Y'all GOT to check this out..

Anything and Everything about Uplink

Moderators: bert_the_turtle, jelco, Chris, Icepick, Rkiver

Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:02 am

I'm too tired to say much, but the fact that you deny that there is a link between a security barrier designed to prevent terrorist attacks bering constructed and a resultant 80% fall in terror attacks is just fucking retarded...

I've never heard anyone deny that the barrier actually stops the attacks. They may rail against it's existence and where it is located, but putting up a barrier and attacks lowering, one would presume a link.

And don't give me bollocks about 'statistical science'. Why don't we use plain, simple logic. Cupholders in cars don't save lives, seatbelts do. This is logic.

A nice barrier designed to keep out terrorists is however very linkable to a fall in terror attacks.

To deny there is a link is bordering on the insane...
User avatar
The GoldFish
level5
level5
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:01 pm
Location: Bowl / South UK
Contact:

Postby The GoldFish » Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:23 am

Fact is, land has been seperated by religious denomination (or lack there of)

Niether side is in the right.
-- The GoldFish - member of former GIT and commander in chief of GALLAHAD. You could have done something, but it's been fixed. The end. Also, play bestgameever!
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:37 am

A cupholder does not save lives. But what about a "reinforced beverage restraint system?" Just because something was designed to have an effect on someting does not mean that it is the only thing that has an effect, or even that it has an effect at all.

It's like: "I had the flu, and I took magic beans to cure it: and it worked! Those Antibiotics I took at the same time were such a waste of money..."

But I never said it didn't stop attacks. I'm sure somewhere there's a hamas guy thinking... "hmm... I won't attack, I can't be arsed to walk around that huge bloody wall." I said that an 80% drop in attacks since it was built did not mean that it stopped 80% of attacks.

Oh, and Goldfish: there are actualy loads of muslims in Isreal. I mean realy loads- Like mexicans in the US. The Isrealis aren't being religiously devisive, but it looks that way because Palistine is a muslim country and Isreal is jewish.

Sure, there are religious hardliners on both sides, and war is easy to justify when there are religious diffrences, but the conflict is actualy teritorial. One of the biggest threats to both sides is that the issue will become clouded by religious dispute.

There are fundimentalist fighters operating in palestine (and being protected by the locals because they have a common foe), and there are strong pressure groups in Isreal who claim that they should expand to the area layed out by Moses. These people cannot be negotiated with, which makes them very scary.
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:48 am

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:No, that's alright.

The difference is that I try to seperate personal attacks from intellectual attacks. Until the last few posts here, I never used any personal attacks (which is the way I like it). The problem is when people use personal attacks in place of intellectual attacks, which is what I see you and Curiosity doing most of the time. While I generally disagree with pretty much everything ToRmEnToR says I still respect him because he almost always sticks to intellectual debate. There is a time for the character debate, but it should be seperated from the substantive debate. :)


Well, then this will come down to something of a philosopfical issue..

I believe that you can attack someone's person for his views, cause stupid/ignorant people usually have stupid/ignorant views.
If the person was clever they wouldnt have such dumb views on things, get it? :wink:
Just like if a person is truly logical, they dont have non-logical views/thoughts on things..

Therefore I see no real problem with personal attacks, I'll attack their's and they're free to attack mine back, so really, what's the big problem? :)

Just like I might think someone is a total idiot, with total idiotic views, but I still feel its his right to express them.

And speaking of tormentor, well... Im not sure about that, he *usually* avoids personal attacks, but he also has a nasty habit
to talk without facts.


doormat wrote:Hmm... further accusations...

I think you use the word "retarded" too often.


Yes, well it's such a lovely word, isn't it? :lol:



Btw Curiosity, so far nobody has agreed with pretty much anything you've said (except maybe tormentor, but he seems to agree with anyone supporting Israel, no matter how fanatic they are)
you've yet to present solid facts, and not to mention stop talking about some kind of palestinan plot like a nazi talks about a jewish world government, so maybe its time to reconsider if you are always right yes? :)
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:04 am

Banker wrote:Well, then this will come down to something of a philosopfical issue..

I believe that you can attack someone's person for his views, cause stupid/ignorant people usually have stupid/ignorant views.
If the person was clever they wouldnt have such dumb views on things, get it? :wink:
Just like if a person is truly logical, they dont have non-logical views/thoughts on things..


A computer is totally logical, yet the same program given different input will give a different output. So if two people have been given different facts even if they are perfectly logical they will generally arrive at different positions.



