Yes, the palestianians are indeed the only bad guys in the middle east.

[HoreTore]

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2008/07/21/541381.html

(the article is in norwegian, but the video is the original one, just press the big play button)

How nice it is to see good, honest soldiers defending against the baby-eating terrorists!

In other news, handcuffing and blindfolding people and then shooting their legs is now a new interrogation method employed to protect your safety.

Sickening.

and for those who will undoubtedly question the authenticity of the video; it comes from an israeli source.

[Husar]

This was an isolated case, everybody knows that there are a few black sheep in every army but the Palestinians are all evil, every last one of them, especially the newborns! :sweatdrop:

Ok that was my defense attempt and now I want to know how long that soldier and everybody who participated are going to prison. :whip:

[Dâriûsh]

In English. Israeli source. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3571096,00.html)

English. From Al Jaz (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/07/200872154636332207.html)

[Dutch_guy]

Sickening.


Pretty much sums up that vid.

:balloon2:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I saw this video this morning and whilst it is deeply disturbing, the likelihood is that the soldier will be facing due process.

Whereas if he had been a member of Hamas, he'd be celebrated and would have been using real ammunition, not a rubber bullet.

The IDF are no angels, and there are many, many incidents like this not captured on film from the occupation. It's sad that young men are brutalised to this extent by the ongoing occupation and the necessity of imposing draconian rules to maintain it.

But if the Palestinian terrorists stopped killing Israeli citizens with gay abandon and embraced a non-violent resistance to occupation, the moral outrage felt at such breaches might actually have some merit.

[Fragony]

Poor baby.

[HoreTore]

But if the Palestinian terrorists stopped killing Israeli citizens with gay abandon and embraced a non-violent resistance to occupation, the moral outrage felt at such breaches might actually have some merit.

Was this guy a terrorist? No? Then what does he have to do with the terrorists? His nationality? Are you responsible whenever some brit screws up?

Also, the investigation of this incident started after the video was known, even though there were high officers present.

[Don Corleone]

Was this guy a terrorist? No? Then what does he have to do with the terrorists? His nationality? Are you responsible whenever some brit screws up?

Also, the investigation of this incident started after the video was known, even though there were high officers present.

Banquo was comparing the two societies and the response the footage received in Israel versus the hypothetical reception a similar video would have received in Palestine. He also pointed out that the individual in question is facing disciplinary action, something unlikely in Fatah or Hamas.

That being said, the video is troubling and the behavior captured is clearly immoral and unethical, by any civilized standard.

But remind me one more time where the Israeli Constitution calls for the destruction of Palestine, or public leaders of Israel have called for the global massacre of Palestinians, whereever they may live.

***No Tribesman, I won't repost all those links I found for you the 3rd or 4th time ago this came up. Go dig through the archives and find them yourself.

[HoreTore]

That being said, the video is troubling and the behavior captured is clearly immoral and unethical, by any civilized standard.

Immoral and unethical? This is no less than torture, plain and simple.

[Don Corleone]

Immoral and unethical? This is no less than torture, plain and simple.

I'm sorry, if you feel and really, really naughty adds to my condemnation, then by all means, allow me to append my original statement. I don't think I know how you get much more condemning than immoral and unethical.... basically it's indefensible.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, chief.

[HoreTore]

I'm sorry, if you feel and really, really naughty adds to my condemnation, then by all means, allow me to append my original statement. I don't think I know how you get much more condemning than immoral and unethical.... basically it's indefensible.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, chief.

No no, I wasn't arguing, I was only adding to it, my friend ~;)

[Tribesman]

But remind me one more time where the Israeli Constitution calls for the destruction of Palestine:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:What constitution is that Don ?


or public leaders of Israel have called for the global massacre of Palestinians, whereever they may live.

Good point Don public leaders have only called for getting rid of all non jews between the Nile and Euphrates which isn't nearly as bad as global is it:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[KrooK]

Ortodox Jews are calling to clear historical Palestine area from all non jew people. This can be compared.

BTW this time we saw in on movie. How many times it happens silently.
If colonel is giving such an example what is doing rest?

[Ronin]

just to comment on the title of this thread...there are no "good guys" in the middle east.

[Xiahou]

I saw this video this morning and whilst it is deeply disturbing, the likelihood is that the soldier will be facing due process.

Whereas if he had been a member of Hamas, he'd be celebrated and would have been using real ammunition, not a rubber bullet.

The IDF are no angels, and there are many, many incidents like this not captured on film from the occupation. It's sad that young men are brutalised to this extent by the ongoing occupation and the necessity of imposing draconian rules to maintain it.

But if the Palestinian terrorists stopped killing Israeli citizens with gay abandon and embraced a non-violent resistance to occupation, the moral outrage felt at such breaches might actually have some merit.
Wow... well said. :yes:

[PanzerJaeger]

Thats it? :laugh4:

From the initial post I actually expected several palestinians to be lined up and shot in the legs! I was sorely disappointed.


According to Palestinian Ashraf Abu-Rahma’s testimony, he suffered a toe injury and was treated by a local military paramedic and was later on released by the soldiers.

:laugh4:

Much, much worse goes on among Western police forces, and it seems like the guy will be punished.

Lesson in life kids: If you get involved in a riot, you can expect to get hit with batons, tear gas, and rubber bullets. The people who've had jagged rocks thrown at them all day might be in the mood to take a little stress out... so get away from a riot as soon as possible.

I just thank god this guy didn't lose his toe!

[HoreTore]

Lesson in life kids: If you get involved in a riot, you can expect to get hit with batons, tear gas, and rubber bullets.

Yes. That's certainly to be expected. What you can't expect though, is to get it after you've been detained for half an hour and you're handcuffed and blindfolded. That's the thing with this. The armed forces here wasn't shooting at a crowd going nuts, they were shooting an already subdued person. And that's called torture, or sadism. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever to shoot this person or cause him any harm.*




*except if you get a boner from making other people suffer, of course

[Dâriûsh]

Banquo was comparing the two societies and the response the footage received in Israel versus the hypothetical reception a similar video would have received in Palestine. He also pointed out that the individual in question is facing disciplinary action, something unlikely in Fatah or Hamas.

Tell me... Are you by these prejudices implying that Palestine is an inhuman host of barbarism and savagery?



But remind me one more time where the Israeli Constitution calls for the destruction of Palestine, or public leaders of Israel have called for the global massacre of Palestinians, whereever they may live.

***No Tribesman, I won't repost all those links I found for you the 3rd or 4th time ago this came up. Go dig through the archives and find them yourself.

It does not. It does not recognize Palestine as a state to begin with. By contrast, Fatah recognizes Israel’s right to exist (since 1993). The foolish Hamas does not.

As for public leaders of Israel and nasty comments...


One of the most blatant examples of public incitement in the days before the attack on Jabal al-Mukkabir was a circular widely distributed and posted around Jerusalem and in West Bank settlements. Signed by a long list of rabbis, it called for acts of revenge on Palestinians in retribution for the Mercaz HaRav shooting: “Each and everyone is required to imagine what the enemy is plotting to do to us and match it measure for measure.”
Among the signatories was Rabbi Ya’acov Yosef, son of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the former Sephardic chief rabbi of Israel and spiritual leader of Shas, a party in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s coalition government.



In the Knesset, former cabinet minister Effie Eitam accused the Arab legislators of “treason” for participating in the rally, adding, “We have to drive you out, as well as everyone else who took part” in the demonstration. Days later, Olmert’s former Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman repeated the ethnic cleansing threat in the Knesset, telling Arab members, “You are temporary here,” and “One day we will take care of you.”


Rather, “in the late 1990s and onwards,” writes Amir Ben-Porat, a professor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences at Ben Gurion University, “‘Death to the Arabs’ became a common chant in almost every football [soccer] stadium in Israel.” Ben-Porat, who authored a study on the use of the chant, says that because of the importance of soccer in Israeli society and its high profile in the media, “This chant is heard far beyond the stadium.

Link (http://philistine.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/anti-arab-racism-in-israel/)




As for PanzerJaeger... :juggle2:

[Geoffrey S]

The armed forces here wasn't shooting at a crowd going nuts, they were shooting an already subdued person. And that's called torture, or sadism. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever to shoot this person or cause him any harm.
Thankfully, it appears the IDF agrees with you.

[Tribesman]

Thankfully, it appears the IDF agrees with you.
Does it though ? the staff sergeant is apparently complaining that he is being screwed over by the army to protect its image and cover up for the officers .
It seems that he understands the armys wish to smooth over the bad publicity that the film created but not at the expense of him as he was only following orders .
It does raise the obvious question though doesn't it , why was this investigation blocked in the first place and only started again now that the film is out in the public domain .

[Marshal Murat]

It does raise the obvious question though doesn't it , why was this investigation blocked in the first place and only started again now that the film is out in the public domain

Because the IDF realized that they would pay for this later, mentally and spiritually. (The Pope told me not to be a cynic, so...yea.)

[Geoffrey S]

Well, if the IDF didn't agree with the view that this was unnecessarily vicious they wouldn't be trying to cover it up. They at least recognize it as inappropriate. These sort of incidents show that with modern technology, cameras can be watching anywhere and anything they do (in public) can be used against them and adversely effect future operations; if that doesn't set them thinking about their standards, I don't know what will.

[CountArach]

What sickens me isn't the video - it is the fact that this goes on every day WITHOUT the video cameras there to capture it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Does it though ? the staff sergeant is apparently complaining that he is being screwed over by the army to protect its image and cover up for the officers .
It seems that he understands the armys wish to smooth over the bad publicity that the film created but not at the expense of him as he was only following orders .
It does raise the obvious question though doesn't it , why was this investigation blocked in the first place and only started again now that the film is out in the public domain .

Are you prepared to assert (and support) that this is evidence of a larger, programatic effort by the IDF? That those in leadership among the IDF are tacitly authorizing/encouraging the use of violence in this manner in what amounts to a de facto (albeit never publicly acknowledged) policy?

If you're going to be surprised by an organization's knee-jerk action being to hush things up when stupid/outrageous incidents occur and protect it's image, you're going to walk around much surprised.

As an aside, bureaucratic organizations, particularly those forming part of a government, are prone to this cover-up approach. Sadly, it frequently (usually?) backfires. I've always wondered why the behavior seems to repeat, however. Is it because people in these organizations cannot accept the fact that everything is/will be photographed and disseminated (the new modern norm) or is it that the tactic is usually successful -- and the public remains blissfully unaware of much that would outrage it.

[LittleGrizzly]

But if the Palestinian terrorists stopped killing Israeli citizens with gay abandon and embraced a non-violent resistance to occupation, the moral outrage felt at such breaches might actually have some merit.

So if your the same nationality as a terrorist torture is to be expected, tit for tat ?

Terrorist groups do these things and far worse, it is the reason for thier name terrorist, developed democracys do not do this kind of thing, hence the outrage.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes. That's certainly to be expected. What you can't expect though, is to get it after you've been detained for half an hour and you're handcuffed and blindfolded. That's the thing with this. The armed forces here wasn't shooting at a crowd going nuts, they were shooting an already subdued person. And that's called torture, or sadism. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever to shoot this person or cause him any harm.*

*except if you get a boner from making other people suffer, of course


That's why this soldier is most likely going to suffer far more punishment than a minor toe injury.

As for the point you're trying to make in this thread... the phrase "making a mountain out of a molehill" comes to mind. An IDF soldier stepped out of line and will be punished, along with his superiors when this is all over. When IDF soldiers are captured, tortured and killed - palestinians rejoice... kind of explains why this kind of thing (a virtual toe holocaust) could happen.


Again, though, the most important thing in this whole horrible, terrible, disgusting display of Israeli torture and brutality is that the guy's toe recovered!

[Don Corleone]

Tell me... Are you by these prejudices implying that Palestine is an inhuman host of barbarism and savagery?



No. And in fact, I don't remember saying anything of the sort. I don't think Palestinians are inhuman barbarians or savages, but I do think they are led by factions that resort to some pretty barbaric and savage acts from time to time.

I actually have a great deal of sympathy for Palestinians. Few people on the planet have a worse lot in life. Where you and I disagree (or where Beirut and I would disagree, if you prefer) is that I do not hold Israel to be the chief problem faced by the Palestinians. In my view and assessment of facts and policies over the past 60 years, I would say Palestinian leadership has been the greatest problem faced by the Palestinian people over the past 60 years.

[Kralizec]

As an aside, bureaucratic organizations, particularly those forming part of a government, are prone to this cover-up approach. Sadly, it frequently (usually?) backfires. I've always wondered why the behavior seems to repeat, however. Is it because people in these organizations cannot accept the fact that everything is/will be photographed and disseminated (the new modern norm) or is it that the tactic is usually successful -- and the public remains blissfully unaware of much that would outrage it.

Possibly...but I think that it's usually a matter of the persons involved having a bigger interest (their reputation, jobs, possiblity of jail) in covering it up than the larger organisation.

[Tribesman]

Are you prepared to assert (and support) that this is evidence of a larger, programatic effort by the IDF? That those in leadership among the IDF are tacitly authorizing/encouraging the use of violence in this manner in what amounts to a de facto (albeit never publicly acknowledged) policy?

Going on their past history it wouldn't be much of a surprise .
How many times have they been caught doing nasty stuff and claimed it is an isolated incident by one person , then another isolated incident that really doesn't happen that much , then after they keep getting caught gone OK maybe its not that isolated but it isn't that bad , then fought all the way to the supreme court to be allowed to keep doing the stuff they said was bad .

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I saw this video this morning and whilst it is deeply disturbing, the likelihood is that the soldier will be facing due process.

Whereas if he had been a member of Hamas, he'd be celebrated and would have been using real ammunition, not a rubber bullet.

The IDF are no angels, and there are many, many incidents like this not captured on film from the occupation. It's sad that young men are brutalised to this extent by the ongoing occupation and the necessity of imposing draconian rules to maintain it.

But if the Palestinian terrorists stopped killing Israeli citizens with gay abandon and embraced a non-violent resistance to occupation, the moral outrage felt at such breaches might actually have some merit.

My view--given the early history of Israel (Irgun, stern gang, deir yassin massacre etc) is that if the israelis were weak and the palastinians strong the situation would be reversed today, and you would now be calling the israelis terrorists.

[HoreTore]

Are you prepared to assert (and support) that this is evidence of a larger, programatic effort by the IDF? That those in leadership among the IDF are tacitly authorizing/encouraging the use of violence in this manner in what amounts to a de facto (albeit never publicly acknowledged) policy?

Well, seeing as a lieutenant colonel was holding the guys hand while he was shot, it's not a very big stretch.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I saw this video this morning and whilst it is deeply disturbing, the likelihood is that the soldier will be facing due process.

Whereas if he had been a member of Hamas, he'd be celebrated

And thus lies the main difference, for me, the reaction. One can take whatever side you like in the Israeli-Palestinian debate. One can argue who is entitled to this or that, but you cannot defend the frenzied lovefest that took place in Lebanon for that child killer, Samir Kuntar, recently released last week. How people can condone and celebrate such a killer is beyond me.

[HoreTore]

And thus lies the main difference, for me, the reaction. One can take whatever side you like in the Israeli-Palestinian debate. One can argue who is entitled to this or that, but you cannot defend the frenzied lovefest that took place in Lebanon for that child killer, Samir Kuntar, recently released last week. How people can condone and celebrate such a killer is beyond me.

But were they celebrating a child-killer, or were they celebrating getting one over Israel, the ones who bombed them a few years ago?

[Hosakawa Tito]

Rock Star (https://youtube.com/watch?v=v07-WTiiVUA&feature=related) Oh, I don't know, you decide. All this for the "hero" convicted of smashing a child's head to pieces.

Let me know when the Israelis roll out the red carpet for the soldier in the vid you provided, they'll get the same treatment.

[HoreTore]

Well Nasrallah was talking about getting one over Israel in that vid, so....

