or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › John Negroponte and terrorism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

John Negroponte and terrorism

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Yesterday, the U.S. vetoed a U.N. draft resolution calling for an international intervention aimed at 'halting the rapidly deteriorating situation in Gaza and the West Bank'. The measure won a big majority in the UN Security Council, including the votes of France and Russia.

The US, via Negroponte's veto displays unilateral support for Israel. Of course there is nothing wrong with 2 nations having allegiances; but lets not forget that Israel's current leader Ariel Sharon is also not only a sponsor of terrorism but also has war crimes proceedings being drafted against him:

<a href="http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/2001/08/27/13489.html" target="_blank">http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/2001/08/27/13489.html</a>
<a href="http://metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-26/methaus.htm" target="_blank">http://metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-26/methaus.htm</a>

even in the Jerusalem Post:

<a href="http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/06/18/News/News.28519.html" target="_blank">http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/06/18/News/News.28519.html</a>

So we have the situation, in the eyes of the rest of the world, that the US on one hand is selling out $billions in fighting terrorism, then on the other hand has an ex terrorism-sponsor hoodlum/gangster for an ambassador showing unilateral support for a nation whose PM is an accused terrorist and war criminal? Are we not shooting ourselves in the foot.. yet again? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...etc etc?

A quick search in Google came up with some links:

<a href="http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/negroponte/eng.html" target="_blank">http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/negroponte/eng.html</a>
<a href="http://www.maryknoll.org/GLOBAL/ALERTS/no_negroponte.htm" target="_blank">http://www.maryknoll.org/GLOBAL/ALERTS/no_negroponte.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/ravencrazy/Negroponte.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/ravencrazy/Negroponte.html</a>
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/18/interviews/negroponte/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/18/interviews/negroponte/</a>

What is the purpose in appointing a sponsor of terrorism to our top international position? How does the rest of the world see us for this? Why don't we choose a real statesperson? Would that not be more in our national interest and standing in the world?

And how come the views of the rest of the world count for next to nothing? Do we want to maintain this sad status quo i.e. the continuation of cyclical violence/tit-for-tat/revenge/reprisals etc?
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #2 of 12
There's been a change in the American public since last fall (when the intifada started), and I think it's happening around the world, too. For most of the 90s, I think there was a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians, and most Americans wanted a "balanced" approach to the peace process. But then Israel offered the PA almost everything (to the point where Sharon's government may have fallen if the PA had accepted), and Arafat not only said no but went to war.

And now for the past eighteen months you've had Israel selectively killing terrorist leaders while Palestinians target Israeli civilians and cabinet members (!). For the first time in a long time, it seems to the US like one side really is more to blame for the violence, and that one side is going out of its way to act like terrorists. I mean, within a two week span this fall, Palestinian terrorists first assasinated the Minister of Tourism because he was a "hard-liner" (imagine if al-Queda assassinated John Ashcroft at his home) and followed with a three-bomb encore in a downtown Jerusalem mall that left dozens of young boys and girls dead (and some rescue personnel, whom the third delayed-fuse bomb directly targeted).

There's a growing consensus around the world (helped by 9/11) that Israel is in the right and Palestine is in the wrong. It seems fair to me.
post #3 of 12
Those who master the discurs master the truth
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #4 of 12
[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>There's been a change in the American public since last fall...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I changed after the 1972 Munich Olympic Hostage Crisis...why hasn't anybody else?

Destroy the PLO and Arafatass.
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #5 of 12
Protecting your people and homeland does not = terrorism.
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
post #6 of 12
[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>(imagine if al-Queda assassinated John Ashcroft at his home)</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh yeah, I'd bee real pissed off if that happened... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
"America is a society where intellect seems to be out of style, replaced by garish gold jewelry, and winter clothes worn year round."
Reply
"America is a society where intellect seems to be out of style, replaced by garish gold jewelry, and winter clothes worn year round."
Reply
post #7 of 12
The Israelis want to be left alone in peace.

The Palestinians want to eradicate the Israelis.

It's as simple as that.


But what about a homeland for the Palestinians? One was created in the original partition. It's called "Jordan".

But the Palestinians only want peace! There's a map of the Middle East on the wall of Yasser Arafat's office. Israel is nowhere to be seen. "Palestine" extends from the Jordan to the sea, however.

But Sharon is a war criminal! This silly prosecution which the Belgians are bringing is a tempest in a teapot started by anti-Israel European academics. As for this business of the massacres in Lebanon: Sharon did not commit them (the local militias did), and Sharon did not approve them. (He won two libel suits against newspapers which claimed otherwise, incidentally, including the New York Times.)
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #8 of 12
My opinion is simple:

I am sick of the fighting between Israelis and Palestinians. I do not like Sharon's clear belligerence against the Palestinian Authority. I do not think arafat has done anything to seriously stop the fighting, and refuses to talk until the fighting stops, meaning that he doesn't want to talk. I think both men are a detriment to their people, to peace. I think their goons are too.

