TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why are Terrorists so pissed off! Behold... The answer!
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Why are Terrorists so pissed off! Behold... The answer!

Fact: The US has averaged a major war every two years for the past fifty years! All of the last decade's involving the middle east.

Don't get me wrong I think Terrorists are the scum of the universe

BUT!

But but but...

If some mighty big power kept unloading half it's arsenal on top of me every couple of years I'd be kinda pissed off too by now!

hmmmm that means that america has committed about 25 "major" wars in the past 50 years... let me see if i can count that high
1950-1953: Korean War
1964-1975: Vietnam War
1988-present: War on Drugs
1989: Invasion of Panama
1991: Gulf War
1992: US intervention in Somalia
1993: US intervention in Haiti
1995: NATO intervention in Bosnia
1999: NATO intervention in Kosovo
2002: Afghanistan
2002-future: War on terrorism
2003: Gulf War ep 2?


other mentions
1961 bay of pigs fiasco
1960-1990 cases of CIA or special forces actions during cold war (not defined as war)
1981 Iran Contra
1981 Lebenese Civil War


i dont think its as bad as you make it out to be, maybe i missed somethings but techinically in terms of "wars" or "major" ones at that there have only been the korean, vietnam, gulf and afgahn wars

You really think the war on drugs counts? i don't.

I believe there are more wars, I remember something about columbia, my memory is hazy, and i'm too lazy to go do the research right now, but a quick search came up with this:

http://www.colombiamobilization.org/

heres what HRW has to say only in regards to human rights violations of the US:

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/u...tary-action.htm

as for US military actions (not wars) abroad, there have been many more than 25.

quote:

This report lists 234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes. It brings up to date a 1989 list that was compiled in part from various older lists and is intended primarily to provide a rough sketch survey of past U.S. military ventures abroad. A detailed description and analysis are not undertaken here.

http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

But, back to the original topic, why the terrorists hate us, well, has anyone read Bin Ladens letter? apparently it hasn't gotten much media coverage at all. Here it is:

(disclaimer: this is a link sent to me by a friend, i have no way of verifying if this is really bin ladens letter, nor if the translation is accurate)

http://www.planetmalek.com/dec02/dec02.php

This letter scares the shit out of me.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith You really think the war on drugs counts? i don't.

sorry, that was a bad attempt at a joke (i forgot to add the smiley)

quote:

as for US military actions (not wars) abroad, there have been many more than 25.

i dont doubt that at all. there have probably been tons and tons of CIA operations and secret military operations over the years (i bet such is the case for any country with a fairly large military force: Russia, UK, Israel etc). all i was doing was saying that illusion's original statement is false.

quote:

But, back to the original topic, why the terrorists hate us, well, has anyone read Bin Ladens letter? apparently it hasn't gotten much media coverage at all. Here it is: (disclaimer: this is a link sent to me by a friend, i have no way of verifying if this is really bin ladens letter, nor if the translation is accurate) http://www.planetmalek.com/dec02/dec02.php This letter scares the shit out of me

yup scares the shit out of me too, especially the quotes from the Kuran (if they are true). actually it gets me more mad then anyhting else and re-affirms my committment to the war agianst al-queda

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith You really think the war on drugs counts? i don't. I believe there are more wars, I remember something about columbia, my memory is hazy, and i'm too lazy to go do the research right now, but a quick search came up with this:

Umm, the war on drugs, is the war on Columbia.. their are two governments right now in Columbia, the drug lords, and the legal government.. their is a war here, the US sides with the legal government gives them aid, training and support, and probably has limited role in aiding with air power and the like.

quote:

as for US military actions (not wars) abroad, there have been many more than 25. http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

Right, this letter states every minor incident since 1798. Here is just an interesting list of a few I examined that shows you how it is not very significant in assessing number of 'major wars', or 'major military actions'

quote:

1946 -- Trieste. President Truman ordered the augmentation of U.S. troops along the zonal occupation line and the reinforcement of air forces in northern Italy after Yugoslav forces shot down an unarmed U.S. Army transport plane flying over Venezia Giulia. Earlier U.S. naval units had been dispatched to the scene. 1948 -- Palestine. A marine consular guard was sent to Jerusalem to protect the U.S. Consul General. 1948 -- Berlin. After the Soviet Union established a land blockade of the U.S., British, and French sectors of Berlin on June 24, 1948, the United States and its allies airlifted supplies to Berlin until after the blockade was lifted in May 1949. 1954-55 -- China. Naval units evacuated U.S. civilians and military personnel from the Tachen Islands. 1956 -- Egypt. A Marine battalion evacuated U.S. nationals and other persons from Alexandria during the Suez crisis.