Therefore I see no real problem with personal attacks, I'll attack their's and they're free to attack mine back, so really, what's the big problem? :)


It is a big problem, because then you forget to argue the facts and just trade insults, which besides being childish and stupid is totally unproductive (its actually very counter productive).


And speaking of tormentor, well... Im not sure about that, he *usually* avoids personal attacks, but he also has a nasty habit
to talk without facts.


Or incorrect facts. . . I generally try to point that out when he posts those. As I do with everyone. :)
User avatar
The GoldFish
level5
level5
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:01 pm
Location: Bowl / South UK
Contact:

Postby The GoldFish » Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:35 am

doormat wrote:The Isrealis aren't being religiously devisive
I don't mean them :P

The actual conflict is most definately terratorial, as you accurately point out - I mean more the roots of why the conflict is even happening (as has previously been discussed).
-- The GoldFish - member of former GIT and commander in chief of GALLAHAD. You could have done something, but it's been fixed. The end. Also, play bestgameever!
ToRmEnToR
level5
level5
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 5:48 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby ToRmEnToR » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:30 am

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Before 1948 Jews made up 33% of the population of Israel and owned less than 8% of the land (although since no one owned most of the land in Palestine that figure is a bit deceiving). In the 1947 plan Israel was given 55% of all land. For 33% of the population to get 55% of the land did not seem to the Palestinians a good deal (yes the Negev was part of that).

Also the distribution of population was an issue. The population of Israel was to be 498,000 Jews and 325,000 non-Jews. The population for the proposed Arab State would be 807,000 non-Jews and 10,000 Jews. The population for the proposed International Zone would be 105,000 non-Jews and 100,000 Jews. The plan was obvioiusly biased towards keeping Jews together, while seperating non-Jews. This greatly weakens the non-Jewish populations power since it is split three ways. These are the issue non-Jews had with the plan.


I dont see anything wrong with giving 33% of the population 55% of the land. Especiially when it is known that many more people will immigrate to israel after a goverment and a country was created (that is in fact what happened). And besides, it's not like the palestinians were overpopulating over their land back in those days (nor were the jews), so there was plenty of empty ground to go around.

I'm not sure about the population splitting statistic. It seems (just seems) like that statistic counts the city of jaffa as israeli terretory. But all those numbers cant actually be proven, in many places it is noted how inacurate the statistic figures of the population were back than.

Besides that, when it comes to the actuall splitting of the land, if anything it gave power to the palestinians. Every side was split into 3 parts with a narrow corridor between them. But the control over jerusalem was given completely to the palestinians. Even though jews were bound to visit jerusalem for all sorts of religious reasons.

And those arabs who were left on israeli terretory were much safer than those jews left in palestinian territory. Those arabs that were left in israel now live a happy life, as equal citizens. a much better life than they would of had in the palestinian authority.


doormat wrote:So would I. But the Palestinians have nothing left to give.


:\ I'm not talking about something physical.


Maybe. Probably not, mind. It's hard to distiguish causal factors at the best of times. Too many things change all the time in such a complex political situation for any trend to be 100% the result of any one factor.


Facts (in chronological order)

1) terrorists are penetrating israel from unfenced borders.

2) terror acts reach a new peak. there is an exploasion almost weekly.

3) a wall is built

4) Terror acts almost stop.

5) soon after, many terrorist leaders are assasinated, including the major godfather of terrorists - sheikh ahmad yassin.

6) terrorist organizations swear that they will attack israel with all they got.

7) Amount of terror acts drop drastically.


Now the conclusion from this should be obvious. Of cource you can always doubt how effective the wall is, but all the facts lead you to one conclusion.


Why did Isreal build there in the first place? It wasn't part of Isreal. This comes down to sacrafices again, I'm afraid. It doesn't matter how much the land is worth. It's worth less than human life. I know that sounds overly simplistic, but it's true.


Are you kidding? YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT FUCKING CITIES AND INDUSTRIES! It's impossible to just demolish everything, or alternatively just give everything to the palestinians. It's impractical and illogical.

When people lived in tents it was ok to move them around. But now, can you come to someone and tell him to move out of his house in telaviv because of something that happened 60 years ago (long before he was born)? Does that sound right? That defies every moral and social law on the planet.

Besides, where are you gonna send all the jews to? And do you think it will realy solve the conflict in the middle east? There are no magic answers.


Well, you did blow up all their existing infrastructure... Besides, I think the UN pays for it.