[Viking]

Well Nasrallah was talking about getting one over Israel in that vid, so....

That's rather weak, and you know it. It's much like rejoicing Hitler for winning Eurovision Song Contest finals while the holocaust was still going on.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Yeah, and the rock star just happened to be in the neighborhood....for a ~:grouphug:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well Nasrallah was talking about getting one over Israel in that vid, so....

So therefore their celebration of such a "hero" is justified? :inquisitive:

Perhaps you might want to articulate your point a bit more clearly...

[HoreTore]

So therefore their celebration of such a "hero" is justified? :inquisitive:

Perhaps you might want to articulate your point a bit more clearly...


But were they celebrating a child-killer, or were they celebrating getting one over Israel

any clearer now?

[Don Corleone]

You don't seem to be getting it, HoreTore.

Let me ask you point blank... If John Wayne Gacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy) happened to choose the local IRS agent's son as one of his victims, would my loathing of the IRS justify my treating Gacy as a hero?

[LittleGrizzly]

And thus lies the main difference, for me, the reaction.

This has always been a contentous point for me as i think any peoples in the same shoes would act the same, they are the victims who keep getting hit in the face, your suprised they celebrate what they feel is a hit back.

If your going to keep people in poverty and slowly take over thier land and hog the essential resources, then kill them in precision revenge strikes at a ratio of 3.1 to how many of yours they killed, logic compassion go out the window, i don't now about you but if i was in those peoples situation i would have lost all compassion long ago

it looks pretty simple to me, Horetore is saying that the crowd was celebrating getting one over on israel, he didn't mention personal celebration once...

Edit: nice to see you hosakawa, haven't been back here for a while... (i think)

[HoreTore]

You don't seem to be getting it, HoreTore.

Let me ask you point blank... If John Wayne Gacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy) happened to choose the local IRS agent's son as one of his victims, would my loathing of the IRS justify my treating Gacy as a hero?

Of course not.

(and yes, I was referring to your bigger question, not your metaphor)

[Dâriûsh]

Now that we have successfully derailed this thread from Israelis shooting Palestinians to Lebanese celebrating Quntar, I might as well add my thoughts.

Perhaps, and I am going out on a limb here, this magic show was put on due to the upcoming parliamentary elections? The Hizbullah and Walid Jumblatt’s Druze have recently gone from open verbal Sectarian Warfare™ to mutual understanding (:clown:). And the Hizbullah are probably also trying to broaden their appeal in Lebanon by celebrating a non-Shia. It could also be a tiny political statement sticking it to Jumblatt. Nasrallah managed to free a famous Druze militant. Jumblatt did not. All Lebanese parties have to appear proponents for a united Lebanon in election times and put the mess earlier this year behind them.


As for celebrating a baby killer, Quntar has consistently denied ever killing a child, and with all the lies and propaganda in the Middle East from officials, why would fans doubt him?





Let me know when the Israelis roll out the red carpet for the soldier in the vid you provided, they'll get the same treatment.

Who knows? Maybe they will elect him Prime Minister, like Yitzhak Shamir and Ariel Sharon.

[Adrian II]

HOSA!!

The great Hosakawa Tito is back. :2thumbsup:

https://img295.imageshack.us/img295/2228/smiliecoasterie0.gif (https://imageshack.us)

[Tribesman]

The Hizbullah and Walid Jumblatt’s Druze have recently gone from open verbal Sectarian Warfare™ to mutual understanding
I thought that during the stupid western backed attempt to take on Hezballah Jumblatts militia melted away and the Druze leadership had passed on to another .

[LittleGrizzly]

And the Hizbullah are probably also trying to broaden their appeal in Lebanon by celebrating a non-Shia

Thats what some expert on the BBC news said, what exactly is the make up of lebanon ?

christian, shia and sunni's ?

[Dâriûsh]

Thats what some expert on the BBC news said, what exactly is the make up of lebanon ?

christian, shia and sunni's ?

Shia, Sunni, Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Druze, and a lot of other sects. They are not likely to attempt a census in Lebanon anytime soon.


Add to that communists, nationalists, etc.

[LittleGrizzly]

maybe rather than a defeat for israel we should see this as a victory for a multicultural lebanon ;)

Are all these groups involved in terrorism against israel or is it limited to one or two of them ?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Was this guy a terrorist? No? Then what does he have to do with the terrorists? His nationality? Are you responsible whenever some brit screws up?

Also, the investigation of this incident started after the video was known, even though there were high officers present.

As far as I am aware, the individual concerned was not a terrorist, but the point you picked upon was directed at the environment terrorism creates. Whether you like it or not, constant threat creates an environment of brutality wherein incidents like this become all too common. That constant threat is nurtured by the occupation, but created by the constantly violent response to that occupation directed at Israeli civilians.

When I was directing riot control in Northern Ireland, whilst we had very clear rules of engagement for the firing of baton rounds, it was not unusual for one or two to "go astray". As a fresh faced (aka naive newbie) officer at the beginning of my first tour, I was scrupulous in ensuring my troops followed the letter. After months of bricks, sniping, pipe bombs, little old ladies offering sandwiches full of ground glass, and sad to say, funerals of colleagues, I was somewhat less punctilious. The baton round of the day was a sturdy piece of plastic that had been designed to be fired into the ground so it ricocheted upwards into the rioter, persuading him to retire homeward. There were, I am ashamed to say, days when a direct shot to the groin area was considered more effective. None of my troop ever shot at the face, but there were those who did, and fatalities that resulted from that use of "plastic bullets".

That was a nasty, but not remotely comparable conflict. I note the above not to excuse, but to explain. Any of my soldiers who fired as the Israeli did would face a court martial and rightly so. But put young men into a constant state of menace where their friends and families are threatened and you get moments of madness. This applies to both sides of that conflict, which is why suicide bombers may be understood - but similarly not condoned.


My view--given the early history of Israel (Irgun, stern gang, deir yassin massacre etc) is that if the israelis were weak and the palastinians strong the situation would be reversed today, and you would now be calling the israelis terrorists.

I would in fact be calling many of the Israelis who founded their state terrorists. Unlike many, I do not consider the word perjorative, but descriptive. Several of my own relatives were terrorists. The tactic is not always one of weakness, nor is it always as efficacious as was seen in the establishment of Israel and the Republic of Ireland.

I have always advocated that the Palestinians (whose cause I am strongly in favour of) should reject terrorism on the utilitarian ground that it will not work in their current situation. Embracing non-violence - real martyrdom in the face of overwhelming force - would progress their cause far further and quicker. Perhaps some of their young men would die in the struggle - I doubt as many as currently and certainly fewer of the women and children - but the United States would blanch at supporting a regime that murdered peaceful protestors over any period of time. And I believe Israeli public opinion would also turn hugely in favour of the oppressed people rather than seek refuge in one-dimensional hard right politicians.

For sixty years violence and terror tactics have failed to achieve anything except the brutalisation of the youth of Israel and Palestine. Terror tactics finally worked against the British of the first half of the 20th century because they were a fundamentally decent people who really wanted to get out of the nasty business of ruling those who demanded independence. The Israelis however, have nowhere else to go, so they will fight back real nasty.

Time for a change; and that can only be by Palestinian hands because they have to prove they can co-exist peacefully with the sovereign state of Israel. Every last man-jack of them too, no room for madmen who prefer exploding themselves in restaurants to watching their children grow up happy and safe.

[Goofball]

I have always advocated that the Palestinians (whose cause I am strongly in favour of) should reject terrorism on the utilitarian ground that it will not work in their current situation. Embracing non-violence - real martyrdom in the face of overwhelming force - would progress their cause far further and quicker. Perhaps some of their young men would die in the struggle - I doubt as many as currently and certainly fewer of the women and children - but the United States would blanch at supporting a regime that murdered peaceful protestors over any period of time. And I believe Israeli public opinion would also turn hugely in favour of the oppressed people rather than seek refuge in one-dimensional hard right politicians.

For sixty years violence and terror tactics have failed to achieve anything except the brutalisation of the youth of Israel and Palestine. Terror tactics finally worked against the British of the first half of the 20th century because they were a fundamentally decent people who really wanted to get out of the nasty business of ruling those who demanded independence. The Israelis however, have nowhere else to go, so they will fight back real nasty.

Time for a change; and that can only be by Palestinian hands because they have to prove they can co-exist peacefully with the sovereign state of Israel. Every last man-jack of them too, no room for madmen who prefer exploding themselves in restaurants to watching their children grow up happy and safe.

Good Lord yes!

I am probably as staunch a supporter of Israel as you will find. But I guarantee you, were the Palestinians to put forward a leader like Ghandi, as opposed to on like ol' Yasser, then pursue a course of non-violent protest and civil disobedience, but were still met with violence from the Israelis, my support for Israel would quickly disappear and be replaced by support for the Palestinians.

And I suspect I would not be the only one...

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Palestinian cry when Isreails do something to them, but it's ok other way around? :dizzy2::juggle2:

[Incongruous]

Are you prepared to assert (and support) that this is evidence of a larger, programatic effort by the IDF? That those in leadership among the IDF are tacitly authorizing/encouraging the use of violence in this manner in what amounts to a de facto (albeit never publicly acknowledged) policy?


Is this sarcasm?

I'd like to add that the only, one and single reason Isreal exists at all, is the U.S.A so perhaps the Palestinians should just wait till that bird is done and dead?
Or perhaps the U.S could soilve the major rallying point of Islamists everywhere and and tell Israel to shove it?
I mean, I am really interested as to why you people support that country. But then again you do support fascists.

[Husar]

Tell Israel to shove it where?
Where should they go? Should they commit mass suicide, migrate to the south pole or invade some other country that is not palestine?

[HoreTore]

Tell Israel to shove it where?
Where should they go? Should they commit mass suicide, migrate to the south pole or invade some other country that is not palestine?

The only true solution to the middle east problem is that the Israelis and Palestinians learn to live together in the same country. A two-state solution won't solve the problem, both sides will always want more land from the other one. They have to learn how to live together. Or one side has to be exterminated.

[Dâriûsh]

...then pursue a course of non-violent protest and civil disobedience, but were still met with violence from the Israelis, my support for Israel would quickly disappear and be replaced by support for the Palestinians.

Okay, this has been mentioned enough times now.

Believe it or not people, but just because you never read about them doesn’t mean they don't occur. These peaceful protests, be they hunger strikes, human chains along the separation barrier, or rallies, are far more common than the violent uprising you see on TV. But peaceful or not, they still get met with the occasional tear gas, batons, and rubber bullets.

[Tribesman]

But peaceful or not, they still get met with the occasional tear gas, batons, and rubber bullets.
What you mean like that peaceful protest about the destruction of their farmland last year where a tank commander thought it would be a great idea to fire a shell into them because a wall was obstructing his view ?
Its a wonderful thing about peaceful protests isn't it , it only takes one dickhead on either side to make it a violent incident

[Banquo's Ghost]

Okay, this has been mentioned enough times now.

Believe it or not people, but just because you never read about them doesn’t mean they don't occur. These peaceful protests, be they hunger strikes, human chains along the separation barrier, or rallies, are far more common than the violent uprising you see on TV. But peaceful or not, they still get met with the occasional tear gas, batons, and rubber bullets.

Indeed they do happen, and get responses as you describe.

But the violence takes the lion's share of coverage because violence always does - and because of an utter failure of leadership. Palestinian leaders fail to condemn the violent responses unequivocally, which would allow them to both highlight peaceful protest and facilitate its use. The men of violence have to be shunned for peace to work.

When Gandhi's resistance led to violent responses from the British authorities, and thence to a violent reaction back, he condemned that reaction utterly, withdrew the non-co-operation campaign and took to a fast that nearly killed him to show his utter disgust at his countrymen's indiscipline. He even said that the violence showed him that maybe Indians were not ready to be given independence.

There are few Gandhis about, but the principles are the same. Palestinians will never achieve their aim of an independent homeland by force of arms. They are completely outclassed militarily, have few friends (indeed most countries who offer "support" do so entirely for their own ends) and unrealistic goals. They are as screwed as any people in history.

They need leaders that recognise this, and who can focus the undoubted courage and perseverance of the Palestinian people towards a non-violent solution that will have the unanswerable force of moral certitude. They do not face callous dictatorships but a democracy, backed by a democracy, that would be very vulnerable to such moral pressure.

[Dâriûsh]

A Gandhi in Jerusalem. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/08/31/edcook_ed3_.php)

[Banquo's Ghost]

A Gandhi in Jerusalem. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/08/31/edcook_ed3_.php)

Defeatist article which glosses over the fact that throughout that time of "failed non-violent protest", Palestinian terrorism was always threatening Israel's people and existence.

Non-violence is a hard road, and yes, may well be ignored. But as the Mahatma noted, the purpose of a civil resister is to provoke a response.

And if non-violence has not gotten anywhere, the violence most certainly hasn't - and won't. Non-violence cannot be effective whilst violence runs alongside. Unless someone can tell me just how constant terrorism against civilians will bring Israel to its knees I will continue to advocate peaceful protest as the only way forward.

We already have a brutalised generation on both sides. How many more will it take for the penny to drop?

[Don Corleone]

I think that extremists on both sides, Israeli and Palestinians will always block the only way forward to peace: two viable states coexisting next to each other. I don't blame the Palestinians, and I don't blame the Israelis. I think the majority of people on both sides would settle for such a solution. But it will never happen. Ever. Too many hard-liners on both sides that would rather die than compromise.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is this sarcasm?

I'd like to add that the only, one and single reason Isreal exists at all, is the U.S.A so perhaps the Palestinians should just wait till that bird is done and dead?
Or perhaps the U.S could soilve the major rallying point of Islamists everywhere and and tell Israel to shove it?
I mean, I am really interested as to why you people support that country. But then again you do support fascists.

Well, well. The Magyar responds with a gauntlet. Fair enough.

No, my response to Tribes' was not sarcasm, but a statement rendered in the form of a question -- admittedly a leading question -- which ample evidence indicates is a format with which Tribes' is comfortable. He certainly didn't demur from making a response -- though his response stopped short of a supported argument that it was IDF policy while hinting that he thought they were leaning that way. I was reminding him that the more likely "answer" would be found in the realm of mistake or poor thinking by those involved and not in a programmatic policy.

Banquo's excellent post above, the one referencing his own experiences and frustrations, is quite telling and explored the reasons "why" this instance happened in a far better and more moving way than I could have done. Banquo's assessment (and his prescription of a Ghandian effort as more likely to generate success for the Palestinian Arabs) match closely with my own thinking. Under prolonged stress and pressure, it is far too easy for those enforcing a policy to "take things into their own hands" just a bit. It shouldn't happen, and should never be condoned, but it does occur. I think Banquo's proferred explanation fits the facts and situation nicely.

We are no more likely to tell Israel to "shove it" than we are likely to say the same thing to England or Australia. While the USA was one of the prime movers in the formation of Israel, and certainly has provided more funding for its continuance than anyone else, we are not solely responsible for its creation -- it was a UN mandate. You might want to spare a little of your spleen for the old USSR -- after all they could have scotched the whole thing with a simple "Nyet" if they'd bothered to attend the meeting.

The bond with Israel was forged on a number of levels. Guilt over the Holocaust was one component -- we had turned away Jews who went back to die and according to some might have bettered our time in defeating Germany instead of going after Italy. Another was America's love for the underdog, which role fit Israel admirably in 1948. Then, as the Cold War deepened, Israel became our proxy in the Middle East as the Arab nations turned toward the Soviets for material. As you should be aware, the manner and "rules" by which we conducted the Cold War dictated a lot of US policy -- and led us to support a number of tyrannical regimes, provided they were anti-Soviet. Into this, you can also add the depradations of Islamic terrorists in the 1970s, early 1980s, and then again beginning in the 1990s (The terrorist efforts of Jewish separatists in Palestine in the 1940s did not get much play in the USA, so they carry no stigma of terrorism in this country). The Embargo of 1973 and the Hostage Crisis of 1979-1980 were also episodes that were designed to humiliate and/or make us throw up our hands in frustration over the cost of supporting Israel. Each and every time the backlash has enhanced Israel's position. Howevermuch we may find some of Israel's policies and actions galling, we admire their determination. We'll argue with them, try to convince them to change their behavior sometimes, but all in all we are committed to that alliance.

