By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Three Israelis lynched on way to a pub

Slimebeast said:
Doobie_wop said:
Slimebeast said:
Doobie_wop said:
Chairman-Mao said:
deskpro2k3 said:
Chairman-Mao said:
deskpro2k3 said:

this used to happen in America too.


What's that got to do with anything?


You'll be surprised.


Why don't you be more specific instead of wasting my time?

I think his trying to say that it's a problem that's exclusive to that region. Discrimination attacks happen in first world countries as well, in Australia for example, 5,000 people gathered together and started a riot against the Lebanese community, bashing anyone that looked middle eastern and marching through the streets calling for middle eastern extermination and pretty much being blatantly racist ( a few radio hosts and political figures joined in as well).

My cousin and his friends had been leaving a party a few months ago and they were bashed close to death by a local football team, pretty much because my cousin and his friends are Lebanese. These kind of attacks happen all the time, it's obviously going to be worst in that part of the world, but it isn't something exclusive to that region.

That's what I think he meant anyway.

That was a reaction against years of increasing violence by Middle Easterners in Australia.

Something you see far too seldom in the West because they're letting their own people get raped.

The actions of a few thugs doesn't warrant a 5,000 strong riot, which involved the bashing of many people. The Lebanese community was always treated like shit in Sydney, people had to go to beaches and parks in groups, because they were scared they were going to get bashed by Australian elitists back in the 80's and early 90's. When you've been involved in enough attacks like the one my cousin was in, you'd be willing to flex some muscles as well. I've been the victim of the same type of discrimination, I've got a scar on the back of my head, because some Aussie guy decided that it'd be funny to hit that Lebanese kid with a cricket bat.

Australia has some serious issues when it comes to racism and discrimination, I've had friends commit suicide, been bashed and abused based on their background. My parents went through the same thing back in their day, but no one cares, we have a negative stereotype placed on us and it's easier for people to stay ignorant about us, instead of actually learning about the people. Indians, Vietnamese, Greeks and Macedonians went through a similar situation. It only depends on what's 'in' in Australia, 15 years ago it was Greeks, 10 years ago it was Vietnamese, 5 years ago it was Lebanese and now it's Indians. These things shouldn't be happening in a first world country. 

Your rape comment is also inappropriate. Australians have the highest rape count in the country, but that doesn't make for interesting news, instead they find the 5 rape cases out of 10,000 that involve a person of a different background, make that headline news and it gathers more hits. I find it extremely offensive when I open a newspaper and see two rape cases, one of them lists the description of the character as a Muslim, Middle Eastern man, with a wide brow,dark skin, born in Iran, from the suburb of Springsvale and so on. The other rapist is just described as a young troublemaker and that's it, then as soon as you do a bit of research, you find out it was a young Australian guy who has returned to school after raping a mentally handicapped girl. 

I classify myself as an Australian, but the original 'settlers' classify themselves as the only true Australians. It's hard to make friends, when everyone's spitting in your eye. I'm sorry for going so far off topic, but you shouldn't comment on things you don't know about.

This doesn't sound like Australia you are describing. Maybe Greece or Italy (countries with tougher attitude towards against immigrants) but not a country like Australia.

 

I live in Australia, I should know. We've had issues over the last few years, mainly with India. There was a phase when Indians couldn't walk into the Melbourne CBD, without worrying that they might be bashed. The Indian government, news media and general population went into a bit of a frenzy because of how many Indian students were being bashed, mugged, killed or abused at random. Like I said, Australia goes through phases, we are in the Indian phase now, next year the Sudanese could be next. Australia promotes itself as a multicultural country because its a positive image, it's not, we have plenty of cultures, but they tend to clash pretty often. You should never judge a book by it's cover.



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

Around the Network
Doobie_wop said:
Slimebeast said:
Doobie_wop said:
Slimebeast said:
Doobie_wop said:
Chairman-Mao said:
deskpro2k3 said:
Chairman-Mao said:
deskpro2k3 said:

this used to happen in America too.


What's that got to do with anything?


You'll be surprised.


Why don't you be more specific instead of wasting my time?

I think his trying to say that it's a problem that's exclusive to that region. Discrimination attacks happen in first world countries as well, in Australia for example, 5,000 people gathered together and started a riot against the Lebanese community, bashing anyone that looked middle eastern and marching through the streets calling for middle eastern extermination and pretty much being blatantly racist ( a few radio hosts and political figures joined in as well).