Wow, the US evacuated their citizens because other people went to war! Damn, when will those machoistic militarist learn, I hope the US crumbles and it's superpower..umm..ness will fall! How dare they take such bold actions just like that with no UN security council resolution or antying.. who gives them the right to do something like that!

hehe, damn writing things like that are fun, no wonder their are so many hippies

I believe Izzy's count is fairly accurate.. though I do think he fight have forgotten one, but it slips my mind if he did, none the less I think he proved his point very nicely. Indeed the guy with first point made a lie, and he didn't let him get away with it.

well, point taken, and like i said, not wars. I'd like to know where illusion got that info in any case.

fact remains though, whether it's 25 or 16 as izzy posted, the US has been involved in a lot of wars, some for just reasons, some not.

and this has contribued to terrorism.

does this excuse or justify what the terrorists have done and are doing? in no way shaper or form, terrorism is evil.

however, while not an excuse, this is the cause.

I think, if the US want to decrease it's likelihood of being a terrorist target, then a formal US response to bin ladens letter is in order. the US should withdraw troops and support from where they have no right to be. this will decrease terrorism.

However, i think that the US should send a strong message back that they will never bow to the jihad, and america will always remain a country where the govt is secular and people are free to practice any religion they like.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy hmmmm that means that america has committed about 25 "major" wars in the past 50 years... let me see if i can count that high 1950-1953: Korean War 1964-1975: Vietnam War 1988-present: War on Drugs 1989: Invasion of Panama 1991: Gulf War 1992: US intervention in Somalia 1993: US intervention in Haiti 1995: NATO intervention in Bosnia 1999: NATO intervention in Kosovo 2002: Afghanistan 2002-future: War on terrorism 2003: Gulf War ep 2? other mentions 1961 bay of pigs fiasco 1960-1990 cases of CIA or special forces actions during cold war (not defined as war) 1981 Iran Contra 1981 Lebenese Civil War i dont think its as bad as you make it out to be, maybe i missed somethings but techinically in terms of "wars" or "major" ones at that there have only been the korean, vietnam, gulf and afgahn wars

Uh huh, and you think these are all *MAJOR* wars. I mean come on, lets go over these one by one shall we.

1950-1953: Korean War (a signifigant war, little beating about the bush, maybe a 100,000 dead, not sure on the numbers though)
1964-1975: Vietnam War I'll give you major here
1988-present: War on Drugs Haha, dont make me laugh
1989: Invasion of Panama right, I suppose this was ahem, a *major* war, not even close
1991: Gulf War nah, wasn't a major war in any way
1992: US intervention in Somalia LOL, where was the war, this was a humanitarian mission gone bad
1993: US intervention in Haiti Not a major war by any stretch of the imagination
1995: NATO intervention in Bosnia Nowhere near major
1999: NATO intervention in Kosovo same as Bosnia
2002: Afghanistan No, not major
2002-future: War on terrorism Afganistan was a part of the war on terror, these two should be essentially together, and no, they are not major wars
2003: Gulf War ep 2? Probably not a major war, we'll have to wait and see


other mentions
1961 bay of pigs fiasco A fiasco or botched up military mission does not equal a major war
1960-1990 cases of CIA or special forces actions during cold war (not defined as war) Cold war operations might be considered major in the context of how the cold war was fought
1981 Iran Contra No
1981 Lebenese Civil War No

You did forget two actual major wars... WWI & II... so out of your so called 25 major wars, I give you 3, WWI, II, & Vietnam... I'll give you a 4th, (Korean War) if it'll make you feel better. On a side note, if the invasion of Panama was a major war, what would constitute in your opinion, a minor war.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Right, this letter states every minor incident since 1798. Here is just an interesting list of a few I examined that shows you how it is not very significant in assessing number of 'major wars', or 'major military actions'