The one and ONLY way I can see the Arab world de-coupling this alliance, or more likely shifting it to a format where ALL of the US efforts would be to push Israel towards a negotiated resolution, is the strategy outlined by Banquo above. Once the Palestinians are nothing but martyrs -- no acts of vengeance ONLY non-violent defiance -- then the cell phone camera will win what no number of Kalishnikov's can hope to achieve.

I'd suggest that the Palestinians change tactics soon. Waiting for the American Eagle to be "done and dead" is likely to be a bit of a wait. We may not be the Colossus our imaginations sometimes believe, but we're not staggering along in our death throes by a long chalk. Underneath all of our celebrophilia silliness and consumerist hedonism is a bit of steel. Too many in the past have missed that part -- to their regret. And, if you and yours seek to take us off our perch, you are welcome to try.

[Fragony]

Waiting for the American Eagle to be "done and dead" is likely to be a bit of a wait. We may not be the Colossus our imaginations sometimes believe, but we're not staggering along in our death throes by a long chalk. Underneath all of our celebrophilia silliness and consumerist hedonism is a bit of steel. Too many in the past have missed that part -- to their regret. And, if you and yours seek to take us off our perch, you are welcome to try.

Perfection lives.

[Incongruous]

Well, well. The Magyar responds with a gauntlet. Fair enough.

No, my response to Tribes' was not sarcasm, but a statement rendered in the form of a question -- admittedly a leading question -- which ample evidence indicates is a format with which Tribes' is comfortable. He certainly didn't demur from making a response -- though his response stopped short of a supported argument that it was IDF policy while hinting that he thought they were leaning that way. I was reminding him that the more likely "answer" would be found in the realm of mistake or poor thinking by those involved and not in a programmatic policy.

Banquo's excellent post above, the one referencing his own experiences and frustrations, is quite telling and explored the reasons "why" this instance happened in a far better and more moving way than I could have done. Banquo's assessment (and his prescription of a Ghandian effort as more likely to generate success for the Palestinian Arabs) match closely with my own thinking. Under prolonged stress and pressure, it is far too easy for those enforcing a policy to "take things into their own hands" just a bit. It shouldn't happen, and should never be condoned, but it does occur. I think Banquo's proferred explanation fits the facts and situation nicely.

We are no more likely to tell Israel to "shove it" than we are likely to say the same thing to England or Australia. While the USA was one of the prime movers in the formation of Israel, and certainly has provided more funding for its continuance than anyone else, we are not solely responsible for its creation -- it was a UN mandate. You might want to spare a little of your spleen for the old USSR -- after all they could have scotched the whole thing with a simple "Nyet" if they'd bothered to attend the meeting.

The bond with Israel was forged on a number of levels. Guilt over the Holocaust was one component -- we had turned away Jews who went back to die and according to some might have bettered our time in defeating Germany instead of going after Italy. Another was America's love for the underdog, which role fit Israel admirably in 1948. Then, as the Cold War deepened, Israel became our proxy in the Middle East as the Arab nations turned toward the Soviets for material. As you should be aware, the manner and "rules" by which we conducted the Cold War dictated a lot of US policy -- and led us to support a number of tyrannical regimes, provided they were anti-Soviet. Into this, you can also add the depradations of Islamic terrorists in the 1970s, early 1980s, and then again beginning in the 1990s (The terrorist efforts of Jewish separatists in Palestine in the 1940s did not get much play in the USA, so they carry no stigma of terrorism in this country). The Embargo of 1973 and the Hostage Crisis of 1979-1980 were also episodes that were designed to humiliate and/or make us throw up our hands in frustration over the cost of supporting Israel. Each and every time the backlash has enhanced Israel's position. Howevermuch we may find some of Israel's policies and actions galling, we admire their determination. We'll argue with them, try to convince them to change their behavior sometimes, but all in all we are committed to that alliance.

The one and ONLY way I can see the Arab world de-coupling this alliance, or more likely shifting it to a format where ALL of the US efforts would be to push Israel towards a negotiated resolution, is the strategy outlined by Banquo above. Once the Palestinians are nothing but martyrs -- no acts of vengeance ONLY non-violent defiance -- then the cell phone camera will win what no number of Kalishnikov's can hope to achieve.

I'd suggest that the Palestinians change tactics soon. Waiting for the American Eagle to be "done and dead" is likely to be a bit of a wait. We may not be the Colossus our imaginations sometimes believe, but we're not staggering along in our death throes by a long chalk. Underneath all of our celebrophilia silliness and consumerist hedonism is a bit of steel. Too many in the past have missed that part -- to their regret. And, if you and yours seek to take us off our perch, you are welcome to try.

Oh dear...
I do not see the U.S a a bumbling giant trying to do good, your nation is nothing of the sort and you know it. The U.S is a tyrant to the weak. You picked apart Latin America and left it to the desires of your state educated fascist pigs. You also support a fascist regime in the Middle East, that is what it is really. The underdog? Idrael has not been the underdog for a long time, it has held the whip hand over the Palestinians for decades and it has used this to kill and terrorise innocents with your silent approval.
You admire their determination? What aspect? The rabid determination to ethnically cleanse the Holy Land? or to allow their soldiers to shoot old ladies on their way to hospitals? Or their determination to allow women to die while giving birth at an Israeli check point to a hostpital? Which aspect is it?

I suggest that the U.S.A changes its tactics in the Holy Land because a toss load of good they have done so far.

Maybe you should switch off the flame of liberty, we all know its fake, it probably says Made In China somehwere...

[Don Corleone]

Seriously, Bopa, how do you really feel? :laugh4:

I'm curious, do you believe in a 2-state solution?

[Fragony]

The U.S is a tyrant to the weak.

This annoys the crap out of me and I am not even american, if you have to chose between what they are and what they could be what would it be? They have that choice but are what they are, nothing but humanitarian respect to america. What is it that they are doing so wrong I don't get it.

[Dâriûsh]

I think that extremists on both sides, Israeli and Palestinians will always block the only way forward to peace: two viable states coexisting next to each other. I don't blame the Palestinians, and I don't blame the Israelis. I think the majority of people on both sides would settle for such a solution. But it will never happen. Ever. Too many hard-liners on both sides that would rather die than compromise. In my heart I fear that you are right, but I would like to pretend that you are not. I hope the hard-liners are deposed some day, rejected, and ignored.

[Divinus Arma]

Terrorism, or rather assymetrical warfare and intentional targeting of civilians, is a natural evolution in response to a technologically superior enemy. It is utter ignorance to claim moral superiority in military strategy. While detesting the killing of civilian Israelis by Palestinian militants, I understand that this military strategy is entirely due to their inability to counter Israeli superiority.

Organized violence is an instrument of policy. Be it a gang killing in a turf war, a military invasion, genocide, terrorist use of WMDs, etc. The method we as an organization of individuals choose to employ to exert our will is not something in of itself to decry. It is the intent of the policy that drives the violence that requires analysis and argument.

[LittleGrizzly]

This annoys the crap out of me and I am not even american, if you have to chose between what they are and what they could be what would it be?

What they could be is a shining example to the rest of the world, they make all previous superpowers look evil by comparison but is that really saying much ?

Having huge amounts of power isn't an excuse for doing wrong, if anything its almost worse...

is the strategy outlined by Banquo above. Once the Palestinians are nothing but martyrs -- no acts of vengeance ONLY non-violent defiance -- then the cell phone camera will win what no number of Kalishnikov's can hope to achieve.

This would be a great tactic, unfortunatly it would never work, it would be the equivalent of america taking up non-violent defiance in reaction to 9/11, sure the odd peaceful hippy would think its a good idea but 99% of people just want blood and vengance.

I do not see why Israel could not practice not violent defiance, as an actual developed functioning state they have the means to pull this off, the loosley affailiated organisations running palestine could not, this is probably why i seem to come down on israel they are the only ones who i can see ending the conflict, i think its simply impossible as the situation stands for palestine to manage it....

[atheotes]

I do not see why Israel could not practice not violent defiance, as an actual developed functioning state they have the means to pull this off, the [B]loosley affailiated organisations running palestine could not, this is probably why i seem to come down on israel they are the only ones who i can see ending the conflict, i think its simply impossible as the situation stands for palestine to manage it....

therein lies a huge problem as far as i am concerned... Palestine needs to unite as one and only the will they see have any way forward...:juggle2:

[Fragony]

What they could be is a shining example to the rest of the world, they make all previous superpowers look evil by comparison but is that really saying much ?


Clear case of the question being the answer I would say. Of course that is saying much. They really don't deserve the treatment they get from the incestiously self-preserving european intellectual elite.

[Dâriûsh]

therein lies a huge problem as far as i am concerned... Palestine needs to unite as one and only the will they see have any way forward...:juggle2: Well... Did not the "West" unite to drive Palestine apart? I recall it did. Immediately after the Hamas majority victory in the 2006 legislative election.

[LittleGrizzly]

Clear case of the question being the answer I would say. Of course that is saying much. They really don't deserve the treatment they get from the incestiously self-preserving european intellectual elite.

I don't think i stated what i meant clearly, what i was saying was.... just because they are better than what came before it doesn't mean we shouldn't criticise, going by your statement america could go crazy and aslong as they were a little better behaved than previous superpower noone has any right to criticise, having the ability to do alot of harm if they want doesn't excuse them from the harm they do....

Otherwise we should all thank the soviet union, sure they did alot of bad things but they could have done so much worse, hell stalin was practically a pacifist...

Well... Did not the "West" unite to drive Palestine apart? I recall it did. Immediately after the Hamas majority victory in the 2006 legislative election.

I find it ironic how after years of seeing fatah as the enemy they've suddenly realised that fatah are a better option to deal with than Hamas, i can almost see this pattern repeating itself somewhere down the line, we'll be kicking ourselves for not dealing with the much more reasonable Hamas when the next even crazier bunch of guys come along...

[Marshal Murat]

The underdog? Israel has not been the underdog for a long time, it has held the whip hand over the Palestinians for decades and it has used this to kill and terrorize innocents with your silent approval.

Only rarely has a single nation the size of Israel faced three or four foes on two+ fronts, and succeeded. Not only in 1948, in the wars that followed, as Israel outmaneuvered Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraqi forces. The Israeli forces have consistently defeated armed forces twice their size. It's spectacular.

Israel has responded in kind to Palestinian threats over the years. You complain about a pregnant Palestinian woman dying at a check-point? I think if you compare the death rates of Palestinian women from before Israel and after, you would notice a drop in those deaths. With Israel came medicines and assistance that the Palestinians never had before.

Ghandian resistance is the only way to end the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. I'm probably echoing previously expressed sentiments, but that's why the West supported Tibet over Chinese "law and order" because the Tibet people aren't RPG-ing Hong Kong, Singapore, or Beijing. That's why we supported the monks over the Burmese "Law and Order" of violence and repression.

[LittleGrizzly]

Only rarely has a single nation the size of Israel faced three or four foes on two+ fronts, and succeeded. Not only in 1948, in the wars that followed, as Israel outmaneuvered Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraqi forces. The Israeli forces have consistently defeated armed forces twice their size. It's spectacular.

Im not so sure about the 1948 war but didn't Israel have a lot better technology than thier rivals in 1967, as spectacular as it is it also doesn't change the fact that these days its the palestinians rocks and homemade bombs vs israels f-16s and nuclear weapons

I think if you compare the death rates of Palestinian women from before Israel and after, you would notice a drop in those deaths. With Israel came medicines and assistance that the Palestinians never had before.

Doesn't the international community give aid to palestine ? (including israel though i guess) so i highly doubt thier contribution to aid for palestine dwarfs the numbers of palestinians they've killed.

Ghandian resistance is the only way to end the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. I'm probably echoing previously expressed sentiments, but that's why the West supported Tibet over Chinese "law and order" because the Tibet people aren't RPG-ing Hong Kong, Singapore, or Beijing. That's why we supported the monks over the Burmese "Law and Order" of violence and repression.

A load of good it did those 'provinces' as well, why does everyone expect the palestinians to start up some Ghandian style resistance, the ones who are much better equipped to pull it off are the israelis, how much longer would the palestinians keep blowing themselves up after israel stopped the bombs, dismantled the checkpoints and shared the resources. No palestinian would go and blow themself up because Hamas charter calls for the destruction of israel, give them normal lives and they'll be happy to live them, there be a transitional period where people too far gone would exact thier revenge but that would be over soon enough....

[Tribesman]

Ghandian resistance is the only way to end the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. I'm probably echoing previously expressed sentiments, but that's why the West supported Tibet over Chinese "law and order"
Ah yes the peaceful protesters

First of all, I must make it clear that the Tibetan (rioters) has been non-violent throughout (the incident). From Tibetans' perspective, violence means harming life. From the video recordings you can see that the Tibetans rioters were beating Han Chinese, but only beating took place. After the beating the Han Chinese were free to flee. Therefore [there were] only beating, no life was harmed. Those who were killed were all results of accidents. From recordings shown by the Chinese Communist government, we can clearly see that when Tibetan [rioters] were beating on their doors, the Han Chinese all went into hiding upstairs. When the Tibetan [rioters] set fire to the buildings, the Han Chinese remained in hiding instead of escaping, the result is that these Han Chinese were all accidentally burnt to death.
Don't the Tibetan government in exile put it very nicely

[Husar]

Awesome explanation, I wish all riots were as peaceful as that with just a few people being burned accidentally. :dizzy2:

[Viking]

A load of good it did those 'provinces' as well, why does everyone expect the palestinians to start up some Ghandian style resistance, the ones who are much better equipped to pull it off are the israelis, how much longer would the palestinians keep blowing themselves up after israel stopped the bombs, dismantled the checkpoints and shared the resources. No palestinian would go and blow themself up because Hamas charter calls for the destruction of israel, give them normal lives and they'll be happy to live them, there be a transitional period where people too far gone would exact thier revenge but that would be over soon enough....

Hah, the Israeli government would have to be nuts to do that, it would be pure manslaughter. No doubt the terrorists could shoot a thousands of civilians showing no resistance what so ever before they started pondering whether they were doing the right thing or not. No terrorist want to share the resources.

[LittleGrizzly]

Hah, the Israeli government would have to be nuts to do that, it would be pure manslaughter. No doubt the terrorists could shoot a thousands of civilians showing no resistance what so ever before they started pondering whether they were doing the right thing or not.

I must have missed the bit were they stuck thier hands up in the air and lined up to be shot, its a non-violent resistance but if some terrorist came in shooting and i would allow room in my non-violent defiance to shoot back in that case, so if you agree that palestinians won't blow themselves up if thiers no reason and israel's main problem would be gunmen that would be a huge improvment, you could just have regular solidiers (and police?) posted around israel and im sure the vast majority of them would outmatch a palestinian terrorist in a gunfight, sure the would be losses, probably at a far lower rate than today, and just as you'll struggle to find terrorists willing to blow themself up over an enemy that doesn't attack them i highly doubt that you would find too many recruits for suicidal shooting sprees after israel starts its non violent defiance

No terrorist want to share the resources.

Well neither does israel by the seems of things, but as it is now and would be if israel was carrying out non-violent defiance, the terrorists wouldn't really have a choice about having all the resources, just because israel isn't carrying out precision strikes and checkpoints doesn't all of a sudden mean the palestinians are the bigger power.

[KukriKhan]

A bold, brilliant plan our Banquo's Ghost has laid out.

