|
Daniel Pearl (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
And belive me trancaholic, "Jew" is a derogatory term in the Arab world. Imagine what the sword fight would look like in the caves of Afghanistan if an Al Quedia memember called another a Jew. Apparently it is not just a 'word' without a conitation. It means different things to different people. And to these people it is a bad word. Just like 'Nigga' is a good term in the context when it is applied from one person of color to another, "Jew" is a bad term when used by anti-semitists in regard to a person. I hope you come to learn the words have more to them then just their definition in the dictionary.
[/i] |
As far as I have observed, Nigga is a racist word that is degenerating to black people, when spoken by anybody not black. Jew is a term for people of jewish origin, not a degenerating term, there are other terms for that purpose I believe. But let's assume that you are right and Jew is a term of abuse to arabs, that was not my point. My point was that bringing up the word Nigga in this forum was a cheap trick to sway popular opinion. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
first of all: i believe that all explenations eventually end up in justifications and excuses. Theoretically you could explain everything: A 12 year old girl getting raped, the holocaust, or the coumbine massacre. You could find the "reason" in ANY case. The point is: in some cases i dont care about the alleged reasons, i dont wanna hear them, they are senseless subjective and irrelevant(maybe just satisfying our need to explain simply everything happening--> for example religion?).
The Arabs have a reason to be pissed at the Jews because of Israel's policy---> Weak..
With the same argumentation I could find the "reasons" for an Israeli mob lynching innocent palestinians on the street: "Suprisingly" that has never happened, nor would I justify it by searching for the reasons if its gonna happen. Going back to Izzy's analogy I could use your way of seeing it and saying: Hey, maybe the white guy from Alabama lost a job to a īblack man? maybe his daughter was raped by one? maybe she was offered drugs by a black dealer? That must of pisse dhim off for sure...
You see..that is the same generalizing stupid view you talked about.
rembmer: Not all Jews are Israelis
Not all Israelis are murderers or aggressors |
Maybe if you read my post again, you could come up with anything remotely contextually correct. I *specifically* stated that the arabs did *not* have an excuse. I said they had a reason. Two different things, you see. If my wife is having birth complications and I run a few red lights on my way to the hospital, then I have an excuse for doing so. If I fail my exam because of an evil external examiner, I have a reason to pour sugar down his gas tank.
Furthermore, I did not say anything about Israelis having reasons for lynching Palestineans - that's a totally different discussion (that we've had before in this room). I said that the white man had no reason to kill the black guy.
Yes it might be possible that the black guy had raped his daughter. Yeah, let's even say the black guy did his entire family. But, the scenario put forth by Izzy said nothing of this, and I still claim that the original comparison is not sufficient for lashing out at the american public for not being "mad enough" about this incident.
Btw. what do you want the US to do? Invade every arab country? Would that work? Did it work for Israel in the West bank and Gaza? When will you angry people understand that this hard on hard method won't produce satisfying results? |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tranex02
so you want more attention? You more hatred to rise between the people? |
honetly, yes i want more attention to this. not for the reason of creating more hate but for the reason of trying our best to make sure things like this dont happen. maybe actions we take now will cause more hate but in the long run it will create a more loving place.
furthermore, i didnt intend for the analogy i gave to be used exactly to the word as i said it. renegade's point was what i was trying to make. there was obvious racism involved in the incedent and people seem to be less aware.
| quote: |
Btw. what do you want the US to do? Invade every arab country? Would that work? Did it work for Israel in the West bank and Gaza? When will you angry people understand that this hard on hard method won't produce satisfying results?
|
you want solution, simple... make sure every arab country has a transparent democratic government with seperation of powers between a congress and head of state. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Maybe if you read my post again, you could come up with anything remotely contextually correct. I *specifically* stated that the arabs did *not* have an excuse. I said they had a reason. Two different things, you see. If my wife is having birth complications and I run a few red lights on my way to the hospital, then I have an excuse for doing so. If I fail my exam because of an evil external examiner, I have a reason to pour sugar down his gas tank.
Furthermore, I did not say anything about Israelis having reasons for lynching Palestineans - that's a totally different discussion (that we've had before in this room). I said that the white man had no reason to kill the black guy.