Minor incident is exactly what most of what he listed is. A minor incident & a major war are exact opposites with a lot of in betweens. To say the US has engaged in 25 major wars in the past 50 years is a farce, I doubt any country on Earth could survive 25 major wars in 50 years.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith as for US military actions (not wars) abroad, there have been many more than 25.

yeh if we go back to the 1600's

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by Verona^My Minor incident is exactly what most of what he listed is. A minor incident & a major war are exact opposites with a lot of in betweens. To say the US has engaged in 25 major wars in the past 50 years is a farce, I doubt any country on Earth could survive 25 major wars in 50 years.

while i agree, i hardly think that the difference between what's a major and what's a minor war bears debating.

you say afghanistan was not a major war? well, i agree, in a sense that in a war two sides are fighting, whereas in afghanistan it was only the US dropping bombs on a largely innocent population in hopes of eliminating the taliban, al qaeda, and osama.

In terms of civillian death tolls however, there were at least 3000 civilians killed in afghanistan.

quote:

What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan.

source: http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

Compare that with the death toll in the Sept 11th attacks, officially now, 2,795.

quote:

The number of dead now stands at 2,795, but this figure is expected to fall further as investigators continue to wade through missing person reports.

source: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Northeas...wtc.death.toll/

now, i'd hardly say that the WTC attack was not "major", but when you put in context with other things, it becomes obvious that in terms of death, it's really not all that many people.

it also becomes obvious that no matter how you want to call it, it was horrible, and that's the thing we should be discussing, and perhaps how to stop it.

in terms of raw numbers though, more than three times that amount die every day from aids in the world
source: http://www.worldaidsday.org/facts/index.cfm?&print=yes
(sorry it tries to print)

by some estimates, over half a million iraqi children have died under UN sanctions.

just a few things to think about.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy hmmmm that means that america has committed about 25 "major" wars in the past 50 years... let me see if i can count that high 1950-1953: Korean War 1964-1975: Vietnam War 1988-present: War on Drugs 1989: Invasion of Panama 1991: Gulf War 1992: US intervention in Somalia 1993: US intervention in Haiti 1995: NATO intervention in Bosnia 1999: NATO intervention in Kosovo 2002: Afghanistan 2002-future: War on terrorism 2003: Gulf War ep 2? other mentions 1961 bay of pigs fiasco 1960-1990 cases of CIA or special forces actions during cold war (not defined as war) 1981 Iran Contra 1981 Lebenese Civil War i dont think its as bad as you make it out to be, maybe i missed somethings but techinically in terms of "wars" or "major" ones at that there have only been the korean, vietnam, gulf and afgahn wars

When I used the words "A major war" I wasn't refering to any specific war.
If you simply count all the number of years that the country has been at war, that's how it will average out. Notice the word "Average"?

hhhmm I was quite sure I used pretty simple language there....

..and compare to the scope of the "50 major wars" very few have dealt with issues relating to the middle east. In Izzy's list only the Iran-Contra affair, and the Gulf War. Obviously you can add the arms sales to Iraq here, which upset Iran and Saudi, but the Saudis where made happy since they got arms too... and well the selling of arms to israel, but the Egyptians are happy about that - so long as israel gets arms, so do they, just Syria got pissed on that one, since their arms seller (russia) went bankrupt.

In all reality, these few little things are not much worse then what the USA has done in other parts of the world, and therefore the assertion that it is because of this policy that the outcome of terrorism was established is false.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus In all reality, these few little things are not much worse then what the USA has done in other parts of the world, and therefore the assertion that it is because of this policy that the outcome of terrorism was established is false.

I disagree. the US has been selling arms to nations all over that region, most notably israel who has recieved by far the most military help. the sale of arms to iraq, iran, saudi arabia do not help the situation, nor does training osama back when the USSR wanted afghanistan.

all of these things have been done with US money and weapons, and the goal has always been the same, control of vast mid eastern oil reseves. whatever the reasons, this has resulted in mass amounts of people dying, and a very unfavourable view of the western world, the US in particular, and also christianity. i would contend that this is at least "a" reason for muslim terrorism, if not THE reason.