For argument's sake, let's posit that a Paletinian Gandhi did emerge, eschewing violence, and doing a 'salt walk' to the sea.

What conditions and policy attitudes would have to prevail in Israel for El Gandhi to be successful? What conditions were extant in Britain and among Brit Colonials in India to allow Gandhi's success, rather than a brute crushing of his disobedience?

And then, what can the rest of us (the world) do or stop doing, to foster the development of those conditions?

Or, are we begging the strategy too much, since in India, the goal was to persuade Britain to leave, whereas, we're not trying to make Israel 'leave', but co-exist?

I, the eternal optimist, can but hope that some way toward resolution can be found that doesn't involve mass brutalization & death.

[LittleGrizzly]

Maybe i am a pessimist or just a realist, either way even if the palestinian ghandi did emerge he would be a threat to all the leaders in the middle east (or israel and the ones who keep thier populations in check by focusing them on thier enemy)

If not killed by hamas or fatah as a threat to thier power, or maybe killed because he is seen as weak limp wristed leftie whose not willing to stand up for his country like countless martyrs (that is as in the imaginary words of some hamas or fatah spokesman)

Killed by israel either through accident, precision strike gone wrong, israeli soldier's bullet, or on purpose by the israeli leadership as they are a threat to thier continued leadership, or because if succsessful he would be a threat to thier domination of resources in the area (what good reason would israel have to hog resources against a peaceful palestine ? and what good reason to extend thier holdings in the area ?)

Even if he manages to avoid the 2 local powers there are plenty of leader in the middle east who would have thier position more threatened if there wasn't the enemy of israel to direct the peoples attention at

To be honest i really don't see a palestinian ghandi type figure being able to do anything to solves the conflict.

[Viking]

Hah, the Israeli government would have to be nuts to do that, it would be pure manslaughter. No doubt the terrorists could shoot a thousands of civilians showing no resistance what so ever before they started pondering whether they were doing the right thing or not.

I must have missed the bit were they stuck thier hands up in the air and lined up to be shot, its a non-violent resistance but if some terrorist came in shooting and i would allow room in my non-violent defiance to shoot back in that case, so if you agree that palestinians won't blow themselves up if thiers no reason and israel's main problem would be gunmen that would be a huge improvment, you could just have regular solidiers (and police?) posted around israel and im sure the vast majority of them would outmatch a palestinian terrorist in a gunfight, sure the would be losses, probably at a far lower rate than today, and just as you'll struggle to find terrorists willing to blow themself up over an enemy that doesn't attack them i highly doubt that you would find too many recruits for suicidal shooting sprees after israel starts its non violent defiance

No terrorist want to share the resources.

Well neither does israel by the seems of things, but as it is now and would be if israel was carrying out non-violent defiance, the terrorists wouldn't really have a choice about having all the resources, just because israel isn't carrying out precision strikes and checkpoints doesn't all of a sudden mean the palestinians are the bigger power.


Then let me quote:


...some Ghandian style resistance..

[LittleGrizzly]

Then let me quote:


Quote:
...some Ghandian style resistance..

ok to fit into my example properly israeli soldiers would be drafted into the police force and would act like a police force, i don't see why a police force would be outside the concept of ghandian style resistance, the ghandian style resistance would be the act of non-violence from israel, the police force would simply maintain law inside israeli borders.

But ok i would be happy to call it some other name to meet the need of crazy gunmen storming israel, if we call it grizzly style resistance would that make you happy ?

Or was it something other than the term i used to describe the non-violent method they could use that bothered you ? (in other words did you see my plan as unworkable or were you just nitpicking about the ghandian style resistance bit ?)

[Viking]

Then let me quote:


Quote:
...some Ghanaian style resistance..

ok to fit into my example properly Israeli soldiers would be drafted into the police force and would act like a police force, i don't see why a police force would be outside the concept of ghandian style resistance, the ghandian style resistance would be the act of non-violence from israel, the police force would simply maintain law inside israeli borders.

But ok i would be happy to call it some other name to meet the need of crazy gunmen storming israel, if we call it grizzly style resistance would that make you happy ?

Or was it something other than the term i used to describe the non-violent method they could use that bothered you ? (in other words did you see my plan as unworkable or were you just nitpicking about the ghandian style resistance bit ?)

No nitpicking here. I saw the plan that I read out of your as a poor one; though one with the aspects of self defense intact, as something in the right direction. The term ghandian resistance does really hint to a scenario of no violence what so ever.

[LittleGrizzly]

The term ghandian resistance does really hint to a scenario of no violence what so ever.

Well it doesn't really apply to any actual state or palestine as it is now either, any actual state uses violence even if its just through the law but i was going on the type ghandian style for palestinians would be similar, except i think if the palestinians were doing it it would be other palestinians as the crazy gunmen mowing them down, so i figured my use of the term was as accurate as banquo's....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh dear...
I do not see the U.S a a bumbling giant trying to do good, your nation is nothing of the sort and you know it. The U.S is a tyrant to the weak. You picked apart Latin America and left it to the desires of your state educated fascist pigs. You also support a fascist regime in the Middle East, that is what it is really.

We are both a "bumbling giant trying to do good" and an aggressive "playuh" pursuing our own interests -- I wasn't putting us up for international sainthood. We marginalized our abo' population (sometimes murdering them, even a few quasi-pogroms though we never had the stomach to follow it through methodically), we picked one war with a neighbor (Mexico 1842/1843), tried to conquer Canada every time we fought with Great Britain, and threw our weight around in China and in Latin America on a haphazard but pretty frequent basis from 1880 through 1940. During the Cold War we supported a number of loathsome regimes in order to out-compete the Soviets in that global conflict. On the other hand, we've had the whip hand over many nations in the last few decades and have not run amuck or fashioned ourselves much of an empire. It even pays pretty well to lose a war to us (Sellers' did a wonderful send-up of this in The Mouse that Roared). We're a far cry from perfect, but other nations who held a club have used it far more visciously -- Belgium's playfulness with the Congo, Japan's co-prosperity sphere, the Mongols savaging Europe etc. We may get it wrong, but a surprising portion of the time, we really do believe we're doing some of these things for the greater good.


The underdog? Idrael has not been the underdog for a long time, it has held the whip hand over the Palestinians for decades and it has used this to kill and terrorise innocents with your silent approval.

I was referring to the early days of Israel to explain why we had such an attachment to that ally. The "underdog" mindset still strikes a chord with many in the US audience, even if it really isn't accurate anymore. As you are aware, perceptions continue to influence evaluations even if the perception is no longer fully valid unless and until a more accurate perception is internalized by the audience in question.


You admire their determination? What aspect? The rabid determination to ethnically cleanse the Holy Land? or to allow their soldiers to shoot old ladies on their way to hospitals? Or their determination to allow women to die while giving birth at an Israeli check point to a hostpital? Which aspect is it?

No, the part that appeals is that they forged a nation with a democratic tradition while having to fight for their existence for more than a quarter century. Israeli mis-applications of justice rarely get much media play in the USA, so they do not influence public opinion as broadly as the earlier, "plucky underdog" perceptions. This is why, in my opinion, Banquo is in the right of it, however difficult it would be to effect a Ghandian stance in practice. Once Israel is the ONLY participant acting violently (note, not defiantly as Ghandian tactics are quite confrontative albeit non-violent), the media coverage would have to change and support for Israeli hardliners would erode both in Israel and in its biggest financial backer, the USA.


I suggest that the U.S.A changes its tactics in the Holy Land because a toss load of good they have done so far.

Now that is an interesting comment. While I disagree with your overall opinion of my nation (I believe Decatur had it right), you make a fair critique when you point out that the previous strategies employed certainly haven't created any meaningfully different results in the past 20 years. I'm still waiting for a new idea that can work on a practical level -- but it's a tough playing field for rationality.


Maybe you should switch off the flame of liberty, we all know its fake, it probably says Made In China somehwere...

:laugh4: Reminds me of the Communard who commented about our bidding on rope sales. Now who was that....Kruschev?

I live in a country where your birth is only tangentially relevant and you can, with hard work and a dash of luck, make yourself the richest person on the planet and be lauded for doing so. Or, conversely, you can found a movement calling for the abolition of private property and the scrapping of the Constitution in favor of Pastafarianism and the government will not prevent you from preaching your ideas or garnering followers even though you are calling for the destruction of that government. On the whole, we've got a fair handle on the freedom thing.

If you want to revel in the joys of an anarcho-syndicalist commune, go rent The Holy Grail or re-read your copy of the Little Red Book. I'll happily stick with the US of A.

[Goofball]

I live in a country where your birth is only tangentially relevant and you can, with hard work and a dash of luck, make yourself the richest person on the planet and be lauded for doing so. Or, conversely, you can found a movement calling for the abolition of private property and the scrapping of the Constitution in favor of Pastafarianism and the government will not prevent you from preaching your ideas or garnering followers even though you are calling for the destruction of that government. On the whole, we've got a fair handle on the freedom thing.

If you want to revel in the joys of an anarcho-syndicalist commune, go rent The Holy Grail or re-read your copy of the Little Red Book. I'll happily stick with the US of A.

Well said and with remarkable restraint as well, given the hate that Bopa has been spewing.

I am another non-American that has been quite incensed by some of the crap you've been throwing around this thread, Bopa.

Sounds like a simple case of penis envy to me...

[Don Corleone]

Well said and with remarkable restraint as well, given the hate that Bopa has been spewing.

Well, yeah...
but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Some people see faults and call them out when they see them. Others look for fault and call it out whether they see it or not. America has a litany of "Wish we hadn't done that" actions, but honestly Bopa, we are not the Fourth Reich you seem zealously convinced we are. But with all that cotton in your ears, I doubt you can hear me.

By the way, for all you "George Bush is satan" types, why don't you go see what those Nazi wannabes Bob Geldof and Bono have to say about Bush's Africa policies.

On topic: I actually heard a fascinating debate today on NPR on my lunch hour that really has altered my whole view of all of this, but as it deals more with militant Islam and less with the Palestinian question specifically, I should probably start a new thread.

[Tribesman]

I was referring to the early days of Israel to explain why we had such an attachment to that ally. The "underdog" mindset still strikes a chord with many in the US audience, even if it really isn't accurate anymore.
Just wondering Seamus , from the time of the underdog when your president was wondering about what to do with the seemingly impossible situation of carting off a large number of people to where they were not wanted and making them at home...what was it he said was inevitable about the underdog when he got a seat at the head of the table ?

[KrooK]

Guys talking that Israel always had to defend itself is just a b...t
Into 1956 they just attacked Egypt without shadow of reason - they wanted stop Nasser from taking control on Sues Channel. Into 1948 and 1967 they were outnumbered but with much better soldiers and weapon. Every year USA is giving 100.000.000.000 USD to Israel - thats why they have so good army.

Anyway watch on Israel policy into Lebanon. Last years when Hezbollah absolutely controlled that country everything was ok and Israel did not attack Lebanon. But when Hezbollah influences fallen at the beginning of this century (due to good economical development of Lebanon), Israel attacked Lebanon - of course official reason was "save our soldiers". Hezbollah was not destroyed, regained its influences (few months later they took absolute control over country) and now everything is calm on noth border (strange :D).

I have to mention previous attack on Lebanon into early 80ties when Jews helped into killing 20.000 civilians. I wonder why do we want catch Karadzic for 7000 people into Srebrenica and we never wanted Sharon for these 20.000.


Tribesmen would call it WORLD JEWISH CONSPIRACY. I never belied it but TRIBESMEN OPENED MY EYES.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Just wondering Seamus , from the time of the underdog when your president was wondering about what to do with the seemingly impossible situation of carting off a large number of people to where they were not wanted and making them at home...what was it he said was inevitable about the underdog when he got a seat at the head of the table ?

Don't know that one Tribes'. Please give us the quotation.

I assure you, as an American raised in the latter 60s and early 70s, I'm not mis-representing the mindset of most Yanks on this issue -- even if they're beliefs not well grounded in fact.

[Incongruous]

We are both a "bumbling giant trying to do good" and an aggressive "playuh" pursuing our own interests -- I wasn't putting us up for international sainthood. We marginalized our abo' population (sometimes murdering them, even a few quasi-pogroms though we never had the stomach to follow it through methodically), we picked one war with a neighbor (Mexico 1842/1843), tried to conquer Canada every time with fought with Great Britain, and threw our weight around in China and in Latin America on a haphazard but pretty frequent basis from 1880 through 1940. During the Cold War we supported a number of loathsome regimes in order to out-compete the Soviets in that global conflict. On the other hand, we've had the whip hand over many nations in the last few decades and have not run amuck or fashioned ourselves much of an empire. It even pays pretty well to lose a war to us (Sellers' did a wonderful send-up of this in The Mouse that Roared). We're a far cry from perfect, but other nations who held a club have used it far more visciously -- Belgium's playfulness with the Congo, Japan's co-prosperity sphere, the Mongols savaging Europe etc. We may get it wrong, but a surprising portion of the time, we really do believe we're doing some of these things for the greater good.

I was referring to the early days of Israel to explain why we had such an attachment to that ally. The "underdog" mindset still strikes a chord with many in the US audience, even if it really isn't accurate anymore. As you are aware, perceptions continue to influence evaluations even if the perception is no longer fully valid unless and until a more accurate perception is internalized by the audience in question.

No, the part that appeals is that they forged a nation with a democratic tradition while having to fight for their existence for more than a quarter century. Israeli mis-applications of justice rarely get much media play in the USA, so they do not influence public opinion as broadly as the earlier, "plucky underdog" perceptions. This is why, in my opinion, Banquo is in the right of it, however difficult it would be to effect a Ghandian stance in practice. Once Israel is the ONLY participant acting violently (note, not defiantly as Ghandian tactics are quite confrontative albeit non-violent), the media coverage would have to change and support for Israeli hardliners would erode both in Israel and in its biggest financial backer, the USA.

Now that is an interesting comment. While I disagree with your overall opinion of my nation (I believe Decatur had it right), you make a fair critique when you point out that the previous strategies employed certainly haven't created any meaningfully different results in the past 20 years. I'm still waiting for a new idea that can work on a practical level -- but it's a tough playing field for rationality.

I live in a country where your birth is only tangentially relevant and you can, with hard work and a dash of luck, make yourself the richest person on the planet and be lauded for doing so. Or, conversely, you can found a movement calling for the abolition of private property and the scrapping of the Constitution in favor of Pastafarianism and the government will not prevent you from preaching your ideas or garnering followers even though you are calling for the destruction of that government. On the whole, we've got a fair handle on the freedom thing.

If you want to revel in the joys of an anarcho-syndicalist commune, go rent The Holy Grail or re-read your copy of the Little Red Book. I'll happily stick with the US of A.

A democratic tradition? Sounds like bollocks to me, the democratic ideal to brutalise and torture thousands of people? Pull the other one mate.
You are spouting the ususal American crap about democracy and oh well we tried so hard but we just got wrong stuff, you never tried anything that did not seem to advance selfish national interest. But you know what, I am not blaming you for it, you are the super power and great powers do as they want, I am disliking you for falling for you're own bollocks. When the U.S.A is no longer top dog I expect that you guys will have it tough because you believe in this lie so much. If you are going to act like realists at least think like one aswell.

I really enjoyed your bit on America the Land of the free and all that, but its just Hollywood isn't it?
I am not condemning your actions at home, yep you people do have freedom. I am condemning your actions in Latin America and your support for tyranny in The Holy Land, you see there if you are born a Palestinian you cannot make of yourself what you will, because of American funded Fascism. Just think a while on that.

And when in heck have I ever been in support of commies or anarchists?
You missed the point of my jibe.
re-read perhaps? Or even better, re-think...

@Frag
You gonna actual;ly say something of worth or point the finger at the undefined Euro-elites?
Surprise you that I do not like the EU, that I do not hate Americans? I just really hate Israel.

