|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Saddam and Sharon
|
Lifeman
Troll
# 579
|
Posted
I'm starting this thread at the invitation of Pyx E to provide a forum for discussion on the above two gentlemen. My point is that by and large, the whole Saddam/Iraq issue is viewed by the media and polititions as an isolated issue.
I know that only yesterday, George Bush stated that the removal of Saddam will help create a better climate for the formation of a Palestinian state but this is NOT a committment to forcing Israel out of Palestine and it will be all too easy not to follow up on this after Saddam has been removed.
The fact is that a great many Arabs see Saddam as a hero across the arab world, not because they necessarilly see America as a 'Great Satan' but because they see America as largely responsible for upholding the continued Israeli occupation - it must be remebered that in Islamic theology (for all the Arabs' own in-fighting) all Muslims are seen as brother and sisters.
I oppose any war with Iraq (unless a genuine threat to the west is proven) that does not include the Israel/Palestine issue as part of the same agenda. Also, I cannot think of a better way of attacking Al'Qaida than by forcing Israel out of the occupied territories because this is one of the main causes that OBL draws on for support.
Ariel Sharon is in my opinion just as big a threat to the stability of the region as Saddam Hussein and he HAS weapons of mass destruction.
[ 12. June 2003, 22:37: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
Posts: 746 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Ah "The Jewish Question".
What was the European answer?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
coffee jim
Shipmate
# 3510
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Ah "The Jewish Question".
What was the European answer?
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
This is a prime example of why I hate flip accusations of antisemitism so much. It's worse than 'racist', 'sexist' or 'homophobe'. You're accusing someone of sharing an unfortunate modern (well, C19-20) European tendency to see 'the Jews' as 'a problem', the culmination of which is seen as the 1941-5 genocide. So 'antisemite!' doesn't mean 'hung-up, prejudiced twat' (like, say, 'homophobe!'), it means 'MURDERER!'
(well, okay, LD, you didn't say 'antisemite', but cut to its essence)
But Lifeman is an annoying fool to start this thread in the lower regions to begin with.
Posts: 367 | From: Belfast | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Ah "The Jewish Question".
What was the European answer?
It was "when you celebrate the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in you country, or even the 100the of equal rights to all citizens regardless of race, religion or colour, then start lecturing us about freedom, you pompous arsehole"
There probably aren't 3 states in the USA that could elect a Jewish governor even today. And Presdient would be totally off the cards. Over here we had a Prime Minister called Benjamin Disraeli back in Victorian times.
If you want to talk about Nazis, talk about Nazis. Not Europeans in general. Americans have got no right to be lecturing us on anti-semitism and racism. There's a damn sight less of it here than there.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
If you like, I will admit to Europeans being the experts in all matters Jewish.
Please enlighten everyone else as to why Jews are in Israel and what they should be doing there.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
is the correct answer something to do with Revival, Rapture and the Second Coming? 'Cos that's what I heard one of those loud, bouffant preacher types say, so it must be true.
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Yeah...all Europeans are closet Hitlers and everybody in the U.S. is a segragationist.
And I'm a lumberjack who eats pemican and sings cour de bois songs.
Nice arguement Ley Druid. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Many Europeans have been recognized as "Righteous Gentiles".
Is there something wrong with asking them why there are Jews in Israel and what they think the Jews should be doing there?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JPF SC
Apprentice
# 4183
|
Posted
I thought this was a thread about Saddam Husein.-
Posts: 16 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Orignially posted by Lifeman, a European, in the OP:
I cannot think of a better way of attacking Al'Qaida than by forcing Israel out of the occupied territories because this is one of the main causes that OBL draws on for support.
Ariel Sharon is in my opinion just as big a threat to the stability of the region as Saddam Hussein and he HAS weapons of mass destruction.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
[HORRIBLE HOSTLY SHADOWS CAST OVER THE CROWD]
I see no reason to turn this already-putrid thread idea into another lame pond war. Stop inserting generalizations about what whole countries "know" or "are". Failure to comply will result in thread closure, and probably liberal personal insults being distributed.
