TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- It's Not Apartheid: Jimmy Carter's moronic new book about Israel.
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Lilith couldn't agree with you more. Violence and
armed resistance is not the way. Peaceful protests
will get them more respect from the world than
targeting civilian homes and schools.

At least the IDF calls people telling them that their
house which is being used to store weapons and arms
will be bombed in 15 min. Would Hamas do the same thing?
Got two mentalities, one purposely targets innocents
while the other tries to minimize collateral damage.

Arafat made the worst decision by starting the 2nd intifada
and sending young men and boys on suicide bombings instead
of using words. We were at the threshold of peace until
he walked out of the negotiations.

^^ What kind of crack are you smoking? Or were you born retarted?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z ^^ What kind of crack are you smoking? Or were you born retarted?

Lay off the sledging already.

This threads pretty much due to have a fork stuck in it anyway.
If you want to look at peaceful political reform after generations of racial violence for a solution you'd do worse to look up the history of the ANC.
The ANC where for many years literally a terrorist organisation that eventually decided to put away their guns, stop blowing people up, fighting amongst themselves and take that brave step onto the moral high ground which eventually led to peaceful social and democratic change with popular support.
The PLO and its other sub-departments could do well to either take that step or take a step in the direction of economic opposition, they do that, drop the fighting and I'll quite happily side with them. Until then, I've got no bias one way or another with Palestine or Israel, theyre both equally as bloody terrible as one another for lots of different reasons and thats it.

My comment:

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z ^^ What kind of crack are you smoking? Or were you born retarted?

was directed at this:

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Violence and armed resistance is not the way. Peaceful protests will get them more respect from the world than targeting civilian homes and schools. At least the IDF calls people telling them that their house which is being used to store weapons and arms will be bombed in 15 min. Would Hamas do the same thing? Got two mentalities, one purposely targets innocents while the other tries to minimize collateral damage. Arafat made the worst decision by starting the 2nd intifada and sending young men and boys on suicide bombings instead of using words. We were at the threshold of peace until he walked out of the negotiations.

not:

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Lilith couldn't agree with you more.

And I think I already made myself clear with:

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Apparently you don't acknowledge any legitimate criticism of Israel. I even presented documented evidence from their own sources (Zioniosts') of a premeditated plan consistent with everything that's happened in the past 60 years and continues till this day. It seem to have no affect on your views. I see little reason to bother responding to your posts on the issue any further.

That should make it rather obvious which "side" is more "messed up" and they're not both "just as bad." Which is why I said:

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I see little reason to bother responding to your posts on the issue any further.

Infact, his post was so retarted, contradictory, inconsistent with reality, and just full of hypocrisy, that it doesn't even justify a proper response. And this isn't the first time eigther. It's incredibly hard to comprehend how someone could advertize that constantly, and not even realize it.

Shaolin you're free to break down what I say and
try to prove me wrong.. Just relying on calling
me names like 'retarted' is kinda immature kid.

At least spell the word right... spell checking and
proof-reading might help you sound alittle more
intelligent thou after people read what you have
to say they might not think so...

Well I'm no English major but just trying to help
you out.

Discovering a typo in my post doesn't make you any less stupid, ignorant, or hypocritical.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Discovering a typo in my post doesn't make you any less stupid, ignorant, or hypocritical.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Shaolin you're free to break down what I say and try to prove me wrong.. Just relying on calling me names like 'retarted' is kinda immature kid.

Ok, apparently you're no older than five.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Cut defense spending to the extremes he did is insane. You argue there was no need for the B-1? Are you serious? Do you know how much we still use it today? During his four years he was short-sighted to see it's value in the future. Very bad idea and reinforces the notion he was weak on national defense.

The B1-A and the current B1-B are, in effect, two totally different airplanes that look similar. You obviously don't know much about the B1 program.

And the B1-B has gotten very little use over its lifecycle. The role it "fits" has been done equally, or even better, by the old workhorse B-52.

The B1 was designed to be a nuclear weapons platform. Carter rightfully decided that it was too expensive for the little gain that it would give US forces.

The B1 program was a white elephant. As much as the B2 program was in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Carter just had the foresight to see it for what it was at the beginning of the cycle instead of the end.



MrS

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith We all bleed red.

Only in the presence of oxygen.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Lilith couldn't agree with you more. Violence and armed resistance is not the way. Peaceful protests will get them more respect from the world than targeting civilian homes and schools.

Is there any reason why you're talking about peaceful protests, when just a few posts back you were downing Carter on his stance on decreasing military funding?