@Don, no I actually want Palstinians to be incorporated as citizens of Israel, thus and end to Israel.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A democratic tradition? Sounds like bollocks to me, the democratic ideal to brutalise and torture thousands of people? Pull the other one mate.
You are spouting the ususal American crap about democracy and oh well we tried so hard but we just got wrong stuff, you never tried anything that did not seem to advance selfish national interest. But you know what, I am not blaming you for it, you are the super power and great powers do as they want, I am disliking you for falling for you're own bollocks. When the U.S.A is no longer top dog I expect that you guys will have it tough because you believe in this lie so much. If you are going to act like realists at least think like one aswell.

Its a democratic tradition if you VOTE IN the next leadership cadre and those REPRESENTATIVES authorize those brutal and torturous policies. The morality of a government's actions is not necessarily guaranteed by free and fair elections. So, you find the governmental actions of the state of Israel to be loathesome and immoral -- fair enough. You'll find that quite a few people agree with you on that. Even those who are supportive of Israel don't approve of all of their actions.


I really enjoyed your bit on America the Land of the free and all that, but its just Hollywood isn't it?
I am not condemning your actions at home, yep you people do have freedom.

Okay.


I am condemning your actions in Latin America and your support for tyranny in The Holy Land, you see there if you are born a Palestinian you cannot make of yourself what you will, because of American funded Fascism. Just think a while on that.

Our actions in and regarding Latin America are a rather mixed bag. We've aided in the overthrow of governments and fought to free some countries. We've supported factions using death squads and worked to bring death squad participants to justice. We've spent millions on aid when disasters occur but spent billions to import (and try to stop the importation of) illegal drugs. Our intentions haven't always been honorable, but many times they were (which didn't necessarily mean what we were doing was effective). We conquered Mexico but gave most of it back. We've invaded a goodly number of the nations bordering the Carribean -- but never stayed (save Panama, and that we eventually gave back as well).

Our current support for Israel does help to keep Israel in business -- though not to the extent that this once was true. I'm not sure I'd label it fascism, though I can see how you'd interpret a number of their policies and actions as a form of tyranny (whatever the label). A Palestinian living in the Authority is facing a heap of difficulties that do restrict their freedom on a number of levels. After 60 years, it is difficult to say what level of suppressive tactics are justified by previously demonstrated threats coming from the other direction. Still, many of the policies and actions I see taken by Israel are harsh, whatever the justification, and you could make an argument that many of them are counterproductive as well.


And when in heck have I ever been in support of commies or anarchists?
You missed the point of my jibe.
re-read perhaps? Or even better, re-think...

You never claimed to support communism. You do seem, however, to be falling into the trap of perfect idealism in your political thinking that the examples I jokingly referenced do represent. Ideals are important goals to strive for, but expecting a perfect consistency between those ideals and policies and actions in practice is almost a pipe-dream.


@Don, no I actually want Palstinians to be incorporated as citizens of Israel, thus and end to Israel.

So Jews may live wherever they wish as individuals but have no right to a Jewish state? Why?

Have they abrogated this right through their tyrannical actions? If so, and we apply this rubric globally, there will be very few states left aside from Costa Rica and Monaco.

Have they abrogated this right by taking land which wasn't theirs in the first place? If so, and you believe the U.N. was wrong to assign part of the mandate area to a state of Israel, then who was responsible? The Brits? The Turks? It is not as though an autonomous non-Jewish state of Palestine has existed since the time of the Philistines.


You deride me for America's not living up to its own ideals but also for us "falling for our own bollocks." Don't the two points run counter to one another? Besides, its those "delusional" values that we've "fallen" for that have kept us on a better course of action than we might have taken at many points in our history. Do you REALLY want to see a USA that takes power as its sole objective and views all others as targets or obstacles? Don't mock the angels of our better nature -- the world would be worse of without them.

[Redleg]

A democratic tradition? Sounds like bollocks to me, the democratic ideal to brutalise and torture thousands of people? Pull the other one mate.
You are spouting the ususal American crap about democracy and oh well we tried so hard but we just got wrong stuff, you never tried anything that did not seem to advance selfish national interest. But you know what, I am not blaming you for it, you are the super power and great powers do as they want, I am disliking you for falling for you're own bollocks. When the U.S.A is no longer top dog I expect that you guys will have it tough because you believe in this lie so much. If you are going to act like realists at least think like one aswell.

Oh someone seems to have trouble understanding what a democratic tradition is. Since Seamus explained it very well, I will just mock this statement for the utter bollucks that it is. Where is my mocking emoticon......



I really enjoyed your bit on America the Land of the free and all that, but its just Hollywood isn't it?
I am not condemning your actions at home, yep you people do have freedom. I am condemning your actions in Latin America and your support for tyranny in The Holy Land, you see there if you are born a Palestinian you cannot make of yourself what you will, because of American funded Fascism. Just think a while on that.

Oh another half thought out mis-representation of what happened in Latin America. So we were bad in Latin America for periods of time, just like we did lots of good in Latin America during other periods of time.

As for support of the Holy Land the biggest backers of Israel up until the late 1960's was not the United States, but a few other European Nations. Now that criticism is valid for the time period after the 1973 war, when the United States started provided the majority of finicial and military aid to Israel.

But then if your born a Palestinian you also have to deal with your own internal organizations fascism, so its a lose-lose situation to be born Palestinian in Israel. And Jordan, and Syria, and yes even Lebanon.



And when in heck have I ever been in support of commies or anarchists?
You missed the point of my jibe.
re-read perhaps? Or even better, re-think...

Ah the pot calling the kettle black. If you speak bullocks dont be surprise if sarcasm results from such use.



@Frag
You gonna actual;ly say something of worth or point the finger at the undefined Euro-elites?
Surprise you that I do not like the EU, that I do not hate Americans? I just really hate Israel.


Oh so the venom in your use of language is not hate but severe criticism. Sorry there, when one uses venom its not severe criticism.



@Don, no I actually want Palstinians to be incorporated as citizens of Israel, thus and end to Israel.

You cant have both - Palstinians becoming citizens of Israel makes them Israelis. Now you might be arguing that you want the end of the current Israeli government's mindset toward the Palstinians but you have lost that point with the amount of bullocks that you have spewed regarding the subject.

Emotional arguements are all well and fine, and even useful - but it often loses its logical flow because of the emotion involved.

[Incongruous]

I am not following an Idealistic point of view in terms to Palestine, I know that nothing will ever get done that way. I am being very realistic, I understand that you as superpower can do what ever you like. That is how I approach any problem involving the U.S.A. You are the idealistic one, you have fallen for your own bollocks time and time again, not me.
The best example is that U.S leaders have the audacity to call themselves Leaders of the Free World.I almost vomit when I hear it, its just so awful and funny at the same time.

As for Latin America your School of the Americas defines for me your feelings towards the continent, Fascists are us. You are not alone in this, my own dear home country is just as complicit.

As for the right for there to be Jewish state, well I don't know about that bust it most certainly does not have the right to exist on stolen territory. But it is there to stay, and so I await for the day when Paletinians are goven citizenship and peacefully dismantle that fascist state. It would be good for the West if it was complicit in this.

Your Ideals do not keep your agression unchecked but merley allows it to be given a nice shiny gloss.

@Redleg, ok so democracy is all good with the U.S.A even though nut cases are often elected, so why hate Hamas?
Because they hate Israel right? Its all very realistsic really.

[KukriKhan]

So. Point-of-order please. If we magically took away the US's nuclear arsenal, and their ability to place a large boomski anywhere in the world...

Would they still be a so-called 'super-power'? Would they have the influence economically, militarily, morally, to bend the rest of the world to its will?

[Incongruous]

Well morall power I think went out the window a long time ago, though some still see the U.S.A as a guide in that respect. Economically, yeah I reckon the U.S.A has alot of leverage in this area though not as much as it did say, ten years ago.
Millitarily, well sure it would still be the best funded and best equipped armed forces in the world, but I reckon without nukes any millitary push would be met with threatening gestures and derisive comments, unless it came with large international backing.
A better way to do things IMHO, it's no where near as expensive as going it alone.

[Marshal Murat]

So. Point-of-order please. If we magically took away the US's nuclear arsenal, and their ability to place a large boomski anywhere in the world...

Would they still be a so-called 'super-power'? Would they have the influence economically, militarily, morally, to bend the rest of the world to its will?

It depends on when you say 'large boomski' anywhere in the world. We could lay a large 'boomski' with a couple B-52s from Diego Garcia, would other nations loose the 'boomski' as well, but besides that...
If we were to lose the possibility of nuclear retaliation, we would still have a sizable economic impact. Our military is one of the best in the world.
Morality? Heck. I don't care.

Bend the rest of the world? Yes. Through a combination of financial, military, covert, and overt actions we could possibly overthrow or launch a conflict into almost any region on the globe. If we make it legitimate enough, we could even install a friendly president (like SWAPO, except for the Communists).

I could honestly care only so much about world opinion. Just let me live my life, and I'll be happy :2thumbsup:

It's like those obnoxious Brits who come to Orlando, thinking their so hoity-toity as America's best friend. Jeesh. ~;)

[Redleg]

I am not following an Idealistic point of view in terms to Palestine, I know that nothing will ever get done that way. I am being very realistic, I understand that you as superpower can do what ever you like. That is how I approach any problem involving the U.S.A. You are the idealistic one, you have fallen for your own bollocks time and time again, not me.
The best example is that U.S leaders have the audacity to call themselves Leaders of the Free World.I almost vomit when I hear it, its just so awful and funny at the same time.

I would say you are not viewing it as realistic given some of your rethoric regarding the events in Israel. Don't confuse pointing out your errors with an idealistic approach. Now audacity is often viewed as a good thing for leaders to have, so again it seems your failure is to attempt to generalize one group into how all think. Your missing the lessons of men like Martin Luther King, Malcom X, and even some other figures in American History. Democracy allows for freedom of speech. All other forms attempt to curtail that freedom.

Poor attempt there on your part. Calling any nation that supports freedom of speech a fascist state is nothing other then bullocks. Calling it incorrect, calling it misguided, calling it false, and having severe and pointed criticism on its failures is one thing and often apporiated, but calling it fascist is the language of the old anarcy and marxist schools as refered by Seamus with the little red book comment.



As for Latin America your School of the Americas defines for me your feelings towards the continent, Fascists are us. You are not alone in this, my own dear home country is just as complicit.

Actually the military training portion was just one of the many programs of the School of the America's. That it ended up being one of the major portions of that program does not necessarily equate to the charge of Fascism that you are applying toward it. You might look more into the history of our dealings in Latin America, give you a hint look into the several decade long program of sending the Army Corps of Engineers down into Latin America to build infrastructure for several of those nations. Does it make up for some of our more notorious actions - nope, but it shows a side to the issue that so far you seemly continue to ignore.



As for the right for there to be Jewish state, well I don't know about that bust it most certainly does not have the right to exist on stolen territory. But it is there to stay, and so I await for the day when Paletinians are goven citizenship and peacefully dismantle that fascist state. It would be good for the West if it was complicit in this.

Again you are attempting an emotional appeal arguement. Claiming that it does not have the right to exist on stolen territory. Care to guess how many current nations exist on "stolen territory?" Are you upset because you fail to understand and acknowledge the history of the actual UN Mandate that established Israel? Now pointing out the use of terrorism during 1948 that lead to the creation of the current Israel state would be something to discuss, but saying it was stolen actually is sort of laughable. That is like claiming all whites in the United States stole the land from the orginial peoples. Guess what the orginial native american tribes are also land thiefs by your current arguement.

Or are you only complaining about the lands taken by Israel after the 1967 War? Now while one can claim conquered terrority is stolen you will have a hard time proving that Israel on the whole is "stolen territory?" Unless of course you wish to discount the fact that the jewish people have lived in the area for several thousand years just like the other people's within that area.



Your Ideals do not keep your agression unchecked but merley allows it to be given a nice shiny gloss.


Actually it does a bit more then this. Now if our Congress actually upheld the standards imposed on it by the constitution some things would be more then just a nice shiny gloss



@Redleg, ok so democracy is all good with the U.S.A even though nut cases are often elected, so why hate Hamas?

Did I say I hated Hamas as the elected representives of the Palenstian authority? I think thier election demonstrates how fundmentally screwed by their leadership the Palenstine people have become. They traded the facsists of Fatah for the facsists of Hamas. (Using your rethoric) Actually Hamas has a useful purpose if they would renounce the use of terrorism to reach a political end. They are well organized and actually have some decent social programs established to take care of the people. They need to correct themselves on teaching children to be suicide bombers, stop using the rethoric of terrorism and seek a peaceful solution to the issues that they face.

The funny thing about a free society is that it allows people to say what they feel on an issue, be they right, wrong, or confused on the subject. An examble is just this board in fact. The government of the United States has the ability to decide which countries they deal with and how based upon whatever determining factors it wishes to use. And it can even be changed by the nature of who we elect into government. So if the current government of the United States does not want to deal with Hamas - and I am against that position - I can activitly protest or even seek to change that position by voting for someone that see the issue the way I do. Oh wait - the United States is a fascist state.... Laughable



Because they hate Israel right? Its all very realistsic really.

Actually it has nothing to do with that fact they hate Israel. So until your willing to address that point your veiw is not very realistic at all.

[LittleGrizzly]

Our actions in and regarding Latin America are a rather mixed bag.

i think thats putting it nicely, all rich developed countrys give aid, helping them fight drugs is simply part of the drug war in america, i would call america's history with latin america fairly bad...

So Jews may live wherever they wish as individuals but have no right to a Jewish state? Why?

Have they abrogated this right through their tyrannical actions? If so, and we apply this rubric globally, there will be very few states left aside from Costa Rica and Monaco.

Have they abrogated this right by taking land which wasn't theirs in the first place? If so, and you believe the U.N. was wrong to assign part of the mandate area to a state of Israel, then who was responsible? The Brits? The Turks? It is not as though an autonomous non-Jewish state of Palestine has existed since the time of the Philistines.

For a start i don't see why there needs to be an exclusive jewish state, secondly thier treatment isn't so much a reason for them to be incoporated more like the one the reason's the situation has come to this, thirdly yes the U.N was wrong to do it, i think most people agree, I have heard UK played a role in the mandate i don't know how much though. Im not sure what you mean by that last bit but there where people living in the area before the immagration after ww2.

[Incongruous]

Ok Redleg, your governmen does not support fascism at home, well done, but I already knew that.
It does support fascism abroad, no question, oh wait thats right you can wave reconstruction programs in my face. Highstreets sure look nice, just keep those huge slums out of the way.

You also perhaps realised that after screwing Latin Americans over and over again that some fake smiles and cheap money might help you out, well done.

I cannot believe that you are actually defending The school of the Americas, it was nothing but repugnent, training nut cases on how to be fascists.

As for the charge that Israel does not have the right to exist on stolen land. You are right, it exist now and to force those people off their land would be horrible and un-christian. So perhaps the U.S.A wouldn't have too much of a problem with it. No I was talking about the occupied territories mainly, though I despise the way Israel was created.

The case of Hamas I think highlights the expendability of America's defense of Democracy, you could have talked, instead you starved people. Yep well done there, even more extremists to kill us!:2thumbsup:

A nation that supports Freedom of Speech? Yeah right and I'm Bill Gates, get over it Redleg the U.S.A supports this ideal for its own people and for everyone else when it's a useful tool, but then again cheap oil is more important right? The comfort of your own people first right? Just admit it.

[Tribesman]

Don't know that one Tribes'. Please give us the quotation.

Here you go Seamus , President Truman....

Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes.

Would you like the longer version or some of the other quotes (some of which could be deemed as rather nasty) .


