Criticism of the UN? Inadmissible!

[Crazed Rabbit]

A fellow from the UN Watch group unloaded on the human rights council for the foundation of hating Israel on which the council operates. The Council President told him any further such statements would be inadmissible (though he doesn't seem to mind all many of other insults and slurs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Flittlegreenfootballs%2Ecom%2Fweblog%2F%3Fentry%3D24924%5FBanned%5FUN%5FSpeech%2D%5 FHuman%5FRights%5FNightmare%26only))

Here's the video of the speech:
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=3698367

And a transcript:


Mr. President,

Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their noble dream?

In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has it decided?

Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.

One might say, in Harry Truman’s words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council.

But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something.

It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world—millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries—continue to go ignored.

So yes, this Council is doing something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights.

So too, the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.

But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?

Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights—Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard—they say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh’s troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?

Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.

They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights.

You ask: What has become of the founders’ dream? With terrible lies and moral inversion, it is being turned into a nightmare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

REPLY BY U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA:

For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch, if you'd kindly listen to me. I am sorry that I'm not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible. In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records.

:wall:

Seems not having this council would be better than what we have now.

Crazed Rabbit

[Watchman]

I can see some demonizing being done all right.

[Marshal Murat]

I am proud that the human race can produce people like that.

[Mooks]

Good god. I have never read such a fine piece of oratory since iv read those books on roman senators. That guy is awsome.

/time to watch the movie. Must get munchies.

[Tribesman]

I am proud that the human race can produce people like that.

Yep its a strange quirk of evolution , how some people can manage to say something like........
It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. ....and not break into fits of laughter .
Or was he being serious ?

[Mooks]

Oooo comon. He couldve done a little bit of pacing back and forth and counting on his fingers. And he looked at his notes every 5 seconds, like someone just handed him the script and said "read this today".

[BDC]

It's not a UN thing, it's the problem of who makes up the UN.

If we get rid of humans, the UN would be perfect.

[Incongruous]

Yes that's right, the UN targets Isreal. Wonder why? Perhaps it's continuous and un-relenting use of state terrorism or, TERRORISM. Perhaps its because the greatest barrier to peace in the area is the millitarism an un-apolagetic nature of Isreal. Perhaps it is because Isreal is basically a rogue state, which has denied people basic human rights and commited genocide and then elected the man who had commited the act. So dn't post you're laughable comments about the Palestinian parliament being run by terrorists, as if that was an excuse for Isreal. Isreal seems to be run by a never ending stream of mass murderers and terrorists. Oh and guess what, Isreal created terrorism in the middle east.

Oh... wait, does that leave you're pathetic concept of the greatness of America and its allies FREEDOM in tatters? Really? No way, Isreal cannot be bad, my media says it isnt, so does my president. Wai is this the same media which is controled by those Lefty girlie men with no real balls! Godamnit, dont they remember Pearl Harbour? Oh wait is that also the same idiotic and basically evil president which duped you're country into the Iraq war? Naaaah who cares?

Perhaps you need to actually READ up on these issues rather than watch the feakin news and search the freakin web!:yes:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes that's right, the UN targets Isreal. Wonder why? Perhaps it's continuous and un-relenting use of state terrorism or, TERRORISM. Perhaps its because the greatest barrier to peace in the area is the millitarism an un-apolagetic nature of Isreal. Perhaps it is because Isreal is basically a rogue state, which has denied people basic human rights and commited genocide and then elected the man who had commited the act. So dn't post you're laughable comments about the Palestinian parliament being run by terrorists, as if that was an excuse for Isreal. Isreal seems to be run by a never ending stream of mass murderers and terrorists. Oh and guess what, Isreal created terrorism in the middle east.

Oh... wait, does that leave you're pathetic concept of the greatness of America and its allies FREEDOM in tatters? Really? No way, Isreal cannot be bad, my media says it isnt, so does my president. Wai is this the same media which is controled by those Lefty girlie men with no real balls! Godamnit, dont they remember Pearl Harbour? Oh wait is that also the same idiotic and basically evil president which duped you're country into the Iraq war? Naaaah who cares?

Perhaps you need to actually READ up on these issues rather than watch the feakin news and search the freakin web!:yes:

And breathe.

Rather too close to country bashing and personal attack. If a poster has a contrary view to yours, it does not mean they are not informed.

Let's keep it polite please, and address the argument, not the poster or their nationality.

:bow:

[English assassin]

The content of the speech may be a little close to the edge, possibly teetering over it at one or two points, but there IS a potential irony in the president of a Human Rights Council threatening to take statements out of the records.

Freedom of expression is, after all, a human right.

[Del Arroyo]

The whole Zionist vs. Arab issue is a hell of a lot more complex than one=good and the other=bad. What is more important is that the mere idea of creating a Jewish homeland in some part of the recently-defunct Ottoman empire was incredibly racist, and that our continued facilitation of aggressive Zionist actions is not in our national best interest.

EDIT: Well actually, it's not even quite really that simple. Effectively, it is a mess.

[Vladimir]

And breathe.

Rather too close to country bashing and personal attack. If a poster has a contrary view to yours, it does not mean they are not informed.

Let's keep it polite please, and address the argument, not the poster or their nationality.

:bow:

No no, it's fine. He forgot to use the words "Zionist conspiracy" but that was quite a good rant, multiple mispellings included. Bravo :bow: .

[Adrian II]

EDIT: Well actually, it's not even quite really that simple. Effectively, it is a mess.Quite. Though that statement should be the start of any proper analysis, not its conclusion. And any proper solution should be forward-looking, not concerned with who shoulda coulda mighta done something fifty years ago. Gentlemen such as that speaker are in deep denial doodoo. They are possibly not even aware that they are, and they certainly don't give the impression that they care. They don't need to, it's what they are paid for.

[Watchman]

Yeah. It's not like either Israel or the Palestinians are going to disappear anywhere now. Sooner or later they'll have to figure out how to coexist peacefully, and I'm quite convinced the vast majority of common Joes and Janes on both sides would not like anything better.

It's just that both have unpleasantly large, influental and noisy "all or nothing" extreme wings with enough powerful foreign backers that particularly the Israelis can get away with being intractable jerks without repercussions beyond what the Palestinian ultras can inflict on them.

[rory_20_uk]

To try to enter a region with 4,000 years of history where one lot still get emotive about being dispossessed c. 2,000 years ago and created a new country 50 years ago and say "the past is in the past - let's all move on" is believing their own rhetoric.

Yugoslavia was another area where this mentality led to people not understanding what the protagonists were fighting over, as is Ireland.

~:smoking:

[Watchman]

What'd I say about the extreme wings ?

[rory_20_uk]

As many areas have managed to not coexist peacefully for hundreds of years I feel that this is rather optimistic, small, vocal protagonists or no.

And often the small vocal groups manage to irritate some moderates in the other camp to become extremists, thus ensuring that there is a steady supply of hatred for years to come.

~:smoking:

[Suraknar]

It's not a UN thing, it's the problem of who makes up the UN.

If we get rid of humans, the UN would be perfect.

Its not the constituents of the UN that is being disputed, it is the Council of Human Rights within the UN.

The guy talking in that video is the Ex.Director of UN watch, he is making a case...I actually did some reading, and they ae bringing up some valid arguments, about the constitution of the Human Rights Cooucil should be done.

However, by the same definition as he gives to exclude some countries from it, Israel is also being excluded.

[Goofball]

Yep its a strange quirk of evolution , how some people can manage to say something like........
It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. ....and not break into fits of laughter .
Or was he being serious ?

Sorry. I'm a pretty smart guy with a pretty good sense of humor, but I still coudn't find anything that funny about the oration.

Maybe because he didn't punctuate it with enough ":laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: " like you do for the rest of us who are a little slower on the uptake.

The fact is that there are a whole bunch of Muslim nations, but only one Israel. That means that any motion condemning Israel always passes with an overwhelming majority, but motions condemning Palestinian violence against Israel don't even make it to a vote. It's a simple question of majority ruling and has nothing to do with the right or wrong of the situation.

I have no illusions about Israel being a bastion of fairness and politeness when it comes to dealing with perceived threats to its security. But I also know that if I was in Israel's position I would fight pretty dirty too.

I was happy as hell that the Canadian government was the first to cut off aid to the Palestinian authority after the terrorists were elected. At least somebody had the balls to call a spade a spade.

[Watchman]

If I was in Israel's shoes I'd stop bullying the Palestinians for their farmland and water, dump the whole Eretz Yisrael idea into the bottom of the Dead Sea, and actually get serious about peaceful coexistence instead of hiding behind my big patron while still being an ass. Might have a lot less reason to fight dirty that way, as well as rather fewer sworn enemies.
:juggle2:
But then again I'm a spineless Euro pinko-commie who hates freedom.


As many areas have managed to not coexist peacefully for hundreds of years I feel that this is rather optimistic, small, vocal protagonists or no.You may have noticed state-level wars aren't nearly as popular as they once were though. Something to do with the element of staggering expenses in human and financial resources for little gain they tend to involve these days, I understand.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Watchman, The Palestinians elected a bunch of terrorists who want to destroy Israel. Something makes me think fixing a few gripes about water and land, real or imagined, isn't going to make the terrorists stop trying to destroy Israel.

It is not Israel that is holding back peace talks.


Yes that's right, the UN targets Isreal.

The Human Rights council targets no one else. There are many worse things going on in the world, but they don't care about them. That is the problem. They criticize no other country in the world as they do Israel, though there are many worse ones in the world.


Wonder why? Perhaps it's continuous and un-relenting use of state terrorism or, TERRORISM.

Lol. Like pulling out the Gaza? They unilaterally pulled out- that is, they did it for nothing in exchange from Palestinians - yet they get no recognition for it. Tell me: how many weddings have been bombed purposely by Israelis, how many restaurants, birthday parties, cafes?


Perhaps its because the greatest barrier to peace in the area is the millitarism an un-apolagetic nature of Isreal.

Nothing to do with palestinians launching rockets into Israel, nothing to do with Hamas not recognizing Israel's right to exist, with them waging terrorism upon Israel?

Crazed Rabbit

[Beirut]

I was happy as hell that the Canadian government was the first to cut off aid to the Palestinian authority after the terrorists were elected. At least somebody had the balls to call a spade a spade.

I'm trying to be a good boy and stay out of all this, but I completely disagree with the stance of the Canadian government. We let in war criminals, provided them with handouts, homes, and lawyers. We sell guns and bombs and nuclear reactors to all manner of governments. We buy, sell, and trade with almost anyone anywhere if there is a profit to be made. The worst manner of foreign officials who violate human rights are treated like dignitaries and given the red carpet.

But it all comes to a screeching halt when it involves the Palestinians. That's when our chewy moral center catapults through the top of our government's heads and cries out with all sorts of indignation that "we don't deal with terrorists". It's a complete farce and it kills any chance of putting an end to the violence in Palestine. How are we supposed to have any positive impact on these people by shutting them out? The people Harper refuses to talk to are exactly the people he needs to talk to.

Get the leader of the Hamas government over here, treat him like a foreign dignitary, show him the sights, involve him in our culture, talk to him, learn about what he's doing right and wrong in his government and then tell him. Show him schools and hospitals and offer grants to build these things in Palestine when the violence stops. Do something other than fold our arms, turn our backs and act like little children saying "I'm not talking to you anymore."

Harper's stance on Palestine is wrong, hypocritical, and un-Canadian. If it means helping to end suffering and killing we should be prepared to talk to anyone, anywhere, anytime. It's who we are. At least it's who we are supposed to be.

Hell, Israel has killed far more Canadians than Palestinians have and our diplomatic relations with Israel didn't stop for two seconds.

[Incongruous]

No no, it's fine. He forgot to use the words "Zionist conspiracy" but that was quite a good rant, multiple mispellings included. Bravo :bow: .

Yes, my inability to spell sometimes, means that pro-Isreal camp is in the right!
Pathetic. Maybe you should look up the thread I started up about the real fact of the Isreali occupation. hmm?
Or I could make it really easy for you, go look up a book called Freedom Next Time.:yes:

[Devastatin Dave]

Get the leader of the Hamas government over here, treat him like a foreign dignitary, show him the sights, involve him in our culture, talk to him, learn about what he's doing right and wrong in his government and then tell him. Show him schools and hospitals and offer grants to build these things in Palestine when the violence stops. Do something other than fold our arms, turn our backs and act like little children saying "I'm not talking to you anymore."


Its always soooo adorable when liberals cozy up with terrorists. How tooot!!!:hippie:

[AntiochusIII]

Its always soooo adorable when liberals cozy up with terrorists. How tooot!!!:hippie:You do realize of course, that allegedly conservative people (or was Reagan just a goddam liberal sonofagun?) do that on a regular basis. As long as it's needed.

Beirut's position is admirable. It ignores the blame game and goes straight to the point -- something desperately lacking in the whole shebang.

[Watchman]

Watchman, The Palestinians elected a bunch of terrorists who want to destroy Israel. Something makes me think fixing a few gripes about water and land, real or imagined, isn't going to make the terrorists stop trying to destroy Israel.

It is not Israel that is holding back peace talks.Israel is single-handedly responsible for mucking up the historically rather good Jewish-Muslim relationships worldwide you know. Its unapologetic land-grab policies are also the primary reason organizations like Hamas came to existence among the Palestinians in the first place - and when you look at it, it was Zionist ultras like the Stern Gang who taught their Arab neighbours a fair few of their militants' most popular tricks...

Anyway, Hamas only gets decent amounts of popular support as long as the Palestinian situation remains intolerable and embittering. It's always that way with the militant populists everywhere. Give them decent conditions and a fair deal, and I can pretty much quarantee the Palestinian general public will be far too busy trying to get rich and comfortable to have any interest in making Israel disappear.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Harper's stance on Palestine is wrong, hypocritical, and un-Canadian. If it means helping to end suffering and killing we should be prepared to talk to anyone, anywhere, anytime. It's who we are. At least it's who we are supposed to be.

So Canada should fund terrorists by giving money to the unrepentant Hamas government?

You seem to assume Hamas wants peace. Why is that? Why believe people who send their children off to murder innocents, who slander and demonize Israelis as inhuman, who tutor their kids in hate, who have for years fought to kill all Israelis, want peace? Arafat, allegedly less radical, had multiple chances and passed them up to wage terrorism.

Hamas knows that it must renounce terrorism and accept Israel's existence in order to get international support - but it hasn't done that. Does that not show their priorities?


Israel is single-handedly responsible for mucking up the historically rather good Jewish-Muslim relationships worldwide you know.

Hilarious. I think 1948 showed us Muslims didn't want to play nice from the beginning. Any 'land grab' occurred after Muslims invaded or attacked.


Anyway, Hamas only gets decent amounts of popular support as long as the Palestinian situation remains intolerable and embittering. It's always that way with the militant populists everywhere. Give them decent conditions and a fair deal, and I can pretty much quarantee the Palestinian general public will be far too busy trying to get rich and comfortable to have any interest in making Israel disappear.

Where did the 7/7 bombers in Britain come from? Once again, this is just trying to shift the blame from the terrorists.

Now, this council has condemned 'defamation of religion', specifically (in their words) Islam:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070330/wl_nm/religion_rights_islam_dc_1

GENEVA (Reuters) - The
United Nations top human rights body condemned "defamation" of religion on Friday and, in an apparent reference to the storm over the Prophet cartoons, said press freedom had its limits.

With the support of China, Russia and Cuba, Moslem and Arab states comfortably won a vote on the 47-state Human Rights Council to express concern at "negative stereotyping" of religions and "attempts to identify Islam with terrorism."

Iran portraying Jews as pigs? No problem. But you can't criticize Islam!

Crazed Rabbit

[Incongruous]

Don't Kid yourself CR. all this ranting against countries dealing with terrorists is ridiculous. You know damn well that the USA's recent history is more seedy, backstabbinf and violent than most others.

[Suraknar]

@Beirut - Ouin, Block encore alors pour une deuxieme partie de minorité - ca marche mieux le gouvernement en minorité de toute maniere. :laugh4:

Now, as far as the topic is concerned, it has to start somewhere, I kinda touk an interest about this, thanks to the OP for posting this. I have been reading some and watching more videos.



9 May 2006 – The United Nations General Assembly today elected 47 members of the recently established UN Human Rights Council – a move immediately welcomed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan as an opportunity for a fresh start as the new body replaces the much criticized and now defunct Human Rights Commission.
Noting that the Council will be required to conduct a regular review of the human rights record of all countries beginning with those serving on it, Mr. Annan said through a spokesman: “This will give its members the chance to show the depth of their commitment to promote human rights both at home and abroad.”

With all countries taking part in the voting, Mr. Annan said that the high rate of participation reflected “a widely shared commitment to replace the previous Commission on Human Rights with a body that can work more effectively, and can embody human rights ideals with more credibility; and that the Council elected today offers the United Nations a unique opportunity to make a fresh start in its vital work of upholding the highest standards of human rights.”

All regions – Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Western Europe and Other states – obtained or exceeded the required 96-vote majority needed to fill their allocated number of members, except the Eastern European States, where only the Russian Federation, Poland and the Czech Republic won seats on the first ballot, while Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Romania were elected in a second round. [...]