This is your only warning.
[HOSTLY SHADOW RECEDES... BUT WATCHES]
[What what?]
[ 28. February 2003, 01:41: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lifeman
Troll
# 579
|
Posted
Rook,
I'm sorry that you find the nature of this thread putrid but it certainly wasn't my intention to cause a pond war - there have been huge demonstrations against war with Iraq on both sides of the Atlantic and both Europe and America have been have varied middle east interests.
Posts: 746 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Speaking on behalf of Americans everywhere, I hereby repent of Ley Druid. Therefore, I respectfully request ken to redirect his obnoxious (but provoked) post to Mr. Druid personally, and to leave the rest of us out of it.
Thanks so much.
Americans Everywhere
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BuzzyBee
Ship's Drummer
# 3283
|
Posted
Going back to the OP, my grandmother (who is Jewish) claims that Ariel Sharon makes her want to be anti-semitic.
I agree that he's a seriously nasty piece of work and President Bush going all weepy eyed describing Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses whilst simultaneously funding the human rights abuses in Israel/Palestine makes me sick.
I wish people didn't equate critisism of Israel/Sharon with antisemitism though. If you think I'm wrong and that it is antisemitism, could you tell me this: Is critisism of Robert Mugabe's policies in Zimbabwe tantamount to racism? I think we'd be just as critical whatever the skin colour of the inhabitants of a country where the situation was like that in Zimbabwe. I think we'd be just as critical of a situation like the Israel/Palestine one whatever the creed or colour.
--------------------
BuzzyBee
~~~~~~
Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. Martin Luther King, Jr
Posts: 465 | From: Bristol | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BuzzyBee:
Going back to the OP, my grandmother (who is Jewish) claims that Ariel Sharon makes her want to be anti-semitic. ... I wish people didn't equate critisism of Israel/Sharon with antisemitism though.
Thousands of Israeli workers and youth demonstrate against Sharon’s war
Another article
"There have also been protests in Israel itself. On April 5, over 3,000 Israelis and others, including international activists, staged a march to the Kalandia checkpoint. They were attacked with tear gas and clubs by Israeli cops, but two trucks they had filled with supplies for besieged Palestinians managed to get through."
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
All of which goes to disprove the "Sharon is the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein" claptrap. Israelis are free to dissent, free to oppose the regime, free to assemble peaceably, free to editorialize against Sharon, free to protest. And guess what? Nobody gets gassed.
Try that in Beautiful Downtown Baghdad, BuzzyBee.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Well, yes, Pres.
Although the same could (just about) be claimed for Iran and Turkey.
I don't think anyone is seriously pretending that Israel is as bad as Iraq in this (& if they are they can stuff themselves) but there are thousands of people in territory controlled by Israel who can't protest, who are in fear of being shot.
Not being as bad as Iraq isn't a very strong recomendation.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
As I've said before, Ken, I disagree with how the Israeli government is handling the situation and believe the Bush administration should do more to encourage Sharon to rethink things. But statements such as BuzzyBee's come very close to suggesting that that the policies of Israel are the moral equivalents of the policies of Sadaam Hussein. And to that I object strongly.
And David, Ace Hyperlinker that you are, I note that the sources of the two articles you cited were the World Socialist Web Site of the International Committee of the Fourth International and Revolutionary Worker Online. Not that they'd have an ax to grind 'er anything. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
There are a lot of Israelis who don't agree with the occupation. Some of them are even willing to put their lives on the line for this, as in this case where Israelis acted as a human shield to stop settlers murdering their neighbours
Guns among the olives
[Remember to slash.]
[ 28. February 2003, 22:39: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lifeman
Troll
# 579
|
Posted
Presleyterian,
I've got to concede that Sharon is not the moral equivalent to Saddam but considering what he has been responsible for, a man like that should no be a guest at the Whitehouse than Robet Mugabe or Erin (don't forget that he deliberately provoked the current Intafada by walking through a tunnel that goes under Arab Jerusalem, knowing that itm would cause an outrage).