Yes it might be possible that the black guy had raped his daughter. Yeah, let's even say the black guy did his entire family. But, the scenario put forth by Izzy said nothing of this, and I still claim that the original comparison is not sufficient for lashing out at the american public for not being "mad enough" about this incident.
Btw. what do you want the US to do? Invade every arab country? Would that work? Did it work for Israel in the West bank and Gaza? When will you angry people understand that this hard on hard method won't produce satisfying results? |
Apparently u havent read MY post, at least not the first part of it.
I *specifically* wrote: | quote: | i believe that all explenations eventually end up in justifications and excuses. Theoretically you could explain everything: A 12 year old girl getting raped, the holocaust, or the coumbine massacre. You could find the "reason" in ANY case. The point is: in some cases i dont care about the alleged reasons, i dont wanna hear them, they are senseless subjective and
irrelevant |
Look, if u start looking for reasons for pearl's killing although u "condemn" it, u justify and praise their act. Terrorists are not dumb, they are mad but not dumb: They want people to believe their arguments and explanations. They do look for support and attention. Thus u have to say..clearly and ruthlessly:" STOP, THIS IS WRONG. I dont care about you being pissed or frustrated, you are bloody murderers, period." As soon as you dont do that and start compromising, they won.
"I said that the white man had no reason to kill the black guy. "
So? I fully agree. I just wonder why you dont see it the same way when it comes to an Arab killing a Jew...
| quote: |
Btw. what do you want the US to do? Invade every arab country? Would that work? Did it work for Israel in the West bank and Gaza? When will you angry people understand that this hard on hard method won't produce satisfying results?
|
1.If necessary in the war on terror, yes.
2.History says: yes. Theres no single cse where terroist or fascist regimes were toppled or defeated in a diplomatic way. On the other hand the appeasment approach just made them stronger.
3. Gaza wasnt invaded. Most of the latest suicide bombers come from gaza. The West Bank operation couldnt be finished as a reulst of European "Stop aggression" hipocracy and the Arab pressure on Mr. Bush. Moreover there havent been ANY bombings during the time Arafat was arrested.
4. Who is "you angry people"...Can u specify? Anyone not agreeing on your position is automatically "angry"? I believe that ONLY "hard on hard" can work with people who dont know anything but "Hard". |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Invade every arab country? Would that work? Did it work for Israel in the West bank and Gaza? When will you angry people understand that this hard on hard method won't produce satisfying results? |
Look trancaholic.. you seem to be suffering from history-absentitise. The simple fact is this, if war did not work we would not use it anymore.
Humans are not all intelligent, but they aren't dumb either. If war had not been a useful tool we would not use it anymore. We don't use stone-axes anymore because we have guns. Stone-axes have gone away, our tools go through the same evolution as biology. We make bigger and better weapons.. but we still make weapons. Why do we make weapons? Because they work. They get the 'job' done. Diplomacy alone does not do this. Diplomacy actually is the art of saying what weapons you have with the hope you won't have to use them. But with their failure, you must make good on your promise to use it or else you diminish your position. This is a lesson in history, it can be witnessed in every empire, and every war.
War has evolved during the ages, as our tools of war have evolved. But it is still that, war. The means, tactics, and strategy to fight it have evolved. But they do just that, 'fight' war. Anyone who has learned basic psychology will understand the principle of conditioning and why war is effective, and appeasement is extremly counter-productive.
If indeed war does not work, we would have evolved past it in the first 1000 years of our existance.
War works, despite the fact that we would wish it wouldn't be so. It is now common place however to justify war before one endevaurs to do so. A just war is one in self-defense, in which you were agressed upon. An unjust war is one where you are the attacker, the one who initated hostilities for some purpose, religions, land, wealth, or other.
Like it or not, the West is fighting the just war, and the terrorist are not. To not fight it would be to give in to the unjust.
I am sure I can not convience you. But please, take a moment before saying that "war doesn't work" and "all violence is bad" next time, and observe our human history. You will find that realistically you are wrong. Though idealistically we are all with you. But just don't let your ideals blind you to reality, or you will be living a blind life.
