The looters and moral relativists will tell you that Israel is an evil nation that murders innocent Palestinians in the street; this is because in the warped mind of the looter, it is abhorrent for a Palestinian to be killed while hurling rocks or bullets and a soldier, but it's simply fair 'payback' when a dozen Israeli's are murdered while riding the bus home from work. They'll tell you reality is subjective; there are no absolutes; A = B.
All the while, they ignore the fact that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that supports freedom, individual rights, science, prosperity, and reason. But then, in the minds of the looter and the moral relativist, these proud virtues of a rational mind are the great evil that threaten to eradicate 'fairness', 'equality', and the 'even playing field.'
The US should vocally and actively support Israel in their war against terrorism. It's the same essential struggle we now fight in Afghanistan: the struggle to preserve the rights of the individual in the face of a collectivist mystic society that glorifies the carbomb as a legitimate form of political campaign.
I agree that the US should support Israel. However Isael needs to change the way it does certain things.
It needs to STOP building settlements. It simply is not their land beyond Israel proper. Right-wing settlers are as much fanatics as are the terrorists (look at Goldstein and the Mosque massacre)
Also, if you know about the situation beyond the mainstream press you will see that there may be more reasons for Palistinian unhappiness than simply disliking Israel. They are kept in poverty, many forced to live in dirty concrete refugee camps, and often, many of the children that are shot are deliberately prodded into action against the soldiers by the soldiers in order to have an excuse for firing on them. The latter case documented clearly by a journalist for Harper's where the soldiers where Lebanese Israelis, christians recently adoopted by Israel after they pulled out of Southern Lebanon. They are reknown for brutality and the killing of Muslims.
We are fed a very biased reading of what happens in Palistine; there are more than two sides to the story . . .and still we are presented with only one.
We are fed a very biased reading of what happens in Palistine; there are more than two sides to the story . . .and still we are presented with only one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which side would that be? Because most of what I read has a wiff of anti-israel sent to it. Maybe I should stop reading the NYT?
Like I said he is not leading a well organised society with a well functional bureaucracy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you are saying that Arafat's Palestinian authority can't even provide the most basic of police functions? Then why are we even talking about a Palestinian state?
So you are saying that Arafat's Palestinian authority can't even provide the most basic of police functions? Then why are we even talking about a Palestinian state?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wonder too. It isn´t a state in the definition most accepted.
The reason?
1) In my opinion: Arafat but especially those around him was more occupied in securing their position and in power in itself than building up a real state. Instead one part of Hamas is providing the most basic health care, education (not in the sence terrorist training), food and shelter. Many people would die if it wasn´t for Hamas. Now this is not good or stable but it is working as long as the peace process goes along fine (Hamas provide the day-to-day survival and Arafat a Palestinian state in his negotiations with Israel) and Arafat and his organisation is seen as representing the state.
2) The peace process dies out. In my best judgement because Israel wouldn´t take the confrontation with its settlers. Actually I can understand that because it would without doubt mean that they had to sent in military against some of their own citizents and no state want that even when its most wise. But in Palestine this mean that while Hamas still do their job for the citizents Arafats mission fails and his legimicy drops very fast. And then you have a conflict between Arafat and Hamas. The logic propably goes something like this: "Hamas actually DO something for the Palestinian people internal while Arafat doesn´t do external. Perhaps Hamas could do a better job than Arafat?". And then suddenly you have support among palestinians for a terrorist organisation "foreign" policy (aka force all israelis into the middle sea).
Notice I didn´t put the blame on one of the two. Both sides have done things that make peace very difficult now. What is importent is to find a solution that can restore the peace process. If Hamas win the internal war between it and Arafat org. I see no solution. Arafat IS the only one who can both negotiate with Israel and be a representative for the Palestine people. Again: I do not like Arafat. He has done very stupid things like the above mentioned but he is the key.
Wow, this is so ignorant, it's hardly believable. Some stupid Palestinian terrorists killing Isreali people make *all* Palestinians terrorists at once?
[quote]<strong>Besides Arafat is the biggest obstacle to peace in that area. He does not want peace. He only wants more terror. There is no hope of a solution as long as he is in charge.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, hte same coulb probably be said about Sharon, don't you think?
<strong>The next target for the US - the head of he serpant, if you will - should be Iran, not Iraq. "Moderate" government or not, there is your prototypical terrorist state.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, and then go on and walk all over the world, targetting any country that doesn't comply with US standards of "how to be a good country"?