And what the hell.. is that a soldier in your icon? Am I seeing this right?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Is there any reason why you're talking about peaceful protests, when just a few posts back you were downing Carter on his stance on decreasing military funding? And what the hell.. is that a soldier in your icon? Am I seeing this right?

I'm a former Marine. That's me.

Supporting a strong military with adequate funding does
not mean I don't prefer peace over war...

=======================================

And MrSquirrel, yes the B-1 was made as a nuclear weapons
platform. Yes over it life cycle it was used little. Did
it contribute as a deterrant? Yes.
In the war on terror it's been used rather extensively for
precision bombing. It's old yes but it's still needed even
now. There's no bomber like it. Can't use fighter-bombers
for everything or heavy bombers like the B-52 for it's
mission profiles.

Carter thought 30 years ago it wasn't needed and this war
has proved him wrong.

quote:

Carter rightfully decided that it was too expensive for the little gain that it would give US forces.

That's an opinion I don't agree with and I'll tell you why.
It was neccesary to have a high speed high altitude bomber
of it's specs. The B-52 is not it's equal. "The little
gain it would give US Forces", in the event of a nuclear
war (which was likely back then) the missions it was designed
to conduct would be very useful to US Forces.

It's easy to look back at many things and say 'hey there was
no nuclear war and so it was a waste of taxpayers money'.
You must take into account the threat back then and the need
for deterrants. The cold war is a huge topic so let's keep
it at the B-1 was necessary and is still useful.
Every class of fighter or bomber is needed. I don't think
there is a replacement for it's misison profile in the works.

Having only B-52 slow, heavy bombers only would compromise
our security instead of having variety of small and medium
bombers too. It's easy to 'monday-quarterback' but our
military and defense experts don't have that luxury.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Only in the presence of oxygen.

I will raise ya on that Shibby +1

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC And MrSquirrel, yes the B-1 was made as a nuclear weapons platform. Yes over it life cycle it was used little. Did it contribute as a deterrant? Yes. In the war on terror it's been used rather extensively for precision bombing. It's old yes but it's still needed even now. There's no bomber like it. Can't use fighter-bombers for everything or heavy bombers like the B-52 for it's mission profiles. Carter thought 30 years ago it wasn't needed and this war has proved him wrong. That's an opinion I don't agree with and I'll tell you why. It was neccesary to have a high speed high altitude bomber of it's specs. The B-52 is not it's equal. "The little gain it would give US Forces", in the event of a nuclear war (which was likely back then) the missions it was designed to conduct would be very useful to US Forces. It's easy to look back at many things and say 'hey there was no nuclear war and so it was a waste of taxpayers money'. You must take into account the threat back then and the need for deterrants. The cold war is a huge topic so let's keep it at the B-1 was necessary and is still useful. Every class of fighter or bomber is needed. I don't think there is a replacement for it's misison profile in the works. Having only B-52 slow, heavy bombers only would compromise our security instead of having variety of small and medium bombers too. It's easy to 'monday-quarterback' but our military and defense experts don't have that luxury.

You are putting words into my mouth. Nowhere did I justify the cancellation of the B1 program by saying that "no nuclear war happened".

Read up on the differences between the B1-A and B1-B (which you obviously think there are none of), learn a little more about the concepts behind both first-strike and retaliatory nuclear war, and look into the terms SLBM and ICBM.

Carter's deterrent policy was focused on Naval based systems. As someone who is a former member of that branch of the military one would think you would know more about the capabilities of the sea-going forces.

As much as your lovely circular arguments have been, I think I am done with this discussion.

Ta ta

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel You are putting words into my mouth. Nowhere did I justify the cancellation of the B1 program by saying that "no nuclear war happened".

Talking about people in general like to justify cutting
spending based on no use without taking into account
detterance.

quote:

Carter's deterrent policy was focused on Naval based systems. As someone who is a former member of that branch of the military one would think you would know more about the capabilities of the sea-going forces.

Fiscal 1982 Defense Budget he tried to pass had a 75% reduction in
ships, and an 83% reduction in attack submarines. Not a very strong
naval detterrent policy to me...

Yes I know out capabilities somewhat from experience...

Nixon was right in restarting the program because of 'flexibitly'
and having a wider range of options short of nuclear war instead
of soley relying on ICBMs or SLBMs.

True the cancellation of the program led to the B-1B multi-role
version but I'd don't like politicians being cheap and cancelling
things. *cough* Comanche *cough*

Point of the matter is Carter was weak on defense and has gotten
even worse since leaving office... He was wrong about the Russians
back then not wanting to invade afganistan and he was wrong about
believing N.Korea was going to stop making nukes... Lame.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Unfortunately, I think that's how it's going to end. The complete elimination/displacement of the Palestinian people.