Also, yes I agree that Israel is a democrocy but do you think the large arab minorities in places like Haifa, Nazareth and East Jerusalem feel represented in the Kanesset?
Posts: 746 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lifeman:
Presleyterian,
I've got to concede that Sharon is not the moral equivalent to Saddam but considering what he has been responsible for, a man like that should no be a guest at the Whitehouse than Robet Mugabe or Erin (don't forget that he deliberately provoked the current Intafada by walking through a tunnel that goes under Arab Jerusalem, knowing that itm would cause an outrage).
What the fuck do you mean by this?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rain Dog
Shipmate
# 4085
|
Posted
Oh dear - I can see this going very pear shaped...
Can't we just have a lively discussion without ever referring to the Holocaust or personal insults when it gets to discussing Israel?
Ok - back to the topic - (as Pyx_e asked me to either piss in or piss out of the tent, I'll be pissing in this time)... Is there really a grading system of nasty despotic leaders (I use that word very loosely)? Yeah Saddam definately has the edge when it comes to perverting democracy and murders but Sharon was after all found to be "personally responsible" for what happened in Shatila.
Posts: 620 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lifeman
Troll
# 579
|
Posted
Perfecta,
Your're right to point out the difficulty in grading bad and/or despotic leaders but there must be some point at which leaders are graded otherwise Saddam would still be on the international invite list - Fidel Castro gets invited to all sorts of world summit events in spite of American opposition to him.
You mention the holocaust but that is not a current issue - China had vast amounts of her people killed by the Japanese in the 1930's but you never hear this used as an argument to counter any critism of China. Sharon certainly cannot claim fear of anti-semitism to justify any of his actions.
Posts: 746 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
LIFEMAN
Did you or did you not compare me to Robert Mugabe in your previous post but one? Trot out some facts or retract it, you piece of shit.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lifeman
Troll
# 579
|
Posted
Erin,
The reason why I listed yourself as an unsuitable person to be invited to the Whitehouse is because of inability to express yourself without using foul language (look at your last post on this thread or your OP on your recent Police ordeal).
If you were to meet Dubya, I would expect it go on the lines of 'Holy fucking shit, Mr President, this a fucking, big ass house you live - why the fuck do you keep coming out with such crap and why do have so many fucking turds working for you - fuck me, it's one big shit fucking administration you've got - Holy fucking bleed'in, bloody shit (and so on, and so on).
Meanwhile, back at the debate on Israel.....
Posts: 746 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Wow, in your world "foul language" and homicidal dictatorship are moral equivalents.
You are a disgrace to humanity.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Lifeman, you are even more clueless than I thought before. You would be offensive if you didn't appear to be so downright stupid.
On the topic of the thread, I can't tell you how tired I am of hearing people say, with wringing hands and heaving breast, "It's not fair to attack Saddam and not do something about North Korea/Zimbabwe/Iran/China/Palestine/[insert your favorite bogeyman here]." International policy based on that reasoning would not only be silly, it would be suicidal.
[Clueless coding.]
[ 02. March 2003, 00:46: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by perfecta:
Can't we just have a lively discussion without ever referring to the Holocaust or personal insults when it gets to discussing Israel?
What do you think the role of the Holocaust is in the past, present and future of Israel? Why not refer to it? Somebody got a guilty conscience?
quote:
Originally posted by Lifeman:
You mention the holocaust but that is not a current issue - China had vast amounts of her people killed by the Japanese in the 1930's but you never hear this used as an argument to counter any critism of China. Sharon certainly cannot claim fear of anti-semitism to justify any of his actions.(italics mine)
10 points:
What are the similarities and differences between Chinese-Japanese relations in the 1930's and the Holocaust?