In short, UN-Watch is not very happy with the way events unfolded and how the original proposal for a HR Council was modified by the Great Assembly and subsequent voting.

Seems like UN-Watch wants the HR Council to be made up of only countries that actually have a HR Charter within their Law Systems and in application.

While, the UN as a body prefers to invite countries in that council that do not necessarilly have HR charters in application, in order to promote the rights to many countries from within by engaging them in the process.

Because now, here is where we seem to have a problem (from the little reading i have been doing on this):



UN Charter Preamble

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

And



Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

So mentions of Human rights (that I have been able to find) in the Charter itself, do not obligate members to adhere to them, however do invite promotion of Human Rights.

On the other hand, in article 2.



Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Therefore, no country can be really forced to addopt a HR Charter, and it is up to that country and it's people to do so and attain that level of Human Justice.

In conclusion, I think that in this basis the criticism of UN-watch was deemed inadmissible. not because it was critisism, but because of its sgestive tone versus some of the member countries.

Criticism is good, but it needs to be made Diplomatically I think under such an Organisation.

Its certaintly a complicated Issue...

[Beirut]

Its always soooo adorable when liberals cozy up with terrorists. How tooot!!!:hippie:

Oh Dave, you Devastate me as always. :daisy:



So Canada should fund terrorists by giving money to the unrepentant Hamas government?

Both our governments have dealt with and given money to lots of unrepentant people. To draw a line in the sand that has only Palestine on the other side is ridiculous.



You seem to assume Hamas wants peace. Why is that? Why believe people who send their children off to murder innocents, who slander and demonize Israelis as inhuman, who tutor their kids in hate, who have for years fought to kill all Israelis, want peace? Arafat, allegedly less radical, had multiple chances and passed them up to wage terrorism.

The issue is not whether Hamas wants peace, the issue for Canada is to tell Hamas that we want peace and show them the benefits of ending the violence. As for "sending their children off to murder innocents", have no doubt, Israelis murder far, far more Palestinians than Palestinians murder Israelis, so we should be careful about which moral horse we ride highly upon.


Hamas knows that it must renounce terrorism and accept Israel's existence in order to get international support - but it hasn't done that. Does that not show their priorities?

The Palestinian's priority is survival. The Israelis are killing them like it's free, just as they have been doing for decades. The blame cannot be placed solely with the Palestinians. Israel is not the victim here, Israel is the country with the massive army and air force, with endless billions in handouts from the US, with the highest of high tech assets, with nuclear weapons, yet we're supposed to vilify the poor and the subjugated who live in squalor and apartheid and have no friends? Not a chance. Canada should not be so blindly biased.

Making peace requires intellectual honesty and guts. I'm sorry our PM Harper has neither.

[Del Arroyo]

Ironically, Palestinian extremists have been almost as bad an invading, destabilizing force in other Arab nations as the Israelis have been for Arabs in general. Anyone remember the brief Jordanian civil war between '70 and '71? Or the long, brutal Lebanese civil war which soon followed??

After the first Gulf War, Kuwait kept 90% of the Palestinians who had been living there out.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Anyone remember the brief Jordanian civil war between '70 and '71? Or the long, brutal Lebanese civil war which soon followed??


You mean black september and how the PLO tried to take over Jordan. The Jordanians werent as nice to them as the Israelis are. You dont see them trying to take back that part of palestine anymore.

[Soulforged]

Now, this council has condemned 'defamation of religion', specifically (in their words) Islam:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070330/wl_nm/religion_rights_islam_dc_1

Courts deal with cases. In this case it was about Islam, and its defamation, it isn't "special treatment" it's just treatment with the opportunity to reafirm some norms sustained by the Council since the treaty was signed. If you think, anyway, that it's special treament then you'll clearly see that what originated the condemnation was "specially" directed to Islam, what they really get in special treatment is just circumnstantial: Islam was and is being related to terrorism as a religion, not like other religions. Given that the Council is not the space to discuss the rights of a "religion", but it's the space to discuss the rights of the individual, like not being descriminated by his creedance.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Both our governments have dealt with and given money to lots of unrepentant people. To draw a line in the sand that has only Palestine on the other side is ridiculous.
So...two wrongs make a right, or something like that? Doing bad things in some cases means we should do bad things in other cases?


The issue is not whether Hamas wants peace, the issue for Canada is to tell Hamas that we want peace
Do you think Hamas gives a rat's posterior about what Canada wants?


and show them the benefits of ending the violence.
How do you know they haven't already thought destroying Israel outweighs any benefits of peace? They exist for one reason; the destruction of Israel - why would they want to take away that reason?



As for "sending their children off to murder innocents", have no doubt, Israelis murder far, far more Palestinians than Palestinians murder Israelis, so we should be careful about which moral horse we ride highly upon.
Self defense is not murder. Terrorism is. I am quite comfortable on condemning the cowardly terrorist attacks that constitute Palestine's war on Israel, and supporting the vast majority of Israeli defensive actions.


The Palestinian's priority is survival. The Israelis are killing them like it's free, just as they have been doing for decades.

Bah. You talk as if Israel sends the IDF off into Palestine to hunt down random people. That's BS. Did you read the initial speech, how palestinians are killing more of themselves off than Israel has lately?


Israel is not the victim here, Israel is the country with the massive army and air force,
So? Technological superiority does not equal evil. Spain has a much larger and more sophisticated army than the Muslim terrorists who attacked them - does that make Spain in the wrong?


with endless billions in handouts from the US,
Only 2 last time I checked. And Egypt gets 1 billion a year.


with the highest of high tech assets, with nuclear weapons, yet we're supposed to vilify the poor and the subjugated who live in squalor and apartheid and have no friends?

Does being poor through your own faults, or even through someone else's, excuse murdering women and children? Palestinians are almost surrounded by supposed 'friends' in the Muslim countries. They could take all the Palestinians in and give them good lives - but they do not. Why do you have no harsh words for them?


Not a chance. Canada should not be so blindly biased.
You just want Canada to be blindly biased in the way that pleases you.


Making peace requires intellectual honesty and guts. I'm sorry our PM Harper has neither.
Excusing and ignoring terrorism is not intellectual honesty.

Do you deny, Beirut, that the Human Rights Council is biased against Israel to the point of basically ignoring all other human rights violations?


Courts deal with cases.
This council should be dealing with Human rights, not the rights of religions - which they have ignored in the decades Christianity has been bashed and defamed. A man is not discriminated against when ideas he holds are criticized.


Don't Kid yourself CR. all this ranting against countries dealing with terrorists is ridiculous. You know damn well that the USA's recent history is more seedy, backstabbinf and violent than most others.

LOL. I hope that's not your best response.

Crazed Rabbit

[Slyspy]

Money properly invested makes terrorism go away. A properous people have more to lose and so the extremists have fewer recruits.

Sadly since the government in the Palestinian territories is, more or less, the extremists themselves then you cannot rely on the money being properly invested.

The question is to what extent is Hamas now a political group rather than a terrorist group. Which is now more important to them?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Money properly invested makes terrorism go away. A properous people have more to lose and so the extremists have fewer recruits.


Is OBL poor? Were any of the hijackers on 911 poor? In fact they are neither poor nor uneducated, quite the opposite. This has nothing to do with prosperity. Until the start of the last intifatah the Palestinians had one of the best economies in the region. Their biggest gripe is they cant get to work in Israel because of all the checkpoints. Thats why many arabs came to the region. Because the Jews offered a better standard of living than their native nations. Just the same as people come to america. If you remove the Jews from Israel it will be just as piss poor as the rest of the region. Its not like they even have oil to fall back on.

[Soulforged]

This council should be dealing with Human rights, not the rights of religions - which they have ignored in the decades Christianity has been bashed and defamed. A man is not discriminated against when ideas he holds are criticized.
Religions are bashed all the time, but I think you missed the point. I'll be extremely angry if someone insulted my deepest believes, but this isn't a question of religion vs. religion, this is a question of personal freedom to profess a religion. The consequences of portraying a whole religious group as terrorists are crystal clear today, you don't have to go further than your own country's policies on flights. As you see this is not simply a question of outragement.

EDIT: Notice how you initiated your post: So...two wrongs make a right, or something like that? Doing bad things in some cases means we should do bad things in other cases?

EDIT (sorry for the various updates): How do you know they haven't already thought destroying Israel outweighs any benefits of peace? They exist for one reason; the destruction of Israel - why would they want to take away that reason?
Are you arguing that Palestine or Iran's only purpose is to destroy Israel?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How do you know they haven't already thought destroying Israel outweighs any benefits of peace?

Because they say so


They exist for one reason; the destruction of Israel -

Well that and for freedom of Palestine of course. Now the fact that they claim the only way this can be achieved is thought the destruction of Israel is irrellevant I suppose.


Are you arguing that Palestine or Iran's only purpose is to destroy Israel?

They claim its the only way there will ever be peace. Take it for what its worth.

[Beirut]

So...two wrongs make a right, or something like that? Doing bad things in some cases means we should do bad things in other cases?

Well it certainly is the height of hypocrasy, and it reflects far worse on us than on them.


Do you think Hamas gives a rat's posterior about what Canada wants?

To some degree, yes. They want international recognition, we can give it to them. By involving them in the international community we stand a much better chance of influencing them.


How do you know they haven't already thought destroying Israel outweighs any benefits of peace? They exist for one reason; the destruction of Israel - why would they want to take away that reason?

Oh for goodness sake, they know they can't destroy Israel, and so do you and so do I. But do they hate them? Of course they do. The same way the Israelis hate the Palestinians. (If I'm wrong and the Isrealis don't hate the Palestinians, they have a interesting way of showing affection.)


Self defense is not murder. Terrorism is. I am quite comfortable on condemning the cowardly terrorist attacks that constitute Palestine's war on Israel, and supporting the vast majority of Israeli defensive actions.

And I am quite comfortable condemning the "defensive actions" of Israel that have created a generation of people across the world who grew up reading Palestinian death toll numbers in the daily paper like it was a sports score.


Bah. You talk as if Israel sends the IDF off into Palestine to hunt down random people. That's BS. Did you read the initial speech, how palestinians are killing more of themselves off than Israel has lately?

They don't have to hunt random people, the missiles and artillery do very well on their own thank you. But when they do hunt people down, goodness knows a lot of innocent people get killed in the process.


So? Technological superiority does not equal evil. Spain has a much larger and more sophisticated army than the Muslim terrorists who attacked them - does that make Spain in the wrong?

I did not imply that technological superiority equals evil. I said that Israel is far too strong to be seen as the victim in all of this. What is going on between Palestine and Israel is a war. A war of subjugation. So it is relevant to view the capabilities of both sides when discussing the issue.

Also, as far as I know, Spain is not imprisoning an entire people on a generational level and killing them by the thousands.


Only 2 last time I checked. And Egypt gets 1 billion a year.

Two? Usually three from what I heard. Every year for decades. And if they can give Egypt a billion a year, then they should give Palestine a billion a year as well.


Does being poor through your own faults, or even through someone else's, excuse murdering women and children? Palestinians are almost surrounded by supposed 'friends' in the Muslim countries. They could take all the Palestinians in and give them good lives - but they do not. Why do you have no harsh words for them?

I have few if any kind words for the Muslim countries that surround Palestine. I think they have behaved attrociously towards their brothers in Palestine, and if they all believe in the same God, then that God awaits them with harsh judgement for their inaction. This is one of the reasons I side with the Palestinians, because everyone ***** on them. They are treated as less than human, like cattle, and that cannot be tolerated by civilized people.

I have harsh words for Israel because Israel is the doing the torturing and the killing and keeping the Palestinians caged in brutal and subhuman conditions.


You just want Canada to be blindly biased in the way that pleases you.

To the exact same degree that you want the US to be blindly biased in the way that pleases you.


Excusing and ignoring terrorism is not intellectual honesty.

I ask neither for terrorism to be excused or ignored. I do expect my government to have the courage to sit down with anyone, anywhere, anytime, if it offers even the slightest chance of reducing suffering and violence.


Do you deny, Beirut, that the Human Rights Council is biased against Israel to the point of basically ignoring all other human rights violations?

It's very possible, yes. All cases of violations of human rights should be dealt with. Including violations by Israel, Canada, the United States, Syria, Iran, China, and just about every other country on the planet.

[Watchman]

...and that was our guest lecturer CR demonstrating the apologist attitudes that have allowed Tel Aviv get away with being total bloody-handed bastards for the past fifty-odd years and earned both Israel and the US the resentement of just about every Muslim on the planet plus a fair few other folks' to boot.
Let's give the man an applause for his excellent performance.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'll be extremely angry if someone insulted my deepest believes, but this isn't a question of religion vs. religion, this is a question of personal freedom to profess a religion.

Criticizing a religion in no way inhibits a person's ability to practice that religion. Outlawing a religion, as Saudi Arabia has practically done with Christianity, is against human rights.


Are you arguing that Palestine or Iran's only purpose is to destroy Israel?

No, I'm talking about Hamas. It may not be their only purpose, but it is definitely their main purpose.


Oh for goodness sake, they know they can't destroy Israel, and so do you and so do I.

That doesn't stop them. If they continue, they will eventually reach their goal.


And I am quite comfortable condemning the "defensive actions" of Israel that have created a generation of people across the world who grew up reading Palestinian death toll numbers in the daily paper like it was a sports score.

Guess what- just because they died doesn't make them saints in life - they might actually have been terrorists!


I did not imply that technological superiority equals evil.

Then why mention it at all?


I said that Israel is far too strong to be seen as the victim in all of this.

So strong people never are the victims of crimes, and strong nations never the victims of attacks?


What is going on between Palestine and Israel is a war. A war of subjugation.

:daisy:.
Israel has pulled OUT OF Gaza, they are NOT trying to subjugate Palestine. The IDF goes in there in response to terrorist attacks by the Palestinians. You know what the Palestinians did with control of Gaza? They smuggled weapons in, they so ignored their own living conditions that people drowned in their own excrement - due in no way to any funds being cut off.

Every offering Israel holds out in hope of peace is taken by the Palestinians and disfigured into a way to wage war upon Israel.


And if they can give Egypt a billion a year, then they should give Palestine a billion a year as well.

Egypt had to actually agree to - and practice - peace with Israel.

Crazed Rabbit

[Soulforged]

Criticizing a religion in no way inhibits a person's ability to practice that religion. Outlawing a religion, as Saudi Arabia has practically done with Christianity, is against human rights.
Again, first you missed my quotation of your initial sentence, second you missed the rest of my post beyond that quote. There are clear consecuences to racial, religious, ideocincratic, etc. profiling. Also I said court when this is the Council, wich has more a function of vigilance and "filter" than of effective ruling. Sure they will try any case before the Court eventually, but what the Council on Human Rights says is not inmidiatly what the UN says, surely you'll agree on that.

No, I'm talking about Hamas. It may not be their only purpose, but it is definitely their main purpose.
Sorry, then I agree with you, it's more I think it's their only purpose. :bow:

[IrishArmenian]

I don't like the wording too much but I agree with Bopa. Israel has denied basic human rights to Palestinians and has gotten away with it for quite a long time. In fact, Israel seems to have reduced the U.N.'s effectiveness to rubble along with countless Palestinian refugee camps.

The Palestinian--Israeli conflict should've been resolved long ago.

The fact that the U.N. still sits on their hands and does nothing while they don't do anything about Darfur is another mystery that has yet to be solved. For such a heralded foundation, the U.N. has really screwed up more than benefitting the world as it is supposed to.

[Beirut]

That doesn't stop them. If they continue, they will eventually reach their goal.

If effort equaled success, Iraq would be pacified by now.


Guess what- just because they died doesn't make them saints in life - they might actually have been terrorists!

:inquisitive:

I'm of the opinion that you cannot actually mean that.


Then why mention it at all?

You misread my statement, I corrected the situation. Either that or I simply had the urge to type.


So strong people never are the victims of crimes, and strong nations never the victims of attacks?

Of course they are. Israel has been subjected to criminal terrorist attacks just as they have committed them. I condemn both.


:daisy:

Hmmmm, now what on Earth could that mean? :daisy:


Israel has pulled OUT OF Gaza, they are NOT trying to subjugate Palestine. The IDF goes in there in response to terrorist attacks by the Palestinians. You know what the Palestinians did with control of Gaza? They smuggled weapons in, they so ignored their own living conditions that people drowned in their own excrement - due in no way to any funds being cut off.

Of course they are trying to subjegate Palestine, they've been doing it for decades. Sure they pulled out, after years and years of brutal, and I do mean brutal, treatment of the Palestinian people and outright theft of their resources and livelyhood. The Isrealis stole the humanity of the Palestinians, treated them like cattle, and you expect that after decades of inhuman abuse at the hands of the Isrealis the Palestinians are going to get their act together right away. They need huge amounts of help, both financial and governmental. That's why we need to talk to them. They are so broken down in body and spirit they have nowhere to turn but violence. There are two ways to stop it, kill them all or help them all. I choose to help them. The Canadian government should do the same. It's easy to take a gun and kill a man, it's a hell of a lot harder to help him live. We should not take the easy way out.


Every offering Israel holds out in hope of peace is taken by the Palestinians and disfigured into a way to wage war upon Israel.