^

Dont Worry ...... it wont . Trust me ... !

how dare he question or criticize israel? doesn't he know that israel does nothing bad?

Couldn't be arsed to read any of the thread but I'll just add my two penneth...

When people draw comparisons between apartheid and Israel, they are not refering to the Arab Israelis but to Palestine. The way Palestinian life is pretty much controlled by Israel and the way the settlements (and everything that comes with them such as their connecting roads) can divide the West Bank up cause major disruption to Palestinian life. Palestine is not a sovereign state. It has no control over it's borders without Israel's approval and is forced to live with the settlements in it's land.

But...I don't think I myself would call it apartheid. It's different. Altho Palestine has been divided up in the past into "Bantusans" (or Cantons) it was for completely different reasons than racial superiority. Originally it was for security reasons, altho more recently it has taken on a more religious aspect (and if you want to label anyone as "apartheid" then it is probably the settlers who deserve that tag, and their supporters - but altho they do form a powerful block in the Knesset they don't represent Israeli policy)

And as a side note, despite what the author of the article may wish to believe, Nelson Mandela and the ANC were "terrorists" just like we label the Palestinian militias today...(it was just "cool" to support old Nelson)

Another smack-down on this book...

You'd think a former US president would have a little more balanced view...

...maybe he's a Mel Gibson Fan club card carrier...(that's a joke for all you prune juice drinkers)

quote:

Carter�s new book belongs in fiction By Boston Herald editorial staff Sunday, December 17, 2006 Jimmy Carter has written a dreadful book about Palestine and turned himself into the next thing to a shill for terrorists. Start with the title: �Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.� Surely this implies a discussion of apartheid (the South African system of strict racial segregation) in Palestine. It takes Carter until three pages from the end of his text to mention apartheid, in a single paragraph. He claims that Israel is imposing such a policy on its occupied territories. He defines apartheid as �two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other� with Israelis �totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.� That�s all. It ignores the million Palestinian citizens of Israel proper who own property and vote. This is apartheid? Carter almost completely ignores terrorism and its effect on Israel. Only a handful of terrorist acts are mentioned, unelaborated, as in the backhanded reference to �violence� just quoted. The day is not long enough to list all the offensive material. On Page 199, Carter claims that �more than 800 Lebanese civilians� were killed in the first month of this summer�s fighting in southern Lebanon. There�s not the merest hint that any of them were responsible for the 4,000 rockets fired into northern Israel, or that the Hezbollah firing positions were smack in the middle of civilian areas. Carter ignores inconvenient evidence. The �Palestinians responded� to Ariel Sharon�s visit to the Temple Mount in 2000 with the �second intifada� uprising, he wrote. The Palestine Liberation Organization had planned the uprising and was looking for an excuse to launch it when Sharon unwittingly obliged. How do we know? PLO leaders have said so. You wouldn�t know it from reading Carter. He abhors the fence Israel is building around the West Bank; you�d be hard-pressed to learn that it is aimed at preventing the murder of Jews. Carter appears to be snuggling up to the conspiracy theorists who think Jews control American policy. �Because of powerful political, economic and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned,� he wrote. The former president gets a hearing because he won the Nobel Peace Prize for arranging the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. He has now shown that his views are unworthy of respect.

>>Source<<

quote:

He claims that Israel is imposing such a policy on its occupied territories

quote:

It ignores the million Palestinian citizens of Israel proper who own property and vote

Yes because he is talking about Palestine, not Israel

quote:

He defines apartheid as �two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other� with Israelis �totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.�

Perhaps then, we should compare the living standards, rights and day to day experiences of the settlers to the Palestinians?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yes because he is talking about Palestine, not Israel

But that's the reviewers point; Carter ignores that fact entirely.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r But that's the reviewers point; Carter ignores that fact entirely.

So if you're admittedly writing a book about the Palestinians suffering and how Israel is suppressing them you have to somehow do an overview of Israel too? Is that what you're saying?

im typing in small text to say that your comment doesnt make sense to me....

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r But that's the reviewers point; Carter ignores that fact entirely.