Yoepus
The superior man acts before he speaks, and afterwards speaks according to his action. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
Apparently u havent read MY post, at least not the first part of it.
|
Yes, I did notice your little artifice: saying you believe all reasons to be excuses and justification, and then attacking my post through that interpretation. Nice.
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
Look, if u start looking for reasons for pearl's killing although u "condemn" it, u justify and praise their act. Terrorists are not dumb, they are mad but not dumb: They want people to believe their arguments and explanations. They do look for support and attention. Thus u have to say..clearly and ruthlessly:" STOP, THIS IS WRONG. I dont care about you being pissed or frustrated, you are bloody murderers, period." As soon as you dont do that and start compromising, they won.
|
And again. My point had nothing to do with who's right and who's wrong and who has reason to be mad at who in the middle east. I merely explained *why* the comparison lined up do not hold!
When that is said, how dare you say that I only "condemn" the killing and praise the acts of teorists? What kind of knowledge do you have of my position on this except what I've said above? Do you know from that same shrine of knowledge that taught you how teorists think?
I find it highly ironical that you are the one telling Orbax not to go calling people nazi in the bull-fighting thread, when you yourself practically are calling me a teorist.
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
"I said that the white man had no reason to kill the black guy. "
So? I fully agree. I just wonder why you dont see it the same way when it comes to an Arab killing a Jew...
|
Again. I have not commented on that, so you know nothing of my attitude towards this.
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
1.If necessary in the war on terror, yes.
2.History says: yes. Theres no single cse where terroist or fascist regimes were toppled or defeated in a diplomatic way. On the other hand the appeasment approach just made them stronger.
3. Gaza wasnt invaded. Most of the latest suicide bombers come from gaza. The West Bank operation couldnt be finished as a reulst of European "Stop aggression" hipocracy and the Arab pressure on Mr. Bush. Moreover there havent been ANY bombings during the time Arafat was arrested.
4. Who is "you angry people"...Can u specify? Anyone not agreeing on your position is automatically "angry"? I believe that ONLY "hard on hard" can work with people who dont know anything but "Hard". |
Remember two thing: history is written by those who win. And I really shouldn't have written angry - that was a mistake. It should have been ignorant.
Clearly, we are living in parallel universes. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
war is a necessary evil
|
True, but does war lead to stability? And just think about it - this "war on terrorism" (which I do support) is not a conventional war, hence my comments: you gain nothing from invading an arab country - except if you wipe out its population in the same go. If this is unacceptable, there's only one way to go...conversation. Finding out what makes half the world angry at you. Do so many people spontaneously decide to hate you? Or did you do something wrong that can be rectified or made up for? Or should we maybe stop doing this thing that upsets people? |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
history is written by those who win. |
wrong
the future is written by those who win
there is only one true history that can never be changed. no matter from what angle you look at it, history does not lie, it is the facts of the past. true history is never 'made up'
trancegiant, i like your point #2, never thought of that before |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Yes, I did notice your little artifice: saying you believe all reasons to be excuses and justification, and then attacking my post through that interpretation. Nice.
And again. My point had nothing to do with who's right and who's wrong and who has reason to be mad at who in the middle east. I merely explained *why* the comparison lined up do not hold!
When that is said, how dare you say that I only "condemn" the killing and praise the acts of teorists? What kind of knowledge do you have of my position on this except what I've said above? Do you know from that same shrine of knowledge that taught you how teorists think?
I find it highly ironical that you are the one telling Orbax not to go calling people nazi in the bull-fighting thread, when you yourself practically are calling me a teorist.
Again. I have not commented on that, so you know nothing of my attitude towards this.
Remember two thing: history is written by those who win. And I really shouldn't have written angry - that was a mistake. It should have been ignorant.
Clearly, we are living in parallel universes. |
1. When or where have i called you a Terrorist?
2. You wonder how I know how terrorists think. Does that mean that u think that its YOU who knows it (after all you call "hard on hard" senseless and thus assume that it is the "soft" approach" that will convince them) or that is generally impossible ?
If u wanna know..No I have never had a cup of tea with some al-quaeda guy or a Hamas chief. Nevetheless I have paid much attention to what they SAY how they ACT and especially REACT. I hope that was somewhat helpful in my study of their psychology. Ive also read many articles analyzing terroist motives, intentions and behaviors so...Its not something I've invented just for fun.
