|
We are going into war!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :( (pg. 21)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Izzy |
guys i have to leave for dallas in 10 minutes to see judge jules (YAY!!!!!) i wont be back till late tomorrow.
im enjoying this thread and hope it wont cease action by the time i get back
anyways in response to i_m view of me not presenting my side clearly i would like to show you the way i think.
my whole way of going about this is that i am trying to show you that siding neutrality is not to right thing to do. i am trying to go about showing that (as e_b put it) there is not enough wrongs committed by the israelis to lose thier support especially when we are directly comparing this to the palestinian side. he brought allegations of no military investigations. they happen FACT. maybe not in the manner you'd like to see them or the frequency you'd like to see them but that is not enough to lose my support especially comapring to a reigm that opresses, has little or no judicial action, no freedom of press, brain washing children with antisemtic - fundemantly extremely islamic views, disregard for innocent civlian life... list goes on. he continued and brought allegation that israeli does not desirve support through his post of amnesity. we have showed that it was a purely taken out of context when compared to stepping back and looking at the entire situation. also e_b blantantly does not abmit that the protestors had no right of being where they were at and that israel is in the territtories illegaly. also this case alone does not warrant losing support of the israeli side (especially when compared to the other side). i turly belive that taking the neutrality in this case is doing wrong for the progression of humanity. all these allegations (which in most all cases are a response) are minscule in comparision to the attrocities committed by the palestinian side. basicly all in all my posts i am trying to show you the siding on israelis side in the whole scope of this conflict is the moraly right thing to do. afterwards trash israel all you want for those allegations and bring about changes (non violently i hope, hehe)
quick note:
10 years ago israel dispatched a squad of fighter jets who went into iraq and bombed what would have been their first nuclear plant, furthermore they threatened to do it agian if iraq were to try and build one agian. the world (including US) was appalled and angry at israel and condemned them in the strongest possible way. jump back to present and we can now see that god only knows what would have happened if saddam would have been able to build those plants with no resistance. it seems to me the israel deserves an apology from the world. who knows maybe in this case too, israel may be on the right side?
ps i_m, i too would love to sit down and talk with you over a cup of tea and try and throw you a gigantic trance party on your birthday. |
|
|
| Inspector_Morse |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Though I still have an opinion of you that you are to idealisticly pacificst |
I take this as a compliment. 'Realistic' people support some terrible things.
Thanks for clearing up what Izzy meant by not caring about impartiality. I do feel, though, that that approach, namely deciding who is impartial based upon who reports the truth, sets up a circular argument. How do we know what the truth is? We only know what is reported. Depending on which source we chose to believe, we're liable to have our own perceptions of what is 'true', but these are surely dependent on the source we subsrcibe to. Our perception of what the truth is is dependent on what sources come our way and how we weight them; hence my attempts to break somewhat the circularity by questioning the motives of those who present the sources. True this more often than not leads to a state of confusion, as claim and counter-claim fly, and makes it very difficult to support what appears as dubious action (by dubious, I suppose I mean actions which lead to death, injury, destruction), but I feel it's better than accepting what source X says as true, and then reaffirming that source X is reliable because it reports the truth. By such circularity I could put my faith in flat earth doctrine.
Please don't patronise me by explaining that guerrilla combitants operate as part of a larger group. I understand this, as I think you already knew, and was trying to raise the question of why individuals each make their personal decisions to join terror groups. Certainly it's a function of many different factors, but I don't think you can discount desperation at apparent unjust treatment by an outside force, at least as a catalyst. Or else why don't you and I solve our own day to day grievances by strapping bombs to ourselves and blowing ourselves up? It's tempting to feel superior to those that do, but as I haven't been through anything nearly as harrowing as many in the Middle East have, I can't put my hand on my heart and honestly say no circumstance could ever drive me to such a state where I would consider doing something monstrous. I'd like to think I wouldn't, but humanity is capable of much evil. I have the luxury of being able to see that such acts are wrong, and by process of reasoning (as opposed to knee jerk reaction) condemn them.
I don't pretend to know the motives of suicide bombers, but I doubt you do either. But it seems to me that something like blowing yourself up would require thorough rationalisation, however flawed, which is why many people are eager to see an end to such circumstances that might allow a bomber to more easily rationalise his actions. Some will still, for a number of (I believe) misguided reasons, decide to commit terrible acts, but is it beyond the realms of possibility that fewer will do so.
You say my 'assumption' (it was actually more of a hypothesis) that suicide bombers commit their acts as they see no other way of hitting back at those they see as their oppressor is just plain 'wrong'. This is to totally discount the possibilty that such despair might figure in their initial decision to join a terror group. Yes, there is terror infrastructure which supports terrorist actions (the nature of which is hotly disputed, though this is outside the remit of this post). Yes, terrorists act as part of wider organisations, which have their own stated aims, and take their orders from their commanders. But what I was questioning is why these people join these groups in the first place (and in doing so leaving myself open to accusations of justifying terrorism simply because I seek to understand the motives of those who practice it, rather than automatically say "They're evil, and that's that"). Why do people join terror groups? Is the propaganda they're fed about the evils of Israel supported or negated by Israeli military actions?
It is conceivable that Israeli actions could totally dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and permanently end suicide attacks, but experience of military powers fighting guerrillas (for instance America in Vietnam, Britain in Ireland) suggests any successes will be temporary, while the next generations of terror groups will be bolstered by the support of those who resent the actions which brought about the lull in the first place. Is that totally inconceivable? Is it a complete fairy story to suggest that Israeli action may create such a level of resentment that a few years down the line there are even more people willing to blow themselves up to inflict casualties on Israel? Willing, and eventually able, unless Israel puts even more forces in the line of fire to quell such potential attacks. I don't think they could control it forever.
Why such complaints that people aren't balanced in their appeals for the violence to end? Could this not be a reflection of the fact that Israel is a democracy, perhaps more willing and able to end its own particular violence and terror (and don't try to say that a tank or an APC full of troops doesn't terrorise; they'd scare the out of me). Is that totally inconceivable?
What is a hawk? A person who uses the perceived cirumstances to justify a violent act? The way Bin Laden might justify September 11th? |
|
|
| Inspector_Morse |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
also this case alone does not warrant losing support of the israeli side (especially when compared to the other side |
You're on a slippery slope there. I could use that logic to say I would, with hindsight, have supported Hitler because he didn't kill as many people as Stalin.