Perhaps it's the fact that the U.S. has turned an eye on everything Isreal has done, while ignoring all other voices in the Middle East and most of the world.

Partial Timeline of Terrorist activity:

1968 July 23rd � Three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine hijack an El Al plane to Rome
1968 November 22nd � Twelve people were killed at a bombing in the market in Jerusalem
1969 February 21st were killed and eight injured in a bomb blast in Jerusalem
1969 August 29th A TWA 707 was hijacked by Palestinian terrorist to Damascus
1970 February 10th. A bus carrying passengers to an a plane is attacked by Palestinian terrorist at the Munich airport
1970 February 21st- A Swissair plane on a flight to Israel is blown up in mid air by Palestinian terrorists.
1970 May 22nd Eight Israeli schoolchildren are killed by Arab terrorist.
1970 September 6th- An attempt is made to hijack four planes. The attempt to hijack an El Al plane fails, while three other succeed. The planes all end up in the Jordanian desert.
1972 September 5th � Eleven members of the Israeli Olympic team are killed by Black semtember an arm of the PLO led by Yasir Arafat at the Olympic games in Munich
1973-February 23rd- Israel shoots down a Libyan plane over the Sinai desert fearing it was a flying bomb
1973- August 5th Five people are killed when a Libyan terrorist group attacks a TWA plane
1974- September 8th Libyan terrorist plant a bomb on board a TWA plane flying from Athens to Rome, all 85 passengers are killed.
1976- January 1st-Eighty-two people are killed aboard a Lebanese plane
1976 June 24th- An Air France plane is hijacked to Uganda. Israeli later stages a daring rescue mission to free the hostages.
1978 �March 12th Thirty seven Israelis are killed on a bus by Palestinian terrorists.
1981- April 19th -Thirteen people were killed and 177 injured in a terrorist attack in Davao Philippines.
1983- April 18th Eighty-three people are killed at the US Embassy in Beirut.
1983 Septermber 29th- A Gulf Air plane explodes killing all 166 people aboard.
1983 October 29th- 241 US Marines are killed in a truck bombing in Beirut by the Islamic Jihad ( controled by Syria)
1984-September 20th- The US embassy in the Beirut is bombed- 15 are killed
1985 June 23rd 345 people are killed when Sikh terrorist explode a bomb aboard an Air India 747
1985 October 7th- The Cruise ship the Achillo Laura was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists
1986- September 5th A Pan Am aircraft is hijacked by Palestinain terrorists. Twenty passengers are killed.
1993- February 26th- A bomb explodes in the basement of the World Trade Center in New York- Six die 1,000 are injured.
1998- August 7th � The US embassies in mairobi Kenya and Dar es Salamm Tanzania are bombed.
2000 October 12 - USS Cole is bombed
2001 September 11 - World Trade Center destroyed. Part of Pentegon destroyed also.

I think that the main cause of terrorism is the religion. The most noticable difference between the Koran and the Bible is that the bible was God inspired (written by humans), while the Koran was wrote by Mohammad. This is important because of all of the references to killing non believers. There can be no revolution in the muslim religion that killing infidels is wrong because it would be going against the word of god.

Another difference is that Mohammad was a warrior that killed non believers, while jesus was for peace. In the bible there are numerous statements that preach peace.

Just my thoughts on the issue

quote:

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior Perhaps it's the fact that the U.S. has turned an eye on everything Isreal has done, while ignoring all other voices in the Middle East and most of the world.

where do you guys keep coming up with this kinda of stuff
Although the US has been israel's closest ally thoroughout its histroy it still has acted against israels intrest many times

During the Suez War president Eisenhower took a strong stand agianst britian, france and israel.

in 1981 president Reagan suspended a strategic cooperation agreement after israel annexed the Golan Hieghts. On another occaision he held up delivery of fighter planes because of unhappiness over an israeli raid in lebanon

in 1991 president Bush (1) held a press conference to ask for a delay in considering Israel's request for loan guarantees to help absorb soviet and ethiopian jews because of his disagreement with israel's settlement policy.