Then those bombing the other week pretty much sealed Arafat's failure, and helped legitimize Sharon for better or worse.

Now, that little issue in the UN was designed to isolate Israel, which clear shouldn't be unless the Palestinian authority is isolated as well. Actually, that's not a bad idea, like putting two bees in a jar and shaking it. Maybe the rest of us might live in peace if we put these idiots in charge of each group in a room full of guns, let them kill one another, and let the rest of us get on with our lives.
post #9 of 12
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>an ex terrorism-sponsor hoodlum/gangster for an ambassador showing unilateral support for a nation whose PM is an accused terrorist and war criminal? Are we not shooting ourselves in the foot.. yet again? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...etc etc?

A quick search in Google came up with some links:

<a href="http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/negroponte/eng.html" target="_blank">http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/negroponte/eng.html</a>
<a href="http://www.maryknoll.org/GLOBAL/ALERTS/no_negroponte.htm" target="_blank">http://www.maryknoll.org/GLOBAL/ALERTS/no_negroponte.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/ravencrazy/Negroponte.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/ravencrazy/Negroponte.html</a>
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/18/interviews/negroponte/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/18/interviews/neg roponte/</a>

</strong><hr></blockquote>

The left has made a good effort slandering Negroponte. Didn't work though.
post #10 of 12
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>My opinion is simple:

I do not think arafat has done anything to seriously stop the fighting, and refuses to talk until the fighting stops, meaning that he doesn't want to talk. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Umm Its Sharon who put this stupid "7 days of silence before talks can begin" rule giving those who doesn´t want peace (and I am not talking about Arafat) an offer they can´t refuse. He may look good like a strong man in public but its also the safest way to more dead Israelis.

[quote]<strong>I think both men are a detriment to their people, to peace. I think their goons are too.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Amen


[quote]<strong>Then those bombing the other week pretty much sealed Arafat's failure, and helped legitimize Sharon for better or worse.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No it showed exacly what I said above: When Sharon hands the possibility of peace over to the terrorists off course he isn´t going to have peace. And Arafat is losing the little control he have over Palestine. And now Sharon is trying to hand the situation by himself creating even more people who will hate Israel and be willing to end their life for the "cause".

[quote]<strong>Now, that little issue in the UN was designed to isolate Israel, which clear shouldn't be unless the Palestinian authority is isolated as well. Actually, that's not a bad idea, like putting two bees in a jar and shaking it. Maybe the rest of us might live in peace if we put these idiots in charge of each group in a room full of guns, let them kill one another, and let the rest of us get on with our lives.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I know and love too many Israelis and palestinensians(sp?) to want that to happen. Most people on both sides didn´t want anyone on the other side to actually die or get hurt. Only some settlers thought that the cause (getting the promised land by squashing away the bugs (aka palestinians who have lived peacefully in the the OCCUPIED areas for many generations)) was more importent than human life. Of course I didn´t meet any terrorists on the other side but I think they are any better or worse than the most extreme Israelis. And most importent: They are very few on both sides but they keep the conflict going
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #11 of 12
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Yesterday, the U.S. vetoed a U.N. draft resolution calling for an international intervention aimed at 'halting the rapidly deteriorating situation in Gaza and the West Bank'. The measure won a big majority in the UN Security Council, including the votes of France and Russia.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I learned today that that the resolution, sponsored by the Palestinians, called for an end to the terrorism by both sides but failed to mention any of the Hamas terrorist attacks in the last few weeks.

When the full story comes out I can see why the US didn't support it.

[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
post #12 of 12
Anders, I'm just exasperated. When I made the bees-in-a-jar analogy, I was thinking of the leadership of both nations (whatever you want to call Palestine -- should be one anyway), not the whole of the people. Sorry about that misunderstanding. I think their current leadership could go to some remote island and let everyone else who is reasonable live in peace.

When I said that those suicide bombings "legitimized" Sharon, I meant in the court of public opinion, propaganda, not that he somehow has become the good guy -- certainly not. I do think those idiots who blew themselves up hurt the Palestinian cause a lot more than they helped, thus hurt Arafat more than Sharon.

I completely sympathize with those caught in this mess, but I do not sympathize with those to simply exacerbate the problem. I tried to make the point that both sides' leadership are wrong in many ways, that no one party has more justification. In other words, I didn't mean to pick sides, if it sounded like I did.

In short, I am in complete agreement.

To be perfectly honest, the whole idea of "Palestinian" and "Israeli" states is bothersome to me, being an American I suppose. One one hand, if you want to have a democracy in either state, you must make sure your population is of a similar background, hence the whole occupation business. The other possibility is to abandon democracy and rule as an authoritarian state, thus taking control out of the population's hands and into an elite group, in this case some kind of ethnic inner-party. Neither seems very legitimate to me. Why would it be wrong to have everyone live together peacefully (if that's even possible now)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › John Negroponte and terrorism