I understand that you'd like to rally support for Israel in this conflict, but no, I don't support what they're doing. Their actions are morally dubious regardless of the 'bigger picture' (What is that, anyway? I am expected to know with certainty every nuance of this conflict, in spite of the informational minefiled that confronts anyone seeking to be informed?). Driving tanks into towns and risking the lives of the civilians is something I will not default to supporting; there'd need to be a very good reason for me to be able to say "Yes, I think this is a good thing", and given the very real prospect that this could actually make things worse, I'm certainly not going to support it. Even if I could say I thought the action was right, it's still state terrorism, just state terrorism with an excuse. The entire legality of it isn't really relevant to the morality of it. I could buy a packet of crisps in the pub and refuse to share them with anyone; perfectly legal, but I'd still be a . Playful analogy, yes, but you see my point? Laws don't define what is morally right and morally wrong.
I really don't see that this is something I can support, given my own morals and principles ( me I do sound self important), and given the journalistic shennanigans that are occurring at present (such as the BBC, CNN et al broadcasting IDF footage of the conflict; yes they needed footage, and Israel wasn't allowing them to shoot their own, but it's a very iffy basis on which to support something so serious) to condemn me for not taking a side is unfair. Given that most of the evidence which suggests I should support a particular side can be sourced back to the side I'm being asked to support, you can see my fix?
I anticipate a flurry of links and exhortations to read various pieces of 'evidence', but given that we're all spending considerable time writing all this horse, I'd be grateful for a cessation in people suggesting how I spend my own time. This may fly in the face of my desire to be informed, I know, but we all have things to do, and seeing as all this evidence is dubious, open to contradiction' or both, I think I can be forgiven for trying to avoid getting bogged down in it all, and concentrate on more generic, theoretical reasoning of these problems before going for the jugular of hard core empiricism (which is imposible as most of the evidence presented so far appears to be anecdotal). Yes, 'facts', 'evidence' and 'truth' are doubtless going to inform any models constructed to explain the situation, but it is my hope that they won't dominate it, until we can't see the wood for the trees.
My birthday was last week, sadly, but thanks anyway :) Enjoy the gig, Izzy. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Inspector_Morse
I take this as a compliment. 'Realistic' people support some terrible things. |
So do Idealistic people... Stalin, Hitler, Osama Bin Laden to name a few. Realistic people are like Gorbecha, Sharon, the Chinese leaders, and so on...[/quote]
The problem with pacifisim is that it is a great ideal, but bad in practicallity. It only takes one side to wage war, and if the other side does not responde in tune then it lets the other side win. Therefore forefitting the very ideals they tried to hold true to.
| quote: | | Thanks for clearing up what Izzy meant by not caring about impartiality. I do feel, though, that that approach, namely deciding who is impartial based upon who reports the truth |
You wrote an essay about philosophy below, but the fact is we do know what is true because it can be reported and witnessed. You can perhaps discredit the statement and circumstances surronding it, but if you record something and then say it did not happen is another matter.
Again, I prefer to base my facts on people who use rational arguments, do not make huge generalizations (Amnesty anyone?), make enlightened assumptions, try and put it in context, and do not lie to me. This is how I judge the information coming to me as true or not (again it might not always be 100% all the time, but it this weeds up about 95% of the falsehoods), I prefer this method to just looking at hmm this guy says he is impartial so I will believe him since I can't discern any motives.
Truth can not be disputed, it happens once and if it is recorded it is indeed what happened. If it is not, we might never know what really is the truth.
| quote: | | Please don't patronise me by explaining that guerrilla combitants operate as part of a larger group. |
Yes, but these guys aren't your ordinary guerrillas.. they are indeed the 'army' in all practical ways of the Palestinians. This is what I was trying to point out. They have command and control centers, financial centers, ranks, hierchal command, arms depots, intelligence operatives, and all the other important elements that make up a 'army'. The only difference is the way they use their army, and the fact that they are unable to aquire heavy arms.
| quote: | | I understand this, as I think you already knew, and was trying to raise the question of why individuals each make their personal decisions to join terror groups. |
I already gave my thesis on this, but to be blunt and direct it is their culture. How else can you explain a 14 year old suicide bomber? He is not even old enough to make up his own political decissions, these ideas, and these thoughts are impressed upon them through the society and culture they live in.
I will agree that desperation plays some fact, but I have disproved this as well saying that suicide bombers have been used since 1921, before any occupations of sorts.
Still, the desperation comes from their own self-rule. It is like the analogy I said of an abusive father that kicks and tortures his kid, the kid is grows to be extremely psychotic because of this, but they never hurt the father, they fear him and love him at the same time and do not intend to hurt them, but they let out their fustration in some other way.. usually killing and torturing some pets, and then murdering and molesting people.
I pointed out that I believe Arafat is the father, the Palestinian people are the kids, and that the 'pets and people' they kill are the Israelis.
That is my theory, I believe it plays a major role in it which causes people to believe indeed in 'martyrism'.
Another one. Anti-semitism due to its large popularity in the past has a stated template in which it has been used by leaders of nations to make their people look away from the real problems and use the Jews as the scapegoat. Arafat employes this well-established template in helping his people locate their 'problems'.
| quote: | | think you can discount desperation at apparent unjust treatment by an outside force, at least as a catalyst. |
Again, if you look at it objectivaly you can say yes, but the fact is where does this desperation come from?
(1) acts directly related and a result of Israeli actions ~ 5%
(2) acts directly related and a result of Arafat's actions ~ 93%
This is a pretty generalized statement, but it can be consolidated by the facts of post-1967 and the historical decissions Arafat and the Israelis have chosen since. I'm sort of cut for time so I do not want to go posting pages of proof for this.. but I can if you really... really want... ;)
Personally, I think what I say and don't back-up, and what I say and do back-up sometimes has the same impact on you guys...
| quote: | | Or else why don't you and I solve our own day to day grievances by strapping bombs to ourselves and blowing ourselves up? |
We have been taught and educated from birth that their are other ways to solve and achieve a resolution to our differences then blowing each other up. Furthermore I have not been taught from birth to hate all Jews, and that you are the most evilist (idealistically pacifistic) devil that kills my friends and families and is the root and cause of all my problems which he does because he feels like it.. and that if I kill myself I will make these friends and family proud and restore their honor, and will get 72 virgins in heaven :D, and will injure the devil.
Can you see my point?
| quote: | | It's tempting to feel superior to those that do, but as I haven't been through anything nearly as harrowing as many in the Middle East have, I can't put my hand on my heart and honestly say no circumstance could ever drive me to such a state where I would consider doing something monstrous. |
Again, I think we are all born innocent, and if you were born into such a society I am fairly sure you would be educated and brought up the same way as all the other Palestinians are -to become future martyrs.