Tribesmen would call it WORLD JEWISH CONSPIRACY. I never belied it but TRIBESMEN OPENED MY EYES.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Strange how the mind of a rabid anti-semitic nationalist works

[KrooK]

Sorry but when I see your post then
better be anti-semite than Tribesman :):) :) :)

You keep talking that there have never been jewish conspiracy but75% of your post include words
"jewish conspiracy". I think that is just a mental illness - you see people who yell about jewish conspiracy everywhere but ... no one else see them.

Co oznacza misiek ze jestes chory psychicznie - leczyc sie trzeba.

<Daily report for Tribesmen - words above shows us that KrooK believe into world jewish conspiracy.>

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Our actions in and regarding Latin America are a rather mixed bag.

i think thats putting it nicely, all rich developed countrys give aid, helping them fight drugs is simply part of the drug war in america, i would call america's history with latin america fairly bad...

I meant that we were both aiding to combat illegal drugs and providing all of the funding FOR drugs with our nearly insatiable appetite for cocaine. The whole Drug War is rather mixed up and internally counterproductive.

I suspect that many Latin Americans would agree with your overall summary -- with a fair deal of justification. I just don't think "El Norte's" poor choices explain more of Latin America's problems than do the actions of Latin Americans.



For a start i don't see why there needs to be an exclusive jewish state, secondly thier treatment isn't so much a reason for them to be incoporated more like the one the reason's the situation has come to this, thirdly yes the U.N was wrong to do it, i think most people agree, I have heard UK played a role in the mandate i don't know how much though. Im not sure what you mean by that last bit but there where people living in the area before the immagration after ww2.

The argument was, following the Holocaust, that the Jews had been singled out for pogroms and the like more than any other sub-group. One of the reasons this was felt to be the case is that there was no nation that was uniquely "Jewish" in character to serve as a protector/conscience. Without such a state, the Jews anywhere would be a minority and subject to marginalization etc. This viewpoint pre-dated the Holocaust, though the scale of that pogromattic effort generated far more of a groundswell in support of the zionist cause than had anything previously.

Certainly there were people living in the region. This has been the case for more than 3 millenia. My comment was that there hadn't been an independent "Palestine" (believed to be etymologically linked to Philistine) in 23 centuries or more at the time of the UN decision to create Israel. The region had been the property of someone else. After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the region was part of a League of Nations mandate administered by Great Britain. This mandate was then assumed by the UN. The UN can be faulted for failing to take into adequate consideration the opinions/preferences of the local population, but to argue that the decision to create Israel superceded the sovereignty of some existing autonomous entity is incorrect.

[Redleg]

Ok Redleg, your governmen does not support fascism at home, well done, but I already knew that.
It does support fascism abroad, no question, oh wait thats right you can wave reconstruction programs in my face. Highstreets sure look nice, just keep those huge slums out of the way.

To bad your blind - only looking at the negatives. So the United States did no good rebuilding Germany and Japan. Has done no good in South Korea. Has not done any good in Latin America. Yep as stated before we have also done very bad things in Latin America so your attempt at sarcism here is completely misplaced. To bad your having a poor time arguing your position.



You also perhaps realised that after screwing Latin Americans over and over again that some fake smiles and cheap money might help you out, well done.

Good thing I never stated something like that now isn't? What I have stated is that we have done both.



I cannot believe that you are actually defending The school of the Americas, it was nothing but repugnent, training nut cases on how to be fascists.

Some of the postive programs - as in teaching sound argiculture practices should be defended. Now that doesn't excuse the training of right wing death squads that abound in the late 1970's and 1980's, but those programs demonstrate that not all of the school was based upon military training. Your having a very difficult time actually reading what is written versus what you wish to believe.



As for the charge that Israel does not have the right to exist on stolen land. You are right, it exist now and to force those people off their land would be horrible and un-christian. So perhaps the U.S.A wouldn't have too much of a problem with it. No I was talking about the occupied territories mainly, though I despise the way Israel was created.

Oh the anti-American stance is definitily showing there. What is it that makes you hate the United States so much that you continue to believe we are facsists? Is it because you want us to play the world police supporting the world with our resources and wealth? Sorry bud - that is not how the real world works.

Israel has a right to exist as a nation - they have demonstrated that they have that right to exist by defeating their enemies not once but several times. Compline all you want about how Israel came to exist - but that was a direct reflection of the guilt that Europe had concerning the genocide committed by Germany on the Jews - and most of Europe's complacy in that genocide. The United States supported the creation of the jewish state and the old USSR decide not to veto its creation.

So what we are left with in the political reality is that the state of Israel and the Palenstine's have to learn to live with each other. What the United States does or doesn't do to help that along is not near as important as what both of those groups have to do.



The case of Hamas I think highlights the expendability of America's defense of Democracy, you could have talked, instead you starved people. Yep well done there, even more extremists to kill us!:2thumbsup:

Since most Western Nations also boycott the Hamas elected Palestine Authority - your anger is just marginally mis-directed. Its not the United States straving the Palestine people - Hamas has been given some conditions to recieve aid - so it seems that the Palestine Authority is who is straving its own people. So if you only going to look at one side of the issue - you can not claim to be grounded in reality.



A nation that supports Freedom of Speech? Yeah right and I'm Bill Gates, get over it Redleg the U.S.A supports this ideal for its own people and for everyone else when it's a useful tool, but then again cheap oil is more important right? The comfort of your own people first right? Just admit it.

Never stated that the United States did not look toward the welfare of its own people first and foremost. In fact it seems you have been misreading what has been written.

Are you attempting to claim that the United States does not support Freedom of Speech? Its very easy to provide evidence that the United States does indeed support Freedom of Speech, so again attempting such rethoric with me only weakens your arguement, and demostrates that your position is not based on any real merit - but an anti- stance if you like.

[Incongruous]

Hahaha, oh man, I have already told you I fully appreciate why the U.S.A does what it does. It is a superpower and so it don't give a toss about any principles unless they secure it some material gain. I totally get it, so i find it funny when you decry the actions of so called terrorists from a supposedly moral point of view, it just so damned funny. Act real and get real.

I was also arguing the case against Israel froma realistic point of view, you want a more stable Holy Land and by extension Mid-East? Sort out those fascists in Israel. As I said your nation is not alone in its support of fascists, my home country does the same. But you guys are the big wolf and so as I said you are the major target, sound realistic to you?

Or feel free to continue being short sighted and idiotic when it comes to the Holy Land and watch as people get blown to pieces...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hahaha, oh man, I have already told you I fully appreciate why the U.S.A does what it does. It is a superpower and so it don't give a toss about any principles unless they secure it some material gain. I totally get it, so i find it funny when you decry the actions of so called terrorists from a supposedly moral point of view, it just so damned funny. Act real and get real.

Utter poppycock. While I will not claim that "material gain" has not and does not influence American policy to a significant extent, history demonstrates that the USA is not motivated solely by the acquisition of power and resources. Were we to always "act real" as you suggest, then:

Mexico would have been annexed in 1843, not paid poorly for territory we had already conquered.

The divers Indian tribes would have been assimilated or anhilated promptly and efficiently (instead of haphazardly over the course of more than a century) -- and we certainly would not let them set up casinos to fleece us on an ongoing basis today.

Cuba and the Phillipines would have been annexed and maintained as terrotories and never allowed to acquire independence.

Panama would not only have been stolen from the Columbians, but occupied as a U.S. state, thus providing us with a springboard from which to acquire the rest of Central America and possibly the Northern tier of South America with its oil resources.

During the First World War, we would have a) never intervened, thus allowing the participants to bleed even more and for Germany -- and possibly France -- to have followed Russia into internal collapse (leaving us Britain's sole rival), or b) intervened early, allowing our limited ground forces but decently sized navy to be used to acquire German overseas territory without any real losses to ourselves without ever suffering the Argonne.

I'll set aside World War II, simply too many variables to consider.

We could have used atomic weapons on massed Chinese "volunteer" forces during the Korean War. This would have ended the intervention. They made an ideal target and the results would have saved thousands of American lives and allowed us to expand South Korea to include about half of present-day North Korea without including the blighted zones.

During the Hungarian Crisis of 1956 we could have intervened on behalf of the non-communists and launched a strike against the Soviet Union when they failed to withdraw immediately. Remember, Soviet abilities to deliver nuclear weapons were limited (which is why sputnik, not long after this, scared us silly). We were well aware that their liquid-fueled rockets were not reliable intercontinentally -- but that SAC was. A few European targets would have been immolated (omelets and eggs you know), but the Soviets would have been crushed, their armies gutted with nuclear weapons, and then we could have used latent separatism in the USSR to break them up into pieces (but working to establish wonderful relations with Azerbaijan and outright annexing large chunks of thinly-populated but resource-rich Siberia).

I could go on, but I'll cease throwing examples and summarize. There are NUMEROUS occasions where a strictly rational and totally self-interested USA could have acted differently and rewarded itself far more. Our morality may be imperfect and certainly has been imperfectly and sometimes unevenly applied -- but I believe the world is better off for us having that outlook. We are not the saints we sometimes like to consider ourselves, but we are a far cry from the viscious bastards you seem to see in us.


I was also arguing the case against Israel froma realistic point of view, you want a more stable Holy Land and by extension Mid-East? Sort out those fascists in Israel. As I said your nation is not alone in its support of fascists, my home country does the same. But you guys are the big wolf and so as I said you are the major target, sound realistic to you?

Mid-East stability is a pipe dream. It has never been stable for more than a decade or so at a stretch. US efforts have been no more successful -- and not much less successful -- than anyone else's. If the locals ever decide on stability, that might change. However, as the Middle East is the quintessential example of the normal form of human governance -- warlordism -- I don't think this likely. Note: If you don't think Warlordism is the norm and nation-states the abberation, you need to read more history.


Or feel free to continue being short sighted and idiotic when it comes to the Holy Land and watch as people get blown to pieces...

I thought you were the champion of us getting "real?" Wouldn't it be more logical for us to encourage them to kill each other by the cart-load so that our acquisition of resources would be that much easier? No thanks, I'll take our current best efforts -- flawed though they be -- over your absolutist answer [Israel must be phased out and and Arab dominance re-established -- not that you put it quite that clearly].

[Conradus]

Utter poppycock. While I will not claim that "material gain" has not and does not influence American policy to a significant extent, history demonstrates that the USA is not motivated solely by the acquisition of power and resources. Were we to always "act real" as you suggest, then:

Mexico would have been annexed in 1843, not paid poorly for territory we had already conquered.

The divers Indian tribes would have been assimilated or anhilated promptly and efficiently (instead of haphazardly over the course of more than a century) -- and we certainly would not let them set up casinos to fleece us on an ongoing basis today.

Cuba and the Phillipines would have been annexed and maintained as terrotories and never allowed to acquire independence.


Without trying to hijack the thread, but Bopa has a point you somewhere. What the USA did in her past with those mentioned examples was -most of the time- the best it could do for itself. Or do you believe that a nation, now the most powerful in the world that's having great difficulty sustainting two foreign wars could have occupied/annexed countries that were about as accessible and hostile a century and a half ago when said nation was far from the most powerfull around.

I highly doubt the USA was capable then of pulling such actions. Hawai and the Phillipines resisted a lot already. Annexation of Cuba and the Phillies wouldn't have lessened that resistance.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I highly doubt the USA was capable then of pulling such actions. Hawai and the Phillipines resisted a lot already. Annexation of Cuba and the Phillies wouldn't have lessened that resistance.

We did face significant opposition in the Phillipines (1901-1905) -- and bested it.* The tactics used were "acceptable" according to the standards of the time, but totally unacceptable today. Opposition in Cuba would have been no more difficult, and the logistics of applying force would have been vastly easier. Hawaiian resistance to U.S. control was minimal.

* Yes, I am aware that resistance was never completely eliminated and that the current Mindanao separatists can actually trace their origins to those groups founded to oppose U.S. occupation following the elimination of the Spanish presence. In practice, however, the opposition forces were marginalized and kept so throughout the period of U.S. control of the Phillipines.

[Incongruous]

Wait wait, you could have divided the mid-east for your own good?
You did divide the mid-east and get them to wage war on each other, you did it pretty damn well, though I must say when looking at History you are not so adept as the old colonial powers. But then again Israel really fudges the scene.

Being short sighted does not equate to realism, it equates to being stupid. If you really want to expand and protect your interests then you need to force reform in Saudi Arabia and an end to the racism of Israel, I would honestly have thought that the Cold War taught you that this is your only real option.

Look we both obviously see U.S history in a different way and look at certain situations in a different way so I will drop it, though you can keep it up if you want.

The answer that Mid-East peace is a pipe-dream is a lie and an attempt to justify the current state of affairs there. I will never accept that war and destruction is the only way for the region, its a dream. Or a nightmare, such an existence is not realistic. Peace is more common than war, thats realistic.

I'm not going to touch your own opinion about the natural state of human governance and the civic body except to say that such broad concepts are far too white tower for my liking.
Warlordism? Man there are like 1000 new 'ism's every day:yes:

[Redleg]

Hahaha, oh man, I have already told you I fully appreciate why the U.S.A does what it does. It is a superpower and so it don't give a toss about any principles unless they secure it some material gain. I totally get it, so i find it funny when you decry the actions of so called terrorists from a supposedly moral point of view, it just so damned funny. Act real and get real.

This is as Seamus alreadly states such a load of bullocks that its just so darn funny. So your discounting the relief efforts to those stricken last year by the Tusmia that hit several nations in the Indian Ocean. Where is the securing of material gain from that action?

So again your reality is not a true reality.



I was also arguing the case against Israel froma realistic point of view, you want a more stable Holy Land and by extension Mid-East? Sort out those fascists in Israel. As I said your nation is not alone in its support of fascists, my home country does the same. But you guys are the big wolf and so as I said you are the major target, sound realistic to you?

I would say your not arguing from a realistic point of view - realists understand that both sides have created the problem. So when one argues only against Israel - I find it very doubtful that they are being realistic, because avoidance of the whole picture is not realistic. I find all sides have done wrong and continue to do wrong in regards to Israel and the Palenstine issue.



Or feel free to continue being short sighted and idiotic when it comes to the Holy Land and watch as people get blown to pieces...

Frankly this statement is completely laughable. When one group has as its manifesto to destroy Israel nothing an outside power can do will prevent the violence from happening. While I detest Jimmy Carter - he did do one thing right during his Presidency - and we see where that has gotten the peace process in Israel. Or have you forgetten that bit of history also?

[Redleg]

Wait wait, you could have divided the mid-east for your own good?
You did divide the mid-east and get them to wage war on each other, you did it pretty damn well, though I must say when looking at History you are not so adept as the old colonial powers. But then again Israel really fudges the scene.

Sorry Incorrect once again the United States did not divide the Middle-East for the United States own good. You might look a little closer to home in Europe for the two nations with that honor. Again trying to base your reality on a terrible understanding of history shoots you in the foot.



Being short sighted does not equate to realism, it equates to being stupid. If you really want to expand and protect your interests then you need to force reform in Saudi Arabia and an end to the racism of Israel, I would honestly have thought that the Cold War taught you that this is your only real option.

End racism in Israel - first one would have to end racism in the United States and all of Europe first. So again unrealistic expectations do not make for a realistic viewpoint.



Look we both obviously see U.S history in a different way and look at certain situations in a different way so I will drop it, though you can keep it up if you want.

Are you begining to realize that your view is history is distorted from reality. Blaming the United States for the divisions created by Britian and France after WW1 when the Ottaman Empire was desolved because of their defeat in that war?



The answer that Mid-East peace is a pipe-dream is a lie and an attempt to justify the current state of affairs there. I will never accept that war and destruction is the only way for the region, its a dream. Or a nightmare, such an existence is not realistic. Peace is more common than war, thats realistic.

You might want to look at your own history a bit more closely - warfare has been part of mankind and is just as common as peace. Middle-East peace can only come from within the people that live in the middle-east. No outside power will force peace. To claim that the United States can force Israel and Palenstine into a peaceful co-existance falls flat on its face when faced with reality.