Israeli hard liners are as much a roadblock to peace as the Palestinian hard liners. Israelis have killed their own who tried to make peace just as the Palestinians have.

The first step to peace is to let the Palestinians talk to the world and world leaders instead of interfering with them. How can they feel like they're a part of the word when they are excluded from it? And please don't give me this terrorism business. Mao killed tens of millions and Nixon was falling all over himself to drink tea and have private chats with him like they were longtime beer buddies. How many dictators and lunatic killers have been welcomed by the US and Canadian governments for friendly chats and long weekends together?

Our governments have/do/will support and collude with the worst humanity has to offer, but when the Palestinians are mentioned they all put on their hats of humanity and declare the Palestinians "un-talk-to-able". A cowardly lie by cowardly people.

The reason our PM Harper didn't meet the Hamas leader is because he was told not to. We have a weasel for a PM.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Again, first you missed my quotation of your initial sentence, second you missed the rest of my post beyond that quote. There are clear consecuences to racial, religious, ideocincratic, etc. profiling. Also I said court when this is the Council, wich has more a function of vigilance and "filter" than of effective ruling. Sure they will try any case before the Court eventually, but what the Council on Human Rights says is not inmidiatly what the UN says, surely you'll agree on that.

I see your point. But I believe that the council should then focus on actual discrimination issues that arise. I agree that the council is not necessarily the voice for the whole UN.


I'm of the opinion that you cannot actually mean that.

I mean that killing bad people is not terrible. A list of Palestinians killed is not automatically a mark of Israel's evilness. I have no objection to a long list of dead terrorists. A list of innocent people killed unnecessarily by Israelis is another - much shorter - thing.


Hmmmm, now what on Earth could that mean?

Why, it means fine baloney sandwich. :daisy:


Of course they are trying to subjegate Palestine, they've been doing it for decades. Sure they pulled out, after years and years of brutal, and I do mean brutal, treatment of the Palestinian people and outright theft of their resources and livelyhood.

So, if they've pulled out, how are they still trying to subjugate palestine?


They are so broken down in body and spirit they have nowhere to turn but violence.

I thought you said you didn't excuse terrorism. The world has tried to help the Palestinians for years. Remember the Oslo agreements? But time and time again the Palestinians have rejected peace for war. They were being 'talked to' when they elected a government that hated Israel more than the previous one. Countries were doing to the Palestinian leadership exactly what you advise - wining and dining them and giving them loads of cash.


Israeli hard liners are as much a roadblock to peace as the Palestinian hard liners. Israelis have killed their own who tried to make peace just as the Palestinians have.

Such Israeli hardliners aren't in control of their respective nation.

Crazed Rabbit

[Watchman]

So, if they've pulled out, how are they still trying to subjugate palestine?Ever heard of the (incidentally patently illegal under international law) West Bank settlements, and how they coincidentially tend to be built on the top of water reserves and decent farmland ? Not to mention the funny way the heavily armed settlers - rabid Zionists pretty much to a man unsurprisingly - have a funny habit of bullying their Palestinian neighbours ?


Remember the Oslo agreements?*snort* Did you know, Israel actually increased the budget for the (still patently illegal) West Bank settlements around the same time IIRC. Nevermind now the Oslo accords were a total crap deal for the Palestinians which basically gave them nothing.

And didn't the Israeli PM of the time got assasinated by a Zionist ultra for having signed those, or am I remembering wrong ?


Such Israeli hardliners aren't in control of their respective nation.Over the years the Israeli governement has included such illustrious people as former Stern Gang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_gang) members whose resumé included everything from mass murder to trying to negotiate an alliance against the Brits - with Nazi Germany. For one example. For another, if I've understood correctly Sharon's early officer career included leading what pretty much amount to death squads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_101).

I don't think you quite grasp the situation down there.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ever heard of the (incidentally patently illegal under international law)

The much ballyhood international law trotted out again. If their doing something against the law arrest them :)

In reality there is no such thing as "International Law" Only treaties and agreements between nations to be broken at their pleasure. You cant let a treaty trump national security.

In the old days this would have been over decades ago. All the land would be Israel and those arabs who didnt want to stay would have had to go elsewhere. All the UN and peacnicks magage to do is prolong the misery. Theres no longer allowed to be a winner.


Nevermind now the Oslo accords were a total crap deal for the Palestinians which basically gave them nothing.


Your right . Their better off with the deal they have now. They deserve nothing. They lost. They lost and they lost and they lost. They were offered their nation in 48 and turned it down. They have always stated that they will not settle for anything less than the destruction of Israel. And dont hand me this crap they cant do it. They certainly believe they can and many here are helping themaccomplish just that. They have plenty of time to accomplish their goal. A little bit at a time is what their after. The only thing that even makes them Palestinians is that they were living there when the UN mandated it.

[Beirut]

The only thing that even makes them Palestinians is that they were living there when the UN mandated it.

If you start all that again I'm calling out George & Martha.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If you start all that again I'm calling out George & Martha.


Be my guest as the analogy never fit anyway. Let me ask you one little question. Are the Jews Palestinians?

[Beirut]

Be my guest.

Thank you. :sunny:


Let me ask you one little question. Are the Jews Palestinians?

I assume anyone born in Palestine is Palestinian.

And now, you may fire away...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I assume anyone born in Palestine is Palestinian.


OK what makes one a Palestinian then? It certainly cant be any of the things that define a peoples. They have a history thats only 60 years old. Up until then there were no Palestinians to speak of. It was a region like Asia or the Sahara not a nation. In fact there never was nor is there yet a nation called Palestine nor were there ever a peoples other than the jews who were even reffered to as Palestinians until the British mandate.

[Beirut]

:director: "George! Martha! Stage right in twenty!"

[Beirut]

The further adventures of George & Martha


Martha: “George, dear, I bought some lovely oranges from that nice Palestinian man at the market.”

George: “Good.”

Martha: “By the way, on my way home I ran into Mrs. Shapiro. I offered her an orange. She said it was very good and asked me where I got it. When I told her it was from the Palestinian man, she said ‘there’s no such thing as Palestinians, call them Arabs’”

George: “She’s right. There are no such thing as Palestinians.”

Martha: “Then why do we call them Palestinians?”

George: “For God’s sake Martha, I've told you a hundred times. There are no real Palestinians. They invented themselves in the 1970s. They were just Arabs.”

Martha: “Arabs who lived in Palestine?”

George: “Yes.”

Martha: “So they’re Palestinians.”

George: “No!”

Martha: “What about Arabs born in Palestine, George?”

George: “Just Arabs.”

Martha: “Well what are we then?”

George: “Israeli.”

Martha: “But you were born in Minnesota and I was born in Winnipeg. I didn't’t even convert to Judaism until I met you. Then we moved here. How does that make us Israeli when a Palestinian man born in Palestine isn't a Palestinian?”

George: “Because there’s no such thing as Palestine.”

Martha: “Then why was it called Palestine if there was no Palestine?”

George: “For the love of God, Martha, Palestine was just a word.”

Martha: “Israel is a word.”

George: “Israel is a country!”

Martha: “What was Israel before Israel was Israel?”

George: “Palestine.”

Martha: “Doesn't that mean that the nice man selling oranges is Palestinian since he was born here before Israel was a country?”

George: “No!”

Martha: “Then what is he, George?”

George: “An Arab.”

Martha: “Born in Palestine.”

George: “Right.”

Martha: “But not Palestinian.”

George: “Right.”

Martha: “But we’re both Israeli even though you were born in America and I was born in Canada?”

George: “Right.”

Martha: “I’m confused, George.”

George: “You’ll get used to it.”

Tune in next week and hear Martha say:

Martha: “George, there’s a handsome Israeli soldier outside who wants to show me a heat activated bagel holder. He says it only holds one but if you apply friction it can hold a half dozen.”

George: “Damnit Martha!”

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Martha: “What was Israel before Israel was Israel?”

George: “Palestine.”



No it wasnt anything. It was Israel long before it was ever called Palestine however. It was the Romans who named it Palestine after destroying Israel. So your whole rant is nothing but exactly that. A rant. Are Mexicans Americans? How about Brazilians are they Americans? Sure they are . But their certainy not US citizens. Why the hell do you think they chose the name "Palestinians"? What makes an arab any more of a Palestinian than a Jew?

[Grey_Fox]

Before the current Israel was created, Palestine had only ever been a province, first under the control of Rome, then under the control of the Ottoman Empire. The people who lived there were Palestinian Jews, and Palestinian Muslims. Currently over 90% of Palestine is called Jordan. The rest is called Israel.

Israel was around long before Palestine was.

[Beirut]

So your whole rant is nothing but exactly that. A rant.

But a nice one, don'cha think. :sunny:

[Adrian II]

Before the current Israel was created, Palestine had only ever been a province, first under the control of Rome, then under the control of the Ottoman Empire. The people who lived there were Palestinian Jews, and Palestinian Muslims. Currently over 90% of Palestine is called Jordan. The rest is called Israel.

Israel was around long before Palestine was.Please, gentlemen, no more. I have been laughing all the way to the synagogue about this thread.

Seriously. The Egyptians of the New Kingdom called it Palestine, the Assyrians called it Palestine and so did Herodotus. Even the Septuagint, the oldest extant version of the Hebrew Bible, called it Palestine. Alexander in his inventory of the peoples of his empire does not even mention Jews.

Next thing, you'll be telling us that Jesus Christ actually existed. Education is not what it used to be.

EDIT

Yes Beirut, a very good rant. Far from twisting and confusing the issue with hate-filled oneliners, you made a very eloquent case for a decent and forward looking approach. Indeed, more than a few Jews in today's world agree with it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Seriously. The Egyptians of the New Kingdom called it Palestine, the Assyrians called it Palestine and so did Herodotus. Even the Septuagint, the oldest extant version of the Hebrew Bible, called it Palestine. Alexander in his inventory of the peoples of his empire does not even mention Jews.



Link please. So your denying the Romans named the region Palestine?
Ive heard of Holocaust deniers but your the first Israel denier Ive heard from. Palestine isnt even an arab word.

[Incongruous]

LOL. I hope that's not your best response.

Crazed Rabbit

LOL...
No actually it isn't. I have posted many times before, far better comments on the subject, but they are always ignored by certain people.

If you wan't my stance on the matter, see if you can dig it up from the old thread is started about Isreal and it's occupation.

[Incongruous]

Link please. So your denying the Romans named the region Palestine?
Ive heard of Holocaust deniers but your the first Israel denier Ive heard from. Palestine isnt even an arab word.
Oh, so wait, the fact that Palastine is not a real place, is why the Arabs living there, have no human rights worth protecting.

Thanks for clearing that up.

BTW this is serious:book:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh, so wait, the fact that Palastine is not a real place, is why the Arabs living there, have no human rights worth protecting.


Please quote where I said anything like that.

[CBR]

Link please. So your denying the Romans named the region Palestine?
Ive heard of Holocaust deniers but your the first Israel denier Ive heard from. Palestine isnt even an arab word.
The name is derived from the land of the Philistines. Herodotus used the Greek equivalent of the word and later the Romans used a latin version(Palaestina)

Herodotus might not have meant the whole area that we now consider Israel/Palestine but we can be pretty sure that at least part of the area used that name a long time before the Romans.


CBR

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The name is derived from the land of the Philistines. Herodotus used the Greek equivalent of the word and later the Romans used a latin version(Palaestina)


It was reffred to as the lands of the Philistines then Philistine Syria and the Romans changed it to the province of (Palaestina) when they decided to change it from the province of Judea. Even then it reffered to a region not a peoples. The people who lived there were forced to leave for the most part. You may have heard of them their called Jews.

And the Philistines have nothing to do with the people who now claim to be Palestinians. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs. The very fact that they call themselves arabs tells you their not originally from Palestine.

[Del Arroyo]

Perhaps Adrian was doing a little April Fool's?

Anyway, modern-day Palestinians do derive their identity almost solely from the struggle against Israel. The whole idea of a state of Palestine only came along because the Arab states figured that the all of the people displaced by conflict with Israel would eventually need a "homeland" of their own. The West Bank (of the Jordan river) was originally considered a part of Jordan, and this would still probably be the most stable long-term solution, though I doubt Jordan would even want to take responsibility for that firey kettle right now.

EDIT: That's right, Gawain. The Arabs who lived in the territory of Palestine before 1948 had absolutely no connection to that land, except for the fact that they were born there, all of their family lived near there, and their fathers' and their fathers' father's had lived there, too. The Zionist claim of racial prerogative is much more legitimate.

[CBR]

Yes a region with shifting names and several ethnic groups. Whats your point? That people who call themselves Arabs has no right to live in that area? Or that they cannot possible have any other identity but a generic Arab one?


CBR

[Papewaio]

I'm pretty sure all the World War I war memorials refer to the region as Palestine not Israel, now how did that happen if it was only made up after WWII? Has Doctor Who been putting graffiti on all the WWI war memorials?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Whats your point? That people who call themselves Arabs has no right to live in that area?

I never said that. The point is the arabs say Jews have no right to call themselves Palestinians. Since when is Palestine part of Arabia? Just because Moslem nations once conquered the area it should be only for muslims now? It has nothing to do with whos land it was 60 years ago or even 2000 years ago. I just argue that from a historical point of view. It is now as it always has been. Well almost. The strong control the land. It was given to Israel by the winners of WW2. They can defend their borders and have done so on numerous occassions. It is only through their goodwill that they even allow Palestine to still exist. That and pressure from that horrible old US of A.

[Marshal Murat]

Well, if the area is named for Philistines, it should be changed, because Philistines, besides being culturally ignorant, are actually 'Sea People' who settled there. They were also defeated by the Israeli people before the Diaspora.

If the Arabs are allowed to have that land because they lived there before, it throws out their argument because they conquered the lands from the Byzantine soldiers, and Catholic crusaders. They won the land through force, and any relation to the original inhabitants of the land before is pure luck.

[Mooks]

The issue on whos land is whos is never going to be solved. And it doesnt matter at all. The jews who invaded have proved much tougher (and smarter) then the local arabs, and have took the land.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'm pretty sure all the World War I war memorials refer to the region as Palestine not Israel, now how did that happen if it was only made up after WWII? Has Doctor Who been putting graffiti on all the WWI war memorials?


Didnt I say until madated by the British? That would be after WW1 the Balflour Declaration and then later the British mandate.


The issue on whos land is whos is never going to be solved. And it doesnt matter at all. The jews who invaded have proved much tougher (and smarter) then the local arabs, and have took the land.

And thats all that counts. Its too late to argue now. Itr was won by the sword and lost by the sword. To the strong go the spoils. Sorry people. So it has always been and so it always will. All the UN and you peacenicks do is prolong the suffering and make things worse in the long run. The Palestinians should realize theve lost and try to get as good a deal as they can. You know like Camp David. Since when do the losers dictate terms?

[Tuuvi]

I'm still not exactly sure why the Israeli government doesn't just make all the palestinians citizens, then the jews and the arabs can mix and they all live happily ever after.

[Mooks]

I'm still not exactly sure why the Israeli government doesn't just make all the palestinians citizens, then the jews and the arabs can mix and they all live happily ever after.


Uhh. Your kidding right? I mean, your not actually serios?

[Tuuvi]

Uhh. Your kidding right? I mean, your not actually serios?kinda. I know why they don't, but I think it would be a good idea if they did.

[Beirut]

To the strong go the spoils. Sorry people. So it has always been and so it always will.


Is that not a justification of all evil in that might is right?

Where is the better part of human nature in that equation?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Is that not a justification of all evil in that might is right?



The one with the might isnt always the evil one. Thats where many of you go wrong.


Where is the better part of human nature in that equation?

There is none :laugh4:

Were talking survival here. When it come to kill or be killed Ill take the kill part almost everytime. Again if the Palestinians had the power of Israel and the Islraelis had the power of the Palestinians I wouldnt give Israel a chance of existing for another month.

[Adrian II]

Link please. So your denying the Romans named the region Palestine?
Ive heard of Holocaust deniers but your the first Israel denier Ive heard from. Palestine isnt even an arab word.If you really care what it was called during the New Kingdom, you should consult Chicago where they study and translate the Medinet Habu inscriptions. Or else Pritchard, J., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1969.

A link to Herodotus, well, I can't be bothered. Try Histories 1.105. And if you feel really up to it, try 7.89 about the Palaisteinei marching in Xerxes' army - but beware, that passage could be the justification for a Greater Palestine from Southern Syria to the Egyptian border! Ouch!

I must disappoint you about Alexander the Great, old chum. He ran into trouble with AOL and his weblog hasn't been updated for a while. But you might find his inventory on the Web if you bother to look for it.

And as I stated above, even the oldest extant Jewish text calls the area Palestine. Where does that leave your claim?

Oh, and by the way I'm not denying Israel's past, I'm just debunking some fairytales here. Please go on, give me some more. It made me smile all day yesterday.

[Ironside]

Uhh. Your kidding right? I mean, your not actually serios?

Well, it's the only one-state solution that doesn't include genocide. Says quite a bit on how big odds there's for a one-state solution doesn't it?

[Banquo's Ghost]

And thats all that counts. Its too late to argue now. Itr was won by the sword and lost by the sword. To the strong go the spoils. Sorry people. So it has always been and so it always will. All the UN and you peacenicks do is prolong the suffering and make things worse in the long run. The Palestinians should realize theve lost and try to get as good a deal as they can. You know like Camp David. Since when do the losers dictate terms?

