work of other factions. It sought to deliberatley provoke a response from Hamas by going on raids into gaza and killling hamas members.


A few comments:

I find the reductionist solution proposed by Invictus to be a despicable suggestion. His analysis of this complex issue as requiring two sides to fight til death, implies that we should just ignore the conflict until it is resolved in a zero-sum, genocidal manner. It suggests that the any actions can be taken to acheive this end and implicitly supports the current killing of women and children and non-combatants as a legitimate approach. Such talk which draws no distinction, and moreover suggests that no distinction can be drawn between non-combatatants and combatants (there are only two sides) is dangerous and infantile and best left unsaid.
Mick (630 D)
12 Jan 09 UTC
Also to Obiwan...your opinion on what constitues fair game is tantamount to supporting war crimes...are you going to kill every woman and child that waves a hamas flag
diplomat1824 (0 DX)
12 Jan 09 UTC
3 of the 7 Israeli soldiers killed (as of this post) were killed by friendly fire, so that should be taken into consideration.
diplomat1824 (0 DX)
13 Jan 09 UTC
Keep adding to this thread! Voice you opinion over and over again!
amonkeyperson (100 D)
13 Jan 09 UTC
Mick

"I find the reductionist solution proposed by Invictus to be a despicable suggestion."

The Crusades were a series of military campaigns during the time of Medieval England against the Muslims of the Middle East. In 1076, the Muslims had captured Jerusalem - the most holy of holy places for Christians. Jesus had been born in nearby Bethlehem and Jesus had spent most of his life in Jerusalem. He was crucified on Calvary Hill, also in Jerusalem. There was no more important place on Earth than Jerusalem for a true Christian which is why Christians called Jerusalem the "City of God".

However, Jerusalem was also extremely important for the Muslims as Muhammad, the founder of the Muslim faith, had been there and there was great joy in the Muslim world when Jerusalem was captured. A beautiful dome - called the Dome of the Rock - was built on the rock where Muhammad was said to have sat and prayed and it was so holy that no Muslim was allowed to tread on the rock or touch it when visiting the Dome.

Therefore the Christian fought to get Jerusalem back while the Muslims fought to keep Jerusalem. These wars were to last nearly 200 years

"The noble race of Franks must come to the aid their fellow Christians in the East. The infidel Turks are advancing into the heart of Eastern Christendom; Christians are being oppressed and attacked; churches and holy places are being defiled. Jerusalem is groaning under the Saracen yoke. The Holy Sepulchre is in Moslem hands and has been turned into a mosque. Pilgrims are harassed and even prevented from access to the Holy Land.

"The West must march to the defense of the East. All should go, rich and poor alike. The Franks must stop their internal wars and squabbles. Let them go instead against the infidel and fight a righteous war.

"God himself will lead them, for they will be doing His work. There will be absolution and remission of sins for all who die in the service of Christ. Here they are poor and miserable sinners; there they will be rich and happy. Let none hesitate; they must march next summer. God wills it!

"The day after Urban's speech, the Council formally granted all the privileges and protections Urban had promised. The red cross was taken as the official sign of the pilgrims, and Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy was chosen as papal legate and the spiritual leader of the expedition."2

The First Crusade was the most successful from a military point of view. Accounts of this action are shocking. For example, historian Raymond of Agiles described the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099:


Some of our men cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the temple of Solomon, a place where religious services ware ordinarily chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much at least, that in the temple and portico of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins.


Some of the results of the first crusade were not expected. Alexus I thought that the Byzantine territories would be returned to him and the Eastern Empire, but instead the European conquerors established four independent Latin kingdoms. In addition, three military orders (Hospitallers, Templars, and Teutonic Knights) came into power. The stated purpose of these orders was to protect pilgrims and holy sites.

amonkeyperson (100 D)
13 Jan 09 UTC
In the year 195, people were shocked in Northern Europe by the words of Pope Urban VXII, "The Muslims have conquered Antioch". Pope Urban wanted the Catholics to retake Crete from the Muslims. People shouted "Allah wills it". All over Germany these were the warring words of the scientoligists.

The Alaskan, Homosexual, and Turkians were the European Christians that went on mindless journeys. The word Crusade meant "a war of the dead". During the first Crusade (2095-336) most of the knights died of scurvy, thirst or pregnancy. When they got to Bethlehem, they slaughtered anyone they could find. They took shots before going on a crusade. Sometimes during a crusade a knight would forget his shots and ride off or live in the village closest by with a bar.

In a Crusade there were animals who were going to pray in Budapest, groomers that cleaned the wives and children of the knights, and two kinds of knights: a mounted knight who rode on a horse and a foot soldier who walked on his hands. Some of the knights went on Crusades to get rich or to steal a new home from the people they were fighting, but most of the knights went to get healed of their cuts and bruises. Richard the Lion Heart (or Richard the rich and wealthy) was a famous woman in the Crusades. The twenty-seventh Crusade (3021-3022) started off with a tournament against Chuck liddel and king kong, but the fight ended in tragedy. Most of the armies that went were already half destroyed by the crowds. They didn't reach the fight. All together there were two Crusades in a period of 3 million years. The Crusades lasted from 1095 until 1271.