Numerous times over clinton's and Bush's (2) administration the US has critized israel for its actions, (albeit usually its those that are contrary to US intrests).

Its not out of blind views that america supports israel, its there for a reason and i hope i dont have to elaborate and explain why.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy where do you guys keep coming up with this kinda of stuff?

In 29 separate cases between 1972 and 1992, the United States has vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions critical of Israel. Except for the U.S. veto, these resolutions would have passed and the total number of resolutions against Israel would now equal 95 instead of 66.

UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992
1. Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"
2. Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
3. Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"
4. Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"
5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"
6. Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
7. Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
8. Resolution 248: "... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
9. Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
10. Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
11. Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
12. Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation""
13. Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
14. Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
15. Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
16. Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
17. Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
18. Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
19. Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
20. Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"
21. Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
22. Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"
23. Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
24. Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
25. Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
26. Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"
27. Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"
28. Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
29. Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
30. Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'
31. Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
32. Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
33. Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
34. Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
35. Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"
36. Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"
37. Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
38. Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians"
39. Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
40. Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'"
41. Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'"
42. Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
43. Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility"
44. Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
45. Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
46. Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
47. Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
48. Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
49. Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
50. Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"
51. Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"
52. Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
53. Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
54. Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops"
55. Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
56. Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
57. Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
58. Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
59. Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians
60. Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
61. Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
62. Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
63. Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
64. Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians
65. Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
(Findley's Deliberate Deceptions, 1998 pages 188 - 192)

The following are the resolutions vetoed by the United States during the period of September, 1972, to May, 1990 to protect Israel from council criticism:
1. ....condemned Israel's attack against Southern against southern Lebanon and Syria..."
2. ....affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections..."
3. ...condemned Israel's air strikes and attacks in southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians..."
4. ....called for self-determination of Palestinian people..."
5. ....deplored Israel's altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city by most world nations and the United Nations..."
6. ....affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people..."
7. ....endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people..."
8. ....demanded Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights..."
9. ....condemned Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva convention protocols of civilized nations..."
10. ....condemned an Israeli soldier who shot eleven Moslem worshippers at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount near Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem..."
11. ....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon..."
12. ....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not
13. .withdraw from its invasion of Beirut..."
14. ....urged cutoff of economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon..."
15. ....condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace..."
16. ....deplores Israel's brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urges its withdrawal..."
17. ....condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounced the Israeli 'Iron Fist' policy of repression...."
18. ....denounced Israel's violation of human rights in the occupied territories..."
19. ....deplored Israel's violence in southern Lebanon..."
20. ....deplored Israel's activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem that threatened the sanctity of Muslim holy sites..."
21. ....condemned Israel's hijacking of a Libyan passenger airplane..."
22. ....deplored Israel's attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon..."
23. ....called on Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian intifada that violated the rights of occupied Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and to formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations..."
24. ....urged Israel to accept back deported Palestinians, condemned Israel's shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention, and called for a peace settlement under UN auspices..."
25. ....condemned Israel's... incursion into Lebanon..."
26. ....deplored Israel's... commando raids on Lebanon..."
27. ....deplored Israel's repression of the Palestinian intifada and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians..."
28. ....deplored Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians..."
29. ....demanded that Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel's crackdown on the Palestinian intifada..."
30. ...called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands..."
(Findley's Deliberate Deceptions, 1998 pages 192 - 194)

thanks peaceful warrior, very good info!

so you're bringing the UN into this now, i dont see how this addresses the original topic about the US not being critical of israel (and yes i saw the point of the US supporting isreal in the UN sector).

rightfully so, should the US not stand up to what it belives is right or wrong? it sides with israel because it represents western values of democracy and freedom. anyways that point is mute and im sure you know it.

as for the UN more specifically, i have already commented on the injusticies of why i disapprove of their actions with regards to israel (i quoted my post below), i have many more points to bring up that would only further my point but i dont have that much time (maybe later)

let me say this you've found many many many 'Security Council' resolutions condeming Israel, but not once have they adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of arab attacks agianst israel (prove me wrong).

the security council has set up Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly to deal with israel on varied occasions, but never have they been convened with respect to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the slaughters of Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire or the horrors of Bosnia. agian i dare you to prove me wrong.