I came to the conclusion i already said: You do them a favour- they will use it against you. You hit them- They'll think twice.
You look for their reasons- THEY(!) will see it as a justification and praise. YOu tell them to stop- they'll think twice
"I merely explained *why* the comparison lined up do not hold!"
for the 3rd time: A White man killing a Black just because of his "Blackness" is EXACTELY AS BAD AS an Arab killing a Jew for his "Jewness". Whats there so hard to understand?
Go on and call me ignorant. Or call History ignorant. Or whatever is left of the things that dont agree with you...... |
|
|
| Yoepus |
First tancaholic a few points;
History is not made up by the victor, it is just exagerated by them.
Here let me give you a few examples; Israel does not deny their were Arabs living in Jewish areas before 1948. America does not deny they nuked the Japense. The Japenese do not deny they wiped out the American fleet. The Americans/British do not deny they had the fever of ethnic cleansing regarding Native Americans. Native Americans don't deny it took place.
The Americans don't deny the British burned their capital and America lost the war of 1812 (they just don't mention it much). The British don't deny it either. The Romans don't deny they besiged Massada, neither do the Jews claim they were slaughter.
You can find biased history, but if you look at both sides, and then do archelogical investigations, you can pretty much up come with the unbiased truth.
Even if the Nazi's were the victors they would not have denied the holocaust, they probably just would have made it a national holiday or something, celebrating how cool they were for exterminating the world of the Jews.
History is usually objective, they're are indeed subjective parts, but they are easy to observe in the context of the 'big-picture' (multiple sources).
Now this bit:
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
True, but does war lead to stability? And just think about it - this "war on terrorism" (which I do support) is not a conventional war, hence my comments: you gain nothing from invading an arab country - except if you wipe out its population in the same go. If this is unacceptable, there's only one way to go...conversation. F |
Yes, war leads to stability. Usuaully one good war, will bring about 50 years of stability. A failed war, or a half-arsed attempt at it will bring shorter periods of this. A major campaign can grant you even a peace for up to 200 years.
It is true though your point, you do gain nothing from invading an Arab country. This is where I agree with you 100%. You belive though the Arab country should not be invaded. I believe it should be invaded, and then occupied.
You are true, the war on terrorism is a new concept, and hence the world is adapting the tactics and startegy in an effort to get it right. So far the world has not used the tactics and strategies of which I have suggested in other place, which I belive is the correct solution to the end of terrorism. Namely the principles in the Bush Doctorine.
I completely disagree with your position that only diplomacy can save us from this threat for two reasons:
1) Rarely in history has diplomacy shown to be a good way to stop war aggressed upon your nation. When it is, it usually at such a high cost that your nation can not exercise soverighnty anymore.
2) This has been proven in recent history to have failed. Both in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and many other Arab-based terrorist initated conflicts.
Yoepus
It's important to remember that Jesus loves you. Because everyone else thinks your an arsehole. |
|
|
| Palivar |
 |
|
|
| trancaholic |
Yoepus: You argue in a civilized manner and bring forth good points. I reckon you deserve an answer in the same vein:
My comment on history being written by winners, was not supposed to be a denial of factual history. Simply a counter argument against TranceGiants claim that "History says: yes. Theres no single cse where terroist or fascist regimes were toppled or defeated in a diplomatic way. On the other hand the appeasment approach just made them stronger." If the terrorist/fascist regimes had endured I doubt they would have been described as such - and consequently you cannot argue that they can only be toppled through war.
What I meant when I said that the war on terror was not conventional, was that there's no specific country and/or leader to attack. Hence the futility of invading a country. However, bringing focus on the topic might wake somebody up from their slumber and get them thinking about how humanity works at home *and* in the rest of the world. IMO.
I totally disagree with you on the diplomacy/war comments, as the most peaceful period in the middle east since 48 would have to be between Oslo and Camp David, and the most benefitting relationship between Israel and Arab countries was after the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. Of course I do not live in the middle east and hence cannot say if that is really the case, but at least history tells me:)
Btw. if you really think invasion followed by occupation is the way to go, then please explain to me, why Palestineans continue to use suicide bombers even after years of occupation? |
|
|
|
|