Multiple choice:
a) Does anti-semitism no longer exist?
b) Is there no need to fear the anti-semitism that still exists?
c) Does the reasonable fear of anti-semitism justify any actions against it? (eg. public awareness campaigns, maintaining an army and arsenal capable of national self-defense, freedom of movement and democratic self-determination)
d) To whom should the Jews justify their actions? Who shall decide the criteria?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Bonus question:
What is the role of capitalization in the english language, that is, the language spoken by the elizabeth ii, the queen of england? Was ist der Unterschied zwischen Englisch und Deutsch? (auf Deutsch schreibt man alle Substantive immer mit großen Anfangsbuchstaben, z.B. der Holocaust)
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
(don't forget that he deliberately provoked the current Intafada by walking through a tunnel that goes under Arab Jerusalem, knowing that itm would cause an outrage).
In keeping with the lingusitic tone of the thread, WHY for F**Ks SAKE!??!?!
Why should some guy walking through a tunnel piss off some people so much they have to go kill other people?
This is the unspoken "given" in all this. News reporters will say things like "The Muslim's outraged by claims mohammed had haletosis blew up 20 people today".
Isn't it obvious that when you have people who are this short tempered they'd use Sharon looking at them a funny way to have an "intafada"??
They are bad tempered, intolerant, anti-semetic and looking for a fight at every and any opportunity, so cut the crap about being "provoked".
Do you really think the palestinian's who blow themselves up, do so because they want a less oppressive government?
No! They are fundamentalist muslims. They LOVE oppressive governments! Just so long as it's the Islamic brand of oppression!(Women know your place...stone people to death etc etc)
The suicide bombers, if they could have the palestinian government of their choice, would make palestine one of the most oppressive states in the world.
Bottom line? Arab fundamentalist Muslims hate Jews and want to destroy israel.
If you recreate a nice moderate palestinian state, which is prepared to live side by side with Israel, will the violence stop? NO! because the nutters who are willing to blow themselves up will whinge that this new palestine is "America's poodle" and they will start a civil war to create a full blooded islamic fundamentalist palestinian state.
And what exactly is Sharon supposed to do in all this? What on earth can you do when you run a country which is an jewish island surrounded by a sea of anti-semetic arabs?
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
Ley Druid's Questions
a) No, it still exists
b) No, there's still a need to fear it. But while fear may explain certain actions, it doesn't justify them
c) No, it justifies some actions against it. There's a difference between a public awareness campaign and shooting Palestinian children.
d) The people without whom their army would not be able to occupy Palestine would be a start (the U.S and its allies). Most posters on this board are citizens of countries that support Israel.
Matt,
Not all Palestinians (or, as you would say, palestinian's) are Islamic Fundamentalists. In fact, not all 'palestinian's' are Muslims (or Muslim's). Of course, the number of Christians in Palestine has dropped since 1948 (which makes me wonder if the foundation of Israel was really God's will) but there are still some hanging on. Including Mrs Arafat, apparently.
Historically, the various ethnic/faith communities in Palestine have lived together in relative peace and harmony. Islamic Fundamentalism in the region is not the cause of the occupation of Palestine and the resistance against it. It is the result of it.
Lifeman's description of the cause of the intifada was unfortunate. If my parents had been kicked out of their homes, causing me to grow up in a refugee camp, if my brother had been killed by soldiers who claimed he was a terrorist when he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, I'd be pissed off without someone walking through a tunnel.
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lifeman
Troll
# 579
|
Posted
Lurker,
Everything you have said is perfectly valid but do not diminish the Sharon's walk thorugh the tunnel - he knew exactly what he was doing and it was a calculated move to get Palestinians to revolt to give himself an excuse to use draconian measures against them.
Posts: 746 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rain Dog
Shipmate
# 4085
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
What do you think the role of the Holocaust is in the past, present and future of Israel? Why not refer to it? Somebody got a guilty conscience?
I don't have a guilty conscience in the slightest but as a person of Jewish extraction I find the accustations of nazism or anti-semitism whenever Israel's policies are criticised offensive.