I'm not going to touch your own opinion about the natural state of human governance and the civic body except to say that such broad concepts are far too white tower for my liking.
Warlordism? Man there are like 1000 new 'ism's every day:yes:

Whats the problem - can't cope with the reality of the world? Care to guess how many conflicts are going on in the world right now?

[Conradus]

You might want to look at your own history a bit more closely - warfare has been part of mankind and is just as common as peace. Middle-East peace can only come from within the people that live in the middle-east. No outside power will force peace. To claim that the United States can force Israel and Palenstine into a peaceful co-existance falls flat on its face when faced with reality.

Might I inquire then why the USA stations troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Might I inquire then why the USA stations troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

We're trying, with our blood and treasure, to buy enough time for the locals to establish relatively stable and somewhat democratically-driven systems of governance and to allow those new forms to begin the process of institutionalization. This transition is something that took us in the USA at least a decade -- without a guerilla opposition to face. Not an easy task.

Numerous voices -- some our own -- think that the project is a pipe dream.

[yesdachi]

:hijacked:

The US government and the independent people of the US thru non-governmental organizations like the red cross and the thousands of church sponsored programs give more money, time, food and medical aid to countries in need than most other countries combined and we still get spit at by people who cant see past their predigests.

If the US were a conquering nation we certainly wouldn’t be helping so many others who live in countries that are unfriendly to us and we surly wouldn’t be loosing lives everyday in an effort to build stability in the Middle East.

I would love to run out a scenario where grandma and grandpa sent their money to the “Conquer the world fund” instead of the fund to help country X with disaster Y. I am confident that the vast majority of Americans are moral and feel obligated to help others less fortunate but there are a lot of powerful corporations and selfish government officials who don’t feel the same and make America look bad.

But look at it like this…The average household in America gives $1,620 a year to charity. If that money (if my math is right, 186 billion dollars) was sent to the “Conquer the world fund” I think the people that bitch about the selfish USA would be justified but instead they are just wrong.

:idea: 186 billion would pay for a sweet merc army!

[PanzerJaeger]

Wait.. theres a Conquer the World fund? Where's my checkbook...?

[drone]

Wait.. theres a Conquer the World fund? Where's my checkbook...?

As a bonus, I believe it is a 501(c). ~;)

[LittleGrizzly]

The US government and the independent people of the US thru non-governmental organizations like the red cross and the thousands of church sponsored programs give more money, time, food and medical aid to countries in need than most other countries combined and we still get spit at by people who cant see past their predigests.

Almost all developed countries give aid, it is not a get out jail free card, ohh sure we did this and that but look at all the aid we've given surely were still the good guys ?

I suppose the other part of it is Americas claim that it does things for the good of the world, the majority of the time its just its own national interests guiding policy, which is fair enough just don't claim to be helping when your just acting through national interest....

[Tribesman]

The US government and the independent people of the US thru non-governmental organizations like the red cross and the thousands of church sponsored programs give more money, time, food and medical aid to countries in need than most other countries combined and we still get spit at by people who cant see past their predigests.
There was this carpenter a while ago that told a story about someone that gave lots of money and thought it made him special .

[Incongruous]

Ok, Redleg the U.S.A has never attempted to divide the middle-east for its own gain, never ever...

When I said the racism in Israel I was talking about political racism, you know like you guys had 60 or so years ago, and I think you knew that. If you attempt to refute this you are either increadibly pro-Israel/zionist or you do not care to read.

Peace cannot be forced! Yes well done we are both starting to get somewhere. You cannot force peace very well, though I expect it can be done. Innstead you can start being reasonable and realistic when it comes to The Holy Land, and please don't give me that crap about a Mid-East Road map, because Israel is still building settlements and the U.S.A does not give a toss.

The U.S.A has every power to force Israel back to its borders but you seem to feel that you cannot do this, perhaps ten more years of suicide bombings will make the U.S.A see sense.

I am not realistic for not indulging myself in White Tower generalisations about the state of man's civic society reminiscent of Aristotle's? Yeah and pigs can fly.
C;mon give me more of ya 'ism's.:smash:

[yesdachi]

Almost all developed countries give aid, it is not a get out jail free card, ohh sure we did this and that but look at all the aid we've given surely were still the good guys ?

So you don’t think we are the good guys?


And Tribes, I am not looking to be considered special I am just defensive about comments like this.

Well moral power I think went out the window a long time ago – Bopa about the US

Our government acts big and stupid (like all other governments, we just happen to have one of the biggest therefore its seen acting stupid more often) but to suggest the country is without morals is short sighted. Look a little further and you can see that the country is filled with people doing good.

A few posts later Bopa says

I understand that you as superpower can do what ever you like

If that is true, and we were filled with immoral people wouldn’t we be pillaging countries less powerful than we are rather than sending charity, supplies and soldiers there to help them.

Look at the people on this board that are from the US, do you find them without morals?

Don’t let your predigests for American politics spoil your view of Americans. Name something that the US has done that is crummy to another country and then ask a regular American if they agree with the decision. I don’t think so. I still get pissed that we didn’t send a few troops to the Falklands back in the 80’s.

[Xiahou]

There was this carpenter a while ago that told a story about someone that gave lots of money and thought it made him special .I think he also said something about worrying about your own wrongs before worrying about those of others. :idea2:

[KarlXII]

Hawaiian resistance to U.S. control was minimal.


Seeing as they were mainly working on sugar plantations, owned by white Americans (Funny how that works....), who strip the native king of powers and grant powers to themselves at gunpoint, I don't think Hawaii could do a lot of resisting.

[LittleGrizzly]

Before i start i would like to say i think there is a difference between the US goverments actions and its citizens opinion, i dont think for a second the majority of americans would support death squads in latin america for example...

So you don’t think we are the good guys?

Not so much not nice guys, in the equivelent of the world playground your the big kid and sure you steal the other kids sweets now and again but you tend not to beat on people too much and stick up for the smallest kids now and again, your an improvement on the bullys we had before

I suppose a better example of my point about giving aid not making up for doing bad things would be a fictional afghanastan, imagine if Afghanastan back in september 2001 had been the most generous aid giving nation, the country gave a large portion of its GDP to aid, and many of it citizens gave to charity very generously and went around the world helping people, and then 9/11 happens with the taliban sheltering al qaeda, all thier generousity (even if it alot more than the bad they have done) wouldn't seem quite so important, thats why similar pleas about generous aid giving would fall on deaf ears in latin america and the middle east...

Look a little further and you can see that the country is filled with people doing good.

I think bopa talks of american policy rather than american citizens

I think he also said something about worrying about your own wrongs before worrying about those of others.

Irony right here...

[Redleg]

Ok, Redleg the U.S.A has never attempted to divide the middle-east for its own gain, never ever...

Control aspects of the Middle East would be correct - attempt to divide arguement falls flat on its face when looking at history. The Middle-East was divided by France and England as part of their mandate at the end of World War 2. Your agruement wasnt about control other nations but dividing the total middle-east. This is a false arguement.



When I said the racism in Israel I was talking about political racism, you know like you guys had 60 or so years ago, and I think you knew that. If you attempt to refute this you are either increadibly pro-Israel/zionist or you do not care to read.f

Sorry there Bopa - racism is racism in all its ugly forms. I dont seperate one form of racism from the other. You want racism to end take a closer look at your own nation before criticizing other nations on racism. As for calling me a Zionist - that is laughable since I firmly believe both sides are wrong. So try again with a different label.



Peace cannot be forced! Yes well done we are both starting to get somewhere. You cannot force peace very well, though I expect it can be done. Innstead you can start being reasonable and realistic when it comes to The Holy Land, and please don't give me that crap about a Mid-East Road map, because Israel is still building settlements and the U.S.A does not give a toss.

Again reasonable and realistic is not something you have presented - you have presented just one type of arguement. Nope wasn't taking about the Mid-East Road Map but something else entirily. Do a little research into Jimmy Carter's peace building efforts in the that region.



The U.S.A has every power to force Israel back to its borders but you seem to feel that you cannot do this, perhaps ten more years of suicide bombings will make the U.S.A see sense.

Again the United States can not force Israel back to its pre-1967 borders - what we can do is encourage them, and even force sanctions onto them to to so - but in the end its up to Israel to do the right thing. I find statement saying the United States can force another nation to do something as not talking a peaceful nor realistic approach to the situation. Maybe ten more years of suicide bombings will force both Israel and the Palenstine people to see a path to peace.



I am not realistic for not indulging myself in White Tower generalisations about the state of man's civic society reminiscent of Aristotle's? Yeah and pigs can fly.
C;mon give me more of ya 'ism's.:smash:

you didnt even come close to smashing the arguement given I didnt use an ism - again you fail to address the actual question.

[Tribesman]

Again the United States can not force Israel back to its pre-1967 borders
Why not ? you forced N.Korea back to its line ,you forced saddam out of the province he claimed as Iraqi territory , you forced Russia out of Afghanistan .
Why is Israel so different ?

[Redleg]

Why not ? you forced N.Korea back to its line ,you forced saddam out of the province he claimed as Iraqi territory , you forced Russia out of Afghanistan .
Why is Israel so different ?

Since he is speaking of a peaceful solution - then the answer is we can not force them back, all we can do is encourage them by negoation, concessions, and sanctions.

If you wish to discuss purely military means - we can address that also, but that goes against his initial premise, and if that is what he desire for the United States to do, it would make his whole arguement one of severe hyprocrisy.

But just to play along - for one being where will we start the invasion of Israel at? In order to go to war with Israel how much military force will be required? What is the available military force available given the current committment of troops? Which region are you will to sacrifice to complete defeat in order to force a somewhat allie back to its pre-1967 borders? So if you care to continue with that course of discussion you are going to have to do a lot better with the arguement, and are you willing to make the premise Bopa is arguing one of complete hypocrisy?

Now as for forcing North Korea back to its line - shall we discuss history of that conflict some more? Given that the forcing was done at a significant cost? Given that several times the front line shifted along the hills that make up the DMZ.

Do you wish the United States to fund Islamic Fundmental groups like we did in Afganstan to help force the Russians to leave? Afganstan is not a situation where the United States forced Russia out, we helped to fund the organizations that actually accomplished that task. One of Bopa chief compliants is one of short term thinking that was pursued in doing so, now I might disagree with him regarding how much blame solely rests on the United States in that regard - he is correct short term thinking has created a mess in the Middle-East starting with the British and French Mandates after WW1. By funding more Islamic "Terrorist" groups to force Israel to its pre-1967 borders would be just that type of short term thinking that Bopa is arguing against - which in essence supports the arguement about the United States can not force Israel back to its pre-1967 borders in that way. Unless of course he is willing to make a complete hypocrisy of his arguement.

Now for Saddam its rather easy - we developed a base of operations with Allied nations to do so? Do we have that same ability with the Nations surrounding Israel? Now a collation of sorts can be developed but its another short term thinking type of operation - are you willing to have the Irish troops occupy Israel to maintain the peace between the two groups? I am not willing to put US Troops into such a circumstance at all. Last time we got involved in that type of conflict - a bombing resulted that killed men who were not allowed to defend themselves under the rules of engagement.

So do you wish for more violence in the Middle-East there Tribesy? Does that equation mean its a short term goal or a long term goal?

And why is Israel different? Let's see - are they committing acts of War against another soverign nation or are they conducting operations against a non-national group within its own borders?

I don't agree with what Israel is doing - but its not the United States place to force Israel back to pre-1967 borders? If you want that done - find another world policeman to accomplish that task.
We got enough problems of our on creation to deal with then adding another one to the alreadly burning bonfire that is just barely in control.

I have seen how well the United States plays the policeman of the world - your damned if you do, and your damned if you don't. Let the Irish play policeman for a bit.

[Incongruous]

What the heck Redleg?
Ok divide can have many meanings and does not have to pertain to people drawing maps on lines, you know this, so stop playing around.:dizzy2:

Racism is racism, oh man Redleg this is awsome!. Are you trying to equate what Israel is doing to something NZ and Britain are doing? Do you even know what Israel does to the pelestinians? Or do you just not give a toss?

Again Redleg I am talking about sorting out The Holy Land, the U.S is not doing it, as long as you allow Israel to act in a fascist and illegal way you aint gonna get spit for anything. So why hold back?
Why is Israel able to drag you down with it in the mid-east? It's nothing but a gian anchor round your neck. Lose it. You are it's purse and you control your own strings.

Oh and what argument was I meant to smash? I just said that I didn't like such state of civic nature type remarks for the reason that they are too generalised and white tower.
As for the 'ism comment, I was just making fun of the term Warlordism, it's awsome:2thumbsup:

[Conradus]

And why is Israel different? Let's see - are they committing acts of War against another soverign nation or are they conducting operations against a non-national group within its own borders?


Arguably? They're doing both.

[Redleg]

What the heck Redleg?
Ok divide can have many meanings and does not have to pertain to people drawing maps on lines, you know this, so stop playing around.:dizzy2:

You might want to be clear on which way you mean it then. As stated before the United States did not divide the Middle-East. pretty clear cut what divide means - break apart. Now attempting to control Iran by supporting the Sha is not dividing.



Racism is racism, oh man Redleg this is awsome!. Are you trying to equate what Israel is doing to something NZ and Britain are doing? Do you even know what Israel does to the pelestinians? Or do you just not give a toss?

do you know what racism is given the nature of your statements I don't think you do. As for what Israel does to the Palenstine's yep I know what is going on - just like I know what the Palenstine's do to Israel. Unfortunately for you I also place the blame on who is at fault - Israel and the Palenstine leadership. I dont mix vement hate toward other nations for the problems that are going on in Israel because of the Israeli government and the Palenstine authority. Can you say the same thing?

Care to guess what Austrilia did with its aborgine's? How about what South Africa? As stated numerous times on this site - I find both sides wrong. So guess what its not a matter of not giving a toss - I find both equally wrong with their racism and hate. However I dont go blaming others for the problems that face the two sides - I look squarely at the two combatants.



Again Redleg I am talking about sorting out The Holy Land, the U.S is not doing it, as long as you allow Israel to act in a fascist and illegal way you aint gonna get spit for anything. So why hold back?
Why is Israel able to drag you down with it in the mid-east? It's nothing but a gian anchor round your neck. Lose it. You are it's purse and you control your own strings.

Actually there you go again only addressing Israel - have you seen the fascist behavior of the Palentine authority? How about the text books calling for the killing of jews that was published by the Palestine authority at one time? Again you haven't talked about sorting out the Holy Land - you have talked solely about Israel. Haven't seen you faced the reality that certain groups with the Palenstine people are also an equal part of the problem. One sided fixes do not fix the problem.



Oh and what argument was I meant to smash? I just said that I didn't like such state of civic nature type remarks for the reason that they are too generalised and white tower.
As for the 'ism comment, I was just making fun of the term Warlordism, it's awsome:2thumbsup:


Again you avoid the answer. Blaming the United States is so much easier for you do to now isn't it? Now care to guess how many conflicts are going on in the world as we speak? Give you a clue its a fairily high double digit number.

[Redleg]

Arguably? They're doing both.

Arguably would be correct. However until the Palenstine state is actually declared its a tough arguement to actually pursue.

Anyone ever wondered how Jordan and Syria treats its Palenstine refugee's?

[Kralizec]

There are Palestinian refugees (if you can still call them that) all over the middle east. I heard that they were one of the hardest hit groups when the violence started picking up in Iraq some years ago.

[Conradus]

Arguably would be correct. However until the Palenstine state is actually declared its a tough arguement to actually pursue.

Anyone ever wondered how Jordan and Syria treats its Palenstine refugee's?

I wasn't even referring to Palestine, though their actions against the Palestinian Authority could be catalogued as such. I was referring to their war in Lebanon two years ago. They violated the sovereignty of said country, that's war.