My cousin and his friends had been leaving a party a few months ago and they were bashed close to death by a local football team, pretty much because my cousin and his friends are Lebanese. These kind of attacks happen all the time, it's obviously going to be worst in that part of the world, but it isn't something exclusive to that region.

That's what I think he meant anyway.

That was a reaction against years of increasing violence by Middle Easterners in Australia.

Something you see far too seldom in the West because they're letting their own people get raped.

The actions of a few thugs doesn't warrant a 5,000 strong riot, which involved the bashing of many people. The Lebanese community was always treated like shit in Sydney, people had to go to beaches and parks in groups, because they were scared they were going to get bashed by Australian elitists back in the 80's and early 90's. When you've been involved in enough attacks like the one my cousin was in, you'd be willing to flex some muscles as well. I've been the victim of the same type of discrimination, I've got a scar on the back of my head, because some Aussie guy decided that it'd be funny to hit that Lebanese kid with a cricket bat.

Australia has some serious issues when it comes to racism and discrimination, I've had friends commit suicide, been bashed and abused based on their background. My parents went through the same thing back in their day, but no one cares, we have a negative stereotype placed on us and it's easier for people to stay ignorant about us, instead of actually learning about the people. Indians, Vietnamese, Greeks and Macedonians went through a similar situation. It only depends on what's 'in' in Australia, 15 years ago it was Greeks, 10 years ago it was Vietnamese, 5 years ago it was Lebanese and now it's Indians. These things shouldn't be happening in a first world country. 

Your rape comment is also inappropriate. Australians have the highest rape count in the country, but that doesn't make for interesting news, instead they find the 5 rape cases out of 10,000 that involve a person of a different background, make that headline news and it gathers more hits. I find it extremely offensive when I open a newspaper and see two rape cases, one of them lists the description of the character as a Muslim, Middle Eastern man, with a wide brow,dark skin, born in Iran, from the suburb of Springsvale and so on. The other rapist is just described as a young troublemaker and that's it, then as soon as you do a bit of research, you find out it was a young Australian guy who has returned to school after raping a mentally handicapped girl. 

I classify myself as an Australian, but the original 'settlers' classify themselves as the only true Australians. It's hard to make friends, when everyone's spitting in your eye. I'm sorry for going so far off topic, but you shouldn't comment on things you don't know about.

This doesn't sound like Australia you are describing. Maybe Greece or Italy (countries with tougher attitude towards against immigrants) but not a country like Australia.

 

I live in Australia, I should know. We've had issues over the last few years, mainly with India. There was a phase when Indians couldn't walk into the Melbourne CBD, without worrying that they might be bashed. The Indian government, news media and general population went into a bit of a frenzy because of how many Indian students were being bashed, mugged, killed or abused at random. Like I said, Australia goes through phases, we are in the Indian phase now, next year the Sudanese could be next. Australia promotes itself as a multicultural country because its a positive image, it's not, we have plenty of cultures, but they tend to clash pretty often. You should never judge a book by it's cover.


Actually I remember reading about a handicapped Canadian group getting the shit kicked out of them in Australia. Also an indo-Canadian (Indian) guy got the crap taken out of him too, but I never thought it was a hate crime that was common since the other attacks don't make news in Canada.



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

ChichiriMuyo said:

I don't know who chose the word lynching for this story, but it's so offensively inacurate I can hardly explain the disgust I'm feeling.  As bad as that situation was, it was nothing compared to a true lynching.  Nothing at all in comparison.  Whoever would call that a lynching is a sick fuck with no understanding of American history whatsoever.

 

A lynching is a public execution carried out by a mob - these people didn't die.

In the historical context, lynchings were a celebrated occasion for opressors over opressees - for better or worse the Israelis have virtually all of the power over there.

Lynchings were completely overlooked by the government in power - Israel won't over look this.

 

This is so far from an actual lynching that it disgusts me to see it discribed as one.

So... am I a sick fuck, for using the definition that pretty much everyone uses these days, and not the original definition? (maybe I should've wrote "lynch attempt" but I don't think it would've fit in the title).

Oh, and trust me, Israel will overlook this because of international pressure, if something would've happened to the assualters the international community would find some way to spin it against Israel.



Bet with Dr.A.Peter.Nintendo that Super Mario Galaxy 2 won't sell 15 million copies up to six months after it's release, the winner will get Avatar control for a week and signature control for a month.

Also, just a day after the events in my OP, an ambulance with paramedics was attacked in the same neighborhood, while helping a palestinian.