The guilty conscience is evident in the theology that had been developed by some to justify the
"everything that Israel does is good" school of thought. To some Christians, there seems to be no Christian community amongst Palestinians and we help the Jewish people reclaim their land from the current squatters (a minority view I concede)...
[You should feel guilty about your coding.]
[ 02. March 2003, 19:15: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posts: 620 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lifeman
Troll
# 579
|
Posted
Perfecta,
Re. your comments on Christianity amongst Palestinians, it's often forgetten how much Christianity exists in the Arab world generally. I was very surprised when I visited the home of an Arab Christian family in Damascus to be told that about 17% of all Syrians are Christian AND they are protected by the same kind of legislation that makes it illegal in the US and UK to use racist language.
Yasser Arafat prays anually in the church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (that is, when the Israelis don't prevent him from doing so) and a Palestinian state would have a place for Christians, Muslims and, I dare to believe, Jews.
If that sounds too much to hope for, don't forget that today, Germany has some of the fastest growing Jewish communities in the world.
Posts: 746 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
Not all Palestinians (or, as you would say, palestinian's) are Islamic Fundamentalists. In fact, not all 'palestinian's' are Muslims (or Muslim's). Of course, the number of Christians in Palestine has dropped since 1948 (which makes me wonder if the foundation of Israel was really God's will) but there are still some hanging on. Including Mrs Arafat, apparently.
Lurker, I am WELL aware that not all Palestinians are Islamic Fundamentalists..I'm well aware that there is a sizable Christian Palestinian population (some known personally to me..and most of whom are fairly apathetic about a palestinian state)
My point was that the ones who are blowing themselves up are Islamic fundamentalists. The one's creating all the fuss and drawing the attention of the world's media to Israel are Islamic Fundamentalists.
My point was, THEY are the ones with the problem..and THEY are the ones creating the problem for Israel.
If a palestinian state is created which is moderate, or representative, then the fundies still won't be happy and will continue to blow themselves up...claiming this new state is merely a poodle of Israel/USA.
The only Palestinian state they will be happy with would be an islamic fundamentalist one. Which would be FAR more oppressive for say..Palestinian Christian women than current Israeli rule.
The people blowing themselves up are not libertarians. They are fighting not for liberty, but for the oppression of Allah.
They will only stop bombing when liberty is surrended to make way for yet another vile oppressive fundamentalist islamic state.
Personally, I'm all for Sharon's tough line. I don't really see he has a whole lot of options. You can not reason or negotiate with those who hate you on principle, and who will never settle for anything less than 100% of their demands.
The islamic fundamentalists bring an "all or nothing" attitude in their "negotiation" with Israel. Until they realise they are not going to get "all" they will continue to get "nothing".
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
My point was that the ones who are blowing themselves up are Islamic fundamentalists. The one's creating all the fuss and drawing the attention of the world's media to Israel are Islamic Fundamentalists.
My point was that not all of the people the Israelis are shooting and blowing up are Islamic Fundamentalists.
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rain Dog
Shipmate
# 4085
|
Posted
To start with, I'm not sure if all the people blowing themselves up are Islamic Fundamentalists... There'll be a large proportion amongst them who are but I'm quite unsure about that assertion. Do you have any references re: that?
Secondly, it's ironic that most of the Palestinian Christians I've been given to know would rather not be under Israeli rule - are your Palestinian friends "apathetic" about their treatment by Israel?
Re: Sharon not having any choice - I'd have to disagree... I'm not sure that constantly oppressing and attacking a people will make them any more likely to come to a peaceful settlement... I assume you would have solved the NI problem by invading the Republic?
Posts: 620 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
Lurker,
Everything you have said is perfectly valid but do not diminish the Sharon's walk thorugh the tunnel - he knew exactly what he was doing and it was a calculated move to get Palestinians to revolt to give himself an excuse to use draconian measures against them.
Lurker...whether it was or not, I refuse to accept that someone walking through a freakin' tunnel constitutes "reasonable provocation" for warfare!
It seems patronising in the extreme to Muslims to claim that this is "understandable" on their part.