If I were to place you in Palestine now (with your rational and conscience mind) you would come to understand in a matter of weeks that it is the result of Arafat's actions that you must suffer so, and that you will go along with the general public in condeming Israelis for whatever they may do or not do, or fear being killed and labeled as a collaborator (or you just might be a collaborator).
| quote: | | I don't pretend to know the motives of suicide bombers, but I doubt you do either. |
Their motives are blantly clear to me; Kill as many Jews as possible by blowing themselves up. I don't pretend to not know this, despite the fact that I would like to as much as you are doing so I can feel good.
| quote: | | But it seems to me that something like blowing yourself up would require thorough rationalisation, however flawed, which is why many people are eager to see an end to such circumstances that might allow a bomber to more easily rationalise his actions. |
Very easy to rationalize from a Palestinian perspective.
'Everyone is doing it' -peer pressure
'Its the cool thing to do' -pride
'I am doing this for my countrymen and bettering their rightous cause' - honor
'I'm going to kill lost of Devils' - truth
'My family will be rich' - wealth
'I'm going to have 72 virgins to play around with when I'm dead' - sex
Again your 'despair' thing is just wrong... I can prove to you other suicide bombers that had no 'despair' in their life eithers.. Just look at the Saudis who were behind September 11th. How would you rationalize such actions? It looks just like propoganda and indoctornation could have cause that.
| quote: | | You say my 'assumption' (it was actually more of a hypothesis) that suicide bombers commit their acts as they see no other way of hitting back at those they see as their oppressor is just plain 'wrong'. |
It is. The 'oppresor' is Arafat, though they direct their efforts at the Israelis.
| quote: | | This is to totally discount the possibilty that such despair might figure in their initial decision to join a terror group. |
And how about Al'Queda members? What despair do they come in with to afford a payed trip to Afghanistan. I'm sorry it's just a wrong thesis.. to many flaws.
| quote: | | Is the propaganda they're fed about the evils of Israel supported or negated by Israeli military actions? |
Again I reffer you to previous uses of Anti-Semitism in history. I will most notably use WWII as that is the clearest I am sure in your mind.
Did the Jews do anything to help support or negate the believes they are fed?
No, they didn't. They did nothing.. they were just minding their own business (a la pacifism?). Using this historical reference (and I can use dozens of one from history and the propogation of anti-semitism) you can understand that what the army does or does not do has no effect on these views they are taught. Again.. suicide bombers since 1921.
| quote: | | It is conceivable that Israeli actions could totally dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and permanently end suicide attacks, but experience of military powers fighting guerrillas (for instance America in Vietnam, Britain in Ireland) suggests any successes will be temporary |
How about the Guerrillas in Afghanistan? The fact is warfare has been ever evolving since then and lessons have been learned.
If you call these people by their names, Terrorist and not Guerrillas you will see that their is one way to permantly end such attacks.
Simply follow the Bush Doctorine.
I believe if the world would allow Israel to go into Palestine, dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, re-establish occupation, allow Israel to annex the land (or let Palestinians have a civil autonomy.. police still in superior to Israel), there would be a dramatic decrease in such attacks orgininating from 'Israel' (now with the territories), and eventually none.
The fact is the only reason this can't happen is because the world would not stand for it. Despite the fact that the plan above would stop terrorism from the territories, create better lives for all the Palestinians and so on. I thank people like you who can't take a stand for the fact that this can't happen.
If Israel accomplishes its military objective in the territories (again which people of morality should want and allow), their will be no more terrorist infrastructure. If a similar peacekeeping force, or US force comes in and occupies the area to the same ridgity and quality the Israelis would have (I doubt they will), and then allows a government which strictly rejects terrorism and educates the populace truthfuly and with hope not despair you will find similar results.
However the whole world is up in arms not allowing the Israeli military objectives to be completed. If they are not, I will agree with you a 100% that the operation will do more bad then it did good. However if the operation is allowed to complete its objectives then I will disagree with you 100%. I am a firm supporter in the Bush Doctorine and I would wish the whole world was the same.
| quote: | | Is it a complete fairy story to suggest that Israeli action may create such a level of resentment that a few years down the line there are even more people willing to blow themselves up to inflict casualties on Israel? |
Yes it is a complete fairy story to suggest such. The fact is I have proven that anti-semitism propoganda could care less about what the Jews do or do not do, it seems to have no change in beliefs of the people. If you discontinue this action then you allow this propoganda to continue spreading, if you support this action you aim to find a replacement with truth and real education.
| quote: | | Why such complaints that people aren't balanced in their appeals for the violence to end? |
Are you reffering to Amnesty here? Amnesty should not take politics or the conclusion of the conflict into account. They should care about human rights violations. You can't justify their bias after the proof I have submitted above.
| quote: | | Could this not be a reflection of the fact that Israel is a democracy, perhaps more willing and able to end its own particular violence and terror (and don't try to say that a tank or an APC full of troops doesn't terrorise; they'd scare the out of me). Is that totally inconceivable? |
First point. Israel is completly able to stop any aggression when it wants. The people are not willing however anymore. They are fed up, just like me with the Palestinian side which had been neither willing in the past and/or able to stop the violence.
It takes two sides to do peace, one side to wage war. Israel is responding the a war waged upon it to protect and uphold the believes it repersents and values. This is a war on terrorism, it is the same war the Americans are fighting for their freedom believes and way of life worldwide. Again I understand your pacifism, but don't you understand that if Israel pulls out nothing will change? More people will get killed in the long run. If Israel goes in there, uproots the terrorist and the regime that supports, harbors, and controls them, replaces it with a democratic one. With-holds any rebellion attempt and police the people as this new regime take a foot, and lets the new regime enter a dialoug with the Israelis about a peace plan, while doing their share to combat terrorism. You see less people will get killed if this 'violence' will continue for a short while. If you do the opposite, not only do you prove that terrorism has won, but that more lives and people will get killed thereby nullifying your own values and beliefs.
Second point, now you call Israelis terrorist eh? Again, I will argee you that 'APC' terrorize, but this is a by product, this is not their intended purpose of any sort. On the contrast a suicide bombers sole purpose is to kill as many people as he can in order to terrorize.