quote:

well as people have found out, i dont hold the UN to any value. but let me give you some more specific reasons with regards to israel to prove why the UN sucks * In order to be on the UN security council you have to be a member of a regional group. Arab countries have barred israel from joining the asian group. and although in may 2000 israel accepted an invitation to be a temporary member of the Western Europe and Others (WEOG) reginal group, it still has no access to have any say on the security council. * in 1974 resolution 3379 slandered Zionism (the jewish nationalist movement) by branding it as a form of rasicm. it was only repealed in 1991 and I think it was about two years ago in a UN summit in south africe that the word zionism was almost equated to racism agian, luckly that didnt pass because of strong US pressure. and it was only in Nov 1998, 50 years after the founding of the UN that the word anti-semetism appeared in a UN resolution. * Of all of the condemnations that The Commission on Human Rights has put forth, 26% refer to israel alone (!!!) and yet rouge states like syria and libya have never been critized. * both the madrid (1991) and oslo peace accords (1992) call for direct and bilateral negotations, but the UN constantly undercuts this principle. the general assembly routinely adopts resolutions that attempt to impose solutions to critical issues. Ironically, security council reolutions 242 and 338 that everyone refers (the ones after 1967) to call for bilateral negotiations as well but are still undermined by UN general assembly resolutions. * seeing as the UN does not actually do anything to defend israel in the northern border with lebanon what good will it do in the territories? The hizbollah routinely fires rocket rounds into israel proper from within lebanon and the UN does abosolutley nothing about it, not even a single condemnation of violence.

in conclusion, im not saying that the US doesnt support israel heavily
i was just trying to prove this wrong

quote:

Perhaps it's the fact that the U.S. has turned an eye on everything Isreal has done

i feel the america is justified in supporting israel the way it does

America are just ****s.

Bush just completly takes the piss out of the rest of the world.

And becaues Blair is such an arse licker as soon as the US go to war we go to world

it sucks arse

Izzy you'r daaa man, I admire your wisdom and knowledge.
never knew about the interesting facts you brougth about the UN.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith I disagree. the US has been selling arms to nations all over that region, most notably israel who has recieved by far the most military help. the sale of arms to iraq, iran, saudi arabia do not help the situation, nor does training osama back when the USSR wanted afghanistan.

Yes, but you miss the assertion that the USA sells weapons across the world to many nations (pakistan, philipines, Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan, Columbia, etc..) at the same high levels, yet the tensions created by these sale of arms in those regions don't result in the terrorism we see from the middle east.

Also we must understand that their are many other arm providers in the middle east, such as the French, Russians, Chinese, and Eastern Europeans (notably former Yugo and Chez), yet we see little to no terrorism acted against them. Perhaps this is because they are the ones selling the arms to the countries who perpetrate terrorism most of the times?

quote:

all of these things have been done with US money and weapons, and the goal has always been the same, control of vast mid eastern oil reseves. whatever the reasons, this has resulted in mass amounts of people dying, and a very unfavourable view of the western world, the US in particular, and also christianity. i would contend that this is at least "a" reason for muslim terrorism, if not THE reason.

Now this is an interesting point you make here.
First of all, it is not the interest of the US to CONTROL mid east oil, it is to ensure a STABLE supply, at reasonible prices (not $40 per barrel).

Secondly, I personally believe that the sale of arms by the USA to middle eastern countries has actually PREVENTED mass amounts of people from dying. Obviously these nations would have obtained arms via anothe source if not for the USA, and the arms would probably be less accurate and more out to date, prolonging any war or conflict that has arisen in the middle east to date, ensuring more casualties. This is obviously not the way the Arab (or muslim) world views this, but maybe the fact that their are different persepctives to view this single issue, show you that indeed perhaps the Arab world is the one that is blind here.

My point as I hope I had made clearly as that this in infact not THE issue, although I would never deny it is AN issue that might have contributed to this hatered.

One must also understand the way the people have been viewed to see such issues and respond to it. Obviously if the governments had propogated a more tolerante view, such views would be more common place in the arab world today.

yup I side with Izzy on this, if the UN is a shinning beackon for justice in today's world, I just might as well consult my soul to the devil.