<strong>Well we could always hope that Iran and Iraq would go at each other again with maybe a little nudgeing from us. I was also thinking that there are going to be a whole lot of out of work Afghan soldiers at the end of this war. Rather than leaving them to their own devices, which would lead to more problems in Afghanistan, why not give them modern weapons, some training and point them in the direction of Iraq. Of course we would give them a whole lot of moral support.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is *exactly* what created Bin Laden in the first place - "give those Afghans weapons and support, and point them at the big evil communist"...
<strong>....why is it that in many occasions the whiners, complainers and the critical comments to America and it's policies come from Europeans and Scandinavians?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, let's see, where might the critics come from:
Middle East - don't count, hm?
Far East - don't count either
Russia et al. - um, no, still don't count
America - sorry, busy being patriotic, besides, critics are "not with us"
So where else would you suggest critics come from, then?
[quote]<strong>
If the Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbor and we didn't go to War in Europe then where would you be?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, guess nobody would object to saying US involvement in WW2 was a good thing, especially for us. Still, all gratefulness shouldn't make us blind followers and unconditional supporters of *everything* the US does.
I think every thinking person choses the last solution. SO WHY NO NOW?????!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jeez. WTF's been going on forever? Arafat got a great deal last time. His responce? More terrorist attacks. So ask Yassir The Terrorist Arafat "Why not now?".[/QB]
So you really think Arafat is personally responsible for these terrorist attacks, maybe ordered them himself?
Bye,
RazzFazz
PS: I'm kinda wondering: Why do you guys outright hate Arafat or the Palestinians so much? I mean, sure, you don't have to like him or agree with him, but why this outright hatred?
<strong>I was talking about the Palestinian Authorities, not the citizens. But also, I think the Palestinian citizens aren't so great either. A lot of them are so anti-Israeli and anti-American it's sickening.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So the same is not true if you replace "Plaestinian citizens" with "Israeli citizens" and "anti-Israeli" with "anti-Palestinian"?
Yea right. Like bin Laden had his phone taken away too.
Time to stop treating these terrorist like teenagers that forgot to come home before 11pm. "Your grounded and can't talk on the phone for two weeks. That i'll teach you to order people to bomb busses! And I want to see those grades come up young man!"
Arafat needs to go.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Strange, I kinda thought the idea of war as a means of political interaction belonged to a bygone era... Semms like some people disagree here...
<strong>We cannot cannot cannot legitimize terrorism as a way to obtain a political objective. It is outside the rules of war to target civilians. But that's what the Palestinian terrorist do day in and day out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unless in your eyes *every* Palestinian is a terrorist, there are plenty civilian casualties on their side too. The same is true for Afghanistan.
[quote]<strong>If terrorism is able to win in this century we will never see an end to it. It is very important to reject terrorism at every turn. We have to turn a deaf ear to the terrorist complaint. If we give them what they want then we'll never see and end to it. Rather if everyone stands up against it then we have a chance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course this is just my opinion, but fighting terrorsim with large-scale war is just like fighting pest with cholera (don't know the English equivalent for this German saying unfortunately...).
<strong>Is now a good time to mention that IMO terrorist attacks are condoned by many Europeans because they are antisemitic? It's like killing a Jew is understandable but when Israel reacts to destroy a terrorist cell then it's a horrible act. You can almost here people saying, "of couse they killed the Jew. The jew built a house there."</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is ridiculous. The point that makes the Palestinians target the settlers is not tha fact that they're jews, but the fact that they are taking away Palestinian land and building houses there. I'm pretty sure that the reactions from the Palestinians would be pretty much the same if the other party in the conflict had not been Israel but any other country.
<strong>What has that got to do with anything in this thread. Just becuase somone supports a constitutional right to keep and bear arms does not make them a terrorist. If they did not get the guns at that show (please provide a link with evidence) they would have gotten them somewhere else. This post was so far off the mark and shows only bias with no thought. Even if it was only meant as sarcasm. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, he wasn't criticizing your right to bear arms, but the fact that the NRA objected stricter laws in regard to making sure that they don't get into the wrong hands.
<strong>No they weren't. There's no link between bin Laden and the US. He showed up with his own money and equipment. The Taliban were supported by Pakistan. The US did not give them any money. I guess I'll be fighting this lie for the next 50 years.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This pretty much contradicts anything I have read on Bin laden yet. I'll try to provide some links, but I'm pretty sure that CIA supporting the Taliban opposing the soviet invaders is taken as a fact.
So you are saying that Arafat's Palestinian authority can't even provide the most basic of police functions? Then why are we even talking about a Palestinian state?</strong><hr></blockquote>
So your proposed solution would be?
What would you propose to do with it's land and people?
Actually, he wasn't criticizing your right to bear arms, but the fact that the NRA objected stricter laws in regard to making sure that they don't get into the wrong hands.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think there should be box cutter laws too. If they got in the wrong hands... who knows what could happen!