My point is that it is irrelevant, what is relevant is the lives of the Palestinians in the occupied territories (which is what people refer to when they accuse Israel of being "apartheid")

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC I agree some of those statements about carter I posted are half truths but they point to a lousy presidential term. Alot of things happened in his term and it was his responsibility. Cut defense spending to the extremes he did is insane. You argue there was no need for the B-1? Are you serious? Do you know how much we still use it today? During his four years he was short-sighted to see it's value in the future. Very bad idea and reinforces the notion he was weak on national defense. Then he went to N.Korea and came back saying 'He's an ok guy' to clinton... They decide to give aid and crap to stop making nukes... Then years later throws in our face that they had kept on going and finished nukes and thanked us for the aid... Thanks guys! Truly outstanding... Anyway, carter is an imbecile. Even a longtime aid has resigned from his organization accusing Carter of plagiarism and errors in his new book. There's others even a man who said carter stole his map of the middle east he made. These men will point out error after error soon so stay tuned... =========== Israel and Palestine... I don't support violence and suicide bombings, plus purposely targeting civilians, especially women and children. The palestinians could learn a thing or two from Gandhi and peaceful resistance. They'd have more worldwide support if they weren't so militant. And then SHOCK! Israel retaliates to defend their people and the militants sit back and say 'look they're attacking us and we didn't do anything...' Peaceful resistance is the way to go... But they are also being used as pawns by iran... Iran pays for extremists to stir up crap. Do you know most Muslims think of palestinians as 2nd rate? They don't really care much about them, never did, the hardliners are using them to stoke hatred and violence onto Israel. Why do you think moderate Muslim nations don't fully support Hamas's government or even hezbollah during the war they started with Israel? They aren't happy about syrian and iranian support, arms, and training plus supplying their own troops to keep the peace plans stalled. The militants drop a mortar on a house then cry foul when IDF comes... Oh and they wonder why they have no jobs or investment in their nation... Before Arafat started this 2nd intifada they had a bright future, a state guaranteed, tons of investment and aid from the world. Then he decided to turn to violence for more concessions from the peace process and look at how they live now, poor and jobless... Peaceful resistance is the way, not violence. There's plenty of official timelines showing, suicide bombing after bombing right after arafat walked out of the peace summit. Only after dozens of jews were killed did Israel finally retaliate. But people will dismiss that and say the bombings were in retaliation for something Israel did, but find me proof Israel started the killing first and you get a cookie (2nd Intifada)...

For your information... palestinians were not blowing themselves up after the occuption started in 1967. They waited 27 patient years as they got slaughtered by israel until the first suicide bombings began.

And you are claiming the the world would have cared??? Why didnt they care during those 27 years of occupation???

As sad as it is.. the world now knows the plight of the palestinians becuase tehy are showing their anger and hatred through unfortunate means.

quote:

B'TSELEM, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, has published its 2006 annual statistics. In a press release, the human rights group, which was established in 1989 to document human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, said this past year has witnessed "a deterioration in the human rights situation in the Occupied Territories, particularly in the increase in civilians killed and the destruction of houses and infrastructure in the Gaza Strip." At the same time, it added, "there was an improvement regarding violations of the right to life of Israeli civilians." Casualties --------------- (Figures in parenthesis indicate the total figure since the beginning of the intifada) According to B'Tselem's research, from January to December 27, 2006, Israeli security forces killed 660 (4005) Palestinians in the West Bank and in Israel . This includes 141 (811) minors. At least 322 (1920) of those killed did not take part in the hostilities at the time they were killed. Another 22 (210) were targets of assassinations. In the Gaza Strip alone, since the capture of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, Israeli forces killed 405 Palestinians, including 88 minors. Of these, 205 did not participate in the fighting when killed. Palestinians killed 17 (701) Israeli civilians in 2006, both in the West Bank and inside Israel . This includes 1 (119) minor. In addition, Palestinians killed 6 (316) members of the Israeli security forces. House Demolitions --------------------------- Israel demolished 292 houses military operations in the Occupied Territories , 279 of them in the Gaza Strip. These were home to 1,769 people. Some 80 of these demolitions were conducted after the home-owners received advance warning to the demolition. In addition, Israel demolished 42 homes in East Jerusalem that were built without a permit. These were home to about 80 people. Checkpoints and restrictions on movement -------------------------------------------------------------- Deep within the West Bank, Israel currently maintains 54 permanent checkpoints, staffed most of the time. 12 other checkpoints are within the city of Hebron . In addition, according to UN OCHA, there are on average some 160 flying checkpoints throughout the West Bank every week. In addition to the checkpoints, the Israeli military has erected hundreds of physical obstacles such as concrete blocks, dirt piles and trenches to restrict access to Palestinian communities. Palestinians have restricted access to some 41 roadways in the West Bank . Israelis have unlimited access to these roadways. Prisoners and Detainees ----------------------------------- As of November, Israel held 9,075 Palestinians in custody, including 345 minors. Of these, 738 (22 minors) were held in administrative detention, without trial and without knowing the charges against them.

Source: UK Indymedia, For the full statistics of B'Tselem, see http://www.btselem.org/english/Statistics/

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.