Poll: Peace In The Middle East

[blaze96]

I think he was arguing that gamers didn't contribute anything to anything. Which is equally as stupid.

Fair enough, though once he started saying that no one in first world countries cared, I felt a compelling urge to step in. When people start ranting AND making completely wrong generalizations at the same time I get a twitch in my left eye that doesn't go away until I say something. I can only handle so much stupid before I burst like a dam.

 

[Nateman742]

I think that if you haven't been there you can't form a reliable opinion. All you have is hearsay and speculation, and your points are moot.

For the sake of conversation, though, I'd say it's possible if not damaging in itself. We'd probably end up screwing things up before we made them better. Using militant force to quell strong beliefs is always going to be extremely ugly. There's no way around that.

 

[Sparkytheyetti]

It's all about the oil. Were just going to let them destroy each other to get drilling. Considering im a welder in defense contracts for armored vehicles, it just means job security for me.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Fine, but I still think the muslims are worse.

You are vastly mistaken. Islam actually forbids all actions of terrorism and wanton violence, and the Qur'an says that if you kill an innocent, the same sin is on you as if you've killed all of mankind, and if you save an innocent, the same good is on you as if you've saved all of mankind.

That quote is originally from the Talmud.

Is it now? I have a copy of the Qur'an right here...

 

[Akai Shizuku]

So what do you propose?

First thing the Palestinians need to realise is that violence will do nothing but propetuate the cycle of violence. Israel, despite all their detractors say about them, would never try and commit genocide and the international community would never allow it, and likewise the combined might of the Arab armies is not enough to defeat Israel, and again the international community would step in and put a stop to it.

All terrorist attacks do is push the Israeli's to crack down on the Palestinians. All that does is increase resentment and suffering and allows terrorist masterminds to take the desperate and the angry and turn them into living weapons. As long as both sides continue this that conflict can't end. The Israeli's are scared of the Palestinians and the Palestinians are scared of the Israeli's. They chose to deal with it through violence.

Of course, not all follow this example; Fatah (not sure about the spelling, but they're Hamas' rivals) can get along peacefully with Israel, and there are plenty of Israeli's who help the Palestinians. This is proof enough that both sides can get along.

What the Palestinians need to do is abandon violent tactics altogether. All they do is kill innocents in Israel and reduce international support for Palestine; if you follow this conflict all the way back to the start it was the Arab nations that started the conflict (how much of this was the fault of the Palestinians and how much of it was just the fault of the Hitler-supporting leader will never be known), so Israel has been striking back.

Look at Ghandi's approach; by being non-violent he was able to make the British soliders who attack the protestors look horrible and turn the British public opinion against them. Likewise if the Palestinians don't strike back at all when Israeli forces strike them, then public opinion in both Israel and the international community will turn against the Israeli government.

The best thing the Israeli government can do to start the peace process up is to tear down the wall. I can understand the thought behind it; Palestinian terrorists kill their civillians, so it's best if they can't get into Israel. But all it does is aid in the dehumanisation that all words carry out. Before they might not have gotten along, but Israeli's and Palestinians could at the very least see each other's faces and could think of each others as human beings. Now they don't have that human connection, which makes acts of violence easier to carry out.

Once that is done the Israeli government needs to stop building settlements and start pulling out of what is currently Palestinian terroritory. Sharon started this process and look at how Israeli's reacted to him. But at the very least it was nesecarry to get the peace process moving again. After that; the Israeli PM has to make sure he's well protected from his own citizens; The two most promiment figures in my mind who tried to make peace were an Egyptian President and an Israeli Prime Minister. Both were killed by their own countrymen.

After that it would be important for both sides to focus on what makes them similar instead of what makes them different, find common ground and build on that. If the non-violence lasts for this long the Israeli's can start to pull back and give the Palestinians more room.

That's a start, and it would take years for all of that to happen, so I'll leave the borring, country building process to the politicions.

Hmm. So if both sides put their guns aside, talk about it, show respect, and shake hands the problem will just go away?

I like it. I just hope neither side is too stubborn to let it happen.

 

[ssgt splatter]

NO! There will NEVER be a "we can all get along" planet. To quote Satan from Southpark the movie, "Without no evil there can be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometimes." Besides the world is too unstable. If it is even remotely possible, it won't happen for centuries.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Solution: Destroy Israel.

While that would work, I think it's a very bad approach to the situation. It's not a religious Muslims vs. Jews issue, despite what it looks like from the outside. Before Zionism, the Muslims and Jews got along pretty well. Mothers babysat each others' kids, fathers would play soccer with each other and run businesses together. The destruction of Israel is completely unnecessary death and destruction. Peaceful measures can be taken to end these conflicts, even if the Israeli military quite literally uses civilians for target practice and even if Palestinians whose families have been killed decide to blow stuff up.

The pen is mightier than the sword. I say stop the blood, and let the ink spill.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

NO! There will NEVER be a "we can all get along" planet. To quote Satan from Southpark the movie, "Without no evil there can be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometimes." Besides the world is too unstable. If it is even remotely possible, it won't happen for centuries.

Yeah, let's just take all our life lessons from a movie called "Bigger, Longer & Uncut".

And from a character that represents Satan, no less.

 

[toapat]

this is one of those things that so long as the word Religion is defined, can not happen. Religion destabilized that entire region 1000 years ago at least, and it has yet to settle down

 

[Nannernade]

I don't think this is possible because the powerful countries are "trying" to "help" the "weaker" ones, I say everybody shut up deal with your own country and stop giving a rats ass about what the other countries are doing who cares if they don't follow what you do big deal. As long as nobody is creating bombs such as the a-bomb or the h-bomb we're good.