This kind of moral bankruptcy would seem to be a good argument for the violence perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists to continue. If they don't accept they have lost yet, they can still aspire to win by the sword - or the suicide bomb. After all, Israelis beat off a much stronger power (which to all intents and purposes had "won") by bombing the King David Hotel, among other asymmetric acts of war.

Israel employed quite similar guerrilla tactics against the other powers that "won" their land by the sword. Who says when it is too late to argue? I wonder, if your homeland was occupied, when would you give up knowing you'd lost? When they told you to? When they bulldozed your house? Or when your children were shot?

My people refused to accept they had lost to a great power for 800 years. The Israeli people for another thousand or so. When precisely was it too late for them to argue?

(To be clear, I am not advocating such violence. Unlike the "amoral strong" you propose, Israel is a vibrant democracy capable of negotiating wisely for peace, which means the door is open for a non-military solution.

I would like to see the Israeli nation grow up and have the confidence in their own strength - and the fact that their existence is guaranteed by the US - to be magnanimous enough to work the problem. I have long said that the Palestinians have absolutely nothing to gain save continued misery by prolonging the war, and need courageous leaders who would advocate peace. But these leaders are likely to be from the militant strong men - as the leaders of Israel who have been able to further the peace process have been.

A Palestinian leader who has not bled for his people is unlikely to have the support to make the compromises that bring peace. The terrorists are the only people that can stop the terror, ergo, they must be talked to).

[Beirut]

The one with the might isnt always the evil one. Thats where many of you go wrong.

Often they are, though. Rome. Mongolia. England. France. Germany. The USSR. The USA. All have been very powerful and all have gone bonkers with that power.


There is none :laugh4:

Were talking survival here. When it come to kill or be killed Ill take the kill part almost everytime.


Yet many people risked death hiding Jews from the Nazis. And many more died fighting the Nazis.

I'll take the better part of human nature, you can keep the killing part. :bow:

[Vladimir]

I'm for the side that doesn't want to kill me :yes:.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Often they are, though. Rome. Mongolia. England. France. Germany. The USSR. The USA. All have been very powerful and all have gone bonkers with that power.

So Rome was evil ? Didnt most of these you mentioned civilize the world? That sometimes they abused their power only makes them human.


Yet many people risked death hiding Jews from the Nazis. And many more died fighting the Nazis.

I'll take the better part of human nature, you can keep the killing part.

Its one thing to be willing to die for your country , Its another thing entirely to be willing to let your country and peoples die because you wont fight for it.


If they don't accept they have lost yet, they can still aspire to win by the sword - or the suicide bomb. After all, Israelis beat off a much stronger power (which to all intents and purposes had "won") by bombing the King David Hotel, among other asymmetric acts of war.



No they hope to win by propaganda. They have hope because many people like some here support them.


Israel employed quite similar guerrilla tactics against the other powers that "won" their land by the sword

Name one Israeli suicide bomber. You cant compare the Irgun to modern Palestinian terrorists.


I wonder, if your homeland was occupied, when would you give up knowing you'd lost? When they told you to? When they bulldozed your house? Or when your children were shot?


Its not their homeland.


and the fact that their existence is guaranteed by the US

Their existence is guaranteed by the Israeli armed forces. Even wiithout US support they would survive.


The terrorists are the only people that can stop the terror, ergo, they must be talked to).

You might as well talk to the wall.

[Suraknar]

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. A 1988 study by the US Army counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". For this and for political reasons, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.

Terrorism is a crime in many countries and is defined by statute (see below for particular definitions). Common principles amongst legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries.

Among these definitions, several do not recognize the possibility of the legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country, and would thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence. Russia for example includes in their terrorist list only those organizations which represent the greatest threat to their own security. Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.

It has also been argued that the political use of violent force and weapons that deliberately target or involve civilians, and do not focus mainly on military or government targets, is a common militant, terrorist, or guerilla tactic, and a main defining feature of these kinds of people. Most governments and "legitimate" military leaders do not openly attempt to use civilians as shields or aim at them during times of political conflict. Whereas the definition of a terrorist can specify that a militant or a militant group has the criminal intent, planning, and actions to violently use civilian targets and civilian shields for political and economic ends.

As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. While both conventional military forces may engage in psychological warfare and guerrilla forces may engage in acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, they both aim at military victory. Terrorism on the other hand aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has resulted in some social scientists referring to guerrilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak" and terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest"

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

When the Nazis occupied France, and the French began resisting, the Nazis called them terrorists.

The Issue is certaintly complicated, but it can only have two solutions:

1 - Fight forever

2 - Decide to Live in Peacefull coexistance - independently of Religion or Language. Same rights for both sides, no second class citizenships, equal governement representation. Sacrifices and tolerance have to be made from both sides.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

When the Nazis occupied France, and the French began resisting, the Nazis called them terrorists

The old one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter routine. If you cant tell the difference I dont know what to say? Did the French resistance go around blowing up innocent German civilians? Do the Palestinians really think that suicide bombing gets them anywhere or will defeat Israel by using that tactic? Does anyone else doubt that in reality this is why they dont have their state? How can any people be so damn stupid.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You might as well talk to the wall.

Yes, on reading your responses I have that feeling.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes, on reading your responses I have that feeling.


I guess Im the only one who believes you cant negotiate with terrorists LOL.
Terrorist
"Look what we want is you dead. "

What do you negotiate the manner of your death ?

[Reenk Roink]

*A couple of "might is right" posts*


This kind of moral bankruptcy...

Hi Banquo, how are you? :smiley:

I just wanted to point out that, personally (right now), I agree with the "might is right" doctrine as any (of my) attempts to build any ethical system fall apart due to infinite regresses or begging the question unless it appeals to some absolute (and wholly arbitrary [though only morally so]) authority. Ethical (moral) skepticism (bankruptcy) and straight up voluntarism are the only (seemingly "rational") options that remain. The latter would probably be preferential to the former, except that it's so hard to actually choose which authority. :dizzy:

Anyway, I probably digress, as I suspect that some of the people who bring up "might is right" actually mean "might is right when that might backs me up". :tongue2:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I guess Im the only one who believes you cant negotiate with terrorists LOL.
Terrorist
"Look what we want is you dead. "

What do you negotiate the manner of your death ?

No, not the only one. For example, Dr Ian Paisley refused ever to talk to terrorists and wrapped himself forever in the flag of No Surrender.

I wonder who is in his new cabinet? I wonder which country allowed them to be supported financially and politically while they chose the manner of death for innocents?

:shrug:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Hi Banquo, how are you? :smiley:

I just wanted to point out that, personally (right now), I agree with the "might is right" doctrine as any (of my) attempts to build any ethical system fall apart due to infinite regresses or begging the question unless it appeals to some absolute (and wholly arbitrary [though only morally so]) authority. Ethical (moral) skepticism (bankruptcy) and straight up voluntarism are the only (seemingly "rational") options that remain. The latter would probably be preferential to the former, except that it's so hard to actually choose which authority. :dizzy:

Hi Reenk Roink - you have been missed. ~:wave:

I can see your point - you must be far more worried that the sun ain't going to rise tomorrow. :wink3:

[Reenk Roink]

Hi Reenk Roink - you have been missed. ~:wave:

I can see your point - you must be far more worried that the sun ain't going to rise tomorrow. :wink3:

Gah, you know the reason for my hiatus... :grin:

After watching the sun set on a Thrusday evening, I suffered a massive nervous breakdown. I was institutionalized for a week, where high dosages of suppositories and constant therapy improved my condition. Due to good behavior, I was released early, but on the condition that I would go and look at the daisies, which is exactly why I came back to the ORG that is gardened by you... :wink:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'm still not exactly sure why the Israeli government doesn't just make all the palestinians citizens, then the jews and the arabs can mix and they all live happily ever after.


Because that would give them a majority and then what? Of course they did offer citizenship to those who stayed in 48.

[Beirut]

That sometimes they abused their power only makes them human.

Such subtle words to describe a hundred million dead.

Abuse of power may be human nature. But it is also human nature to recognize that that abuse is aberant behaviour and that it should be condemned and fought.


Its another thing entirely to be willing to let your country and peoples die because you wont fight for it.


Hence the Palestinians who stand face to turret with 60 ton Merkervas and throw rocks at them while the other side throws 120mm shells.

Ya just gotta love the chutzpah of those kids. Every time I see a picture of someone, anyone, standing face to face with a tank and refusing to back down, it actually gives me hope for the future.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Such subtle words to describe a hundred million dead.



Humans are killers. Get over it.


But it is also human nature to recognize that that abuse is aberant behaviour and that it should be condemned and fought.


And in most of the countries you mentioned this is the case.


Hence the Palestinians who stand face to turret with 60 ton Merkervas and throw rocks at them while the other side throws 120mm shells.


Except their not a peoples and never had a country.


Ya just gotta love the chutzpah of those kids. Every time I see a picture of someone, anyone, standing face to face with a tank and refusing to back down, it actually gives me hope for the future.


I think they and you are all nuts :)

[Beirut]

Humans are killers. Get over it.

I prefer to fight the instinct.



I think they and you are all nuts :)

We are crunchy and delicious, are we not? :sunny:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I prefer to fight the instinct.

But still you kill everyday.


We are crunchy and delicious, are we not?

Gah. Two peanuts were walking down the street the otherday. One was a salted.

[Beirut]

But still you kill everyday.

The only things I killed were the germs in the two bathrooms I had to clean.

I consider it manslaughter at worst.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The only things I killed were the germs in the two bathrooms I had to clean.

I consider it manslaughter at worst.


Thats what Palestinian terrorist say of Jews.

[Beirut]

Thats what Palestinian terrorist say of Jews.

Palestinian terrorists clean Jewish bathrooms?

Curiouser and curiouser.

[Incongruous]

I never said that. The point is the arabs say Jews have no right to call themselves Palestinians. Since when is Palestine part of Arabia? Just because Moslem nations once conquered the area it should be only for muslims now? It has nothing to do with whos land it was 60 years ago or even 2000 years ago. I just argue that from a historical point of view. It is now as it always has been. Well almost. The strong control the land. It was given to Israel by the winners of WW2. They can defend their borders and have done so on numerous occassions. It is only through their goodwill that they even allow Palestine to still exist. That and pressure from that horrible old US of A.

:laugh4:
Sorry, just needed that.
So, wait, you're only gripe is that the Arabs living in the area, should not be allowed to call themselves Arabs? Oh ok, that's good, so now if we call them ThosepeopledisplacedterrorisedandmassmurderedbyIsreal that would be ok? Fairly accurate title for the people aswell I think:2thumbsup:

Oh yes, we thank the omnipotent USA for making sure that Isreal in all it's righteous might does not destroy the Arabs:yes:
The strong control the land! Wow, that is a lot of Testosterone there mate.:idea2:

Did you ever hear about what the iSrealsi are doing in the occupied territories? Hear about that old woman who was shot through the head by an Isreali sniper? Or about the Isreali Tanks driving through people gardens? Or about the Isreali forces knocking down Palastinian houses and forcefully evicting them to make way for new Isreali apartments? Or about them not allowing pregnant women through the road blocks to reach a hostpital. In some cases meaning that the women have to leg it over mountainous terrain to get there? Hear about the genocide of the Lebanese by the Phalngists under the direction of Sharon and his men?

No?
Now tell me, who are the bigger terrorists.

[Banquo's Ghost]

No?
Now tell me, who are the bigger terrorists.

C'mon now. The Palestinian terror groups are hardly shrinking violets and have perpetrated some of the nastiest brutalities. There's no doubt that if they had the armouries available to Israel, the loss of life would be immense, and far worse than that inflicted by the state of Israel.

The Israelis use disproportionate measures which are counter-productive for the long run, and as a first world armed state they should be held to a high account, but they have a fine democracy and an incredibly difficult situation.

There's little point in tennis court accusations about who is more brutal. A single death is one too many. What is needed is peace, and the only way peace will be achieved is by the men of war talking and eventually becoming men of peace. This requires acceptance of mistakes and eventually forgiveness.

It also requires rare courage.

[Soulforged]

I guess Im the only one who believes you cant negotiate with terrorists LOL.
Terrorist
"Look what we want is you dead. "

What do you negotiate the manner of your death ?
Not all terrorists are mindless murderers Gawain, many want a change (social, political, religious), they kill people because they want something done. Killing people is not their goal but the mean to achieve that goal.

By the way welcome back and hope you're OK.:2thumbsup:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Palestinian terrorists clean Jewish bathrooms?


No but they do consider jews to be no more than bacteria that dirty up your toilet.


So, wait, you're only gripe is that the Arabs living in the area, should not be allowed to call themselves Arabs

Where did I even hint at such a notion?


Oh yes, we thank the omnipotent USA for making sure that Isreal in all it's righteous might does not destroy the Arabs

Their are only teo things that can stop them from destroying the Palestinians and one of them is the US. The other is their own civility.


The strong control the land! Wow, that is a lot of Testosterone there mate

Its also the truth.


Did you ever hear about what the iSrealsi are doing in the occupied territories? Hear about that old woman who was shot through the head by an Isreali sniper? Or about the Isreali Tanks driving through people gardens? Or about the Isreali forces knocking down Palastinian houses and forcefully evicting them to make way for new Isreali apartments? Or about them not allowing pregnant women through the road blocks to reach a hostpital. In some cases meaning that the women have to leg it over mountainous terrain to get there? Hear about the genocide of the Lebanese by the Phalngists under the direction of Sharon and his men?

No?
Now tell me, who are the bigger terrorists.

What a load of BS. Now why do the Israelis do such things? If they really wanted to kill every Palestinian theres nobody who could stop them except guess who?


Not all terrorists are mindless murderers Gawain, many want a change (social, political, religious), they kill people because they want something done. Killing people is not their goal but the mean to achieve that goal.


Who said they were mindless. Well the leaders certainly arent but those who do the suicide bombing certainly are. Again do you or anyone else here think that suicide bombing is getting them anywhere except in deeper doo doo?

[Soulforged]

Who said they were mindless. Well the leaders certainly arent but those who do the suicide bombing certainly are. Again do you or anyone else here think that suicide bombing is getting them anywhere except in deeper doo doo?
You didn't adress my whole post... Anyway, I do believe that they're achieving a lot of things, even if not all the consequences were part of their goals. First of all they induced a great fear in one of the greatest nations (USA), the fear has spread right now and is causing paranoia. Second there's an execess of political correctness towards the muslim world. Third it managed to cooperate with the image of the evil West in general, and the evil US in particular. I could go on, but I think you get the point. In the case of Hamas, you said it yourself, they look to kill israelis to free Palestine...

EDIT: Do you think that the war on Iraq is getting them (or you) anywhere except doo doo? I noticed that you like to be cynic, how about extreme changes require extreme measures. I'm not justifying them by the way, but... you know cynism...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

First of all they induced a great fear in one of the greatest nations (USA), the fear has spread right now and is causing paranoia

You call, that an accomplishment? It has resulted in the death of how many arabs? And we dont fear them persay. Its not like were worried their going to invade.


Second there's an execess of political correctness towards the muslim world.

Not becuase of terrorism but because were not Muslim. We are brought up with believing that westernman is responsible for all thats wrong with the world. Again this is no accomplishment of terrorism.


Third it managed to cooperate with the image of the evil West in general,

Maybe to you. It has just the opposite effect on me and most americans. We see the Palestinians and terrorists as pyschos who you cant deal with. It does them far more harm than good or do you support terrorism? You seem to think their accomplishing "great" things.


Do you think that the war on Iraq is getting them (or you) anywhere except doo doo

Nope thats why I never thought it was a good idea.


I noticed that you like to be cynic, how about extreme changes require extreme measures.

Sure but they must be measures that work not that make things worse. Suicide bombing is the reason most americans abhor the Palestinians and their so called cause. Their real cause is the extermination of Israel.

[Pannonian]

There's little point in tennis court accusations about who is more brutal. A single death is one too many. What is needed is peace, and the only way peace will be achieved is by the men of war talking and eventually becoming men of peace. This requires acceptance of mistakes and eventually forgiveness.

It also requires rare courage.
It requires political courage to go against one's country's political upbringing to achieve what it desires. That's what British politicians after Thatcher have done regarding Northern Ireland. They knew what we wanted - an end to violence and self-determination for Northern Ireland - but they also knew existing political methods and climate made this impossible. So they ditched the political rah-rah, at least fundamentally, while they worked on achieving the right kind of peace. It must have been tempting to give in to populist fever against IRA terrorists, but their nerve held firm, and they changed the political mood to make a solution possible.

The irony about the Israel-Palestine problem is that a solution is staring them in the face, as I've been writing for over a year now, if only they'll see it. Hamas' unwillingness to recognise the legal existence of Israel matters little, as they don't have the power to threaten it. Instead, they've offered an indefinite ceasefire and a position of living with the existence of Israel. While this does not offer the formal state recognition that pro-Israel hardliners press for, it gives them all they want in practice, while leaving Hamas some breathing room against their own hardliners. It's the kind of informal agreement that the IRA offered in the 90s, resulting in 10 years of unofficial peace followed by a final end to conflict. British politicans were flexible enough to see the possibilities of such a deal, and successive governments of differing parties have made the most of it. Why Gawain and his like are so unwilling to see such a peace for Israel puzzles me.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Why Gawain and his like are so unwilling to see such a peace for Israel puzzles me.