It's understandable that if I accidently tread on my dogs tail it might turn round and nip me. It's only a dog. I tolerate it.
However, if I accidently trod on a friend's foot, it would NOT be understandable for him to turn round and hit me. I would not tolerate it.
The way you excuse Palestinian violence on the grounds it was "prevoked" sounds like you treat them with the kind of patronising tolerance I give to my Dog!
quote:
a Palestinian state would have a place for Christians, Muslims and, I dare to believe, Jews.
I'd love to agree with you. BUT if that is the Palestinian state that is formed, then the same groups of people who are blowing themselves up now will not be satisfied. It may pacify them for a while.....maybe a few years...but sooner or later they will start up bombing shooting and killing again until they get what they really want......islamic fundamentalist rule.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lifeman:
Lurker,
Everything you have said is perfectly valid but do not diminish the Sharon's walk thorugh the tunnel - he knew exactly what he was doing and it was a calculated move to get Palestinians to revolt to give himself an excuse to use draconian measures against them.
Fucking bollocks.
If you ask Palestinians what happened they say it was because of armed Jewish settlers on their lands, and because they were prevented from moving freely around even the divided part of the country left to them, or from seeking work in Israel, or from exporting or importing goods to the rest of the world other than through Israel, and stuff like that - no-body mentions tunnels.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Matt,
most people talk out of the other end of their bodies.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
My point was that not all of the people the Israelis are shooting and blowing up are Islamic Fundamentalists.
If they aren't then clearly Sharon is getting the wrong people. I'm willing to accept Israel might do better at surgically removing legitimate targets with less collateral damage. The fact is, Israel is fighting a war, and civilians will die in war. But that's a question of on the ground military tactics rather than policy as such.
quote:
To start with, I'm not sure if all the people blowing themselves up are Islamic Fundamentalists... There'll be a large proportion amongst them who are but I'm quite unsure about that assertion.
At the very least, the organisations that are providing them with training and explosives are Islamic fundamentalist in nature. And it is highly unlikely such organisations would trust anyone other than those committed to the cause into their organisations.
I suppose there may be a small element who are not committed Islamic fundamentalists. Some of the amature Palestinian rioters throwing rocks and bottles in the streets for example. However, the "professional" trouble makers who are the centre of it all...the terrorists and suicide bombers is pure islamic fudamentalisim
quote:
Secondly, it's ironic that most of the Palestinian Christians I've been given to know would rather not be under Israeli rule - are your Palestinian friends "apathetic" about their treatment by Israel?
I think they are apathetic in that no option really seems good for them:
1. Live under israeli rule (not great)
2. live in a democratic Palestine...but this state would almost certianly collapse into civil war within a few years of it's founding as the Islamic fundies try and grab power in it...(again..not great)
3. Live in an Islamic fundamentalist Palestine. (Worst option of all)
quote:
Re: Sharon not having any choice - I'd have to disagree... I'm not sure that constantly oppressing and attacking a people will make them any more likely to come to a peaceful settlement... I assume you would have solved the NI problem by invading the Republic?
The Ireland situation does not bring England's sovreignty under direct threat. We have a lot more options.
On the other hand, Israel, while militarialy powerful, is geographically a sitting duck to attack on all sides. It is fighting for it's very existence. The Palestinian problem represents a threat to it's very existence.
Yes, Israel is a nuclear power, but it is a tiny country surrounded on all sides by enemies. The occupied security zones are crucial to the integrity of it's borders.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
Fucking bollocks.
If you ask Palestinians what happened they say it was because of armed Jewish settlers on their lands, and because they were prevented from moving freely around even the divided part of the country left to them, or from seeking work in Israel, or from exporting or importing goods to the rest of the world other than through Israel, and stuff like that - no-body mentions tunnels.
If that's the case, then the person you should be addressing your comments to about fucking Bollocks" is lifeman..for bringing the tunnel into it in the first place.
My comments were based on the assumption that Lifeman's reasoning was correct.