 

[ssgt splatter]

NO! There will NEVER be a "we can all get along" planet. To quote Satan from Southpark the movie, "Without no evil there can be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometimes." Besides the world is too unstable. If it is even remotely possible, it won't happen for centuries.

Yeah, let's just take all our life lessons from a movie called "Bigger, Longer & Uncut".

And from a character that represents Satan, no less.

......You're making fun of me aren't ya?>

 

[asinann]

It's possible, but people don't want to hear HOW it's possible.

The problem is that you can't put a country of one religion in the middle of a large number of another. Eventually things are going to get violent. And since the new country started most of those wars, and refuses to go into talks or grant any concession at all, maybe, just MAYBE they might need to start bearing some of the blame for the situation over there.

Now Israel is not entirely to blame here, but they do bear most of the responsibility for the problems in their own nation.

Iran and Iraq are not their problem (directly.)

 

[Akai Shizuku]

NO! There will NEVER be a "we can all get along" planet. To quote Satan from Southpark the movie, "Without no evil there can be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometimes." Besides the world is too unstable. If it is even remotely possible, it won't happen for centuries.

Yeah, let's just take all our life lessons from a movie called "Bigger, Longer & Uncut".

And from a character that represents Satan, no less.

......You're making fun of me aren't ya?>

Possibly. You're taking it well so I'll give you a hi-five and some Skittles.
http://www.piercemattiepublicrelations.com/Skittles_twitter.jpg

 

[ssgt splatter]

NO! There will NEVER be a "we can all get along" planet. To quote Satan from Southpark the movie, "Without no evil there can be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometimes." Besides the world is too unstable. If it is even remotely possible, it won't happen for centuries.

Yeah, let's just take all our life lessons from a movie called "Bigger, Longer & Uncut".

And from a character that represents Satan, no less.

......You're making fun of me aren't ya?>

Possibly. You're taking it well so I'll give you a hi-five and some Skittles.
http://www.piercemattiepublicrelations.com/Skittles_twitter.jpg

Oh, thank you.

 

[frank220]

To quote Dave Mustaine "Peeeeeace, peace seeeeells. Peace sells, but whos buying?"

 

[stabnex]

The problem isn't warring religious factions, it's warring people. The religion thing is just an excuse to getcha blood lust on and murder thy neighbor. If the middle east (and I mean ALL OF IT) were to suffer nuclear fallout then the problem would be solved for at least a few thousand years.

 

[UtopiaV1]

-snip-

Oh really. So all that time I spent studying the Arab/Israeli conflict means nothing since I'm not from a third-world country. Well following that logic I don't have the right to say murder isn't wrong because I haven't tried death.

And you know, it's not like there's poverty in the first-world, not like there are people who've had sucky lives. But hey, what do we know? You obviously know everything about the West to make such a bold statement. I mean, we all know nothing, but you know everything to be able to classify all of us. And I highly doubt Socrates personally said the users on the escapist know nothing...

Ah, you may have misunderstood. When you said you can't say murder isn't wrong because you haven't tried death, it seems like you were saying genocide isn't wrong because you haven't tried starvation... But i think i know what you meant.

I think I know enough about the west, and humanity as a whole, to know that we are greedy and we are selfish by nature. And as an upper-middle class well-off white guy, I would believe i'm pretty well versed in what the USA and UK are like. They really are the new world order, and as an elite, we need someone to take from. Fighting is the easiest way to take something. Hence, conflict in the middle-east.

As for Socrates, I mis-quoted him, and by doing so dishonoured myself and his memory, for that I apologise.

-snip-

Is this enough proof
-also snip-

If that isn't enough you can go here.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwc.nsf/doc202?OpenForm&number=315&firstLetter=A


If the list isn't already up:
Pick filter by type and just for the hell of it go with UN and international organizations and click the letter A. There are organizations from around the entire world (yes even us swine in first world countries) made up by people from around the world. Think before you post next time.

Edit/OT: No I don't think there will be, at least not anytime soon. Maybe someday though, as for right now there is just too much fighting between all the nations in the middle east for various reasons that it just isn't possible.

That sure is a lot of good and worthwhile organisations who don't get government funding or tax breaks from private banks. Seriously, all those people are doing wonderful things, and I envy their good-nature and generosity (something I clearly lack), but no-one is a position of absolute power is a member of those organisations, or even tries to help to any actual effect.

It's a cliche, but the politicians (and to a certain extent, the public, with what can only be described as mob mentality) start the wars, then these good people try to clean up after them. They really do try, but I've never seen a news article that says "Conflict in Iraq ended after massive relief efforts!", it's such a shame they do so much to help these war-torn countries, but with no lasting effect. At least, no actual largely publicised effect.

-snip-

Is this enough proof

Spoiler

-snip-

Spoiler

I think he was arguing that gamers didn't contribute anything to anything. Which is equally as stupid.

Spoiler

As an avid gamer (maybe too avid ¬_¬ ), I truly believe that gamers don't contribute anything to anything, at least not while playing games. (Child's Play is the exception that proves the rule.) The point I was trying to make, however, was that having a poll in a gaming forum about middle-eastern conflicts, discussing both the causes of and solutions to, was both hypocritical and degrading to the subject matter. It's kind of like being teetotal at an AA meeting and discussing how stupid alcohol, and the people who drink it, are. Clearly I'm in a minority, which would probably make me wrong (if history teaches anything).



As a closing note, sorry for the excessive swearing and anger in my original post, it was both uncalled for and unwelcome in this thread. I just hate how fucked up everything is, except in my life where everything is perfect. It makes me feel guilty all the time, and giving money to charity and being a nice person doesn't make it go away.