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3980498,00.html



Bet with Dr.A.Peter.Nintendo that Super Mario Galaxy 2 won't sell 15 million copies up to six months after it's release, the winner will get Avatar control for a week and signature control for a month.

Rath said:
Kasz216 said:

Can you even have a gripe with them over that?  I think that some settlements NEED to be kept.

Think about it this way.  You and someone else are having a disupute about some money.  A third party creates a settlement.   You agree... the other person gets his friends and tries to take all the money by force.

You and your friends win.

What are the chances now that you want to go through with it as listed?

Maybe it's me, but if you go against a proposed deal and then declare war... you should lose at least some of what you had.

Just letting people declare war and then get what they had coming anyway is just a REALLY bad precedent.

There are several points that are wrong in this post.

1) Punitive measures after wars cause trouble. Think Treaty of Versailles, which is a good deal less severe than annexing land.

 

2) Annexing land is blatantly against international law

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

That's part of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

 

3) Even is you accept that some sort of punishment is necessary for the six day war, don't you think depriving the Palestinians of nationhood for fifty something years is punishment enough without also annexing half of what little land they have left

 

4) It's arguable as to whether the Arabs are fully to blame for the six day war. Certainly both sides were gearing up for war for a while and the Israelis were the ones who (very cleverly) struck first by attacking the Egyptian air force. Or even before that by attacking the city of As-Samu.

 

Also, the international community is well against you on this one. Even America under George Bush was against the settlements.

1)  That's a really silly point.  That's like saying cars are bad because of some car accident.   The treaty of Versailles was actually a lot MORE severe then a mere annexing of say 1-10th of land.  It completely destroyed the german economy.

Given the choice of having the New Zealand Economy destoryed or giving up half the land north of Auckland which would you choose?

 

2)  Good thing they aren't really annexing land.  Palestine isn't a country... thanks to the Palestinian leadership.  The international community.  The actual complaints of the international community aren't really based on a legal basis just a "what we want" basis.   Which is partly why the UN doesn't work, the other part being they don't bother to enforce anything.

3)  No.  Because it wasn't a punishment.   It was a choice the Palestinians made... and still make to this day.  They've had plenty of oppurtunities to sign good and fair deals... but instead the politicians have followed a policy of "Let the people suffer so Israel looks bad, then we can get more."   It's like someone has had enough of a punishment for something they did because they went on an intentional hunger strike. 

4)  It totally isn't arguable.  The Israeli's said yes, the Palestinian's said no.   Everything hinged on that no.



Around the Network
Doobie_wop said:
Slimebeast said:
Doobie_wop said:
Slimebeast said:
Doobie_wop said:
Chairman-Mao said:
deskpro2k3 said:
Chairman-Mao said:
deskpro2k3 said:

this used to happen in America too.


What's that got to do with anything?


You'll be surprised.


Why don't you be more specific instead of wasting my time?

I think his trying to say that it's a problem that's exclusive to that region. Discrimination attacks happen in first world countries as well, in Australia for example, 5,000 people gathered together and started a riot against the Lebanese community, bashing anyone that looked middle eastern and marching through the streets calling for middle eastern extermination and pretty much being blatantly racist ( a few radio hosts and political figures joined in as well).

My cousin and his friends had been leaving a party a few months ago and they were bashed close to death by a local football team, pretty much because my cousin and his friends are Lebanese. These kind of attacks happen all the time, it's obviously going to be worst in that part of the world, but it isn't something exclusive to that region.

That's what I think he meant anyway.

That was a reaction against years of increasing violence by Middle Easterners in Australia.

Something you see far too seldom in the West because they're letting their own people get raped.

The actions of a few thugs doesn't warrant a 5,000 strong riot, which involved the bashing of many people. The Lebanese community was always treated like shit in Sydney, people had to go to beaches and parks in groups, because they were scared they were going to get bashed by Australian elitists back in the 80's and early 90's. When you've been involved in enough attacks like the one my cousin was in, you'd be willing to flex some muscles as well. I've been the victim of the same type of discrimination, I've got a scar on the back of my head, because some Aussie guy decided that it'd be funny to hit that Lebanese kid with a cricket bat.