[Tribesman]

are you willing to have the Irish troops occupy Israel to maintain the peace between the two groups? I am not willing to put US Troops into such a circumstance at all. Last time we got involved in that type of conflict - a bombing resulted that killed men who were not allowed to defend themselves under the rules of engagement.

Oh dear Red , its funny you want to mention that event since Irish troops are still there so its a silly question .
And as for the rules of engagement you are on about they did allow the American troops to defend themselves . The problem was they hadn't taken measures to prevent that type of attack and didn't have time to react to it .


And why is Israel different? Let's see - are they committing acts of War against another soverign nation or are they conducting operations against a non-national group within its own borders?

They are committing acts of war against soveriegn nations and as they don't have borders they are not operating within them are they .

[Dâriûsh]

Arguably would be correct. However until the Palenstine state is actually declared its a tough arguement to actually pursue.

Anyone ever wondered how Jordan and Syria treats its Palenstine refugee's?

Why? The two Mukhabarat states are not really bastions of human rights, are they? Let me know when either of them is referred to as the Only Democracy in the Middle East™ by the western media.

[Fragony]

I wasn't even referring to Palestine, though their actions against the Palestinian Authority could be catalogued as such. I was referring to their war in Lebanon two years ago. They violated the sovereignty of said country, that's war.

There never was a peace treaty, Israel and Libanon have always been at war, nothing illegal about it.

[Conradus]

An armastice was signed in 1949 and no formal declaration of war ever since as far as I know.

[Fragony]

No need, formally they are still at war. Armastice and peace aren't the same thing.

[Tribesman]

There never was a peace treaty, Israel and Libanon have always been at war, nothing illegal about it.

Actually the terms of the armistice make actions by both Israel and Lebanon illegal and subject to intervention by UN member states .
In fact since most of the actions undertaken there are completely illegal your claim that there is "nothing illegal about it" is complete nonsense .:thumbsdown:

[Fragony]

your claim that there is "nothing illegal about it" is complete nonsense .:thumbsdown:

No, kidnapping of soldiers is an act of war. Israel's reaction was a tad on the harsh side though. Understandable but a tiny bit overkill.

edit, maybe you are right because I can't remember any proof of Hezbollah getting support from government.

[Tribesman]

Fragony maybe you should have read the armistice document and all the sections of other agreements that it relates to before you said there "was nothing illegal"


edit, maybe you are right because I can't remember any proof of Hezbollah getting support from government.
Errrr ..isn't HezBallah part of the government and even if it was not the armistice agreement applies to all paramilitary forces in the territory anyway (even if they are not formed until after the Israeli invasion and the formation of Israeli supported terrorists in Lebanon each of which is just as illegal as any Lebanese action)

[Fragony]

Fragony maybe you should have read the armistice document and all the sections of other agreements that it relates to before you said there "was nothing illegal"

If the conditions for the armistice are broken you are back at the state of war without having to declare it, so no nothing illegal, just a bit harsh.

[Redleg]

Oh dear Red , its funny you want to mention that event since Irish troops are still there so its a silly question .

Not a silly question at all - again do you want Irish troops involved in occupation duty, which is completely different from what is in Lebanon as part of the UN mission. Where the Irish have committed some troops to the cause, now when one speaks of occupation duty one speaks of divisions and having to pay for it. But then I suspect you know that and are just being you in your response. So I will rephrase it for you, to help you out a bit more, do you want to committ several divisions of Irish troops to enforce peace in Israel?



And as for the rules of engagement you are on about they did allow the American troops to defend themselves . The problem was they hadn't taken measures to prevent that type of attack and didn't have time to react to it .

Again care to replay the circumstances involving that event. Since I have seen several after-action reports regarding that event - its not hard to show where the rules of engagement would not have allowed them to prevent the attack at all, until after it was to late to stop the vehicle. Then again measures were not inplace to channel vehicles to prevent just such an attack, so in that you are correct. And using that event - it shows just how hard it is to seperate two fractions that are bent on destroying each other and anyone that gets in their way of that destruction. So again are you willing to committ Irish divisions to occupying Israel in total?



They are committing acts of war against soveriegn nations and as they don't have borders they are not operating within them are they .

Sticky situation the Palenstine Authority is in isn't? They have no border, yet they have forces within their soverignty that committ acts of war against Israel. Double edge sword your attempting to walk and your not doing to well, especially since I have several times stated my position on the issue - both sides are wrong.

Edit: and here is where you have a problem arguing against my postion - when both sides continue to escalate and break promises to halt violence - its hard for me to take either side on the issue. Hince no need for United States attempting to force peace between the two - neither of them want it, and hopefully my nation learned its lesson in Beriut when you deal with two warring fractions within the same nation, and neither wants peace - you just get caught in the crossfire.

[Tribesman]

If the conditions for the armistice are broken you are back at the state of war without having to declare it, so no nothing illegal, just a bit harsh.

You really havn't got a clue what you are on about do you Frag .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


So I will rephrase it for you, to help you out a bit more, do you want to committ several divisions of Irish troops to enforce peace in Israel?
What divisions ? :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Even going by a very outdated study from your government it would take most of the adult population of Ireland to provide the numbers needed to seperate the nutters in Palestine .


Edit: and here is where you have a problem arguing against my postion - when both sides continue to escalate and break promises to halt violence - its hard for me to take either side on the issue.
Not at all , since I take neither side , I only attack those who take a side and say that side is the only one that is right , and as in most cases that is people backing Israel you might get some misperception from it .

[Redleg]

What divisions ? :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Even going by a very outdated study from your government it would take most of the adult population of Ireland to provide the numbers needed to seperate the nutters in Palestine .


And you wanted to argue that the United States can force peace in Israel. The laugh is on you Tribesy on that one.



Not at all , since I take neither side , I only attack those who take a side and say that side is the only one that is right , and as in most cases that is people backing Israel you might get some misperception from it .

Neither do I take sides - which is why I found lots of fault with Bopa postions since he seemly is either blaming the United States for the situation, or is wanting the United States to solve it. Niether is correct. The peace can only be established when the two warring fractions decide that they want it. And the only way that is going to happen is for the people to throw the nutters in office out of power on both sides. Whats even worse if one wants to look at history to see who is to blame for the creation of Israel - he should look close to home and the collective guilt of the world (primarily Europe) after WW2.

And we have seen what happens to moderates on both sides in Israel.

[Tribesman]

And you wanted to argue that the United States can force peace in Israel. The laugh is on you Tribesy on that one.

Not at all Red since occupation isn't the only way , violations of the armistice mean chapter VII , armed intervention is only one aspect of that , financial and economic measures are another , instead of punishing all parties that are acting illegaly your government has chosen to arm one , and not only arm it but also to directly finance its own armament industry .
If they want to force peace the last thing the government should be doing is providing the means for war .

[Redleg]

Not at all Red since occupation isn't the only way , violations of the armistice mean chapter VII , armed intervention is only one aspect of that , financial and economic measures are another , instead of punishing all parties that are acting illegaly your government has chosen to arm one , and not only arm it but also to directly finance its own armament industry

You are correct that armed force is not the only way one can bring about change, but it requires an target that is willing to change. Have you seen any willingness from either side for peace? Because I sure haven't seen any indication they want peace in Israel. Both sides repeatly have their nutters who committment violence over and over again. Economic and financial sanctions won't have much of an impact on them. Since for it to work, it also requires that the both sides truely want peace.

I personally don't see to many indications of both wanting a true lasting peace.



If they want to force peace the last thing the government should be doing is providing the means for war .

That is the only correct arguement presented so far. If peace is truely desired by both sides, then both sides need to have its funding and base removed from having the supplies given to them to carry out war. There was an interesting picture posted in the papers today concerning a missle made by the Palenstine's for firing into Israel. Kind of demonstrates that neither side is really interested in pursueing peace.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That is the only correct arguement presented so far. If peace is truely desired by both sides, then both sides need to have its funding and base removed from having the supplies given to them to carry out war. There was an interesting picture posted in the papers today concerning a missle made by the Palenstine's for firing into Israel. Kind of demonstrates that neither side is really interested in pursueing peace.

Which gets back to my "warlordism" point that Bopa has taken too much glee in maligning.

There are a number of "actors" in the Palestine/Lebanon/Israel region whose power derives from being a "warlord" over some group. Actual peace -- as opposed to an ongoing simmer of violence, mistrust, etc. -- would undercut their power. They have a vested interest in taking ANY nascent peace effort and lobbing a rocket on it.

A warlord is NOT a nation-builder nor a peacemaker. She or he is the quasi-feudal ruler of an armed camp. An opponent is almost a political necessity. Note: this label can be applied to any number of the factions involved: Hamas and sub-sects thereof, Fatah and sub-sects thereof, Hezbollah and sub-sects thereof, Druze groups, Israeli "settlers," etc.

[Incongruous]

Hamas is the democratically elected result of decades of U.S backed Israeli opression, nothing more. You see there is no equating the predicament of the two sides. Israel is a recognised nation-state, the world has refused Palestine that right, and by its support for Israel the U.S has stripped away its historical pretensions. As I keep saying redleg I fully realise my own nations cooperation with Israel, but the U.S was the prime mover there. You had all the power after WWII and you failed to take the steps to prevent the atrocity of zionism claiming statehood. The Jews deserve a state, well why? Why did the Palestinians have to lose everything to assuage your guilt? If it was not about guilt, what was it about?
The installment of a friendly regional power to dominate the mid-east?

The idea that all atrocities are of the same magnitude is false, the amount of carange inflicted upon the Palestinian people is an elephant when compared to the destruction inflicted by Hamas on Israel. I hear Israelis can get an education and running water. But you will continue to deny that Israel is the main offender because...
I don't know. But it is something which rankles with Muslims across the globe, it a rallying cry to blow up innocent westerners and those unfortunate to be nearby.
But it is not the only reason, it is also the U.S's continued attempt to divide the mid-east, yep divide Redleg, divide. You know what I mean so you can apply any term you feel apt to that meaning.
As for my use of racism, again there are degrees of it, aparthied is at an extreme end as is nazism, what is happening in Palestine is just another extreme degree of it, lets say state enforced racism.

Why are you so fixated on my non commital to aristotelean generalisations of politcal community?
"It's so much easier to blame the U.S" umm ok, I'm not some idiotic child Redleg, I actually to think and read up on things. I'm not some damned mouth piece of soundbite media.

Oh and Seamus, what makes you think

[Redleg]

Hamas is the democratically elected result of decades of U.S backed Israeli opression, nothing more. You see there is no equating the predicament of the two sides. Israel is a recognised nation-state, the world has refused Palestine that right, and by its support for Israel the U.S has stripped away its historical pretensions. As I keep saying redleg I fully realise my own nations cooperation with Israel, but the U.S was the prime mover there. You had all the power after WWII and you failed to take the steps to prevent the atrocity of zionism claiming statehood. The Jews deserve a state, well why? Why did the Palestinians have to lose everything to assuage your guilt? If it was not about guilt, what was it about?

Oh poor misguided Bopa - the United States did not have all the power after WW2. It was also shared with the old USSR. THe middle-east quirimare developed in part because of the two compeating superpowers, it also developed in part because of policies after WW1 with the British and French Mandates. And as I stated before and you have failed to read - it was the collective guild of the world, primaily of Europe. In fact the United States was really not a big help to Israel until the 1973 war - Britian and France share that distintion. So until you actually learn some history on Israel's foundation - its just to easy to tear you anti-US stance apart concerning the founding of the Israel state.

It seems to me that you don't fully realize the situation when you continue to point to one nation as the problem. To bad its been interesting to demonstrate that your position is primirily one of Anti- versus any real understanding.



The installment of a friendly regional power to dominate the mid-east?


LOL - the creation of Israel has a bitter history - the installment of a friendly regional power was not initially one of them.



The idea that all atrocities are of the same magnitude is false, the amount of carange inflicted upon the Palestinian people is an elephant when compared to the destruction inflicted by Hamas on Israel. I hear Israelis can get an education and running water. But you will continue to deny that Israel is the main offender because...

Your problem there Bopa is a failure to actually read - I refuse to claim that only one side is at fault. It takes two to tangle - and the Palenstine Authority and all its previous identies are guiltly of insuring the conflict continues.



I don't know. But it is something which rankles with Muslims across the globe, it a rallying cry to blow up innocent westerners and those unfortunate to be nearby.

Yep and its just as false in their doing so.



But it is not the only reason, it is also the U.S's continued attempt to divide the mid-east, yep divide Redleg, divide. You know what I mean so you can apply any term you feel apt to that meaning.
As for my use of racism, again there are degrees of it, aparthied is at an extreme end as is nazism, what is happening in Palestine is just another extreme degree of it, lets say state enforced racism.


Again the United States does not divide the Middle-East. You do understand what the term divide means do you not? Divide means to seperate. In what why has the United States attempted to seperate the middle-east. The nations were formed after WW1 as part of the British and French Mandates after WW1, and finallized between the World Wars and immediately after. Before the United States was truely involved in the region. Somewhere around the late 1940's we began to get involved in internal politics of selected nations to prevent Soviet takeover by proxy of those nations, and unfortunetly for the current world we also attempted to control a few of them. Now where does divide equate into that equation.

Again racism is racism - all of it is intolerable to me. I also see the racism that the Palenstines equate back to the Israelies in their text books. So I have little support for your arguement here when you discount the preaching to childern to do suicide bomb another culture.



Why are you so fixated on my non commital to aristotelean generalisations of politcal community?
"It's so much easier to blame the U.S" umm ok, I'm not some idiotic child Redleg, I actually to think and read up on things. I'm not some damned mouth piece of soundbite media.

To bad your rethoric is just that of a soundbite media. You focus on one side of a complex issue demanding that one side committ to change without acknowledging that the other side also has to change. You blame one nation over all - without looking deep into how the situation was created in the first place. You incorrectly blame the United States for the creation of the state of Israel - which I find extremely funny given Truman's thoughts on the creation of the Nation of Israel.

So read up a bit before you blame the United States. Its almost as pathic as those that claim the United States built nuclear weapons for Israel.......

Oh and Seamus, what makes you think[/QUOTE]

[Incongruous]

Hahah, ok whatever Redeg I admit it, I am a complete fool with no understanding of the Palestinian problem. You got me!
Because anyone who actually reads up this can't possibly take a different point of view on it can they? So I must be a complete idiot right?

Again I still do not understand your fixation with the good old nature of the political community philosophy, explain?
But perhaps another time, this exchange is over, since I obviously have to go and read the Oxford English Dictionary.

[Redleg]

Hahah, ok whatever Redeg I admit it, I am a complete fool with no understanding of the Palestinian problem. You got me!
Because anyone who actually reads up this can't possibly take a different point of view on it can they? So I must be a complete idiot right?

Never stated you were an idiot - only that you can not have the reality based viewpoint that you claim if your only looking at one side. So if you wish to be flippant at least understand the position that I have stated. Reality requires an individual to look at all aspects - not just what they wish to look at.



Again I still do not understand your fixation with the good old nature of the political community philosophy, explain?

I detest one-sided viewpoints that claim they have all the answers to the situation, especially one that uses anger rethoric that makes claims that are not founded in actual facts. So if you want to convince me that Israel is wrong - you have alreadly lost, since I alreadly believe that Israel is wrong, your problem is that you have only argued by attack the United States involvement in the situation. Leaving out what the Palenstine Authority and its precedors have also done to continue and escalate the violence. Along with a claim of realistic viewpoint just made me want to tweak your arguement to the point to show how acidine it was.

has the United States made mistakes in the middle-east - sure we have, but lets stick to the ones that are true, not the made up stuff that one side uses to justify their violence. There is enough done wrong that justifies feelings of ill will toward the United States that makes the made-up positions unnecessary.



But perhaps another time, this exchange is over, since I obviously have to go and read the Oxford English Dictionary.


Feel free, and leave the little red book rethoric out of the discussion.