myata

Some people, even in this very country, could start shooting is somebody started "settling" their property without their permission, perhaps finding their ownership of the land"doubtful". Such an act (of agressive settlement) wouldn't be any less illegal, then settlement of the occupied territories internationally, I already posted references to that. In any case, apologising one kind of violence and agression ahead of another is a road to nowhere, because peace needs two sides and you can't convince anybody to stop their violence while insisting that violence against them should be tolerated. Sure, I only said that talking by itself won't solve anything till the act of abandoning hostilities and agression, in all forms. That can certainly be your belief, I just don't see in what way it relates to achieving peace, as in any event it would need two sides, i.e both sides to move anywhere. Let's remember that buildup of settlements is not coincidental, and has happened over the course of all previous ceasefires (feel free to find numbers posted in this very thread), and at this point could only be perceived as a deliberate policy of agression. I find it very doubtful that any meaningful progress toward peace would be possible, while one side continues to perpetrate persistent, massive acts of agression. As things stand now, freezing and evacuation of illegal settlements should be as much a part of deescalation of hostilities, as cessation of active fighting, or it'll achieve nothing as ongoing creeping agression would almost certainly cause a flare up of violence as it always did up till now. No, what kind of DESIRE are we talking about, when settlements are expanding daily? The talk of "peace" is very different from the act of hostility and agression, and you have yet to explain why it's the talk, and not the hostile act that we have to believe in this case. It does though. Once you start seeing all acts of hostility for what they are, and call it "illegal occupation" rather than "concession" all things would fall into their places. Militant attacks need to be stopped, as well as illegal occupation and expropriation of land. On the other hand, you can of course say that my buddy are entitled to whatever they want (and do). And things wuld also fall into their places, because everything my buddy does would be right, by definition. Just do not mix the two radically different approaches, that's all. Well, we can clearly see the results of this current negotiations strategy so far. Shouting won't change it one bit. Admitting logistics, they could start by calling immediate and unconditional freeze on expansion of settlements, as well as committment to remove them as a condition of the lasting settlement. I said "eventual" and of "lasting" peace. I'm sure you can find examples redemption in most cases you mentioned, where a lasting peace have been achieved. That is only because you don't see the "investment" of Israel into aggressive policies over all the long decades as such. Israel occupied more land - it'll have to abandon more land as a condition of lasting settlement, anything else is apologising of illegal occupation, not so? Yeah, something like that. Plus of course, immediate and unconditional freeze on all settlements. And militant attacks.

I'd never dream of it, but my hands were ties because I couldn't get access to your very own, private version of reality. Can you help? Most certainly, glad you noticed. What makes you think that the same (opposite of smart) question would cause a different answer, depending on who is asking it? Thanks for a very informative news about "some", still doesn't explain in what way the question is relevant to this topic though. I'm not sure if this thread is really a proper place for private curiousities, but I'll tell you this, expressing one's honest and principled opinion does not, and does not have to mean taking sides. For a very obvious reason that principled position allows one to see and point out mistakes and violations no matter who is involved, while "sided" position very often relegates one to the need to excuse inexcusable and deny undeniable. With a very obvious illustration of this simple point in this very thread.

And I wouldn't at all be surprised if it happened many more times before that also, in that expanding Universe of yours. Or, you'd be able to show it, exact and unaltered, as requested. OK.... but what you're saying I said still does not exist, regardless of who asked it, what they were reading at the time and what was the colour of their shoes. Good try, but unfortunately, no, still not good enough. Keep trying!

You gonna say it again and again, but you simply can't show that quote. That's how we make the alternate reality. Way to go. Nice try, but I never said that also. The alternate reality (of your making) is expanding at an accelerating rate, just like this Universe. There's a certain PhD prospect for you, enjoy! The moment you'll come up with one sound logical statement proving that it is.