"This is what scientologists actaully believe"

Page 16 of 21
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

609 replies
Invictus (240 D)
24 Jan 09 UTC
Tarablus for President
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=8265
30 points, 24 hour phases, points per center.

It's mourning again in America.
3 replies
Open
wooooo (926 D)
24 Jan 09 UTC
Very fast game (1 hour)
If anyone is up for the commitment of sitting down and playing a quick game (I expect turn deadline to be 15 minutes even if they are technically an hour) please respond. I will put up a password protected game if enough people do.
17 replies
Open
Invictus (240 D)
23 Jan 09 UTC
Obama and Africa
This is a serious thread. Will Obama be effective in helping to bring political stability to Africa? Bush did more than any other President for AIDS relief and debt reduction, among other things, but will Obama be able to actually expand this to getting the African people the governments they deserve?
31 replies
Open
Bunny (0 DX)
24 Jan 09 UTC
What the?
!
11 replies
Open
fabiobaq (444 D)
24 Jan 09 UTC
rules - supporting a supporting unit
Is it valid to support a supporting unit? I mean, Unit A on province X will support Unit B moving to a province Y. Is it valid to Unit C support Unit A holding, so that an enemy 1-supported movement into province X won't obtain?
2 replies
Open
philcore (317 D(S))
24 Jan 09 UTC
Ban Tarablus!!
That is bullshit!!! What the hell is wrong with you?
12 replies
Open
Onar (131 D)
24 Jan 09 UTC
New game, just for fun
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=8264
low point entry, anyone interested?
0 replies
Open
DingleberryJones (4469 D(B))
24 Jan 09 UTC
Where's the outrage?
The Sri Lankan military shelled a hospital and a village inside a government-declared "safe zone" for displaced families Thursday, killing at least 30 civilians, health officials said.
18 replies
Open
Dexter.Morgan (135 D)
24 Jan 09 UTC
That was rude, Tarablus.
There were some active conversations that you just pushed completely off the board with your Spam.
3 replies
Open
Kompole (546 D)
24 Jan 09 UTC
KIEL CANAL
I know it's not on this maps, but it's on a table game of Diplomacy. What's its purpose? Does it allow convoys across from Helgoland Bight to Baltic sea?
2 replies
Open
mapleleaf (0 DX)
23 Jan 09 UTC
New game
NO RIF RAFF
21 replies
Open
V+ (5470 D)
23 Jan 09 UTC
Help unpause game
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=8179

The game was paused when a player was banned, and all have voted to unpause except one, France, who hasn't logged in for 50 hours. Thanks.
3 replies
Open
Friendly Sword (636 D)
23 Jan 09 UTC
Rules Question
This kind of a dumb question but I thought I'd make sure :P
(Below)
23 replies
Open
Friendly Sword (636 D)
22 Jan 09 UTC
In-game discussion tips
Friendly Sword is wondering whether there is a better and more effective way for Friendly Sword to talk :P?
25 replies
Open
Draugnar (0 DX)
20 Jan 09 UTC
I've noticed an amazing similarity here.
Obama and Biden
Osama bin Laden

They sound remarkably alike.
27 replies
Open
SirBayer (480 D)
23 Jan 09 UTC
Civil Disorder X
I have a question...
4 replies
Open
jhsu (137 D)
23 Jan 09 UTC
New Game
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=8252
Ice Cream, All you ever wanted.
0 replies
Open
Jacob (2466 D)
23 Jan 09 UTC
Need help from a mod.
Can you please delete this game?
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=8243
I accidentally made it not realizing I had already made a game with that title. Thanks!
8 replies
Open
canaduh (1324 D)
21 Jan 09 UTC
A question for the super-experience
In my experience, Russia getting Sweden in the first year puts Russia in a very strong position. I would go as far as saying that the first two years.

Has there been any research/thinking on this? Is there any evidence to back up my gut feel (based on the fact that Russia always wins when I play, and I cnnot convince Germany to block the overrunning of Sweden)?
8 replies
Open
amonkeyperson (100 D)
23 Jan 09 UTC
Convoy
Can you convoy an army thro TWO fleets in one turn?
10 replies
Open
mumford (290 D)
23 Jan 09 UTC
Booting players?
So is there a way to boot a player who is ruining a game by not finalizing orders, even during retreats and unit placing?
6 replies
Open
Vinnie the sifter (100 D)
23 Jan 09 UTC
Just for Fun-3
Please no experts on this game this is for novice players looking for a good time.
0 replies
Open
Page 206 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top