I would not be scared if I saw an APC in Israel, I might be cautious if I saw one in Palestine. I would be scared if I saw a guy with a suicide bombers belt anywhere I was. Apparently the APC and Tank however don't terroize many people counter to their claims.. else why would they come close and throw rocks at it, or try and stand in its way?
| quote: | | What is a hawk? A person who uses the perceived cirumstances to justify a violent act? The way Bin Laden might justify September 11th? |
A hawk is someone who understands that violence can solve problems, and sometimes will in the long run save more lives, property, and the values and believes that accompany those then entering a peace which one side respects and one does not. A hawk is someone who will re-act when attacked, and will understand the objectives and hell of war and will let them continue for the greater good.
Oh and for a sidenote, if you don't want me to imply that you are for terrorism, and a traitor and all that, don't try and imply it upon me.
The thing is I will ask you a few questions to see why you still don't understand you must take a stance in this issue especially from a moral high ground (this will help me understand your thinking).
Do you believe in the Bush Doctorine? (the principles of it and that it can work if these are followed)
Do you support America's current war on terrorism?
Do you believe Israel is trying to conduct a war on terrorism?
Answer those and I might help try you see my direct line of thinking and the impertiveness to chose a side in these conflicts.
Yoepus
First Law of Laboratory Work:
Hot glass looks exactly the same as cold glass. |
|
|
| Inspector_Morse |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Do you believe in the Bush Doctorine? (the principles of it and that it can work if these are followed)
Do you support America's current war on terrorism?
Do you believe Israel is trying to conduct a war on terrorism?
|
1) No. It's hard to even know what it is, since it is constantly changing, so it's as hard to 'believe in' as Santa Claus; does it really exist or is it a buzz phrase?. The doctrine was expounded in the aftermath of September 11th as a panacea for international terrorism; it has since been modified, and Bush has admitted that it's initial format does not apply to Yasser Arafat. It is constantly being tightened, to the point where policy will be decided on a case by case basis (as it is already anyway), and so support for it will have to be arrived at on a case by case basis. To support the entire doctrine is to write Bush a blank cheque to operate as he sees fit in any theatre, and it would be irresponsible to do so, as success in one instance does not guarantee success in another.
2) It is difficult to support something so hypocritical. America, Britain and many other states engage in terrorism and have done for years. Special forces practice guerrilla tactics, blow up enemy infrastructure, destabilise regimes, and much else. And don't get into the semantics of whether to call them guerrillas or terrorists; I was referring to their tactics, and the motives for employing such tactics (quick note: Killing Jews is an action, not a motive), while you seem to be employing an emotive word, 'terrorist', which too often is used as if it were a password to gain access to the moral high ground.
What is a fairy story is to believe we are led by kind, powerful men who have our best interests at heart and wouldn't go against their own doctrine if it was convenient. The 'War on Terror' is being used by the Bush administration to justify almost any action it pleases, from damaging Arctic environments in the pursuit of oil ("It'll make us self sufficient and less reliant on oil from dodgy places") to setting up forward bases around the world that could be used in years to come for God knows what nasty purposes. The war on terrorism is a sham, and as such does not have my support.
3) Following on from the notion that the much vaunted 'War on Terror' (which interestingly became a paramount humanitarian aim once America had been attacked, but hadn't been previously; pefectly understandable, but it does give the lie to arguments that states do anything that isn't fundamentally self serving, inlcuding your claims to have the welfare of the Palestinians at heart when supporting Israel's current terror) is often used to justify questionable actions (such as proposals to imprison people without trial) is my belief that Israel is using the current political climate and the mighty 'T' word as a flimsy excuse to back up violence which is motivated by domestic frustration. Even Bush has told them to stop using his doctrine as justification (not that he's much of a guide when it comes to avoiding spouting). It won't aid the fight against terrorism, but as a politician, Sharon must appear to be doing something, even if it's bollocks.
Yoepus, you seem a little confused when it comes to standard academic practices. Sound reasoning is not proof. A counter-example is not necessarily a flaw. Your rather bizarre analogy of the abusive father is based more on social myths than actual facts. Loads and loads of people have abusive parents and grow up well adjusted, and many do take a pop at their dad, just as many oppresed people do overthrow their rulers (Russia, Iran, France, America, Romania and numerous others in a random chronological order).
And these numbers you come up with. "Weeds up [sic] about 95% of the falsehoods." Why not about 90%, or about 99%? I'd like to know how you extrapolate this figure, especially since you haven't addressed the issue of circularity.
Yes, pacifism faces many obstacles in practice, not least because of the existence of people like you who, if the circumstances and their own superior reasoning suggests it, advocate war as a means of achieving peace (What is peace?), advocate killing as a means of saving lives.
It may be 'realistic', but fundamentally it's hypocrisy. And in this specific instance (the Middle East) I disagree that it's the best way forward. Culture doesn't explain why people become 'terrorists'. It may explain the means by which they practice it, but history is littered with people the world over who have been prepared to die for a cause. You'll have to do better than bluntly stating that it's just the way they are, and you and I are superior to them. Because that's just not true. A whole society (and to be fair I'm making a massive slur on the Palestinians, because I've no way of knowing how many are sympathetic to violence against Israel) of extremists? Or a whole (again, I'm taking a liberty) society driven to support actions they'd otherwise abhor? What drives them? You can't just say "They're like that, they're evil, they're fed propaganda". We're all fed propaganda. Yes, their propaganda may have violent overtones, but so does ours which tells us to support whatever war we happen to be involved in. And anyway, you don't win a propaganda war by pandering to it. You don't punch someone in the face if they denounce you as a bully, not unless it's a means of confirming that they're right.
I'm sorry, Yoepus, but for someone who rather arrogantly ranks their own background, upbringing, reasoning and values above others, your adherence to academic principles is slipshod. Are we talking theory or reality here? Because I really don't think we have any sort of common framework to test against the evidence, and we appear not to be moving very fast. |
|
|
| tenor |
to yoepus:
| quote: | | Furthermore if one closely scrutinizes Amnesty, one is at shock to see (2)why they don't condemn as forcefully incidents done by the Palestinians (you will see more condemnations of Israel despite the fact that the Palestinians are doing more violations is my point). |
They are condemning them. The thing is, the palestinians are doing one thing wrong and Israel is doing quite many. Enforcing a 'curfew', where the people are left in their houses for days without water or food or electricity, destroying homes, beating and killing the palestinians. (yes, they might be terrorists, but whatever happened to the basic human right of not getting punished before a lawful court decides otherwise). This is, of course, Amnestys viewpoint, and Amnesty only looks for human rights violations. They dont care for reasons, they only care whether human rights are violated - which is happening.