Its not as peace but a ceasefire. It only makes things worse in the end. Do you really think the Palestinian government has any control over the hardliners? Everytime they come close to peace some terrorist group attacks Israel and were off to the races again.

[Beirut]

No but they do consider jews to be no more than bacteria that dirty up your toilet.


Your ability to fire a predictable and cliched comeback is matched only by your legendary, and impressive, immovability. :bow:

As with the terrorism and murder, the hate in Palestine and Israel flows in equal measure in both directions. Make no mistake, there are plenty of Israelis who see the Palestinians as less than human.

[Pannonian]

Its not as peace but a ceasefire. It only makes things worse in the end. Do you really think the Palestinian government has any control over the hardliners? Everytime they come close to peace some terrorist group attacks Israel and were off to the races again.
In my time, in my country, I've seen a terrorist organisation move from violence to offering an indefinitie ceasefire (the Hamas offer was 10 years or somesuch). They too had to appease their hardliners, planting bombs every so often to show their supporters they still had teeth. Even after this ceasefire was in place, we saw that they didn't have full control of their hardliners, as a group split away to commit the bloodiest single incident of the whole conflict. Did we decide then that this was a waste of time, that it only made matters worse in the end? No, we decided the possibilities were worth the risk of turning the other cheek, and we continued and even extended political engagement. The eventual result? A formal end to hostilities and a coalition government of supposedly opposed hardliners.

There were many British people who had much the same views as you, but regarding Northern Ireland. Thank goodness my governments had the political courage to ignore them to work for the ultimate good.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

In my time, in my country, I've seen a terrorist organisation move from violence to offering an indefinitie ceasefire (the Hamas offer was 10 years or somesuch).

But the Palestinians have no country. They dont have thousands of years of history like Ireland. The Irish are civilised and never reorted to suicide bombing, I maybe wrong but in most if not all instances they didnt target British civilians.


Thank goodness my governments had the political courage to ignore them to work for the ultimate good.

And thats the big difference between the two situations. Your goovernment controls its people and armed forces as do the Israelis. This is not so of the Palestinians. Even if you had a government gung ho for peace I doubt it would stay in power long. The main thing other than Islam all these people have is a hatred of jews. Its no wonder considering what their taught in schools and in their Mosques. If the bible is to be believed this struggle will only stop at the end of days.

[Soulforged]

You call, that an accomplishment? It has resulted in the death of how many arabs? And we dont fear them persay. Its not like were worried their going to invade.Yes it's an accomplishment of sorts, they want to terrorize after all. Also I don't think that many terrorist organizations around the world, as organization, care that much about their nationals lives as they do for their goals. You don't need to fear only an invation, fear of an unexpected attack is pretty bad by itself. Are you denying that the new flight regulations on airports are the product of fear?

Not becuase of terrorism but because were not Muslim. We are brought up with believing that westernman is responsible for all thats wrong with the world. Again this is no accomplishment of terrorism.If terrorism colaborates to form that image by bringing the worst of the West, when in fact the west caused a lot of problems in the East, then I could easily say that indirectly, even agreeing with you, is terrorism that's increasing this political correctness wave.

Maybe to you. It has just the opposite effect on me and most americans. We see the Palestinians and terrorists as pyschos who you cant deal with. It does them far more harm than good or do you support terrorism? You seem to think their accomplishing "great" things.That's my point, this is subjective, if it's to me, then it's to a awful lot of other people. You only asked if they're achieving anything besides getting deeper on doo doo, you didn't asked for great things, however I do consider an international sense of fear a "great thing".

Nope thats why I never thought it was a good idea.
Well then you do agree that the War on Iraq should be condemned...

Sure but they must be measures that work not that make things worse. Suicide bombing is the reason most americans abhor the Palestinians and their so called cause. Their real cause is the extermination of Israel.How about the attack on the World Trade Center? Did that persued the death of jews? Anyway, let me see if I understand this correctly: so if they actually worked that will make them ok right?

[Papewaio]

People do not just identify themselves just as citizens of a country.

Maybe in the US no one ever refers to themselves as anything bar an American. They would never form a strong identification as a:
New Yorker, Hippie, Californian, Southerner, Texan, WASP, African-American, ABC, Marine, Baptist, Atheist, Pro-Lifer, Democrat, Republican, Confederate, Unionist, Civil Rights Marcher, KKK, Creationist, Evolutionist etc.

And none of these identities would make them think more or less of other Americans. There has never been any violence from one such identity to another, or riots inspired by clashes of identity in the US nor has their been a civil war. After all Americans only ever see themselves as Americans because a country is the only way a person can and should identify themselves with.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes it's an accomplishment of sorts'
'Then you can consider just about anything an accomplishment.


Are you denying that the new flight regulations on airports are the product of fear?

And what do they have to do with the Palestinians? Of course terrorism has its consequences or accomplishments as you call them. But do you really believe its getting them what they seek? Their only hope is our inaction and people who really do fear them. The only ones who really fear them are the pacifists.


If terrorism colaborates to form that image by bringing the worst of the West,

No it gives a bad image of Islam not the west.


That's my point, this is subjective, if it's to me, then it's to a awful lot of other people.

But it pisses off all the wrong and most powerful people. I dont believe how you can argue that terrorism has made them better off.


Well then you do agree that the War on Iraq should be condemned...

First off there is no war in Iraq. And secondly I said I knew it would be a mess and thats the only reason I condemn it.


How about the attack on the World Trade Center? Did that persued the death of jews?


You keep treating world wide terrorism and Palestinian terrorism as one thing. Im speaking of Palestinian terrorists.


Anyway, let me see if I understand this correctly: so if they actually worked that will make them ok right?

I never said anything of the kind. Im just trying to show you that their use of suicide bombing is the main reason most americans favor the Israeli side, not that they like Jews better than arabs.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The Irish are civilised and never reorted to suicide bombing, I maybe wrong but in most if not all instances they didnt target British civilians.

You couldn't be more wrong.

[Incongruous]

What a load of BS. Now why do the Israelis do such things? If they really wanted to kill every Palestinian theres nobody who could stop them except guess who?

I hope that you are not denying that these things ever occured. Are you?
If you are I suggest that you do some proper reading. Are you sue that you have never heard about the massacare of the Lebanese unnder Isreali guard?
Oh dear:no:

So I take it that the Palastinians are nothing but un-civilised Barbarians then?
Isreal is the shining light of Freedom?

The only reason get's away with so much crap, is because America backs it.

[AntiochusIII]

But the Palestinians have no country. They dont have thousands of years of history like Ireland. The Irish are civilised and never reorted to suicide bombing, I maybe wrong but in most if not all instances they didnt target British civilians.As Banquo pointed out, the conflicts were no less intense nor were they less brutal.

In any case, your implication is obvious, and rather...disturbing. The Palestinians are barbaric, undeserving of negotiation as equals that the Irish essentially received when the peace process over in NI finally went apace.

That is most distressful.

And thats the big difference between the two situations. Your goovernment controls its people and armed forces as do the Israelis. This is not so of the Palestinians. Even if you had a government gung ho for peace I doubt it would stay in power long. The main thing other than Islam all these people have is a hatred of jews. Its no wonder considering what their taught in schools and in their Mosques. If the bible is to be believed this struggle will only stop at the end of days.Right...

Pannonian's analogy equates the Palestinians with the people of Northern Ireland, and Hamas/Fatah with IRA. There's no "big difference" as such.

Also, I believe you are intentionally refusing to acknowledge the centuries-long deep, utter hatred the Irish had for their buddies across the Irish sea? It may appear to have been dissipated now, but certainly the widespread existence of such hatred was very very real once.

And finally, let's just assume we all agree with your position about the Palestinians and the Palestinians are completely demonized; what shall be the final result? Obviously, since these people are criminals, evil, aggressive, barbaric, violent, with immense potential for entropy and genocide once released to roam the land "as if they're masters," and most of all a threat to civilization, the final solution to the problem will be...?

[Beirut]

I'm just trying to show you that their use of suicide bombing is the main reason most americans favor the Israeli side, not that they like Jews better than arabs.

Indeed, nothing like a Hellfire slamming into a crowded market to take the moral edge off a suicide bomber on a bus.

[Soulforged]

And what do they have to do with the Palestinians? Of course terrorism has its consequences or accomplishments as you call them. But do you really believe its getting them what they seek? Their only hope is our inaction and people who really do fear them. The only ones who really fear them are the pacifists.Excuse me then, I didn't know this had to be reduced to "palestinian" terrorism. As I said many times now, I think that demonizing the West is their main goal...

No it gives a bad image of Islam not the west.That too, but that's not an achievement.

But it pisses off all the wrong and most powerful people. I dont believe how you can argue that terrorism has made them better off.Perhaps, but the world is not only composed of "wrong and powerful people".

First off there is no war in Iraq. And secondly I said I knew it would be a mess and thats the only reason I condemn it.Right now it isn't, but how do you call the military event occured years before: invasion, massacre...

You keep treating world wide terrorism and Palestinian terrorism as one thing. Im speaking of Palestinian terrorists.Again I didn't know, but you said it yourself that they also look for the freedom of Palestine.

I never said anything of the kind. Im just trying to show you that their use of suicide bombing is the main reason most americans favor the Israeli side, not that they like Jews better than arabs.But let's suppose it works, Israel is wiped out of the map by the actions of "palestinian" terrorists and they create a new palestinian State, would that be justified?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You couldn't be more wrong.


I dont think so. I believe something like 600 British civilians died as a result of IRA actions . Its true some hardcore IRA gangs did attack British civilians and pubs




I hope that you are not denying that these things ever occured. Are you?


Nope


If you are I suggest that you do some proper reading. Are you sue that you have never heard about the massacare of the Lebanese unnder Isreali guard?
Oh dear

I suggest you give me a little more credit than that.


So I take it that the Palastinians are nothing but un-civilised Barbarians then?
Isreal is the shining light of Freedom?



No Israel is just the lesser of two evils in this conflict. Civilsed people dont use suiicde bombing.


The only reason get's away with so much crap, is because America backs it.

No ,The only reason get's away with so much crap, is because their people and army backs it.


As Banquo pointed out, the conflicts were no less intense nor were they less brutal.


Well hes just wrong. The IRA never called for the irradication of Britain and all its citizens. England was not an armed camp with roadblocks and checkpoints everywhere. Ireland maybe . Im not saying the IRA were a bunch of harmless do gooders. Im saying they had a far different agenda than the PLO does. I dont for a minute believe that if Israel gave them back all they won in 67 that the Palestinians would then leave them in peace. They want all of Palestine for themselves. There already is a arab Palestine and its called Jordan. The current "Palestinians" used to be part of it but were thrown out when they tried to take it over.


In any case, your implication is obvious, and rather...disturbing. The Palestinians are barbaric, undeserving of negotiation as equals that the Irish essentially received when the peace process over in NI finally went apace.


The Palestinians are a culture built and nurished on hate, I don think the IRA ever had the public support that the PLO had. Most Irish just want to live in peace. They dont teach hatred of the British in school and reffer tp them as pigs.


ONCE MORE THE BIG DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE pALESTINIANS WANT THE EXTERMINATION OF ISRAEL . TO THIS DAY THEY REFUSE TO REMOVE IT FROM THEIR CHARTER.


How do you negoiate with such people?


Also, I believe you are intentionally refusing to acknowledge the centuries-long deep, utter hatred the Irish had for their buddies across the Irish sea? It may appear to have been dissipated now, but certainly the widespread existence of such hatred was very very real once.


Well being an Irish american I dont think so. I never backed the IRA although I was presssured by my GF one Moria Mc Bride and her parents to contribute :laugh4: back in the 70s. Butr they dont hate the Brisish like the Palestinians hate the jews . Again all they wanted was the british out of thier country. Now you may say thats all the Palestinians want as well. except the Irish never considered the British Isles part of Ireland.


And finally, let's just assume we all agree with your position about the Palestinians and the Palestinians are completely demonized; what shall be the final result? Obviously, since these people are criminals, evil, aggressive, barbaric, violent, with immense potential for entropy and genocide once released to roam the land "as if they're masters," and most of all a threat to civilization, the final solution to the problem will be...?

I hate to say it but most likely the world would be better off without them. Its a horrific solution however. Ill tell you right now if I were in charge of Israel there would be no more Palestine. Id claim all the westbank and say like it or leave it. Im sick of your crap. The final solution can only come about when the Palestinians recognise that Israel has the right to exist. That would be a far better solution.


Indeed, nothing like a Hellfire slamming into a crowded market to take the moral edge off a suicide bomber on a bus.

And that does the samething to the Israeli cause as the suicide bombers do for the Palestinian cause.


Excuse me then, I didn't know this had to be reduced to "palestinian" terrorism. As I said many times now, I think that demonizing the West is their main goal...


Kind of a useless goal. Are you that naive to believe thats their goal instead of the destruction of the west?


Perhaps, but the world is not only composed of "wrong and powerful people".


But their the ones who control it.


But let's suppose it works, Israel is wiped out of the map by the actions of "palestinian" terrorists and they create a new palestinian State, would that be justified?

Thats a huge supposition. Woud it be justified? No. But it would put an end to the conflict. Do you think it has any chance in hell of working, because I sure as hell dont ever see that scenario playing out.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Removed for being too emotional. Apologies to Gawain.

[Goofball]

You supported terrorists bent on killing the soldiers and civilians of a long standing ally?

The statement explains a lot - some Irish Americans have incredibly rose-tinted spectacles about Northern Ireland.

Just as some Brits seem to have incredibly rose tinted glasses when it comes to the motives and actions of the Palestinians.

One would think you would be a bit more realistic, having been the targets of a very similar (if less prolific) terrorist campaign yourselves.

And Gawain never said he contributed to the IRA, he said he was pressured to contribute. I suggest you let him clarify that point before firing any more shots across his bow.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Just as some Brits seem to have incredibly rose tinted glasses when it comes to the motives and actions of the Palestinians.

One would think you would be a bit more realistic, having been the targets of a very similar (if less prolific) terrorist campaign yourselves.

And Gawain never said he contributed to the IRA, he said he was pressured to contribute. I suggest you let him clarify that point before firing any more shots across his bow.

You clearly haven't read my posts if you think I support the Palestinian terrorists. I'm against all violence.

However, I think I will take your advice on Gawain.

Apologies if I misinterpreted you post, Gawain, I guess it was the laughing smiley that got my goat.

:bow:

[Goofball]

You clearly haven't read my posts if you think I support the Palestinian terrorists. I'm against all violence.

My apologies if I came across that way BG. My point was that I have seen some Brits in here laying the blame for this whole mess at the feet of the Israelis, while painting the Palestinians as a peaceful people who only commit murder because they have been driven to it be the evil Israelis.

[Banquo's Ghost]

My apologies if I came across that way BG.

No worries.

Anyway, as an Irishman, I was far more upset at you calling me a Brit. ~;p

(Goodness isn't this allegiance to bits of land confusing? :wink:)

[Soulforged]

Kind of a useless goal. Are you that naive to believe thats their goal instead of the destruction of the west? And you should use a tin-foil hat, don't you Gawain? Seriously that statement seems one from a very bad fantasy movie.:2thumbsup:

But their the ones who control it.That's your opinion.

Thats a huge supposition. Woud it be justified? No. But it would put an end to the conflict. Do you think it has any chance in hell of working, because I sure as hell dont ever see that scenario playing out.No perhaps it won't, but you answered my question and that's all I wanted. Thank you :bow:

[AntiochusIII]

Well hes just wrong. The IRA never called for the irradication of Britain and all its citizens. England was not an armed camp with roadblocks and checkpoints everywhere. Ireland maybe . Im not saying the IRA were a bunch of harmless do gooders. Im saying they had a far different agenda than the PLO does. I dont for a minute believe that if Israel gave them back all they won in 67 that the Palestinians would then leave them in peace. They want all of Palestine for themselves. There already is a arab Palestine and its called Jordan. The current "Palestinians" used to be part of it but were thrown out when they tried to take it over.I'm sure the dead of said conflicts don't agree with you. Are you sure a slight difference in the IRA charter compare to, say, PLO's -- which no longer holds a legitimate authority in Palestine, mind you; Hamas does, albeit unrecognized by bull-headed Western leaders despite an electoral victory -- means anything to the violent assaults that were carried out in either's name?

You are also demonizing Palestine completely. Again, an extremely disturbing attitude. You know as well as I do that a "people" is a collection of various diverse opinions, agendas, goals, with the only shared goal in survival. If they come to recognize fighting back against Israel's oppression as survival, it is, if sad, understandable. But by completely demonizing them, you give them no choice as such: fight, or die.

And do we really have to go through the whole "Jordan is Palestine" crap all over again? :wall: Clearly there is a hypocrisy here. On one side you call it might is right therefore Israel is right then on the other you point out the contradictory British/UN mandates (and ignoring the contradictory part) to support the "legitimacy" of Israel's right to those lands...