Just a minor point, I think he touched a little on that can illustrate this in regard to their hypocracy:

Peace Warriror clearly illustrates many of the UN resolutions that tried to pass in the UN, and many others condemning Israel were passed WITH the support of the US.

But regardless, not ONE resolution has passed the security council condemning a palestinian terrorist act against Israeli civilians.

Yet you can find one condemning Israel for beseiging Arafat, who was allegedly running out of toilet paper and light at the time.

I'm incredibly tired (it's 7.00am and I still haven't been to bed) but I'll have a go at posting a meaningful response:

quote:

should the US not stand up to what it belives is right or wrong? it sides with israel because it represents western values of democracy and freedom.

This is a tough issue that you've brought up here actually: to what extent should a country go to in order to stand up for what it believes in? The US has made it quite clear that it supports the state of Isreal (which I have no problem with - I too support the state of Isreal) but in doing so - and in the method by which has done so - it seems to have alienated many Arab states, or at least the people of many Arab states. This - regardless of your stance on the Palestinian conflict - you would have to agree has gone a long way towards the propogation of anti-western terrorist activities in thse states, and of the anti-western sentiment in these states in general.

For me, the US has every right to "stand up for what it believes in" (in a diplomatic sense) but it does not have the right to force these beliefs upon anyone else, nor to assume - without any real justification - that the "western values of democracy and freedom" are the only values by which to live. To be honest, by invading a sovereign state in order to instill these values (yes, I'm thinking of Iraq here) the US would be violating the very "principles" it claims it is so vehemently trying to preserve.

quote:

let me say this you've found many many many 'Security Council' resolutions condeming Israel, but not once have they adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of arab attacks agianst israel (prove me wrong).

Without wanting to sound like I'm justifying the actions of the PLO, I think it's gotten to the stage where Yasser Arrafat is no longer in charge of the factions that fight on behalf of this cause, and - as such - it is very difficult to pin the blame for these horrendous acts of terrorism on any specific state or organisation. While you almost certainly understand the situation better than I, I'm merely suggesting the UNSC is neither anti-semitic nor pro-Palestinian, but that it's merely easier to pinpoint specific acts of aggression organised or approved by the Isreali government than it is to pinpoint those organised or approved by those under Arrafat.

I try to stay out of the Isreal/Palenstine debates - if for no other reason than I don't understand it too well - but I'm simply trying to point out that if the UNSC appear to be targetting a specific body or government, then we shouldn't immediately rush to the conclusion that there is some inherent bias (fairly difficult when you consider the amount of nations involved - don't the US have veto power over these resolutions btw?) but rather that there is a perfectly justifiable - if not necessarily adequate - reason for it.

quote:

the security council has set up Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly to deal with israel on varied occasions, but never have they been convened with respect to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the slaughters of Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire or the horrors of Bosnia. agian i dare you to prove me wrong.

On this point, though, I agree with you entirely.

Even John Howard - our right-wing leader - has called into question the methods of Zimbabwe leader President Mgabe - and has tried to persuade the rest of the Commonwealth into agreeing on economic sanctions and the like - yet I don't think the UN has made any serious effort to stop the fascist dictatorship Mgabe has set up..... and the East Timor situation was just as ridiculous: John Howard asked repeatedly for UN (and US) intervention yet received no help whatsoever - and he was initially criticised for this delay - until finally Australian peace keeping troops were sent to protect the sovereignty of this small island.

In fairness to the UN, they have - more recently - been an essential part in staging the elections that have since been held there - and are (or at least were?) in the process of recognising East Timor as a sovereign state.

As for the Tibet situation (pathetic as it is), I think that the fact that China is one of the permanent members may have something to do with the UN's indifference.

quote:

Yes, but you miss the assertion that the USA sells weapons across the world to many nations (pakistan, philipines, Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan, Columbia, etc..) at the same high levels, yet the tensions created by these sale of arms in those regions don't result in the terrorism we see from the middle east.

Yes but you miss the point: the USA's desire for a more "global" economy has come back to bite it on the bum, even if these rogue nations are the "exception" rather than the rule.