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rain Dog
Shipmate
# 4085
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
1. Live under israeli rule (not great)
2. live in a democratic Palestine...but this state would almost certianly collapse into civil war within a few years of it's founding as the Islamic fundies try and grab power in it...(again..not great)
3. Live in an Islamic fundamentalist Palestine. (Worst option of all)
Mmm... So by that rationale Sharon is in fact doing all Palestinian's a massive favour as without his generous intervention they'd all be in an Islamic state? If only those pesky Palestinian kids would learn to not sit in school's that are about to be shelled, Sharon would be able to get everything sorted in no time whatsover ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
To assume that a democratic Palestine is on par with living under Israeli rule is rather silly - of course there'll be the risk of it collapsing but at least it's a step in the right direction, no?
Posts: 620 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Lurker...whether it was or not, I refuse to accept that someone walking through a freakin' tunnel constitutes "reasonable provocation" for warfare!
It seems patronising in the extreme to Muslims to claim that this is "understandable" on their part.
It's understandable that if I accidently tread on my dogs tail it might turn round and nip me. It's only a dog. I tolerate it.
However, if I accidently trod on a friend's foot, it would NOT be understandable for him to turn round and hit me. I would not tolerate it.
The way you excuse Palestinian violence on the grounds it was "prevoked" sounds like you treat them with the kind of patronising tolerance I give to my Dog!
Actually, it was Lifeman who said that Sharon's walking through the tunnel provoked the intifada. Why, then were your comments directed at me? Given that you've just accused Ken of wrongly attributing a point of view that lifeman holds to you, I would recommend getting your own house in order first!
quote:
If they aren't then clearly Sharon is getting the wrong people. I'm willing to accept Israel might do better at surgically removing legitimate targets with less collateral damage. The fact is, Israel is fighting a war, and civilians will die in war. But that's a question of on the ground military tactics rather than policy as such.
The phrase 'collateral damage' assumes that every Palestinain who wasn't a terrorist who has been killed by the Israeli soldiers and settlers has been killed by accident. I believe some of these killings have been deliberate.
And policy should dictate military tactics on the ground. It's the duty of governments to control their armies. What's the point of supporting Israel because it's one of the few democracies in the area if there's no accountability.
quote:
live in a democratic Palestine...but this state would almost certianly collapse into civil war within a few years of it's founding as the Islamic fundies try and grab power in it...(again..not great)
That's a big assumption. The Palestininans are a race of savages who cannot govern themselves so they need to live under Israeli rule to stop the inevitable carnage. And you call me patronising!
quote:
On the other hand, Israel, while militarialy powerful, is geographically a sitting duck to attack on all sides. It is fighting for it's very existence. The Palestinian problem represents a threat to it's very existence.
Yes, Israel is a nuclear power, but it is a tiny country surrounded on all sides by enemies. The occupied security zones are crucial to the integrity of it's borders.
The PLO has already said it supports Israel's 'right to exist'. Israel is not fighting for its very existence, it is fighting to hold onto seized land.
As for the 'security' zones, Israel wouldn't be the first to say that it was occupying surrounding land to protect itself. I know that mention of a certain dictator with a wee moustache when discussing Israel will leave me open to accusations of being inflammatory, but I just don't care, that was just the argument that he used to justify the annexing of large chunks of Europe. That, and 'the land used to belong to us'.
I think a peaceful settlement in Palestine would be beneficial to Israeli-Arab relations.
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by perfecta:
To start with, I'm not sure if all the people blowing themselves up are Islamic Fundamentalists... There'll be a large proportion amongst them who are but I'm quite unsure about that assertion.
I'd be interested in hearing the mindset of someone who blows themselves up but does NOT consider him/herself a fundamentalist. "Well, sure, I'll strap a hundred sticks of dynamite to my body and detonate it in the middle of a shopping mall but that doesn't make me a fundamentalist". WTF? What does it make you, then, a stupid sheep?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rain Dog
Shipmate
# 4085
|
Posted
Erin, I said _Islamic_ fundamentalist - Of course, you've got to be pretty radical to want to die for a cause you see as true...