So are you supporting international law or are you not?

The Palestinians are a culture built and nurished on hate, I don think the IRA ever had the public support that the PLO had. Most Irish just want to live in peace. They dont teach hatred of the British in school and reffer tp them as pigs.


ONCE MORE THE BIG DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE pALESTINIANS WANT THE EXTERMINATION OF ISRAEL . TO THIS DAY THEY REFUSE TO REMOVE IT FROM THEIR CHARTER.


How do you negoiate with such people?May be, as others point out, you are dwelling again in an irrelevant point about a charter nobody cares about instead of the practicalities needed to end the conflict? Hamas has to deal with its extremist wing some time, whether by integrating and changing opinions or internal conflicts; but the West is putting a ridiculous amount of pressure on them and a carte blanche for Israel, an already established democratic state with a much more stable system. They need that clause in to "show they still have teeth" -- a necessity to survive against their own extremists.

But of course, all Palestinians are scum and we need not to care about their humanity. Every time a child throws a rock at an Israeli tank it justifies a barrage of missiles for retaliation, reconciliation be damned. :yes:

Does anyone smells one-sidedness which is one of the cause roots of why the whole bloody thing is not solved yet? Only a few around here justifies any Palestinian terrorism, but most also points out the horrors the other side commits, and why both of them really need to move on and tries to resolve the conflict, even against insurmountable obstacles. Your point of view, much like many in the West -- sadly -- demands much of Palestine and little out of Israel. Then when anyone fails you blame Palestine for it. I say **** the blame and start talking.

If I were a Palestinian I'd be quite angry too, especially once you factor in the confined lives they have been forced to carry. Entire generations of people are, were, and if the problem is not solved will be living in prison, in refugee camps, and in hell.

I hate to say it but most likely the world would be better off without them. Its a horrific solution however. Ill tell you right now if I were in charge of Israel there would be no more Palestine. Id claim all the westbank and say like it or leave it. Im sick of your crap. The final solution can only come about when the Palestinians recognise that Israel has the right to exist. That would be a far better solution.Huh.

I'm out of words. :shame:

[IrishArmenian]

Has anyone noticed that the PLO is not the violent group it once was? Sure, some wings are still militant, but Gawain, you seem to be describing Hamas.
The PLO has actually started negotiating and acknowledged Israel's existence. Believe it or not, the acknowledgement is a far cry from radicalism. The big difference between Hamas and the PLO is violence and acknowledgement of a legitimate state of Israel.

[IrishArmenian]

Except their not a peoples and never had a country.

You really think that sovereignty is what defines a people? Israel was only created in 1948, and before that, the only thing the Jews had was the Kingdom of Israel (later fragmenting into Israel and Judah). They were and still are a people.
The Chechens don't have a nation.
The various American Indian Tribes don't have nations.
Neither do the Welsh (Isn't it just the United Kingdom of Britain, Scotland and North Ireland?)
The Basques do not have a nation, nor do the Catalans.
By this logic, any people under foreign rule loose their rights as a people? That is one of the most inhumane points of view I can think of.
Palestinians are the Arabised descendants of Philistines, Canaanites and Jews who remained in Palestine during the Diaspora.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And Gawain never said he contributed to the IRA, he said he was pressured to contribute

As a matter of fact i refused to. Im not supporting the killing of innocents no matter who they are or what the cause. In fact its one of the main reasons we broke up.


And you should use a tin-foil hat, don't you Gawain? Seriously that statement seems one from a very bad fantasy movie.

Your the one living in a fantasy land. Read their damn charter and listen to what they say to eacother not to the western press. They say it to your face and put it in print but people like you think its nothing more than rehtoric. They dont really mean it.


The PLO has actually started negotiating and acknowledged Israel's existence

Again Ill start to believe that when they change their charter.

[Pannonian]

Your the one living in a fantasy land. Read their damn charter and listen to what they say to eacother not to the western press. They say it to your face and put it in print but people like you think its nothing more than rehtoric. They dont really mean it.

Again Ill start to believe that when they change their charter.
If you think these charters mean anything concrete, note that Sinn Fein still does not recognise the right of Britain to rule Northern Ireland, that they still aim to drive the British out of the island of Ireland altogether. What changed was that they arrived at a position where they recognised the reality that Britain was in majority control of the province, and switched to achieving their aims via political means while reserving the right to use violence if politics no longer worked, and later on gave up violence altogether.

This is almost exactly the same deal Hamas are now offering - recognising the de facto existence of Israel, continuing with the official aim of destroying Israel but giving up violent means for the meanwhile. The militant wing of Hamas (not the elected wing, which is more amenable) offered a 10 year ceasefire, which is slightly longer than the IRA ceasefire lasted before they announced a final end to hostilities.

There is a practical peace here for the taking if only they'll be flexible enough to take it, but people like yourself seem to think taking moral positions is more important than seeing peace on the ground. I'd call you an Ian Paisley, but the DUP leader has shown himself to be more open to compromise than you.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'd call you an Ian Paisley, but the DUP leader has shown himself to be more open to compromise than you.

I make but 1 simple request. Stop the suicide bombing. Then let the talks begin. Yes Im a really nasty hardliner.

[Soulforged]

Your the one living in a fantasy land. Read their damn charter and listen to what they say to eacother not to the western press. They say it to your face and put it in print but people like you think its nothing more than rehtoric. They dont really mean it.
And you seriously believe that they are ruled by a charter don't you? How do you suggest that I listen to what they say to each other? If you have a method please tell me.

[Pannonian]

I make but 1 simple request. Stop the suicide bombing. Then let the talks begin. Yes Im a really nasty hardliner.
Wasn't that the offer? 10 year ceasefire in return for Israel agreeing to the 1967 borders. The usual dance would continue by saying neither is possible at this present time, so both sides would settle for the principle of the other, with the reality to be worked out later once talks are underway.

BTW, why do you have this great obsession with suicide bombings? Is terrorism more acceptable if the terrorists take care to survive these attacks? As for your statement that US support for Israel only came about because of the suicide bombings - you might want to check your timeline. Your statement might be true in the Gawain ATL (where ASBs safeguarded the existence of the Jewish nation through its long years in exile whilst vanishing the area commonly known as Palestine from the pages of history), but the OTL suggests otherwise.

[Suraknar]

I wonder if CA will ever consider making a "Middle East" Total War. :balloon2:

[Beirut]

BTW, why do you have this great obsession with suicide bombings?


It's a Western high tech obsession with a low tech weapon that cannot be defended against. There is no radar to overcome, no stealth to defeat, no armour to penetrate, no ship to sink. There is no ability for the corporations to seek hundred-billion dollar contracts to "close the suicide gap". There is no sexy "Anti-Suicide MKIII" weapons system to show off to the public while Van Halen plays in the background. It's a twenty-dollar mud-hut smart bomb that can be built anywhere, by anyone, and used against an overpowering enemy, cracking the very foundations of his society. It is economy of force. Misdirection. Deception. It is suiting your end to your means. It is the indirect approach mastered.

It is Sun-Tzu at his most devious, an art of warfare that violates the enemies principles of warfare and throws him off balance. The western view of war, and life, culturally speaking, are founded upon certain beliefs, one of them being that no one wants to die. Turning that belief on its head takes the other side by surprise, technologically and philosophically. It upsets them. Men who wouldn't think twice about naming a B-2 full of hydrogen bombs after their their child's favorite cartoon character are deeply offended at the thought of a person strapping forty dollars worth of C4 and nails to their body. It changes not only the game but the rules of the game and requires the other side to change their game in ways they are neither prepared for or are perhaps even willing to accept.

It shows a commitment that is both frightening and surreal. They say to defeat your enemy you must think like him. But if the the enemy's mentality is so foreign that you not only can't stop his weapon, but also cannot understand the basic motivation required to pull the trigger, it leaves you at a disadvantage. Whereas the US and Israel fight in the modern four dimensional battlefield (time being the fourth dimension, of course), the suicide bomber is like a fifth dimension intersecting both morally and physically with the reality of the Western battlefield. It strikes 45 degrees off reality's edge. Much in the way the first poison gas attacks left the WWI soldiers not only dying, but bewildered.

It is so simple. So brutal. So perfectly in keeping with the true spirit of what war is. It is nearly the perfect weapon. I certainly don't think people should blow up buses full of civilians, it's not in keeping with my character, but to call out the tactic of suicide bombing as morally contemptible and uncivilized, at least as far as military comportment goes, and then saying that any victory won through the tactic was "cheating" or not honourable, well it reminds me of the curmudgeonly WWI general, who when his formation of marching infantry were defeated in a war game by a small number of the new machine guns, declared the results invalid because he said the enemy's tactics were "ungentlemanly"

(Sorry, I'm full of coffee and went off on a tear.)

[Banquo's Ghost]

(Sorry, I'm full of coffee and went off on a tear.)

Heck, my friend, you need to keep drinking coffee. That was an excellent post. :2thumbsup:

[Beirut]

Heck, my friend, you need to keep drinking coffee. That was an excellent post. :2thumbsup:

I am your humble over-caffeinated servant. :bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It is so simple. So brutal. So perfectly in keeping with the true spirit of what war is. It is nearly the perfect weapon. I certainly don't think people should blow up buses full of civilians, it's not in keeping with my character, but to call out the tactic of suicide bombing as morally contemptible and uncivilized, at least as far as military comportment goes, and then saying that any victory won through the tactic was "cheating" or not honourable, well it reminds me of the curmudgeonly WWI general, who when his formation of marching infantry were defeated in a war game by a small number of the new machine guns, declared the results invalid because he said the enemy's tactics were "ungentlemanly"

Never let me hear you decray anyything Israel ever does again then. Their only using the best weapons they can. Your now saying anything is fair in love and war. Someones sounding mighty hypocritical. And never let me heree you say anything aboout the Geneva conventions or international law because you obviously believe that as far as the Palestinians go anything is justified. I never thought Id see you actually defend suicde bombing. Defend it hell. You seem to think its the next great way to fight a war.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Never let me hear you decray anyything Israel ever does again then. Their only using the best weapons they can. Your now saying anything is fair in love and war. Someones sounding mighty hypocritical. And never let me heree you say anything aboout the Geneva conventions or international law because you obviously believe that as far as the Palestinians go anything is justified. I never thought Id see you actually defend suicde bombing. Defend it hell. You seem to think its the next great way to fight a war.

Way to miss the point, Gawain.

At no point was Beirut defending suicide bombing. He was trying to explain it as part of a spectrum of violence - a part we in the west have difficulty seeing.

All the violence is wrong. Deaths by suicide bombing are not somehow special, putting the perpetrators beyond ken. The only way to stop the violence on all sides is to understand it, and remove the need for it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

All the violence is wrong. Deaths by suicide bombing are not somehow special

Wrong on both counts. Come out of never never land and try entering the real world.

[Ser Clegane]

Just asserting that a statement is wrong and adding a borderline personal attack makes a very poor argument, Gawain...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Just asserting that a statement is wrong and adding a borderline personal attack makes a very poor argument, Gawain

Well I apologise if that came off as a personal attack but Im afraid I saw his and Beruits ludicrous on the face of it and needed no explanation. Unless you ignore the entire history of man. Their saying violence is always wrong. How about in self defense?

And their also saying suicide bombing is just another way to die just like going into a burning building to save someone. Dead is dead. It doesnt matter what you die for or why or how. Its just as acceptable as any other weapon in war. Even though there is no declared war. Im sorry I cant except that

[Goofball]

Way to miss the point, Gawain.

At no point was Beirut defending suicide bombing. He was trying to explain it as part of a spectrum of violence - a part we in the west have difficulty seeing.

All the violence is wrong. Deaths by suicide bombing are not somehow special, putting the perpetrators beyond ken. The only way to stop the violence on all sides is to understand it, and remove the need for it.

Way to miss the point BG and Beirut.

I will presume to speak for Gawain for a moment because I think I understand his disgust with suicide bombing.

It is not the method he deplores (hell, if some crazy homicidal fanatic wants to rid the world of himself while murdering other people, at least that's a small silver lining on the cloud), but the targets.

Palestinian suicide bombers typically target Israeli civilians.

Yes, yes, I know, I know: IDF strikes often kill Palestinian civilians who have nothing to to with terrorism.

But the difference is that the IDF is at least trying to hit valid military targets. When they kill civilians it is an unfortunate and unwanted side effect.

Palestinian terrorists intentionally kill Israeli civilians. That is the point of terrorism: to terrorize people.

I don't care if the Palestinians want to attack with suicide bombers, blowguns, or battleships. I just want them to limit their attacks to valid military targets. At that point, I would even acknowledge that they are freedom fighters. Until such time as that, they are nothing more than common criminals who should be hunted down.

That's why suicide bombing, as used by the Palestinians, is a different and more deplorable form of violence.

[JR-]

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The one with the might isnt always the evil one. Thats where many of you go wrong.


Often they are, England. All have been very powerful and all have gone bonkers with that power.

we did, we were evil?:inquisitive:

[JR-]

If you think these charters mean anything concrete, note that Sinn Fein still does not recognise the right of Britain to rule Northern Ireland, that they still aim to drive the British out of the island of Ireland altogether. What changed was that they arrived at a position where they recognised the reality that Britain was in majority control of the province, and switched to achieving their aims via political means while reserving the right to use violence if politics no longer worked, and later on gave up violence altogether.


i thought it was because by the mid eighties they were so thoroughly infiltrated we were getting them to slaughter themselves in fruitless mole-hunts?
i don't believe they ever just sat down in a circle, holding hands, and said; "by gosh Paddy, i've just realised that their is more of the feckers in northern ireland than good honest catholics. Put down your guns boys, it's time to negotiate."

And it is still to be seen whether they have forever abandoned political violence, god knows they haven't given up on criminal/mafia violence!

[Beirut]

We did, we were evil?:inquisitive:

There are some who would express that opinion of Imperial Britain, I am sure.

[Beirut]

Way to miss the point BG and Beirut.



I only wrote my interpretations of the strategy and affect of suicide bombers. I did not, nor ever will, justify people blowing themselves up on buses full of civilians.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I only wrote my interpretations of the strategy and affect of suicide bombers. I did not, nor ever will, justify people blowing themselves up on buses full of civilians.

Precisely.

Since some people actually think I'm advocating such actions, I shall withdraw from this discussion in amazement.

[Goofball]

Precisely.

Since some people actually think I'm advocating such actions, I shall withdraw from this discussion in amazement.

Oh stop it. As my wife says to me quite often (and I say this to you with only good intentions): "Put on your big girl panties and deal with it."

:clown:

What got my goat, and probably Gawain's as well, was this specific part of Beirut's post:


It is so simple. So brutal. So perfectly in keeping with the true spirit of what war is. It is nearly the perfect weapon. I certainly don't think people should blow up buses full of civilians, it's not in keeping with my character, but to call out the tactic of suicide bombing as morally contemptible and uncivilized, at least as far as military comportment goes, and then saying that any victory won through the tactic was "cheating" or not honourable, well it reminds me of the curmudgeonly WWI general, who when his formation of marching infantry were defeated in a war game by a small number of the new machine guns, declared the results invalid because he said the enemy's tactics were "ungentlemanly"

Guess what? Suicide bombing is morally contemptable and uncivilized, especially in terms of military comportment.

Being a soldier myself, I found it very offensive that the tactic of suicide bombing civilians (which a professional soldier would never do) was held out as morally equivalant to firing a machine gun at attacking enemy troops (which a professional soldier would do without batting an eye). There is no moral equivalance there.

How can you not see that?

[Ironside]

Guess what? Suicide bombing is morally contemptable and uncivilized, especially in terms of military comportment.

Being a soldier myself, I found it very offensive that the tactic of suicide bombing civilians (which a professional soldier would never do) was held out as morally equivalant to firing a machine gun at attacking enemy troops (which a professional soldier would do without batting an eye). There is no moral equivalance there.

How can you not see that?

If suecide bomb were specifically used against only military targets then? How would the moral equivalence be in that case?

[Ser Clegane]

If suecide bomb were specifically used against only military targets then? How would the moral equivalence be in that case?

And that's exactly the core of the apparent misunderstandings in the last portion of this thread - separating the means from from the target.
Suicide bombing as a means in a conflict - although generally alien to Western cultures - is as such not "despicable" IMO. The problem is of course that those who resort to suicide bombing primarily use it to target and kill civilians which makes it completely inacceptable (IMO and obviously also in the eyes of all other posters in this thread).
If you use "conventional" military means (i.e. tanks, missiles) to specifically target and kill civilians, it is just as inacceptable as suicide bombings for this purpose (however, conventional waepons are generally not used for this purpose).

This was the gist of Beirut's post if I understood it correctly.

[Goofball]

If suecide bomb were specifically used against only military targets then? How would the moral equivalence be in that case?

I've been very clear on this point. From my earlier post:


I don't care if the Palestinians want to attack with suicide bombers, blowguns, or battleships. I just want them to limit their attacks to valid military targets. At that point, I would even acknowledge that they are freedom fighters. Until such time as that, they are nothing more than common criminals who should be hunted down.

[Beirut]

Guess what? Suicide bombing is morally contemptable and uncivilized, especially in terms of military comportment.