BTW. I read a piece in a local newspaper about a finnish anthropologist who was in Israel, making her doctors thesis about the palestinian refugee problem. She left after Ramallah was occupied by IDF tanks, with a chilling story to tell. She had met a man, who had just lost two relatives of his. His old mother and disabled son were home, he was out somewhere, when IDF soldiers searched the house (for terrorists). They knocked on the door, but his mother obviously didnt hear them knocking or something, because she didnt open the door. The IDF soldiers then proceeded to throw a hand grenade inside. Both dead. The finnish woman took pictures of the guy in his destroyed home, with two corpses laying on the floor. He couldnt take them out, because the curfew was in effect. I cant even imagine how he must seeing his mother and son lying on the floor, dead, without no clue as to when he can get them buried..
You also go back to the Geneva convention, and quoting it quite liberally. good thing you copypasted more than what you used as an argument. Here's something I noticed there:
| quote: | To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. |
I understand that Israel must fight the terrorists, but are they given a trial? Innocent until proven guilty etc .. Even the Al-qaeda members locked up by USA are to be given a trial..
| quote: | | These few facts (the 7) alone just show Amnesty's bias at acussing Israel of doing this, and not applying the same standards to the Palestinians just in these past few weeks. |
Amnesty also mentions the killing of Palestinians by Palestinians in their latest press release..
| quote: |
Still, the desperation comes from their own self-rule. It is like the analogy I said of an abusive father that kicks and tortures his kid, the kid is grows to be extremely psychotic because of this, but they never hurt the father, they fear him and love him at the same time and do not intend to hurt them, but they let out their fustration in some other way.. usually killing and torturing some pets, and then murdering and molesting people.
I pointed out that I believe Arafat is the father, the Palestinian people are the kids, and that the 'pets and people' they kill are the Israelis. |
So Arafat's been treating them badly and thats why they need to kill Israelis.. Please, Yoepus, I know you can do better than that..
| quote: | | Another one. Anti-semitism due to its large popularity in the past has a stated template in which it has been used by leaders of nations to make their people look away from the real problems and use the Jews as the scapegoat. Arafat employes this well-established template in helping his people locate their 'problems'. |
Ah, so the problem of palestinians isnt really that they are living in ty conditions after being driven out of their home by the Israelis, but rather.. they have no problems! All's peachy and well! Is this what you are trying to say?
| quote: | (1) acts directly related and a result of Israeli actions ~ 5%
(2) acts directly related and a result of Arafat's actions ~ 93% |
Do you think that retaliatory strikes by the Israelis are any more justifiable than retaliatory strikes by the palestinians? Because I'm guessing that your backing up of these 'statistics' will be news about Israelis doing something because the Palestinians have done something - while missing the fact that the palestinians are definitely not doing it just for fun.
It's been revenge revenge and more revenge since 1967..
Also - how can you blindly ignore the fact that Israel _HAS BEEN OCCUPYING_ those areas for a while now, dont you think that might have some effect on how those 14year olds think? Agreed - teaching has got a lot to do with it, but dont you think the teachers might have been a bit pissed for a reason? Living in the area for 30 years, seeing more and more Israeli settlers, getting promises for peace but when actual peace is tried to be made, getting only ty deals, Arafat playing a nice boy to everyone and still not achieving peace?
the point: I think the palestinians have the right to fight for their lands, just like Israel does. the land was promised to them by the UN, but Israel just doesnt want to give it up, remembering the ideals of Ben-Gurion & co. Now, the strategy they use IS extremely immoral and bad, but Israel hasnt been playing a nice game all these years either. Both sides are to blame, but you seem to be denying it. Bad is still bad, even if the other side does something worse.
| quote: | | Their motives are blantly clear to me; Kill as many Jews as possible by blowing themselves up. I don't pretend to not know this, despite the fact that I would like to as much as you are doing so I can feel good. |
motive, as in why are they killing all those people. is it because they enjoy the thought, just for fun, for getting their family that new car with the bloodmoney given to them by the saudis & saddam?
I'd also like to see some source on the suicide bombings beginning in 1921, preferably some statistics too. Just curious.
| quote: | | The fact is the only reason this can't happen is because the world would not stand for it. Despite the fact that the plan above would stop terrorism from the territories, create better lives for all the Palestinians and so on. I thank people like you who can't take a stand for the fact that this can't happen. |
Create better lives? How? Would Israel build houses for them? Make them full citizens with the same rights as jews? Would they be allowed to stay in that shiny new Israel? Just a reminder why your proposition is doomed: That would mean that the arab population of Israel would grow from 15% to 43%... No way any Israeli leader would accept that. (numbers from CIA world factbook - israel population of 6M, with 80% jew 15% arab and west bank + gaza population of 3M)
On another note, I'm really glad that Israel was created way back when, since I just heard today that Infected Mushroom is scheduled for a gig in Helsinki in the summer :D :D (AP is coming too!) |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
Just a few notes, tenor...
"ust fight the terrorists, but are they given a trial? Innocent until proven guilty etc .. Even the Al-qaeda members locked up by USA are to be given a trial.. "
Hm the majority was bombed away by daisy cutters..no trial.
And when Israel entered Area A the world screamed "Thats against Oslo, stay out!".
So Arafat's been treating them badly and thats why they need to kill Israelis.. Please, Yoepus, I know you can do better than that..
"h, so the problem of palestinians isnt really that they are living in ty conditions after being driven out of their home by the Israelis, "
Again.....I dont think that all Palestinians were driven out. Israel had no interest to do it, not just for fun from one day to another *cough* war *cough*
"o you think that retaliatory strikes by the Israelis are any more justifiable than retaliatory strikes by the palestinians?
It's been revenge revenge and more revenge since 1967.."
Hmm..Why dont u take your time once and for all and read the Hamas charter before you draw wrong parallels? Hamas: We will destroy Israel. IDF: We will defend Israel.
Hamas: We would like to kill as many innocents as possible. IDF: We ´might kill civilians too, we're sorry but this can happen in a war.
Hamas: Lets kill, kill, kill. IDF: Lets fight Terrorism punctually and as a re-action.
"he point: I think the palestinians have the right to fight for their lands, just like Israel does. the land was promised to them by the UN, but Israel just doesnt want to give it up, remembering the ideals of Ben-Gurion & co. "
Where the hell have u spent the last 10 years? Did you sleep during Oslo, Wye, or even earlier..the peace with egypt? jordan? And most important: Where were you in July 2000 as Barak offered them what they always PRETEND to claim: A Palestinian state?