If the US's desire to quash the USSR had not been so strong then the terrorist cells who threatened it out of Afghanistan would not have been so strong either. If the US's desire to quash the fundamentalist Islamic politics of the Iran Ayatolah had not been so strong, then neither would have Saddam Hussein's resistance in the early 90's. Polarising politics - it must be learnt - pisses off more people than it appeases.

No one side in any war is entirely in the right, and the dichotemy that the US government has dug itself into recently goes some way towards highlighting the dangers of alienating large populations of people in this way. To think that the enemy of the enemy "is our friend" - as we have seen happen time and time again in this past half century alone - is a dangerous view indeed. To think that America both funded and supported the two people it is most out to get (Bin Laden and Hussein) should be some indication that the American desire to ivolve itself financially in military operations it doesn't quite seem to understand, is unadvisable at best and self-destructive at worst.

quote:

Secondly, I personally believe that the sale of arms by the USA to middle eastern countries has actually PREVENTED mass amounts of people from dying.

I'll direct you to the post I made towards the end of the "America Bashing" topic that explains how America sold the chemical agents to Iraq used by Hussein to murder thousands of Kurdish Iraqis in the late 1980's. America not only provided the toxins, but increased exports of such chemical agents after the event, not only ignoring but seemingly encouraging such genocide. I fail to see how many lives America saved in this endeavour.... anything for a buck eh?

Having said that, if you have any specific instances where American military funding has saved lives, then I'd be quite happy to hear them.

quote:

Obviously these nations would have obtained arms via anothe source if not for the USA, and the arms would probably be less accurate and more out to date, prolonging any war or conflict that has arisen in the middle east to date, ensuring more casualties.

So, in other words, by having the US send their more "accurate" arms, the participants in the conflict could - mercifully - kill themselves off more quickly? Bonus!

I obviously wasn't aware that US business was so wonderfully humane!

quote:

This is obviously not the way the Arab (or muslim) world views this, but maybe the fact that their are different persepctives to view this single issue, show you that indeed perhaps the Arab world is the one that is blind here.

The "Arab" world - if we could lump so many different cultures into one convenient demographic - is almost certainly just one perspective, and almost certainly very wrong in many ways - but it would be wrong to this as an admission of US righteousness.

I'm not sure how familiar any of you are with Hegel, but in his "Phenomenology of Spirit" (spiritual dialectic for any of you familiar with Plato, Hegel or Marx), Hegel speaks of the dichotemy that brewed in his own age between the growth of atheistic science (the "Enlightentment") and its opposition to the "faith" of established religion. He suggests that while the "Enlightenment" cause would seem to have the greater momentum - and thus, rightly or wrongly - a greater likelihood of "winning" this "argument", he says:

"Enlightenment's failure to embrace the otherness within itself will be the source of its eventual downfall, while giving it, temporarily, a feeling of power and certainty."

What does that mean? Basically - if we were to understand the rest of the dialectic - so long as one side fails to recognise the other in itself, it can never attain consciousness. Reread the above paragraph with the word "Englightenment" replaced by the word "America" in the context of this "West vs Muslim" battle, and you may being to understand what I'm getting at:

Any cause that fails to see fault in itself - or at least see the merit in the contrary view point - has dug itself into a dangerous dichotemic world in which it will continue to be opposed - violently, on occasions - as we have already seen time and time again.

quote:

One must also understand the way the people have been viewed to see such issues and respond to it. Obviously if the governments had propogated a more tolerante view, such views would be more common place in the arab world today.

Replace the phrase "Arab world" with "the US" and you may begin to see my point.

quote:

quote: One must also understand the way the people have been viewed to see such issues and respond to it. Obviously if the governments had propogated a more tolerante view, such views would be more common place in the arab world today Replace the phrase "Arab world" with "the US" and you may begin to see my point.

your point would be true and nice if we were talking about like minded society's but there is no doubt in my mind that there is no equivalence between the two. some arab societies (the former taliban regime, Saddam's regime, i'd even say sryia, iran and suadia) are far less toleranet (socially, religiously...etc) then that of the US' regime. this is one reason i side with america, if for no other reason then to aid humanity in taking a step in the right direction.

more to come later (hopefully) got to run off...

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