Being a soldier myself, I found it very offensive that the tactic of suicide bombing civilians (which a professional soldier would never do) was held out as morally equivalant to firing a machine gun at attacking enemy troops (which a professional soldier would do without batting an eye). There is no moral equivalance there.

How can you not see that?

Never, ever, not once, did I write that killing civilians is justifiable or morally equivalent to a soldier's performance of his duty.

If you wish to call me onto the carpet for something I did write, I am, of course, always willing to hear your point of view.

[Goofball]

Never, ever, not once, did I write that killing civilians is justifiable or morally equivalent to a soldier's performance of his duty.

If you wish to call me onto the carpet for something I did write, I am, of course, always willing to hear your point of view.

I refer specifically to this paragraph:


It is so simple. So brutal. So perfectly in keeping with the true spirit of what war is. It is nearly the perfect weapon. I certainly don't think people should blow up buses full of civilians, it's not in keeping with my character, but to call out the tactic of suicide bombing as morally contemptible and uncivilized, at least as far as military comportment goes, and then saying that any victory won through the tactic was "cheating" or not honourable, well it reminds me of the curmudgeonly WWI general, who when his formation of marching infantry were defeated in a war game by a small number of the new machine guns, declared the results invalid because he said the enemy's tactics were "ungentlemanly"

It appears that you are saying suicide bombing is just a new tactic of warfare that is effective but not yet accepted (just as older generals once disdained machine guns and airplanes), but no different than any other conventional means of waging warfare.

What I have repeatedly tried to point out is that your statement ignores the issue of what is being targeted by the suicide bombers, which is really the important part of the discussion.

I also read your statement to say that we are wrong to think of suicide bombing as morally contemptable or uncivilized, using "military comportment" as a yardstick.

If I have misinterpreted your statement, please explain to me how I have done so.

[Beirut]

It appears that you are saying suicide bombing is just a new tactic of warfare that is effective but not yet accepted (just as older generals once disdained machine guns and airplanes), but no different than any other conventional means of waging warfare.

It's not a new tactic, but we are seeing it in a new way. I would ask you, is there, aside from the act of suicide inherent in any act of suicide bombing, anything better or worse in it than any other form of killing another person, be it explosives, gas, or impact?

If it is only the act of suicide itself that sets the bomber apart from any other bomber, airborne or grounded, would you not agree that that means the military actions of the bomber are being tried in a cultural court? And if culture is to be the yardstick of morality in war, how do we reconcile one man saying it is moraly correct to drop a bomb from a mile up onto the same building another man will walk into with explosives strapped to his body, and then say that that man is not morally correct when actions both have the exact same result, which to many, is immoral itself?



What I have repeatedly tried to point out is that your statement ignores the issue of what is being targeted by the suicide bombers, which is really the important part of the discussion.

I am sure you and I hold the same views on that subject.


I also read your statement to say that we are wrong to think of suicide bombing as morally contemptable or uncivilized, using "military comportment" as a yardstick.

If I have misinterpreted your statement, please explain to me how I have done so.

Victory being the goal of war, and war being violence used to force the other side to bend to your will, then it is open to debate whether a person strapping explosives to his body as a means of becoming a weapon can be seen as morally inferior to a man hurling a piece of steel at another man in the hopes of shredding his body into enough pieces so that he dies as a result.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Never, ever, not once, did I write that killing civilians is justifiable or morally equivalent to a soldier's performance of his duty.

If you wish to call me onto the carpet for something I did write, I am, of course, always willing to hear your point of view.

Aye, and you don't excuse terrorism - you just list excuses for it.
:rolleyes:

If the Palestinians were attacking only military targets - if and only if - then I wouldn't call them terrorists. I wouldn't call them freedom fighters - as I think their version of victory would not result in freedom for anybody, including Palestinians. I might call them 'authoritarian Islamic state fighters'.

I think this bears repeating:

Palestinian suicide bombers typically target Israeli civilians.

Yes, yes, I know, I know: IDF strikes often kill Palestinian civilians who have nothing to to with terrorism.

But the difference is that the IDF is at least trying to hit valid military targets. When they kill civilians it is an unfortunate and unwanted side effect.

Palestinian terrorists intentionally kill Israeli civilians. That is the point of terrorism: to terrorize people.

Beirut, your 'praise' for suicide bombings is plain sick.

It's not, and never has been, the method - it's the target. Men who kill enemy soldiers without blinking are right to be horrified by cowardly scum who kill women and children, as many as possible, on purpose.

I also want to repeat that the calls for us to have a 'dialogue' with Hamas is foolish - it is what the West has been doing to Palestinian leaders for years, with no decrease in terrorism. The terrorists just use it to stall while they try to kill more Israelis. They'll speak a few empty promises and many western leaders think coddling terrorists work, because, gosh darn it, they said they wouldn't kill anymore people and even if they do it won't be us dying.

Why do people believe talking with Hamas, people avowed to destroy Israel, will work when it didn't for decades with their less radical predecessor's?

Crazed Rabbit

[Proletariat]

Goofball's said, clearly, over and over, that the 'suicide' aspect that you find so marvelously culture-shocking and dumbfounding to a rigid unadapatible Western soldier (lol), he doesn't care about.

I'd imagine he agrees with me that the best part about a suicide bombing is the suicide occuring. The teenagers at a birthday party in a disco and the customers in a pizza shop being exploded is the significant part.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Goofball's said, clearly, over and over, that the 'suicide' aspect that you find so marvelously culture-shocking and dumbfounding to a rigid unadapatible Western soldier (lol), he doesn't care about.



My dear woman. Weve told you and he that its not the suicide thats bothersome but the target. I have nothing against things like the kamakazie tactics the Japanese used in WW2. Thats why most americans take the Israeli side. And Israel only responds to these attacks or do many of you claim that Israel just likes to kill Palestinians and so they go on little hunting trips for fun and sport? It almost always follows the same pattern Palestinians make terror attack. Israelis respond with overwhelming force. Israelis look like bullies and are condemned.

[Beirut]

Aye, and you don't excuse terrorism - you just list excuses for it.
:rolleyes:

You may list that list at your convenience.


I think this bears repeating:

I didn't write that.


Beirut, your 'praise' for suicide bombings is plain sick.

Do you think I would be a healthier individual if I praised cluster munitions or white phospherous? If you could lead me to the weapon's system whose praise would increase my psychological stability, I would be thankful for the directions.


It's not, and never has been, the method - it's the target. Men who kill enemy soldiers without blinking are right to be horrified by cowardly scum who kill women and children, as many as possible, on purpose.

I've got $20 on the table, for a charity of your choice, if you can find where I ever supported the killing of Israeli civillians. So, either find where I said it or have the intellectual honesty to stop applying those actions to my views.


I also want to repeat that the calls for us to have a 'dialogue' with Hamas is foolish - it is what the West has been doing to Palestinian leaders for years, with no decrease in terrorism. The terrorists just use it to stall while they try to kill more Israelis. They'll speak a few empty promises and many western leaders think coddling terrorists work, because, gosh darn it, they said they wouldn't kill anymore people and even if they do it won't be us dying.

Golda Meir once said, "If it means the survival of Israel I would by guns from the devil himself."

Fine.

I am of the opinion that if it offers the faintest hope of an end to violence, then people should be willing to talk to anyone, anywhere, anytime.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I am of the opinion that if it offers the faintest hope of an end to violence, then people should be willing to talk to anyone, anywhere, anytime.


All its doing is prolonging the violence. How many times must the same cycle repeat itself? When will you take them at their word?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Do you think I would be a healthier individual if I praised cluster munitions or white phospherous? If you could lead me to the weapon's system whose praise would increase my psychological stability, I would be thankful for the directions.

I'm not calling you sick, Beirut - I purposely italicized the praise part to emphasize that.


You may list that list at your convenience.

From page 2:

They are so broken down in body and spirit they have nowhere to turn but violence.

Glad to help.


I didn't write that.
Um, I'm not saying you did...


I've got $20 on the table, for a charity of your choice, if you can find where I ever supported the killing of Israeli civillians. So, either find where I said it or have the intellectual honesty to stop applying those actions to my views.

You do not do so directly - but you constantly seek to mitigate Palestinian terrorism. Nor am I accusing you of that - I was pointing out that your long rant about suicide bombers completely missed the point.


Golda Meir once said, "If it means the survival of Israel I would by guns from the devil himself."

And Churchill said he'd fight alongside Satan. So what? Golda Meir is not in charge - Olmert is. Olmert, who recently convened a peace conference in the middle east.

That completely dodges my question.

Why do people believe talking with Hamas, people avowed to destroy Israel, will work when it didn't for decades with their less radical predecessor's?


I am of the opinion that if it offers the faintest hope of an end to violence, then people should be willing to talk to anyone, anywhere, anytime.

And if it prolongs the use of terrorism, prolongs the terror and war and death because some never stop trusting in terrorists? What if the greatest option for hope is simply to kill all the terrorists?

Crazed Rabbit

[Pannonian]

That completely dodges my question.

Why do people believe talking with Hamas, people avowed to destroy Israel, will work when it didn't for decades with their less radical predecessor's?

So what do you suggest? If talking is useless, are you suggesting perpetual war? Don't use euphemisms like defending Israel and each keeping to itself, because Israel is constantly extending its territory, which I've noted is the most common cause of war throughout history. Hamas, from the civil arm to the militant arm, have already said they'll recognise the 1967 borders, which most of the rest of the world also recognises are the borders of Israel. And if this is unacceptable - well, this is what talks are for.

By ruling out talks, you are basically ruling out any solution other than the complete subjugation of the other side. Is this what you're suggesting? If so, the solution is simple - the extermination or expulsion of all Arabs or other potential dissidents from the borders Israel has decided will be its own. So stop waffling about moral rights and wrongs that can never be resolved, and propose a practical solution, or at least the practical basis of a practical solution.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Don't use euphemisms like defending Israel and each keeping to itself, because Israel is constantly extending its territory, which I've noted is the most common cause of war throughout history

Yes lets not let facts get in our way. Is gving back Gaza or Sinai expanding its territory ? The cause of this conflict is almost always started with arab attacks upon Israel.


So what do you suggest? If talking is useless, are you suggesting perpetual war?

No what you people suggest results in that. We say let them get it over with. Let onside realise its lost. As long as the world holds out hope to the Palestinians they will continue in this futile struggle. No one is willing to take on Israel on their behave except maybe Iran. But they have this false hope that people like you and Beruit can somehow change the minds of us sane people :laugh4:

[Proletariat]

My dear woman.

My post was at Beirut.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

My post was at Beirut.


I know. Mine was at you :whip: And actually yours was about Beruit

[Proletariat]

I know. Mine was at you :whip: And actually yours was about Beruit

Uhm, I was addressing that no one cares if the terrorists kill themselves, Goof cares that they kill civilians indiscriminately. I'm agreeing with you two. If what I wrote was that confusing, I'll have to fix it in the morning. Few too many at dinner tonight for me, it seems.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Uhm, I was addressing that no one cares if the terrorists kill themselves, Goof cares that they kill civilians indiscriminately. I'm agreeing with you two. If what I wrote was that confusing, I'll have to fix it in the morning. Few too many at dinner tonight for me, it seems.


Well as long as you agree with me Im happy :clown: Sorry if i was confused.

[Beirut]

You do not do so directly - but you constantly seek to mitigate Palestinian terrorism. Nor am I accusing you of that - I was pointing out that your long rant about suicide bombers completely missed the point.

I cannot imagine that I mitigate the actions of Palestinian terrorists any more than you mitigate the actions of Israeli ones.

My "long rant about suicide bombers" (oh how you flatter me, sir) did not miss the point as I had no intention of trying to hit "it" in the first place, as yourself and Gawain have taken that part of the point and dealt with it adequately already.


And Churchill said he'd fight alongside Satan. So what? Golda Meir is not in charge - Olmert is. Olmert, who recently convened a peace conference in the middle east.

I did not mean to trash Golda. I read her bio, very interesting woman. I used her as an example of how strong willled people can alter their usual beliefs in pursuance of a goal they find worthy. In her case it was the defence of Israel. My reference was to negotiations.


That completely dodges my question.

:slomo: I completely rule at dodgeball.


Why do people believe talking with Hamas, people avowed to destroy Israel, will work when it didn't for decades with their less radical predecessor's?

A stubborn belief that either a common ground can be found between beligerents and the violence ended, or that one who is clearly in error can be made to se the error of their ways and stop the violence. Call it a naive faith in the fundamental aspects of human nature if you wish. Some see it as a weakness, but others see it as a strength, a faith that one is required to have if they are to avoid throwing in the towel and giving up on human beings entirelly.


And if it prolongs the use of terrorism, prolongs the terror and war and death because some never stop trusting in terrorists?

I never counseled trusting them. I counseled talking to them. Trust comes much later.


What if the greatest option for hope is simply to kill all the terrorists?

If that worked, fine. The problem is it doesn't. Partly because the motivations of those who want to "kill all the terrorists" are seldom pure enough to win the psychological part of the war, which is essential in this kind of fight, and because those they identify as terrorists often are not, and killing someone you say is a terrorist but who isn't, defeats your cause by creating new enemies. Also, you can't kill them all because you can't find them all. You can't even find most of them. It leads to a years-later series of chants, "only 50,000 more soldiers and then we can win the war on terror", a la Iraq. That, is no way to fight a war.

[Tribesman]

Sorry. I'm a pretty smart guy with a pretty good sense of humor, but I still coudn't find anything that funny about the oration.

Its simple Goof so simple that it shows how much of an idiot he is to make such a statement and think it can be considered a serious statement .
Look...It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state....resolution after resolution saying they still havn't complied with the last resolution that said they havn't comlied with the earlier resolution that says they havn't complied with ........amazing isn't it , you get a lot of resolutions telling you to comply if you don't comply with resolutions , it isn't a sign of bias it is a sign of non compliance .
Look ......one single state: Israel.....hmmmmm a state wow a state !!!!!thats one of those things with territories and borders isn't it ? :yes: one of those things with a government ?:yes: thats one of those things that has a seat and membership of a thing called the UN isn't it :yes:
Yet this muppet who made the address wants to compare a group of nations actions against a state with a group of nations actions against things that are not a state .
Look....In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. ....:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: impunity :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
leaving aside that Hamas and Hezbollah are not states and not members of the council of states . Do you think that any pronouncement critical of a state should also include pronouncements criticising things that are not states even if they have nothing to do with the issue that is subject of the pronouncement ?
If your answer is yes then would you agree that the Negroponte principle should be extended and that any criticism or condemnation of any party or group must also include criticism or condemnation of all groups , parties , states and governments in the region ....regardless of if they have anything to do with the action that is under criticism ?

[Pannonian]

Yes lets not let facts get in our way. Is gving back Gaza or Sinai expanding its territory ? The cause of this conflict is almost always started with arab attacks upon Israel.

West Bank?


No what you people suggest results in that. We say let them get it over with. Let onside realise its lost. As long as the world holds out hope to the Palestinians they will continue in this futile struggle. No one is willing to take on Israel on their behave except maybe Iran. But they have this false hope that people like you and Beruit can somehow change the minds of us sane people :laugh4:
So how do you suggest the Palestinians should be persuaded the war is lost? That's the kind of euphemism I was talking about. The war is clearly lost, they've never won a battle, they've been fighting for decades, yet they keep fighting on. What way would you suggest of forcing Palestine to recognise this fact?

[Kralizec]

The IDF holds the higher moral ground in comparison to terrorists, but that alone is hardly useful.

The simple fact is that a people who feel opressed and can't match the military might of the perceived opressor will resort to terrorism. Bit of a universal phenomenon, there. This is not a justification, it's a reality. You can dislike the Hamas-led "government" all you want, isolating them does nothing but fuel the fire. The only way the Palestinians are going to settle down is to let them build a working economy and state, wich includes not bulldozing their infrastructure and not cutting them off from sources of water in favour of orthodox-jewish communities.

Oh, and Rabbit:


Guess what- just because they died doesn't make them saints in life - they might actually have been terrorists!

That is positively the worst defense of IDF actions I have ever seen :inquisitive:

[Slyspy]

Thought I'd chime in and praise Beruit's coffee-driven post ealier. Others on the board need to read what was written, not what they think was written.

[Proletariat]

He was wrong. There's nothing special about an attack where someone kills themself. It's who they take with them that is despicable, which apparently he agrees with.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

West Bank?


The claim was that Israel constantly expands it borders. I showed you the opposite is true. Theve already got the West Bank(Judea).


So how do you suggest the Palestinians should be persuaded the war is lost?


Stop backing them.


The war is clearly lost, they've never won a battle, they've been fighting for decades, yet they keep fighting on

You know it , I know it. How is it these people are so stupid? Again they think you and the rest of the world will pity them and help.



The simple fact is that a people who feel opressed and can't match the military might of the perceived opressor will resort to terrorism. Bit of a universal phenomenon, there. This is not a justification, it's a reality.

Except historicly speaking your going to have a hard time backing that up. They might resort to gurellia warfare but not terrorism. How is it the Jews didnt resort to it against the Nazis?


The only way the Palestinians are going to settle down is to let them build a working economy and state, wich includes not bulldozing their infrastructure and not cutting them off from sources of water in favour of orthodox-jewish communities.