Err too bad israel doesnt see much of the UN's money. The UN pays for realy unknown stuff. They just throw money at the palestinian authority and doesnt realy control how where that money goes.
meow
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:10 pm

:\ I'm not talking about something physical.


Nor was I. They live in slums, with all ameniaties provided by the UN or Isreal, without any significant or stable political system. They have no money, no land and no honour left to give. I wonder where it all went?

Now the conclusion from this should be obvious. Of cource you can always doubt how effective the wall is, but all the facts lead you to one conclusion.


Sorry, no. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this. The only way to be sure would be to ask a Palistinian militant, and I'm not sure that we could trust the answer. Suffice it to say that the wall is a massive violation of International law and the rights of the Palistinians, in exchange for which it offers disputed safety benifits,
and definately pre-empts the border negotitions in an pro-isreal direction.

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT FUCKING CITIES AND INDUSTRIES! It's impossible to just demolish everything, or alternatively just give everything to the palestinians.


Why would you consider demolishing it? It's entirely possible to give it to the palestininans. At the end of the day, we're talking about money. Isreal shouldn't have built there in the first place, and those who now own this Infrastucture will have to be compensated, either by the Isreali govenment or the international community. Like I said, the palistinans have very little land or infrastructure left- if a negotiated peace is to be acheved, they are going to have to get some of what is now Isreali occupied back. And you can't just give them the bits no-one wants because no-one wants them for a reason... Lasting peace will only be possible between equals, and that means helping the Palestinians develop industry and cities. This might give them a good head start.

Err too bad israel doesnt see much of the UN's money.


$84,854,827,200 since 1949 from the US alone. That's $14,630 per person. Thats just aid to Isreal, which is not well known to be a needy nation. Aproximatly the same as the total UN aid to the PLA. (Although that was over shorter period, some might say they needed it more.) It doesn't include the private "bonds" the Isreali govenment sells abroad. (I put it in inverted commas, because most bonds pay out. These ones don't. It's just donating money to Isreal. For some reason, they sell quite a few...) And it doesn't include preferential arms contracts or trade agreements. Isreal's economy enjoys more overseas injections than Etheopia.

Of the 200 million ESF fund for Palestine, 50 million was given directly to the IDF to "fund the construction of high-tech terminals in Israel's security barrier designed to speed up the inspection of Palestinian people and cargo."

Believe me, Isreal gets more out of the UN than it puts in
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:50 pm

A computer is totally logical, yet the same program given different input will give a different output. So if two people have been given different facts even if they are perfectly logical they will generally arrive at different positions.


Yes, but that doesnt explain how 2 persons with the same facts can interpretate (sp?!?!) them totally different, then one of them
is obviously wrong, right?
In that case, one pretty much HAS to be wrong, and either
not-logical or just dumber then the other one.. :wink:


It is a big problem, because then you forget to argue the facts and just trade insults, which besides being childish and stupid is totally unproductive (its actually very counter productive).


Maybe true in a real political debate in a senate or a serious environment, but really.. Is anything productive going to come
from a debate on a webpage? Is it going to change anything in
the world? Probably not.


Or incorrect facts. . . I generally try to point that out when he posts those. As I do with everyone. :)


I know, I do that too. The problem is that lots of people dont believe anyone who claims they are wrong...
Some even cling to their beliefs even if you can link them to reliable sources.


And back to this topic, isnt there some kind of cease-fire right now between Israel and the Palestinans..
If I recall correctly, wouldnt that drop terror attacks alot too, instead of the wall being solely responsible..?
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:46 pm

The Security Fence provides a response to the operational assignment requiring continuity. It is a continuous land based obstacle stretching from Beit- Shean (North) to Arad (South).

Stage A, runs from Salem to Elkana, and around Jerusalem (in the northern and southern sections), was completed by the end of July 2003.

Stage B, running from Salem towards Bet- Shean, through the Jezreel Valley and the Gilboa mountains, approved in December 2002, was completed in 2004.

The informal ceasefire only began in February of this year.

I believe Tormentor's point sums it up.

A fair proportion of the wall goes up.
Terror attacks fall by 80% despite no change in terror group tactics or policies and no change in other Israeli tactics.
Israel kills Yassin.
Palestinian terrorist groups swear to unleash massive vengeance and lots of attacks.
Terror attacks do not rise.