Of course, and very obviously, it has been made by those who want to excuse and apologise agression by one particular side. It is less clear why and how it has to be made, if the objective is genuine search for peace. It is very clear that somebody knocked over a head with a club would be as much pi.. off as somebody else just kicked out of their house. Undertaking to convince one why the should let it go, while nodding to the other to continue is hardly a plausible avenue to peace. Making all sides to cease all forms of hostilities and agression is a lot sure bet. Then we should be standing on one side of the conflict, and not pretending to be making something called "peace". I'm not sure that would be in the long term interest of any one party (us included), but at least it would be an honest position. But of course it does. In great majority of major conflicts, cessation of open hostilities precedeed negotiations of peace and settlement (just like in a pub fight). It is simple common sense. What really needs to be discussed, is how the duplicit role of the West, as peace mediators aka allies of Israel actually prolongs and exacerbates the way to the settlement. One notable exception to that rule is the case of total domination / capitulation (when conqueror makes all rules, and no further negotiation is necessary). I'm not sure if the actual agenda of some pseudo peaceful mediators is to seek that kind of "settlement", and if so I'd fully expect the project to be bound for another spectacular failure. Why do we have to assume that (and not e.g. that it wants lot more lands, and then, maybe also, "peace")? Should we always assume something somebody says to be true, even when it's in a drastic contrast with what they actually do? It helps to lump all things together in the same busket, to help affairs cleared (sorry, mudded). Ceasefires aren't the same as negotiations to achieve lasting, sustainable peace. And indeed, to be meanigful, cesassion of hostilities must apply to all forms of hostilities and agression. It appears that in our peaceful zeal, we're still struggling to realize this very simple axiom. What you're failing to understand is that any meaningful mediation for peace should rise above partisan level and understand that conflict will exist until any form of hostility and agression remains in place. If you want to cheer for one chosen side, and count the wrongs committed by the other, it's in your right, but it won't do anything to stop the conflict, because, as we already established earlier, wrongs were committed by all sides, and the way to peace lies in cessation, and eventual redemption of all wrongs, regardless of who is involved. It appears that you're rather running out of rational arguments, to support your point, that despite the admission (of quite obvious fact) that both sides have committed wrongs, the obligation to make real, practical steps in cessation of active hostilities should apply only to one side (of your choice). The obvious cause of that simple paradox is of course the desire to speak from two different positions at the same time, that of an unwavering supporter of certain party in the conflict, and this of someone who's attempting to seek peace. Pick one, and confusions and contraditions would magically clear away. Before they could start talking about "long term peace" (of course I mean genuine committment to long term peace, because any kind of talking can happen for pretty much of any kind of reasons, not at all having anything to do with actual peace), it would be wise of them to talk about ceasing hitting and clubbing each other, i.e, stopping active hostilities in all forms. Punching and kicking each other, while attending pompous ceremonies and "negotiations" is the real sham. If one cannot be convinced to abandon agression as the first step, what (meaningful) further negotion of "lasting peace" could there be? No, I rather agree with you 100% in that. As soon as you clarify the meaning of "commit to the PROCESS". What process, and who has defined it (unless it's the very obvious process of ceasing all acts of hostility and agression)? OK, one faction, not even the whole side, is refusing to make certain declaration, and you call it "refusing the process". While the other side is involved in massive hostilities, persistently and over extended period of time, and it doesn't seemingly create any doubts in your interpretation of their "commitment". Is it a problem with your definition of the process (certain act, of your choice does not qualify as act of hostility and agression), or your vision (you do not notice certain acts of hostility and agression)? Are you requiring one side to meet all the demands of the other, before that other side would even consider stopping its own acts of agression? What makes you think that such approach should be called "negotiation", or "settlement", rather than "full submission to my (buddy's) will"?

Indeed, exactly because I never said it, it's up to you, exclusively and entirely, to find the quote, and demonstrate that it isn't yet another fantasy, confusion, misunderstanding etc, of free imagination. Wait, didn't you just, a minute ago, claim that you already have my answer? Let's get to the bottom of it first. If you have it, you wouldn't mind kindly posting the quote, would you? and if you, and therefore admit that earlier insinuations were ... shall we say, of the realm of imagination? ... I'll consider. Deal? A very fine example of an inner monologue, I regret that I haven't been able to contribute in any way, and therefore would have to admit your entire and exclusive ownership to it, but congrats anyways. It doesn't make me angry at all, more like, proud and amazed. Good stuff. Have you tried applying for the directorship of the spin office, in either administration (policy differences between the two being reduced to the absolute minimum)?

It would have been very easy to confirm by posting that exact, unaltered and non interpreted quote. But because it does not exist in this reality, you have the sole option of repeating, over and again, something that is obviously untrue, from the start. Good riddance.

No, and you couldn't, because it simply does not exist in this Universe. But you might have imagined that, not unlike those imaginary "progresses" and "successes".

I'd never dream of guessing for you, it's bound to be far too creative for anything I could approach to imagine. Then you'd be able to post the exact, unaltered quote (of me saying it) but you won't, because it doesn't exist in this reality, and I long stopped caring about sorting out and clarifying stuff of your vivid imagination. No, one more time, and slowly, only for you: won't respond to a pointless, irrelevant bait.

From an earlier quote: = propping up a convenient government that wouldn't be able to stand on its own. = because the corrupt officials of the aforementioned government couldn't be trusted to handle the task on their own? Or perhaps, because lesser people couldn't take care of themselves? = #1, above = specifically sponsor one of the tasks we're propping the government to do for us

And that was a very "smart" response, but excuse, in what exactly relation to the arguments (based on your own, earlier, statement, as can be seen immediately above) that were presented to you? No, it's your very own, excluse interpretation of something very different, that was actually said, and sorry, I can't waste anymore of my time adressing those. What, you miss me, already? I already explained, I simply can't let an instant classic go by, something to do with the art of the things I guess, but indeed I won't be spending as much time unraveling all those confusions, misreadings and misunderstandings any longer.

Sorry, couldn't resist commenting on that most recent classic. So, after all these decades of hostilities and not so peaceful negotiations, the true cause of the problem has been established, and it's my own private view that "goes to the heart" of stopping agression? Perhaps you could also elaborate in what particular way it goes there? But of course, if you say so, it must be so, and therefore I solemnly undertake to answer your question, even in the way you desire me to, if you can give us assurances that my act of doing so will stop ALL forms of agression in that conflict tomorrow, or in the very near future, for which you would also provide a schedule (in the common definition of the word).