"n another note, I'm really glad that Israel was created way back when, since I just heard today that Infected Mushroom is scheduled for a gig in Helsinki in the summer :D :D"
Oh my god..Infected, we are gods, Mushroom!! That, the israeli national soccer team, and the hot israeli girls are already 3 reasons for accpeting our existence!! ;) |
|
|
| rupert |
I know I should keep quite and nothing I say will really change things but some things that have been said are outrageous and need to be challenged.
Firstly that Israel was justified in sending F-16's to destroy Iraqs nuclear weapons program in the 1980's. With that rationalization, it should be justifiable for Syria to send in Fighter Bombers to destroy Israels Nuclear Weapons capacity.
It is an open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons capacity, that was brought to the world by a technician in the plant called Mordechi Vanunu(I dont know if that is spelt right). He was kidnapped by Mossad agents and brought back to Israel and thrown in jail. To my knowledge he is still in prison to this day. That man is a real hero.
Whats the difference between Israel and Iraq. Not much. Lets draw some parellels shall we.
1)
Iraq; wages aggressive wars on its neighbours with the hope of territorial gain against Iran and Kuwait.
Israel: wages aggressive wars on its neighbours with the hope of territorial gain (dressed up as pre-emptive wars to protect itself) against Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.
2)
Iraq; produces weapons of mass destruction and has nothing but contempt for U.N. resolutions in hiding its chemical and biological weapons production programs.
Israel; produces weapons of mass destruction and has nothing but contempt for U.N. resolutions. Israel to my knowledge has never even been sanctioned for its Nuclear weapons program. Israel has flouted U.N resolutions to return the Golan Heights to Syria and to end settlement building in the Occupied territories.
3)
Iraq; a military dictatorship where citizens are subject to arbitrary arrest, torture and execution without trial.
Israel; a so called democracy that regularly elects former generals to run the country. A country with one of the largest armies in the world. Arabs are subject to arrest by the IDF without trial and leaders of dissident groups are assassinated and Palestinians regularly have there property destroyed by the IDF without compensation.
You cant have it both ways Israel, either the Occupied territories belong to Israel like the army and settlers want or they dont. If they are part of Israel then the people living there are entitled to the same protection under law as an Israeli citizen would have.
If the Occupied territories are not part of Israel proper then the soldiers and the settlers have to leave. It that simple.
Now onto the Suicide bombers, I've read a lot of things about how wicked, mad, depraved, and insane those people are. I think a historic parellel should deal with that issue. In World War 2, the empire of Japan was being destroyed by the overwhelming superiority of the American military.
In response to this the Japanese, sent Suicide bombers, in there case called Kamakazi pilots to crash there planes into american ships. Were they mad, no that was the only way they could turn the tide of the war.
Lets look at the suicide bombers and the militants. They are poorly armed, trained and funded. They are faced with an enemy who has overwhelming superiority in numbers and technology and an army of palestinian informers who will sell them out. What is the objective of these groups. To rid the Occupied territories of the settlers and the army. How can they do this. Attack the tanks and helicopters. What with? Rocks.
Whats the difference between a suicide bomber or the IDF guy who plants a bomb in a suspected militants car blowing him and his family to pieces. I think the casualty figures clearly show that the IDF couldnt care less about "collateral damage" |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by rupert
I know I should keep quite and nothing I say will really change things but some things that have been said are outrageous and need to be challenged. |
Your right you should have kept your mouth shut.. we all would have thought you smarter if you did. But oh well, let me correct the grossly outrageous things you mentioned below:
| quote: | | Firstly that Israel was justified in sending F-16's to destroy Iraqs nuclear weapons program in the 1980's. With that rationalization, it should be justifiable for Syria to send in Fighter Bombers to destroy Israels Nuclear Weapons capacity. |
Because Syria doesn't have nuclear weapons, and if they attack Israel's nukes that green lights their use on Syria. So all I can say is go ahead and try. Should be a dead heat. :D
| quote: | | It is an open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons capacity, that was brought to the world by a technician in the plant called Mordechi Vanunu(I dont know if that is spelt right). He was kidnapped by Mossad agents and brought back to Israel and thrown in jail. To my knowledge he is still in prison to this day. That man is a real hero. |
A traitor to a nation is a hero why?
| quote: | | Whats the difference between Israel and Iraq. Not much. Lets draw some parellels shall we. |
There is a big difference, but let me just comment on the points you made.
| quote: | 1)Iraq; wages aggressive wars on its neighbours with the hope of territorial gain against Iran and Kuwait.
Israel: wages aggressive wars on its neighbours with the hope of territorial gain (dressed up as pre-emptive wars to protect itself) against Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.
|
Anyone who knows anything will understand this is false. Never has Israel entered war without jus ad bellum. Iraq on the other hand has.
| quote: | 2)Iraq; produces weapons of mass destruction and has nothing but contempt for U.N. resolutions in hiding its chemical and biological weapons production programs.
Israel; produces weapons of mass destruction and has nothing but contempt for U.N. resolutions. Israel to my knowledge has never even been sanctioned for its Nuclear weapons program. Israel has flouted U.N resolutions to return the Golan Heights to Syria and to end settlement building in the Occupied territories. |
True I will give you the point about the UN Resolutions, altough it does follow some (namely not the one where they called Zoinism racisim and then latter decieded to repeal it).
As for the Weapons of mass destruction - Israel has never used it's. Iraq has. By the same notion you can say the same thing about the USA, Russia, Koreas, India, Pakistan.. etc..etc..
| quote: | 3)
Iraq; a military dictatorship where citizens are subject to arbitrary arrest, torture and execution without trial.
Israel; a so called democracy that regularly elects former generals to run the country. A country with one of the largest armies in the world. Arabs are subject to arrest by the IDF without trial and leaders of dissident groups are assassinated and Palestinians regularly have there property destroyed by the IDF without compensation. |
Your 'so called' democracy has been rated by many human rights organization as the most free, democratic, human rights keeping nation in the region. Furthermore it has achieve the highest rating of democratic freedom compared to any other countries (a rating of 3, 3 being the highest, 1 the lowest. I forget what human rights organization published this...) in the area. This is the same rating bestowed upon the USA and other Western European nations (Australia as well I believe). Also it is common in all these countries to be 'arrested without trial', don't tell me you expect nations to have a trail before they arrest people. Latter a trial or an investigation is conducted after the arrest and if found innocent, released. Yes there are exceptions just like in every nation, but there is due proceess regardless.
| quote: | | You cant have it both ways Israel |
Unforteantly for you it doesn't fall between those two. I did before 1993 and the former of the two were applied (due process to the Palestinians). However now many regions are under full Palestinian autonomy (Areas A, this means police and civil), or under semi-control (Areas B, this means Israel 'polices' and Palestinians civil). Currently both areas are re-occupied by Israel in response to a war.
| quote: | | Now onto the Suicide bombers, I've read a lot of things about how wicked, mad, depraved, and insane those people are. |
Maybe because they are?
| quote: | I think a historic parellel should deal with that issue. In World War 2, the empire of Japan was being destroyed by the overwhelming superiority of the American military.