They had it and they blew it. Well they almost had it.


leaving aside that Hamas and Hezbollah are not states and not members of the council of states

Who is the elected government of Palestine? How is it that of all the nations in the world the UN singles out Israel always as the bad guy? Of course theres no anti semitic or anti Israeli bias in the good old UN. Thats what happens when you let the lunatics run the asylum.

[Beirut]

He was wrong. There's nothing special about an attack where someone kills themself. It's who they take with them that is despicable, which apparently he agrees with.

I admit to being at a loss regarding your statement that I agree with killing civilians. I never said it and never will. I'm sorry if you feel that I hold those views because I do not. But I'm not sure how to express myself more clearly on the issue.

*Edit - I made a challenge to Proletariat in this post that was deemed not to be in the interests of the Org. by the Backroom mods, who have my full respect. I am not changing my stance on the issue, but I am, under advisement, bringing it down a notch in tone. If I was out of line, or was seen as insulting to Proletariat, I apologize.

[Kralizec]

Except historicly speaking your going to have a hard time backing that up. They might resort to gurellia warfare but not terrorism. How is it the Jews didnt resort to it against the Nazis?

I'm thinking about the IRA and the ETA mostly, Chechnyans probably. The jews were never an ecomicly disadvantaged, locally concentrated minority in Germany. They did employ some questionable "guerillia" tactics in British-held Palestine.


They had it and they blew it. Well they almost had it.

No.

[Tribesman]

Who is the elected government of Palestine?
Errrrrr....it hasn't actually got one has it , it has a National Authority which is an interim body that is made up of Hamas , Fatah ,PNI , PFLP , 3rd way ,PPP and various independants and smaller parties , its recognised international body as far as the organisation in question is concerned is a conglomeration of numerous parties under the name PLO .
So your question was ??????


How is it that of all the nations in the world the UN singles out Israel always as the bad guy?
It doesn't , perhaps you should look into it a bit more , what you will find is that resolutions that are given involving Israel involve .....Israel !!!!!!! :idea2: wierd isn't it .
You may also notice that resolutions involving Israel do not single out Israel , they name whichever countries or parties are the subject of the resolutions . Only those that only involve Israel single out Israel , which is a really really wierd thing isn't it :no:
So what that muppet should have said in his rant is that resolutions that only mention Israel and only are about Israel are a sign that the UN is ......what exactly ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Errrrrr....it hasn't actually got one has it , it has a National Authority which is an interim body that is made up of Hamas , Fatah ,PNI , PFLP , 3rd way ,PPP and various independants and smaller parties , its recognised international body as far as the organisation in question is concerned is a conglomeration of numerous parties under the name PLO .
So your question was ??????


So they can do anything with impunity seems to be your opinion.


You may also notice that resolutions involving Israel do not single out Israel , they name whichever countries or parties are the subject of the resolutions . Only those that only involve Israel single out Israel , which is a really really wierd thing isn't it


They always single out Israel as the bad guy. Weird isnt it?


So what that muppet should have said in his rant is that resolutions that only mention Israel and only are about Israel are a sign that the UN is ......what exactly ?

A waste of time money and effort.

[Tribesman]

So they can do anything with impunity seems to be your opinion.


Congratulations :balloon2:
Your wonderful respose to a statement that shows that your post was nonsense is to attribute an opinion that is neither stated nor implied . well done :2thumbsup:


They always single out Israel as the bad guy. Weird isnt it?

A lovely demonstration that either you havn't read any of the resolutions or choose to ignore those you have read and have no intention of letting facts interfere with your preconcieved biased opinion .
Thoroughly predictable .:thumbsdown:


A waste of time money and effort.
An organisation such as that is the product of its members efforts , it functions only as far as its members wish for it to function .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

An organisation such as that is the product of its members efforts , it functions only as far as its members wish for it to function .



At last something we agree on :help:

[Proletariat]

He was wrong. There's nothing special about an attack where someone kills themself. It's who they take with them that is despicable, which apparently he agrees with.

I admit to being at a loss regarding your statement that I agree with killing civilians. I never said it and never will. I'm sorry if you feel that I hold those views because I do not. But I'm not sure how to express myself more clearly on the issue.


I'm terribly sorry about the way I worded that, Beirut. I was trying to say that you agree that killing civilians is despicable.

:bow:

Edit: That's the second time I've posted in this thread and the opposite of what I meant was understood, so I think I'll bow out here. I really like Goof's and Beirut's posts (although I usually don't agree with either), and I was enjoying their discussion, but it seemed like they were hung up on the killing civilians thing, and I was hoping to point out that Beirut was appalled by it. Just did a lousy job there, sorry again, B.

[Pannonian]

The claim was that Israel constantly expands it borders. I showed you the opposite is true. Theve already got the West Bank(Judea).

Who's already got the West Bank?

On a similar note, The USSR made an offer to Finland, to widen the hinterland of territory around Leningrad in exchange for around twice the amount of land in the north. The Finns did not agree to this exchange, since they judged the land in the south to be more valuable. Rebuffed in talks, the Soviets set out to adjust the borders by force, and thus began the Russo-Finnish war.

I presume you support the Russians on that one.


Stop backing them.

You know it , I know it. How is it these people are so stupid? Again they think you and the rest of the world will pity them and help.

I've stated on numerous occasions my preferred solution is to fence off that whole ruddy region and allow nothing in or out. I don't follow Abrahamic religions, and the Holy Land is not holy to me, it's just a huge waste of time and money. Let them kill each other as much as they want, it's nothing to do with us. Does that sound good to you?

[Beirut]

I'm terribly sorry about the way I worded that, Beirut. I was trying to say that you agree that killing civilians is despicable.

:bow:

Edit: That's the second time I've posted in this thread and the opposite of what I meant was understood, so I think I'll bow out here. I really like Goof's and Beirut's posts (although I usually don't agree with either), and I was enjoying their discussion, but it seemed like they were hung up on the killing civilians thing, and I was hoping to point out that Beirut was appalled by it. Just did a lousy job there, sorry again, B.

I think your apology to me and mine to you met in the middle somewhere, and I would suffer the greater loss if our misunderstanding led to any antagonism between us.

No doubt, as threads go, this one has numerous literary mine fields. Seems a dangerous place to post for many, and a very good place to exercise what BG refers to as clarity in language. Both in reading and writing. (Myself certainly included.)

[Suraknar]

Wow, this discussion has taken some emotional turns :P

The only thing that I would like to add to it is from a conceptual and impartial point of view.

As, the way I see it, conviction plays a major part in the psychology of people who give themselves in to acts categorized as Terrorism.

Yet, this behavior is really not that different than the multiple Revolutions we have witnessed throughout our common History as Humans.

The American Revolution, the French Revolution the Balkan Revolutions, what is so different between a man straping a bomb in their chest from the man that Declares "Liberty or Death", and charges with a sword towards their perceived enemy?

Maybe the means? Yet, if one were to give Hellicopters and Tanks and a bunch of mashine guns to the Palestinians do you think they would put em asside and stick to bombs?

I cant but see parallels of the behaviors, from a rather impartial point of view. If you dont, please feel free to explain, I am willing to be educated on the matter.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So what do you suggest? If talking is useless, are you suggesting perpetual war?
No, I suggest war to eliminate the enemy.


Don't use euphemisms like defending Israel and each keeping to itself, because Israel is constantly extending its territory, which I've noted is the most common cause of war throughout history.
Really? The knowledge that Israel would expand it's territory after beating attacking Arab armies led the Arab armies to attack?

You also know the Israelis gave back the whole Sinai peninsula and Gaza, right?

How is that 'expanding'?


Hamas, from the civil arm to the militant arm, have already said they'll recognise the 1967 borders, which most of the rest of the world also recognises are the borders of Israel.
Why should Israel go back to borders that were before Arabs attacked them, got beaten, and lost land?


A stubborn belief that either a common ground can be found between beligerents and the violence ended, or that one who is clearly in error can be made to se the error of their ways and stop the violence. Call it a naive faith in the fundamental aspects of human nature if you wish. Some see it as a weakness, but others see it as a strength, a faith that one is required to have if they are to avoid throwing in the towel and giving up on human beings entirelly.
That belief has shown itself to be wrong for decades. Why continue with it when the result is more terror attacks by Palestinian groups? Why not, instead of appeasement, condemn each and every attack by Palestinians in the strongest words and cut off all aid until they stop killing innocents?


I never counseled trusting them. I counseled talking to them. Trust comes much later.
You don't have to trust them to have real peace delayed while they continue killing - you just have to talk with them, to delay your hand because you think they talk in good faith.


If that worked, fine. The problem is it doesn't.
No, the problem is the world condemns Israel and says it's hunting innocents whenever it tries to defend itself.


Crazed Rabbit

[Pannonian]

No, I suggest war to eliminate the enemy.

Can you clarify what you mean by "eliminating the enemy"? I'm not quite sure what euphemisms like these mean in the context of a longrunning irregular war.


Really? The knowledge that Israel would expand it's territory after beating attacking Arab armies led the Arab armies to attack?

You also know the Israelis gave back the whole Sinai peninsula and Gaza, right?

How is that 'expanding'?

Why should Israel go back to borders that were before Arabs attacked them, got beaten, and lost land?

I was thinking about the 90s and 00s actually. Constant expansion through settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. They evacuated the Gaza in recent years, but as part of a plan to consolidate the West Bank. Have any Arab armies invaded during that period to give Israel cause to expand in those areas?


That belief has shown itself to be wrong for decades. Why continue with it when the result is more terror attacks by Palestinian groups? Why not, instead of appeasement, condemn each and every attack by Palestinians in the strongest words and cut off all aid until they stop killing innocents?

You don't have to trust them to have real peace delayed while they continue killing - you just have to talk with them, to delay your hand because you think they talk in good faith.

No, the problem is the world condemns Israel and says it's hunting innocents whenever it tries to defend itself.

Crazed Rabbit
Well, there's always my preferred solution for anyone who doesn't want any kind of hypocrisy regarding the middle east. Cut them all off from outside human contact and let them kill each other to their hearts' content. We can't be hypocritical if we're not involved in any way whatsoever. Does this sound agreeable to you, a chance for Israel to beat the Arabs into oblivion without outsiders bleating about humanitarian concerns?

[Grey_Fox]

Why should Israel go back to borders that were before Arabs attacked them, got beaten, and lost land?


In 1967, like it or not, the Israelis attacked the Arabs after Egypt set up a blockade on Eilat, which is an act of war. However, the Arabs did not fire first, that distinction belongs to Israel.

[Incongruous]

Wait, so CR and Gawain, you're gripe with the Arabs living in Palestine is that they attack civilians?
Again I ask, you what about the massacre of Lebanese prisoners under General sharron's protection by extreme Christians called the Phalangists? I notice Gawain that you did dance about this claim quite a bit. First calling it a load of BS, then saying that you did not deny it and that I should give you more credit. Well here's you're chance. What are you going to say? That the people in those camps were terrorists? Well thats rubbish because there women and children there, but I guess those dirty Muslim Arabs are born with no soul aye Gawain?
In fact Ill be back with a list of Isreali attrocoties. Dance round those.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Can you clarify what you mean by "eliminating the enemy"? I'm not quite sure what euphemisms like these mean in the context of a longrunning irregular war.


Kill,imprison or otherwise get them to cease hostilities towards you.


I was thinking about the 90s and 00s actually. Constant expansion through settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. They evacuated the Gaza in recent years, but as part of a plan to consolidate the West

Your talking an afully small area here. Maybe if the Palestinians stopped the terrorism they might eventually pull out of Judea(westbank) as well. Helll that must belong to the Palestinians. Heaven forbid any Jews live in Judea. And once more I ask how is it millions of muslims and arabs can life as citizens in Israel but no Jews can live in Palestine. I think that pretty much says it all.


whatsoever. Does this sound agreeable to you, a chance for Israel to beat the Arabs into oblivion without outsiders bleating about humanitarian concerns

Since this is the real world yes, Thats what ive been trying to telll you. In the old days this would have ended long ago. The Palestinians would have taken the best deal Israel would have offered them. Nowdays this is not the case as other nations (UN)step in.


In 1967, like it or not, the Israelis attacked the Arabs after Egypt set up a blockade on Eilat, which is an act of war. However, the Arabs did not fire first, that distinction belongs to Israel.

I think your leaving out just a few wee tiny things like them shelling Israeli towns and massing their armies on Israels borders saying they were going to drive them into the sea. But we all know they didnt mean it, The Israelis should have tried to talk to them.

[Pannonian]

Kill,imprison or otherwise get them to cease hostilities towards you.

As I said, what does it mean in the context of a longrunning irregular war, where civilians are constantly drawn into the conflict, either by being killed by either side or joining the fight because their relatives have been killed?


Your talking an afully small area here. Maybe if the Palestinians stopped the terrorism they might eventually pull out of Judea(westbank) as well. Helll that must belong to the Palestinians. Heaven forbid any Jews live in Judea. And once more I ask how is it millions of muslims and arabs can life as citizens in Israel but no Jews can live in Palestine. I think that pretty much says it all.

The problem at the moment is that Jewish settlers have been squatting themselves on Palestinian land (most of which is recognised by the Israeli state as legally Palestinian), then declaring that land to be part of Israel. One parallel would be if Mexicans crossed the border over a number of years, building Mexican-only settlements on the best land in Texas, then declaring Texas was now Mexican and no longer American. And when US authorities try to enforce their sovereignty over the disputed areas, the Mexican army moves in to back the settlers.

I've proposed a deal before whereby those Jews can remain where they are - the whole of the West Bank is handed over to the Palestinian authority, and the Jews living in the Palestinian territories are no longer Israeli citizens, but Palestinian citizens, living under Palestinian law and paying taxes to the Palestinian state. How does that sound to you?


Since this is the real world yes, Thats what ive been trying to telll you. In the old days this would have ended long ago. The Palestinians would have taken the best deal Israel would have offered them. Nowdays this is not the case as other nations (UN)step in.

Nothing could make me gladder than to leave that whole accursed region alone. But it would mean leaving Israel alone as well, which you're not going to do. If it were up to me, I'd have the EU set up a blockade around the whole area, and allow nothing in or out. Nothing good comes out of it, and I'd certainly rather have nothing good going in. If they're going to carry on their interminable wars, let them. It's not as if we're dependent on anything coming out of Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. Make our deals with the oil countries, then fence off the rest of the middle east.

[Grey_Fox]

I think your leaving out just a few wee tiny things like them shelling Israeli towns and massing their armies on Israels borders saying they were going to drive them into the sea. But we all know they didnt mean it, The Israelis should have tried to talk to them.

I believe it was Syria that was shelling Israeli settlements, not Egypt or Jordan. I think Israel was perfectly right to beat the living daylights out of the Arabs by the way (with the exception of Jordan which was actually in diplomatic talks with them until Israel launched an unwarranted raid against Jordan thus driving them into Nasser's arms), but what I'm saying is that it was the Israelis who fired the first shots in the Six Day War, not the Arabs.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

but what I'm saying is that it was the Israelis who fired the first shots in the Six Day War, not the Arabs.

But what Im saying is with more than just cause.

[Suraknar]

Why dont we rename the country to "Palesrael" or "Isralestine", give equal rights to all, hebrew or arab, Jew or Muslim...and live in peace ever after?

[Incongruous]

Or why not the land of All that bad :daisy:?

[Ronin]

Why dont we rename the country to "Palesrael" or "Isralestine", give equal rights to all, hebrew or arab, Jew or Muslim...and live in peace ever after?


well we can´t do that because it´s fair and reasonable....

so none of the sides would go for it.:help:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait, so CR and Gawain, you're gripe with the Arabs living in Palestine is that they attack civilians?


No its that they use terrorism. Civilians are killed in every war.



Again I ask, you what about the massacre of Lebanese prisoners under General sharron's protection by extreme Christians called the Phalangists

So the Israelis didnt kill any then.


I notice Gawain that you did dance about this claim quite a bit

I never did any suchthing.


First calling it a load of BS,

I never said that either. Please quote me.


then saying that you did not deny it and that I should give you more credit.

And ill say it again.


In fact Ill be back with a list of Isreali attrocoties. Dance round those.

Be my guest. I never said either side was innocent. Sorry for the late reply I didnt notice your post before.,

[Incongruous]

So the Israelis didnt kill any then.


I actually did expect more from you:shame:
A man lets a crazed murderer into his house, the murderer kills his children, the man is let off with only a slap on the hand. Yeah Gawain, that man is a great guy, the death of his children is not directly a result of his actions.:no:

[Tribesman]

So the Israelis didnt kill any then.

Since the IDF secured the perimiter , provided the logistic support for the Phalange/SLA operation and turned back civilians who tried to flee they were responsible were they not , regardless of if they directly participated in the actual killing .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Since the IDF secured the perimiter , provided the logistic support for the Phalange/SLA operation and turned back civilians who tried to flee they were responsible were they not , regardless of if they directly participated in the actual killing .

Yes they are responsible and it was a terible thing. Like I said neither side is innocent here. However on the whole I find the Israelis far the better of the two. I dont think this can measure up to how many suicide attacks over how many years? I dont see how anyone can deny that if they stopped using terror they would have their state. Even I would support them.