The Buddhist monk who set fire to himself in vietnam (I think?) or Jan Pallat had strong enough beliefs to do so but i'm unsure if that makes them a fundamentalist (and it certainly doesn't make either of them muslims!)
Posts: 620 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
To assume that a democratic Palestine is on par with living under Israeli rule is rather silly - of course there'll be the risk of it collapsing but at least it's a step in the right direction, no?
Israel has a powerful law and order keeping force. A newly formed palestine state would not. I do not see such a state will exactly be a model of stability and tranquility, do you? I anticipate that one group who would suffer greatly would be the Palestinian Christians.
quote:
Actually, it was Lifeman who said that Sharon's walking through the tunnel provoked the intifada. Why, then were your comments directed at me? Given that you've just accused Ken of wrongly attributing a point of view that lifeman holds to you, I would recommend getting your own house in order first!
Apologies to you lurker
quote:
That's a big assumption. The Palestininans are a race of savages who cannot govern themselves so they need to live under Israeli rule to stop the inevitable carnage. And you call me patronising!
No, the majority of Palestinians aren't. But the Islamic Fundamentalists who are ready to blow themselves up because of Jewish rule will probably be ready to blow themselves up because of a democratic government. Remember democracy = American philosophy in the eyes of the fundies.
quote:
The PLO has already said it supports Israel's 'right to exist'. Israel is not fighting for its very existence, it is fighting to hold onto seized land.
First, I don't believe the PLO. Second, even if I did, they are the most liberal of the organisations Israel has to deal with.
quote:
As for the 'security' zones, Israel wouldn't be the first to say that it was occupying surrounding land to protect itself. I know that mention of a certain dictator with a wee moustache
Oh please...look at a freakin map. The idea you can compare Germany with Israel in this matter is crazy. Israel is a tiny dot surrounded by nations who hate it. It has been invaded by it's neighbours at every opportunity given to them.
Just because Hitler used it as a bad excuse doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as a good reason for Sharon in a different place at a different time.
quote:
I think a peaceful settlement in Palestine would be beneficial to Israeli-Arab relations.
Well..err.yeah. That sounds like a "The earth is round" kind of statement. I agree. The question is whether "A peaceful settlement" is a genuine possiblity. Frankly...I doubt it.
quote:
I'd be interested in hearing the mindset of someone who blows themselves up but does NOT consider him/herself a fundamentalist. "Well, sure, I'll strap a hundred sticks of dynamite to my body and detonate it in the middle of a shopping mall but that doesn't make me a fundamentalist". WTF? What does it make you, then, a stupid sheep?
Erin, while I agree with where your coming from, I think you are confusing "fundamentalist" with "Extremist". All fundamentalists are extremists, but not all extremists are fundamentalists.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
I refuse to accept that someone walking through a freakin' tunnel constitutes "reasonable provocation" for warfare!
Refuse all you like, Matt. That doesn't change what happened, or how it happened, or what it meant at the time.
If you had been observing media coverage before and after the incident in question, you would be aware that Sharon took his walk as a deliberate act of provocation, aimed (as he was then in opposition to the Israeli government) at bringing the peace process to a halt and bringing down the Israeli government. The peace process at the time was moving along and looked as if it might well produce results for both sides. Sharon's walk in a tunnel killed it.
Should the walk have been viewed by the Palestinians as a provocation? I confess to forgetting the specific circumstances, but the walk certainly involved Sharon crossing boundaries of behaviour that had been observed for many years. My memory is that the tunnel in question, which led under some of the Muslim sacred places on the Temple Mount, had been controversial since the Israeli government started to drill it.
In any case, Sharon was clearly warned before he took the walk that it would be viewed as provocative. He has never claimed to be surprized at the Palestinnian reaction -- indeed, at the time, it seemed that evoking exactly this reaction was the point.
John Holding
[Preview post is there to be used. Do so.]
[ 03. March 2003, 20:57: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