Australia has some serious issues when it comes to racism and discrimination, I've had friends commit suicide, been bashed and abused based on their background. My parents went through the same thing back in their day, but no one cares, we have a negative stereotype placed on us and it's easier for people to stay ignorant about us, instead of actually learning about the people. Indians, Vietnamese, Greeks and Macedonians went through a similar situation. It only depends on what's 'in' in Australia, 15 years ago it was Greeks, 10 years ago it was Vietnamese, 5 years ago it was Lebanese and now it's Indians. These things shouldn't be happening in a first world country. 

Your rape comment is also inappropriate. Australians have the highest rape count in the country, but that doesn't make for interesting news, instead they find the 5 rape cases out of 10,000 that involve a person of a different background, make that headline news and it gathers more hits. I find it extremely offensive when I open a newspaper and see two rape cases, one of them lists the description of the character as a Muslim, Middle Eastern man, with a wide brow,dark skin, born in Iran, from the suburb of Springsvale and so on. The other rapist is just described as a young troublemaker and that's it, then as soon as you do a bit of research, you find out it was a young Australian guy who has returned to school after raping a mentally handicapped girl. 

I classify myself as an Australian, but the original 'settlers' classify themselves as the only true Australians. It's hard to make friends, when everyone's spitting in your eye. I'm sorry for going so far off topic, but you shouldn't comment on things you don't know about.

This doesn't sound like Australia you are describing. Maybe Greece or Italy (countries with tougher attitude towards against immigrants) but not a country like Australia.

 

I live in Australia, I should know. We've had issues over the last few years, mainly with India. There was a phase when Indians couldn't walk into the Melbourne CBD, without worrying that they might be bashed. The Indian government, news media and general population went into a bit of a frenzy because of how many Indian students were being bashed, mugged, killed or abused at random. Like I said, Australia goes through phases, we are in the Indian phase now, next year the Sudanese could be next. Australia promotes itself as a multicultural country because its a positive image, it's not, we have plenty of cultures, but they tend to clash pretty often. You should never judge a book by it's cover.

Too bad you weren't around in some other thread recently where someone from Australia was trying to argue there was no racism and random attacks.



Kasz216 said:
Rath said:

There are several points that are wrong in this post.

1) Punitive measures after wars cause trouble. Think Treaty of Versailles, which is a good deal less severe than annexing land.

 

2) Annexing land is blatantly against international law

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

That's part of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

 

3) Even is you accept that some sort of punishment is necessary for the six day war, don't you think depriving the Palestinians of nationhood for fifty something years is punishment enough without also annexing half of what little land they have left

 

4) It's arguable as to whether the Arabs are fully to blame for the six day war. Certainly both sides were gearing up for war for a while and the Israelis were the ones who (very cleverly) struck first by attacking the Egyptian air force. Or even before that by attacking the city of As-Samu.

 

Also, the international community is well against you on this one. Even America under George Bush was against the settlements.

1)  That's a really silly point.  That's like saying cars are bad because of some car accident.   The treaty of Versailles was actually a lot MORE severe then a mere annexing of say 1-10th of land.  It completely destroyed the german economy.

Given the choice of having the New Zealand Economy destoryed or giving up half the land north of Auckland which would you choose?

 

2)  Good thing they aren't really annexing land.  Palestine isn't a country... thanks to the Palestinian leadership.  The international community.  The actual complaints of the international community aren't really based on a legal basis just a "what we want" basis.   Which is partly why the UN doesn't work, the other part being they don't bother to enforce anything.

3)  No.  Because it wasn't a punishment.   It was a choice the Palestinians made... and still make to this day.  They've had plenty of oppurtunities to sign good and fair deals... but instead the politicians have followed a policy of "Let the people suffer so Israel looks bad, then we can get more."   It's like someone has had enough of a punishment for something they did because they went on an intentional hunger strike. 

4)  It totally isn't arguable.  The Israeli's said yes, the Palestinian's said no.   Everything hinged on that no.


1) I think you underestimate the amount of land

Also annexing land is about as serious a thing as you can do to a country, it's permanent damage unlike more transient economic damage. In any case, my point was that punitive measures after wars only lead to bad blood and more problems.

2) You're most definitely and inarguably wrong on some points in this one.  Palestine is an occupied territory, exactly what the Geneva Convention refers to. Even Israel doesn't dispute that these are occupied territories, it just disputes that it is annexing them.

3) I can't actually believe that you're arguing that the Palestinian people still need to be punished for the six day war. It amazes me.

4) You really believe the Israelis did not provoke the six day war in the slightest? They did all sorts of things - armored tractors on disputed land, the Samu incident. Neither side was innocent in the lead up to that war.



Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
 

There are several points that are wrong in this post.

1) Punitive measures after wars cause trouble. Think Treaty of Versailles, which is a good deal less severe than annexing land.

 

2) Annexing land is blatantly against international law

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

That's part of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

 

3) Even is you accept that some sort of punishment is necessary for the six day war, don't you think depriving the Palestinians of nationhood for fifty something years is punishment enough without also annexing half of what little land they have left

 

4) It's arguable as to whether the Arabs are fully to blame for the six day war. Certainly both sides were gearing up for war for a while and the Israelis were the ones who (very cleverly) struck first by attacking the Egyptian air force. Or even before that by attacking the city of As-Samu.

 

Also, the international community is well against you on this one. Even America under George Bush was against the settlements.

1)  That's a really silly point.  That's like saying cars are bad because of some car accident.   The treaty of Versailles was actually a lot MORE severe then a mere annexing of say 1-10th of land.  It completely destroyed the german economy.

Given the choice of having the New Zealand Economy destoryed or giving up half the land north of Auckland which would you choose?

 

2)  Good thing they aren't really annexing land.  Palestine isn't a country... thanks to the Palestinian leadership.  The international community.  The actual complaints of the international community aren't really based on a legal basis just a "what we want" basis.   Which is partly why the UN doesn't work, the other part being they don't bother to enforce anything.

3)  No.  Because it wasn't a punishment.   It was a choice the Palestinians made... and still make to this day.  They've had plenty of oppurtunities to sign good and fair deals... but instead the politicians have followed a policy of "Let the people suffer so Israel looks bad, then we can get more."   It's like someone has had enough of a punishment for something they did because they went on an intentional hunger strike. 

4)  It totally isn't arguable.  The Israeli's said yes, the Palestinian's said no.   Everything hinged on that no.


1) I think you underestimate the amount of land

Also annexing land is about as serious a thing as you can do to a country, it's permanent damage unlike more transient economic damage. In any case, my point was that punitive measures after wars only lead to bad blood and more problems.

2) You're most definitely and inarguably wrong on some points in this one.  Palestine is an occupied territory, exactly what the Geneva Convention refers to. Even Israel doesn't dispute that these are occupied territories, it just disputes that it is annexing them.

3) I can't actually believe that you're arguing that the Palestinian people still need to be punished for the six day war. It amazes me.

4) You really believe the Israelis did not provoke the six day war in the slightest? They did all sorts of things - armored tractors on disputed land, the Samu incident. Neither side was innocent in the lead up to that war.


1)  I'm not underestimating it... I said that SOME of the settlements should stay.   Likely the ones around Jersusalem, and the city itself.  When you fight over something and lose it's COMPLETELY asinine to expect to get back exactly what you would of gotten before the fight.  I'd like to see you argue that it isn't.

I mean, you don't think it's damaging at all to say "You can start a war and the only negatives would be you might lose... and then everything goes back to normal."

That's exactly what would of happened had Israel played it how the UN wanted them to.

2)  An occupied territory of what?  England?  The UN?

3)  They never have been punished for it.  If someone steals someones purse, and in purseing the officals falls down some steps and paralyze themselves... they still are tried and face a penalty and go to jail right?  Charges may be dropped if the victimized party agrees... but they don't.

It's not like the people deserve to be punished, but the nation that will be born deserves to be.  Fighting because you don't like a deal then demanding that the other side honour that deal when you... is just the epitome of stupid. 

4)  Palestinian's say Yes.  War never happens.   Palestinian's say no... war is inevitable.



Chairman-Mao said:
deskpro2k3 said:
Chairman-Mao said:
deskpro2k3 said:
Chairman-Mao said:
deskpro2k3 said:

this used to happen in America too.


What's that got to do with anything?


You'll be surprised.


Why don't you be more specific instead of wasting my time?

If you don't know, I rather not waste my time being more specific with you.


Look I'm asking you to be more specific because right now you sound like an anti-American asshole who just says stupid shit about America because its the most powerful country in the world, and doesn't have any actual reason to dislike it. Why don't you say something more than "this used to happen in America too" and we can maybe agree on something.


I'm American. I mistakenly assume you was to because you would know something about American history. Now after reading your comment here, I have no liberty of explaining anything to you. ^^



Arabs?

Hmm, but that has nothing to do with the religion of peace, clearly not!



Fedor Emelianenko - Greatest Fighter and most humble man to ever walk the earth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVVrNOQtlzY