shotgunsinthehall Wrote:I could care less about Palis and Israelis, damnit.

Apparently not.

Quote:Seriously though, the wall prevents Palis from getting the support they need from Israel.

No it doesn't. It prevents terrorists from entering Israel and butchering people in cold blood.

Quote:Roger is not wanting Israelis to die, he wants peace and since the Israelis are far better armed than the Palis, the ball is really in their court.

No, Hamas is dedicated to wiping out Israel, and has been sponsoring terror campaigns targeting babies for decades. Israel is doing what anyone would do.

Quote:All the Palis can do is fight as hard as possible because they face annihilation.

No, they have broken off every peace negotiation they have ever entered into and persisted in murdering innocent people instead. They have many options but choose the worst one time after time after time after time.

Quote:Sure the Israelis would never do that, they only defend themselves well, but shouldn't they be the ones to lend a helping hand with all their resources? WWAD(What Would America Do?) Lol...

Why? The Arabs lover their Palis, but can't seem to ever part with any oil money to help out the slums. Wonder why that is.

Quote:Bottom Line: The wall is counter-productive to establishing peace in the region and peace is what Roger is trying to influence.

The wall is very productive and is producing peace in the region. Why people want to end peace and re-establish terror campaigns against Israelis is beyond me.

Outerspace Wrote:Only one side is throwing rocks. The other one is very well armed.

Well you said it. What are you worried about then?

Amnesty International`s field report in respect of Israel`s 22-day incursion into Gaza of Dec08/Jan09:-
Palestinians killed = 1,400 (vast majority unarmed civilians, including 450 children)
Israeli soldiers killed = 13 (including 4 from "friendly fire" incidents).
...Yes, one side is very well armed indeed.

Quote: Israel is doing what anyone would do.

Hopefully not, as the findings of last week`s UN "Goldstone Report" into the Gaza War has concluded that Israel is guilty of "war crimes".
Denying the Red Cross access to the dead and dying is not "self-defence".
Neither is killing British and American journalists:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo59c7...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo59c7zU&feature=PlayList&p=28EA310976DA7D67

If Americans saw on the tv news what we do this side of the Atlantic, they`d be dismayed by the "state terrorism" their tax dollars are propping-up. A piece on the Jewish lobby-instigated media-bias:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brfNxtFdK...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brfNxtFdK9o&featur

As for the "security wall" issue, if it was self-defence it would follow the West Bank border-line, instead of cutting huge swathes into Palestinian land. It`s a way of pre-empting any future two-state solution, by annexing as much land as possible prior to.

I feel like if people toured these areas more in depth they would understand Israel better. One example of what I mean is that while I was driving in Israel, over to the left there was a walled town that stretched to above the entrance of a tunnel on the road. Before the wall was built it was common for terrorists to go up on top of the tunnel entrance and fire rockets at the cars on the road. Also before the wall, terrorists used to stand on the buildings in their towns and snipe at drivers and pedestrians. These occurrences killed hundreds (maybe thousands?). This has all been greatly reduced by the wall, if not eliminated.

But, if this wall doesn't seem like a suitable solution to you, what would you do?

Dismantling settlements on the West Bank instead of building more would be a start.
No doubt putting a wall up will always protect you from those that seek you harm. But caging-in those that have been unjustly treated (however disproportionate the retribution of these dispossessed are) is not a solution in itself...
...addressing (at least legitimate) grievance is.

(09-12-2009 03:59 AM)Outerspace Wrote:  Why does Roger want Israelis to die?

you said it here


This situation in Gaza/Israel/Palestine is complicated

If you are picking on the "Palestinian" side, you are basically hoping for either the genocide of the Jews in the area, or the hopes the Jews can be stranded on the Mediterranean sea and will either drown, or have to go back on ships and look for another place to live

That is what it comes down to

This is such a complicated issue, and because of that, I will keep my beliefs to myself.
But my real point is not whom I agree with, but with politics in general. I think ALL musicians should keep their political views and beliefs to themselves. Leave politics to the politicians and music to the musicians. Roger Waters is a musician. Music in itself is a language without walls or barriers. It is for everyone. I believe that musicians should play wherever their fans are (within safety reasons of course.)
Roger Waters can believe in whatever he wants, but foremost he should do what he was meant to do: play his music and leave the people to decide for themselves which side they are on. I am sick of musicians and celebrities sticking their noses where it doesn't belong trying to sway the masses.
Just my opinion.

(07-29-2010 07:00 PM)~Gilmour Girl~ Wrote:  This is such a complicated issue, and because of that, I will keep my beliefs to myself.
But my real point is not whom I agree with, but with politics in general. I think ALL musicians should keep their political views and beliefs to themselves. Leave politics to the politicians and music to the musicians. Roger Waters is a musician. Music in itself is a language without walls or barriers. It is for everyone. I believe that musicians should play wherever their fans are (within safety reasons of course.)
Roger Waters can believe in whatever he wants, but foremost he should do what he was meant to do: play his music and leave the people to decide for themselves which side they are on. I am sick of musicians and celebrities sticking their noses where it doesn't belong trying to sway the masses.
Just my opinion.

First let me state that I agree with your original mentality "This is Such a.."
However it is my opinion that there are so many things wrong with this post.

For One:

Quote: I think ALL musicians should keep their political views and beliefs to themselves. Leave politics to the politicians and music to the musicians.

Why is it that ALL Musicians should keep their political views and beliefs to themselves? If it was the case that the two shouldnt be put together than how about other topics commonly explored in music? Should Love only be left to lovers?

I suppose you feel the same way about Religion too? If they cant touch politics then they definantly cant go anywhere near religion and its practices.

Doesnt this detract from the beauty of art? By restricting it at its core to certain topics/forms?

Quote: Music in itself is a language without walls or barriers. It is for everyone.

Really? Do you listen to every type of Genre out there? I'd place my money on the idea that you dont listen to all of them. Im pretty sure those are walls. How often do you hear someone refuse to listen or try an artist because they dont like "Death-Metal" etc etc.

Quote: Roger Waters can believe in whatever he wants, but foremost he should do what he was meant to do: play his music and leave the people to decide for themselves which side they are on. I am sick of musicians and celebrities sticking their noses where it doesn't belong trying to sway the masses.

I didnt know Roger was meant to do anything but what he wanted?
What is so wrong about a someone who happens to be a musician expressing there opinions? He's a normal dude just like anyone here who just so happens to have made it big as a musician. But Why should that mean he cant express himself?

(07-29-2010 07:00 PM)~Gilmour Girl~ Wrote:  This is such a complicated issue, and because of that, I will keep my beliefs to myself.
But my real point is not whom I agree with, but with politics in general. I think ALL musicians should keep their political views and beliefs to themselves. Leave politics to the politicians and music to the musicians. Roger Waters is a musician. Music in itself is a language without walls or barriers. It is for everyone. I believe that musicians should play wherever their fans are (within safety reasons of course.)
Roger Waters can believe in whatever he wants, but foremost he should do what he was meant to do: play his music and leave the people to decide for themselves which side they are on. I am sick of musicians and celebrities sticking their noses where it doesn't belong trying to sway the masses.
Just my opinion.

Excuse me for going personal, but that's actually pretty narrow minded of you to say. In your opinion, Roger Waters should not have staged the The Wall concert in Berlin? Or even have composed the music for The Wall, which has lyrics that talk about deep political things? Do you think that Bono should use his voice to just sing (because he is a singer) and that he should leave promoting charity programs to other people? Do you think that Lance Armstrong should just ride his bike like he is supposed to, and let some unknown economist take over his LiveStrong foundation?

Celebrities influence their fans. In the world, there aren't two celebrities who share the same interests, and that way, everybody has their own story to tell. The way Lance Armstrong is craving for people to give some attention to cancer patients, Roger Waters feels it's important to bring some political issues to people's minds. People like Roger are able to say things that politicians can't, unless they want to run the risk of never getting a single vote again. That's just the tip of the iceberg of reasons why celebrities actually SHOULD talk about delicate issues. These people have something to say, and despite the fact that they're not always right, their stories are usually interesting enough to be brought to public attention.

I totally understand what you are both saying. That's the great things about opinions, we are all entitled to one. I don't view myself as close minded at all. I just have a different point of view. Writing about religion and political issues are one thing, because you then have the option whether or not to listen to it. On the other hand, saying you will only perform somewhere if a certain action is required is another. Roger I am sure, has many fans in Israel who would love to hear him play, but as we know, that's not going to happen.

I am not taking Israel or the Palestinian's sides. I am sure the Palestinians (if they are allowed to listen to his music. I am not too sure) would also like to hear him play. It affects everyone. I know he is trying to make a point. I just think there should be a better way to make it. How many more concerts do you think the remaining members of Pink Floyd can give? I would like to be able to see even one of them once before anything happens. No one can deny that they are all getting up there in years.

Religion and politics has always been a very heated issue. Even in this forum I see. People are at each others throats just for giving an opinion.
I also stick to my belief that music has no boundaries. It is for everyone to enjoy. Paul Simon going to South Africa in the 80's amongst great controversy proved that with his masterpiece 'Graceland'. To me, music doesn't have walls. It breaks down walls. Just because you don't choose to listen to a certain type of music doesn't make it a wall at all. As for what I listen to, I listen to all types of music, from Alpine yodeling (Chime Bells is one of my faves), to Rachmaninoff, onward to Garth Brooks, into Engelbert Humperdink to the Ink Spots to Pink Floyd. I was lucky to be raised by two musicians who passed their love of all things music to me. A lot of people look at my music collection and get a head rush from the variety. The only genre I don't have too much on is rap. Some of it is hard for me to listen to. It can get very emotional or aggressive. I have to be in a certain mood for it.

My main point is, I think there are other ways for Roger to express his beliefs while allowing all people to be able to see him play while he still can.

I hope I didn't insult anyone, as I honestly do respect everyone's opinion. I do not find people close minded simply because we do not agree.

I hope you do realize that he's implying a re-production of the Berlin concert. Not just a regular concert with his regular band and regular show... This isn't about requiring an action in order to perform. This is pointing out the possibility of another legendary The Wall concert, which would be VERY redundant in case the Israeli wall is still standing.

As to why Roger Waters doesn't currently perform in Israel; that's rather logical. He may be an artist, and in your opinion he is supposed to simply play music, but he partially does it for the money and publicity. And if he himself doesn't, then the rest of his entire team do. If he has to choose between playing in Israel or playing in New York or London, I think he doesn't think twice. Or do you expect him to also go play in Sierra Leone, Mongolia and Uzbekistan, to name a few? Because I'm rather certain that he has fans there as well.