In response to this the Japanese, sent Suicide bombers, in there case called Kamakazi pilots to crash there planes into american ships. Were they mad, no that was the only way they could turn the tide of the war. |
They didn't turn the tied of war, again it was the Japanese culture that supported these suiciders. I am sure many of them would not have done the same if their destinations would have been civilians, as altought their culture supports self-sacrifise in war (as almost all nations do), they do not support such actions against civilians (read Sun Tzu's Art of War if you don't believe me).
On the other hand we can look at Islamic Fundementalism and how it breeds suicide bombers (Sept 11th, Beriut, Yemen, Palestine...). We can see that their is one connection that can be made in all these cases regardless of how the bombers grow up, or where they were from, or their desperation - They were all indoctornated with the culture of Islamic Fundmentalism which justifies such actions. Further some of them have a strong tie also with another believe - They were indoctornated with Anti-semetic propoganda. This has a been a true and tested way to get people to do things they wouldn't normally consider sane or rational.
| quote: | | Lets look at the suicide bombers and the militants. They are poorly armed, trained and funded. They are faced with an enemy who has overwhelming superiority in numbers and technology and an army of palestinian informers who will sell them out. What is the objective of these groups. To rid the Occupied territories of the settlers and the army. How can they do this. Attack the tanks and helicopters. What with? Rocks. |
Your mistaken, their objective is not 'To rid the Occupied territories of the settlers', unless you consider the whole of Israel the Occupied territories, and settlers every single Israeli. They have clearly mentioned their objectives in their charter, you are free to look it up.. they have already been posted in this thraed.
Furthermore the best solution to the problem you pose, and if people really did face such superior military to confront, and aimed only to achieve a limited political goal of self-determination not at a large expense of their enemey (the liberation only of the territories as you say), then the correct way to have been able to achieve these aims would not be through violent confrentations. No, if they would have used the pacifist ideals taught by Ghandi.. a la none-violent resistance they would have already had secured their political objectives. Especially protesting against a democractic nation with free-minded people who desire peace and security in their lives and are able to repesersent it via their elections.
| quote: | | Whats the difference between a suicide bomber or the IDF guy who plants a bomb in a suspected militants car blowing him and his family to pieces. I think the casualty figures clearly show that the IDF couldnt care less about "collateral damage" |
Because IDF aims to avoid Collateral damage, a suicide bomber aims to extensify Collateral damage. If you can't see this difference I'm sorry to say you are an immoral man, and if their is a hell you are probably going their.
Yoepus
Beer: helping ugly people get laid since 4000BC. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Inspector_Morse |
I'll say this Inspector, altought I appreciate your nice values and moralities you seem to live in a different world then the rest of it. I see the world for what it is, not for what I would wish it to already be like.
This is a difference of philosophies, and according to your deep meditations into it from the voice of your writing I would be aimless to try and convience you otherwise through the forum. I might actually give it a stab over a cup of tea with you, but like this is just plain idiociy. I am sure you understand this if you understand my philosophical roots from my writings.
However I will say this. 1) I do support the Bush Doctorine. I feel the ideals (the 3 prinicples I stated far early in this thread.. I think page 2 or so.. gosh can u believe already 17 pages.. seesh haha) will work if they are withheld without exceptions. On this point I will agree with you that they are futile with exceptions, my notable reason to try and rallie you guys to support Israel's war on terrorism (Again you don't see that either but oh well).
2) I do support that the United States is doing a good job fighting its current war on terrorism, and I support if fully. Further I have no problem with the United States using its tradegy on the cause of September 11th to further the war on terrorism, and use it as an excuse to mold the world to their ideals and views. I think in the long run it will be a great service to all of the world if the USA would replace the regime of Saddam Huessien for instance, and put in his place the first Arab democracy. This new country being in the heart of Arabia might just spread the ideals of the democracy in the area to its neighbors thereby reducing future terrorism and the evils of dictatorships.
3) I clearly believe Israel is waging a war on terror, and that its campagin must continue and be supported in order to ensure the victory of its battles. This earth is to small for people like Bin Laden, Arafat, and Hussien in my mind.
Further I believe Israel is stricking at the heart of terror and is making good victories, further I believe that the small time limit the world has allowed Israel to achieve the victory in this war do several things: 1. They increase the casualties on both sides by forgoing careful planning and training before executions. Israeli forces are on the haste now and therefore more Israeli soldiers, and civilians will be caused because of this reason (not to mention more property loss and the like). 2. Despite the hastening Israel might not be able to achieve a complete victory over terror and therefore lose the ability of such a victory and its benifits.
Now to some of your statements.
| quote: | | Yoepus, you seem a little confused when it comes to standard academic practices. Sound reasoning is not proof. A counter-example is not necessarily a flaw. |
Again, sound reasoning based on proof = correct hypothesis. Counter-example = incorrect hypothesis ( v = speed x distance always, if it doesn't its wrong).
| quote: | | Your rather bizarre analogy of the abusive father is based more on social myths than actual facts. Loads and loads of people have abusive parents and grow up well adjusted, and many do take a pop at their dad, just as many oppresed people do overthrow their rulers (Russia, Iran, France, America, Romania and numerous others in a random chronological order). |
Altough 'some' abusive people do come up to be 'well adjusted', statistical data would prove that the majority does not. Again I never said all Palestinians are screwed over in the head, I am saying most.. and some even more. Obviously their are further biological, and social (family influence, friend), then just cultural influence here that take a role. Also you say many people grow up and do take a pop at their dad. I agree, it is more common the older they are the more chances they'll take a pop at their dad. But the dad is clever enough to make these fanatics kill themselves before they grow old (and those that do are again the more sane and therefore pose less risk).