Comments
All the while, they ignore the fact that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that supports freedom, individual rights, science, prosperity, and reason. But then, in the minds of the looter and the moral relativist, these proud virtues of a rational mind are the great evil that threaten to eradicate 'fairness', 'equality', and the 'even playing field.'
The US should vocally and actively support Israel in their war against terrorism. It's the same essential struggle we now fight in Afghanistan: the struggle to preserve the rights of the individual in the face of a collectivist mystic society that glorifies the carbomb as a legitimate form of political campaign.
It needs to STOP building settlements. It simply is not their land beyond Israel proper. Right-wing settlers are as much fanatics as are the terrorists (look at Goldstein and the Mosque massacre)
Also, if you know about the situation beyond the mainstream press you will see that there may be more reasons for Palistinian unhappiness than simply disliking Israel. They are kept in poverty, many forced to live in dirty concrete refugee camps, and often, many of the children that are shot are deliberately prodded into action against the soldiers by the soldiers in order to have an excuse for firing on them. The latter case documented clearly by a journalist for Harper's where the soldiers where Lebanese Israelis, christians recently adoopted by Israel after they pulled out of Southern Lebanon. They are reknown for brutality and the killing of Muslims.
We are fed a very biased reading of what happens in Palistine; there are more than two sides to the story . . .and still we are presented with only one.
So I say: support but demand fundamentla changes.
<strong>
We are fed a very biased reading of what happens in Palistine; there are more than two sides to the story . . .and still we are presented with only one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which side would that be? Because most of what I read has a wiff of anti-israel sent to it. Maybe I should stop reading the NYT?
<strong>
Like I said he is not leading a well organised society with a well functional bureaucracy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you are saying that Arafat's Palestinian authority can't even provide the most basic of police functions? Then why are we even talking about a Palestinian state?
<strong>
So you are saying that Arafat's Palestinian authority can't even provide the most basic of police functions? Then why are we even talking about a Palestinian state?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wonder too. It isn´t a state in the definition most accepted.
The reason?
1) In my opinion: Arafat but especially those around him was more occupied in securing their position and in power in itself than building up a real state. Instead one part of Hamas is providing the most basic health care, education (not in the sence terrorist training), food and shelter. Many people would die if it wasn´t for Hamas. Now this is not good or stable but it is working as long as the peace process goes along fine (Hamas provide the day-to-day survival and Arafat a Palestinian state in his negotiations with Israel) and Arafat and his organisation is seen as representing the state.
2) The peace process dies out. In my best judgement because Israel wouldn´t take the confrontation with its settlers. Actually I can understand that because it would without doubt mean that they had to sent in military against some of their own citizents and no state want that even when its most wise. But in Palestine this mean that while Hamas still do their job for the citizents Arafats mission fails and his legimicy drops very fast. And then you have a conflict between Arafat and Hamas. The logic propably goes something like this: "Hamas actually DO something for the Palestinian people internal while Arafat doesn´t do external. Perhaps Hamas could do a better job than Arafat?". And then suddenly you have support among palestinians for a terrorist organisation "foreign" policy (aka force all israelis into the middle sea).
Notice I didn´t put the blame on one of the two. Both sides have done things that make peace very difficult now. What is importent is to find a solution that can restore the peace process. If Hamas win the internal war between it and Arafat org. I see no solution. Arafat IS the only one who can both negotiate with Israel and be a representative for the Palestine people. Again: I do not like Arafat. He has done very stupid things like the above mentioned but he is the key.
<strong>
2) They invaded a sovreign nation. That's not how we do things in the U.N. world. You get slapped for doing that.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Israel? West Banks?
<strong>
Palestinian terrorist bomb children.
Israeli military bombs Palestinian terrorist.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, this is so ignorant, it's hardly believable. Some stupid Palestinian terrorists killing Isreali people make *all* Palestinians terrorists at once?
[quote]<strong>Besides Arafat is the biggest obstacle to peace in that area. He does not want peace. He only wants more terror. There is no hope of a solution as long as he is in charge.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, hte same coulb probably be said about Sharon, don't you think?
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>The next target for the US - the head of he serpant, if you will - should be Iran, not Iraq. "Moderate" government or not, there is your prototypical terrorist state.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, and then go on and walk all over the world, targetting any country that doesn't comply with US standards of "how to be a good country"?
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>Well we could always hope that Iran and Iraq would go at each other again with maybe a little nudgeing from us. I was also thinking that there are going to be a whole lot of out of work Afghan soldiers at the end of this war. Rather than leaving them to their own devices, which would lead to more problems in Afghanistan, why not give them modern weapons, some training and point them in the direction of Iraq. Of course we would give them a whole lot of moral support.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is *exactly* what created Bin Laden in the first place - "give those Afghans weapons and support, and point them at the big evil communist"...
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>....why is it that in many occasions the whiners, complainers and the critical comments to America and it's policies come from Europeans and Scandinavians?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, let's see, where might the critics come from:
Middle East - don't count, hm?
Far East - don't count either
Russia et al. - um, no, still don't count
America - sorry, busy being patriotic, besides, critics are "not with us"
So where else would you suggest critics come from, then?
[quote]<strong>
If the Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbor and we didn't go to War in Europe then where would you be?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, guess nobody would object to saying US involvement in WW2 was a good thing, especially for us. Still, all gratefulness shouldn't make us blind followers and unconditional supporters of *everything* the US does.
Bye,
RazzFazz
Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>(2¼ctriginally posted by S10:
[qb]
-peace talks that lead to a solution
I think every thinking person choses the last solution. SO WHY NO NOW?????!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jeez. WTF's been going on forever? Arafat got a great deal last time. His responce? More terrorist attacks. So ask Yassir The Terrorist Arafat "Why not now?".[/QB]
So you really think Arafat is personally responsible for these terrorist attacks, maybe ordered them himself?
Bye,
RazzFazz
PS: I'm kinda wondering: Why do you guys outright hate Arafat or the Palestinians so much? I mean, sure, you don't have to like him or agree with him, but why this outright hatred?
<strong>I was talking about the Palestinian Authorities, not the citizens. But also, I think the Palestinian citizens aren't so great either. A lot of them are so anti-Israeli and anti-American it's sickening.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So the same is not true if you replace "Plaestinian citizens" with "Israeli citizens" and "anti-Israeli" with "anti-Palestinian"?
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
Yea right. Like bin Laden had his phone taken away too.
Time to stop treating these terrorist like teenagers that forgot to come home before 11pm. "Your grounded and can't talk on the phone for two weeks. That i'll teach you to order people to bomb busses! And I want to see those grades come up young man!"
Arafat needs to go.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Strange, I kinda thought the idea of war as a means of political interaction belonged to a bygone era... Semms like some people disagree here...
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>We cannot cannot cannot legitimize terrorism as a way to obtain a political objective. It is outside the rules of war to target civilians. But that's what the Palestinian terrorist do day in and day out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unless in your eyes *every* Palestinian is a terrorist, there are plenty civilian casualties on their side too. The same is true for Afghanistan.
[quote]<strong>If terrorism is able to win in this century we will never see an end to it. It is very important to reject terrorism at every turn. We have to turn a deaf ear to the terrorist complaint. If we give them what they want then we'll never see and end to it. Rather if everyone stands up against it then we have a chance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course this is just my opinion, but fighting terrorsim with large-scale war is just like fighting pest with cholera (don't know the English equivalent for this German saying unfortunately...).
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>Is now a good time to mention that IMO terrorist attacks are condoned by many Europeans because they are antisemitic? It's like killing a Jew is understandable but when Israel reacts to destroy a terrorist cell then it's a horrible act. You can almost here people saying, "of couse they killed the Jew. The jew built a house there."</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is ridiculous. The point that makes the Palestinians target the settlers is not tha fact that they're jews, but the fact that they are taking away Palestinian land and building houses there. I'm pretty sure that the reactions from the Palestinians would be pretty much the same if the other party in the conflict had not been Israel but any other country.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>What has that got to do with anything in this thread. Just becuase somone supports a constitutional right to keep and bear arms does not make them a terrorist. If they did not get the guns at that show (please provide a link with evidence) they would have gotten them somewhere else. This post was so far off the mark and shows only bias with no thought. Even if it was only meant as sarcasm.
Actually, he wasn't criticizing your right to bear arms, but the fact that the NRA objected stricter laws in regard to making sure that they don't get into the wrong hands.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>No they weren't. There's no link between bin Laden and the US. He showed up with his own money and equipment. The Taliban were supported by Pakistan. The US did not give them any money. I guess I'll be fighting this lie for the next 50 years.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This pretty much contradicts anything I have read on Bin laden yet. I'll try to provide some links, but I'm pretty sure that CIA supporting the Taliban opposing the soviet invaders is taken as a fact.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
So you are saying that Arafat's Palestinian authority can't even provide the most basic of police functions? Then why are we even talking about a Palestinian state?</strong><hr></blockquote>
So your proposed solution would be?
What would you propose to do with it's land and people?
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
Actually, he wasn't criticizing your right to bear arms, but the fact that the NRA objected stricter laws in regard to making sure that they don't get into the wrong hands.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think there should be box cutter laws too. If they got in the wrong hands... who knows what could happen!