Except you've never explained how my personal position on that question would be relevant to the fact that for over two decades nothing has been done about persistent, ongoing acts of agression, as well as very obvious attempts to undermine, hide and ignore them. Sorry, but it looks much more like an attempt to distract the discussion from these inconvenient facts, and oh yeah, maybe a chance (however unlikely) to brand the opponent with an ideological label and thus discount the arguments that you haven't been able to respond to otherwise? Anyways, I don't believe these exchanges are contributing any value to the discussion at this point, and so I'm going to take my leave now, until you're able to bring up an argument of factual, or logical (or both) value.

Of course, you skipped over the facts, that were presented, for the umpteenth time, only for your convenience. Well in line with the aforementioned rule. I can't comment on your guesses about what I do, but of course it's got nothing to do with "personalizing". Of course it does. I care about integrity of this discussion and refraining from responding to pointless "challenges" and irrelevant "questions" is a part of it.

The mission of "blow something, anything out quickly to show manly act" then "cover it up, democratically".

His unlikeable nature (perceived "nastiness") could have been a factor, but Iggy is working on that.

Of course. When faced with inacceptable reality, close your eyes and believe that it does not exist, and everything is going according to the grand plan. The first rule of "peace" maker. Indeed, challenging and exposing hypocritical positions is one of the things we do in these discussions. Could it be because my notion of "adult-like" (and I add, intelligent) behaviour is slightly different from yours?

"I can't be proven wrong because I never am"? An instant classic! But of course, we can always turn to the facts. Dit you mean to say that you actually have examples of that pseudo peaceful strategy showing some real, practical act against ever ongoing expansion of illegal settlements? You shouldn't have kept it secret till now, but as always, I'm all ears to hear about it. And so: And, while at that, are you also stating that 70% (and counting, daily) overall increase in illegal settlements over the time that strategy has been in place, never happened? Because it could certainly take at least some of the credit for that astounding "success". These are the facts, and of course they are telling very clearly that the real act on the agressions and violations of your friendly party, in other words, a genuine, principled postion for peace, is simply not in the cards in that plan. Not really. Unlike somebody else's here, my comments only apply to the opponents position (perhaps, at a time exemplified by their name), but, again, unlike somebody else's here, they never relate to the opponent's personal characteristics and traits, such as age; temper; personal beliefs and so on. Oh I see, answering irrelevant and pointless challenges should be a token of "adult like' behaviour? You may want to attempt convincing your traffic police about that novel idea, please report the results.

CBC news this morning mentined results of 75% respondents against the election. I haven't noticed which poll it has been, but it should be on their site somewhere. It appears that Iggy finally got himself into a tight spot. Both other opposition parties now decided to vote against the government, and if Iggy bows out at the last moment, it would look really funny. On the other hand, if he decides to press on with the unwanted election, he could take a lot of negative sentiment. I'm not sure which one would be better now, but I have a hunch that long term fortunes of Liberals could benefit more from developing a clear, principled and distinct position more than off a rush election with "I look different" as the only rationale.

No, but we simply insist on helping! Our hearts are just too civilized to watch you suffer. Here, you've got yourself a wrong government; there you can't manage your resources as we know they should be; there yet, you refuse to welcome new folks who'll share your home with you from now on, because we thought it'd be a good thing to do... the list goes on and on. And if you resist and "blow back", it gives us all the more reason to rebuild you. Enjoy!

Well, yeah, if they need our gentle but steady hand to be helped into the embraces of their new life (just couldn't get it on their own, sorry), we, democratic ubermensh, simply couldn't stand by and watch them suffer, correct?

We could start with Afghanistan. Why would anybody want to "keep it" anyways? Other than of pure and self sacrificial love for humanity?

Guess works for them, too. No it wasn't and by all signs isn't still, but it doesn't prove that it's impossible.

You can certainly believe it (along with a host of other things you claimed over the course of this discussion, that were proven to be factually wrong), if you find it helpful. We should not expect however yet another of your "successes" to have any bearing on the actual situation, should we? And by now, we should know exactly why. Because actual, positive change toward peace is not the real intent of these strategies, which are related to genuine peace only in the name.

Right, and it's being like that since the times of cave man. The nature of "bad guys" nor why they all necessarily need to be killed needed (and still needs) no explanation. The point has been that if we are still behaving in the pretty much the same mental framework as a thousand; hundred; some generations back, it would mean only one thing, that we aren't at all as civilized and advanced as we like to think. Which appears to be the principal reason we "go" in most cases. One would need a serious (brainwashing) persuasion to start believing that Afghanistan and Iraq could be (have been) serious existential threats to our freedoms. If we can't rely on self restraint, and there's no external system to keep us in check, it's all back to square 0. Everybody's free to conquer, educate, and rebuild everybody else as they see fit (and their capacities allow them).