Many oppressed people have overthrown governments as you indicated. But many oppressed people have also taken out their anger using anti-semitism or other peoples as their scape goat (Romans, Spanish, Polish, Pressia, France, Germany, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia.. and so on and so on). It is usually only after they make a deep effort to get rid of the scapegoat and see that it has no effect that they then revolt against their true oppresors. Again, I urge you to read your world history.. its full of such examples.
| quote: | | And these numbers you come up with. "Weeds up [sic] about 95% of the falsehoods." Why not about 90%, or about 99%? I'd like to know how you extrapolate this figure, especially since you haven't addressed the issue of circularity. |
These are looking at the history of the conflict since 1948.. again I said its a generalization, but it can be extrapolated from the history if one dares to follow it and compare it to other peoples thruogh history that have shared a similar fate and how they acted.
| quote: | | Yes, pacifism faces many obstacles in practice, not least because of the existence of people like you who, if the circumstances and their own superior reasoning suggests it, advocate war as a means of achieving peace (What is peace?), advocate killing as a means of saving lives. |
As a pacificst I am shocked you don't know what peace is, especially since you live in a country that is at 'peace', peace is normalization. I agree with you that pacifism still has a very, very long way to go, and I am indeed a trouble for it since I do not believe in its ability to play a complete role in the world we live in. Again I hae stated it is very useful to achieve some political aims, such as if the Palestinians would have used none-violent methods already they would have achieved what they 'say' in english they want. I advocate violence as a last resort, and understand that it is a tool that works as much as we would not like it to be such. I think that in some cases violence is the only warrant to reach better goals and in the end to save more lives. And yes, if you look through history 95% of the time peace is only achieved through war.
| quote: | | It may be 'realistic', but fundamentally it's hypocrisy. |
Do you care to elaborate on this? I am just curious to hear why you think so from a philosophical stand point.
| quote: | | And in this specific instance (the Middle East) I disagree that it's the best way forward. Culture doesn't explain why people become 'terrorists'. |
Then how come you don't see any Indian suicide bombers, or Irish ones? Or Christian or Buddist, or Jewish ones for that matter? Why because these religions have not created the template of fanatical indoctornation which results in such creations. If you are trying to disprove the fact that culture has a lot to do with how you feel and do, then I will say it is the culture that you are bred in that makes you desire one brand of beer over another, to drink coke daily, to listen to the music we like, and so forth. The thing is with Western culture you will find many 'sub-groups' a culture with in a culutre if you will, the only culutre with in a culture you will find in Arabia is even more fanatical islam and Anti-Semitism (both teach hatered of the West).
| quote: | | You can't just say "They're like that, they're evil, they're fed propaganda". We're all fed propaganda. Yes, their propaganda may have violent overtones, but so does ours which tells us to support whatever war we happen to be involved in. |
This is not true. First of all I am not saying they are all evil. Again I understand that if you look at pyschology you will understand that their is a bio-social aspect to this as well. Your genetic make up and your family and friends, the people who you associated with will differe the results of the same propoganda you are fed. 'may have violent overtones' What part of "Kill! kill! kill! all the Jews!! and drive them to the sea" is 'maybe violent overtones' exactly?
Don't tell me you experience the same propoganda because you don't. And further more you hear other view points, you hear other things, you understand that one might be true and one might not be. But when you hear the same thing from 10 different places you better believe it is true, they do, you don't. That's the difference. Go live their for crying out loud if you don't believe this, go experience the propoganda they are exposed to daily from the day they are born.
| quote: | | And anyway, you don't win a propaganda war by pandering to it. |
You ony do so (win a propogada war) either in two ways: 1. You out propogate them with more propoganda in more streams.
2. You dismantle their propoganda machine.
Israeli is opting for option 2 because it can not do 1.
| quote: | | You don't punch someone in the face if they denounce you as a bully, not unless it's a means of confirming that they're right. |
This sort of proves my point that you live in a fantsy world... I didn't say they call you a 'bully', I say they punched you (with one of those knucle-metal things too) and say that you're 'going to die'.
| quote: | | Are we talking theory or reality here? Because I really don't think we have any sort of common framework to test against the evidence, and we appear not to be moving very fast. |
Some parts of the discussion are reality, other parts are theory. For instance, my expectations of the current Israeli operations are theory. This does not mean this is a baseless theory, as I have used historical references to judge its success if it is operated correctly. Theory can be rationalized and not be a 100% sure about, History we can be a 100% sure about (there is only one truth, one history.. the hard part is discerning what was).
I think I gave you enough comments up there for one post.. but incase I haven't I'd like to hear your thoughts and feelings about the resolution to the conflict. I'd like you to base them on reality (the history of the conflict), and theorize how your decision will effect the future and perhaps the resolution of the conflict.
In otherwords, what would you do if you were the Israelis right now?
Remember but this in a realisitic context, considering all the events and offers Israel has made and concessions it tried to bring about, as Sharon, and before Sharon (noteably to 1993.. we don't need to get out of that scope to much to justify current things in this realm of time there is enough since then).
Yoepus
First law of science: don't spit into the wind. |
|
|
| Inspector_Morse |
| quote: | Originally posted by rupert
I know I should keep quite and nothing I say will really change things |
If you believe it, then you say it! No-one can say you shouldn't voice your opinion, unless they're opposed to freedom of speech. And while speaking out is a frustrating task, with little tangible result, it does give like minded people the most important assurance of all, that they're not alone.
While we're on the point of denouncing people and condemning them to hell, Yoepus, why do you grin at the prospect of nuclear conflict? Are you honestly saddened by events such as a pregnant woman in Hebron being refused permission to pass a roadblock, resulting in her giving birth to a stillborn child? Wholeheartedly saddened? Or does a bit of you think it's a good thing, because it's part of a crackdown on terror. Do you think the Palestinians deserve such treatment?
Hamas is not the entire population of Palestine, any more than than the worst members of the IDF is representative of the whole of Israel.
No matter how democratic a country is, when an arm of that democracy acts undemocratically, such as imposing their presence on others, that is undemocratic. Even in the 'best' democracies, the entire demos does not have equal opportunity to attain a given level of power.
'Democracy' is often used as a proxy by which we can consider certain states' viewpoints and values as superior to others e.g. America may have nuclear weapons but Iraq may not. Whatver the merits of this case, it's not hard to see why this pisses off a lot of people around the world, and to be dismissive of them is arrogant and dangerous. I'm reminded of a recent Private Eye cover on which Blair is turning to Bush saying, in relation to Iraq presumably, "He's out of control and has nuclear weapons", to which Bush replies "What's wrong with that?" That's the jist, anyway.
Yoepus, why do you glorify violence? I anticipate a denial of this accusation, but then how do you explain the tank on your avatar? I'm curious. |
|
|
|
|