Now, the palestinian groups swearing bloody vengeance and vowing to open the 'gates of hell' at that time would mean that all your "ceasefire and international community" bullshit is invalidated utterly, as the terror groups were trying damn hard to attack.
Israel killed a terrorist leader, the terror groups swore vengeance and yet were pretty much unable exact it.
Why?
I would say the barrier. You would say 'the situation changed'.

:roll:
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:00 pm

Banker wrote:Yes, but that doesnt explain how 2 persons with the same facts can interpretate (sp?!?!) them totally different, then one of them
is obviously wrong, right?
In that case, one pretty much HAS to be wrong, and either
not-logical or just dumber then the other one.. :wink:


No, if two people have different knowledge bases, and are both given the same new fact, they will interpret it differently. The same with a computer. As a trivial example try typing "ls" into an MS-DOS prompt, it will give you an error. However type the same thing into a Unix or Linux prompt and it will list the contents of the directory. That is two totally logical programs interpreting the same thing in completely different ways.


Maybe true in a real political debate in a senate or a serious environment, but really.. Is anything productive going to come
from a debate on a webpage? Is it going to change anything in
the world? Probably not.


Who, knows. But that doesn't mean we should act like childish idiots. Only harm can come from that.


I know, I do that too. The problem is that lots of people dont believe anyone who claims they are wrong...
Some even cling to their beliefs even if you can link them to reliable sources.


Such is real life.





ToRmEnToR:

So you wouldn't have any problem if Israel were forced to give up say 35% of its land the Palestinians (as that would be the same amount relative to populations that the Palestinians were forced to give up)? Seeing as how Israel is still reluctant to give back its occupied land it seems that most Israelis would have a major problem with handing over 35% of their own lands.

If the land had not been devided, the Palestinians would have a democratic majority over the entire area, as it is they are under Israeli authority. I don't think you can make any serious argument that the Palestinians political power is greater with such a division of lands.
Last edited by Stewsburntmonkey on Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:02 pm

I would say the barrier. You would say 'the situation changed'.


Bang on. That's exactly what I would say. I won't go into why: you know all about the new push towards a peaceful solution, the change of leadership in the PLA, and all that. Lets just say we disagree.
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:12 pm

The death of Arafat, push towards peace all happened AFTER the terror attacks had fallen by 80%...

Yes, AFTER.

You're not getting away with this 'agreeing to disagree' stuff.

If you're stupid enough to deny that a security barrier which the Israeli government BUILT TO PREVENT TERROR ATTACKS after numerous reports and examinations of the best ways to prevent attacks, the construction of which was FOLLOWED BY AN 80% DROP IN TERROR ATTACKS, was only negligibly responsible for the fall in terror even though the drastic fall was seen BEFORE ANY OTHER CHANGES IN THE SITUATION, then I really don't think I can carry on discussing this with you.

Your self-confessed, and amply demonstrated, lack of knowledge about the situation is made even worse by your blind, unsubstantiated, illogical claim.

Why are you sticking to something so obviously ridiculous like a limpet?
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:16 pm

No, if two people have different knowledge bases, and are both given the same new fact, they will interpret it differently. The same with a computer. As a trivial example try typing "ls" into an MS-DOS prompt, it will give you an error. However type the same thing into a Unix or Linux prompt and it will list the contents of the directory. That is two totally logical programs interpreting the same thing in completely different ways.


Yes, IF they have different knowledge bases and given a new fact..

But I said: the same facts/knowledge base, 2 different people. They might still have different views on lots of things, and they probably will. And last, humans are not computers, or programming languages, that is a pretty... weird example.
As a piece of wisdom Ive read said: "Humans are not logical in thought, but instead capable of logical thought."
Wasnt spelled like that but I think you get the picture..
Humans vary ALOT between individuals, programming languges dont, Unix is always unix, basic is always basic, c is always c..

Who, knows. But that doesn't mean we should act like childish idiots. Only harm can come from that.


An insult that's true isn't childish, its simply true, but maybe
"rude".

The "you're ugly, no you're ugly" shit is childish, true, but saying someone sucks at debating cause they arent capable of logic can (and should be if you say it) be both relevant and true, if someone is ugly (or similar stuff) isn't relevant even if it can be true, and therefore childish to bring up since it serves no purpose in making a point.


Such is real life.


True, but that doesnt make it any less of a problem when trying to debate.
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:20 pm

Why is everyone debating why the terror attacks have dropped?

The real issue with the wall is that most of it is built on palestinan land recently stolen..

You want to build a new berlin wall? Fine, you do that.
But build it on your own damn land.
(Not saying any of the land in the area actaully belongs to you though)

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests