Very late in the day I know, but i should have given the name of the docomentary that I was watching. It was one of a four part series entitled :
" The Age of Terror " Produced by John Blair ( not not related to Tony ) for 3BM Television UK...
Blair states that the bombing of the King David Hotel forced the British to leave..
That statement alone is so ignorant and simplistic as to indicate the inanity of the entire broadcast, as there is no way a single bombing would force out the British.
But thank you for the info, now I can pre-empt any waste of time on any piece of journalism by Mr. John Blair.
That statement alone is so ignorant and simplistic as to indicate the inanity of the entire broadcast, as there is no way a single bombing would force out the British.
But thank you for the info, now I can pre-empt any waste of time on any piece of journalism by Mr. John Blair.
Like I said Immanuel..I had my doubts whilst watching, but had to keep an open mind...
This Blair character is reputed to have won awards & acclaim for this series...
It makes me wonder about how politically biased so much of what passes for balanced documentaries is these days...
Begin has turned himself into a regular politician, one reasonably respectful of the democratic rules. At the time when he was elected, his more chequered episodes were not electoral issues, as these were considered bygone times of the bygone Englishmen.
Perhaps in 30-40 years, after the establishment of a Palestinian state, we will cheerfully dismiss as bygones the ?chequered episodes? of terrorism that are happening today. But I hope not.
Quote:
One of the few remaining main figures of the 1940s Zionist terrorism, Itshaq Shamir, had no qualms acknowledging it on international television during an interview a few years ago (Tim Sebastian's HardTalk on the B.B.C., if I recall correctly), most Israelis are no less realistic about it. So, the ?flexible? or selective perception of terrorism as such, is hardly a general rule.
If this is true, then I am glad. But allow me to think that the actions of the Israeli electorate in voting for Begin may speak louder than these words. If you would like to look, you will also find websites that will give you accounts of Begin?s heroic actions against the ?British occupation?.
Quote:
I don't think there's anything that could be ?working? against victims of terrorism, even Israeli ones, because some people might be ?flexible? with the term.
What an unusual statement. I think that some of those victims, and their families, might disagree with you. Those who excuse and even support Palestinian terrorism against Israel rely very much on a flexible interpretation of what is ?terrorism? to justify their support.
Was it the false equating of Palestinian kids with the organised cells of Real-IRA or the possibility that the editor wouldn't cut the rock-throwing scene before the kids got their heads blown off with a couple of rounds from an Abrams tank ?
No..Its the thought that violence is the way to get what you want...
Was it the false equating of Palestinian kids with the organised cells of Real-IRA or the possibility that the editor wouldn't cut the rock-throwing scene before the kids got their heads blown off with a couple of rounds from an Abrams tank ?
Perhaps to offer more "balance" Blair should have also included a few scenes of Israelis picking their way through blown up buses or Pizza bars...but I guess Israeli children are fascists so they don't deserve sympathy...
No, 'balance' would be leaving Israel out of it completely....
Then that would have destroyed the entire premise of the series...! Ie Israel is to blame for ALL of the Terrorism..that we have experienced for the last 50 years or so....
But that's my point Aqua - terrorism isn't a blanket term for 'using violence to get what you want' except for those who do employ it that way.
That's why the two examples at the end of the film are wrong - one (IRA) is using it in the way you claim, the other is resisting fascism imo.
Sometimes you need to use violence against the people who love violence. It doesn't always mean you love it too - sometimes it just means you don't want to lie still while they take you down.
I am not sure that I follow your point segovius, but I am not sure that we agree with each other here.
Whatever your view of the underlying politics of the Israeli/Palestinian situation, there can be no excuse for blowing up buses full of civilians. What is it in the mindset of a terrorist that allows him to look around him at a group of school children, at a young adults eager to live, at a mother feeding her child, at a father returning home to his family, and then push the trigger on his bomb. Whatever the cause, this is just wrong.
Then that would have destroyed the entire premise of the series...! Ie Israel is to blame for ALL of the Terrorism..that we have experienced for the last 50 years or so....
Have I squared the circle yet ? \
Interesting thread Aqua. Although the premise and conclusions of the series that you talk about are flawed (no Israel did not invent terrorism; no, terrorists are not "freedom fighters") the activities of Irgun were very real, and were terrorism. This is not a knock just or in particular against Israel, but is rather is an illustration of a wider, worldwide phenomenon of flexible approaches to what is and what is not terrorism. Can we not all agree that the bus-bombing illustration I have given, regardless of cause, is terrorism and is reprehensible?
Begin has turned himself into a regular politician, one reasonably respectful of the democratic rules. At the time when he was elected, his more chequered episodes were not electoral issues, as these were considered bygone times of the bygone Englishmen.
Perhaps in 30-40 years, after the establishment of a Palestinian state, we will cheerfully dismiss as bygones the ?chequered episodes? of terrorism that are happening today. But I hope not.
Between 1993 and 2000, several Israeli governments, and a sizable part of the Israeli electorate had cheerfully dismissed Mr. Arafat's checquered episodes, assuming he turned himself into a normal politician. Their assumption proved to be less than accurate, alas.
Quote:
Quote:
One of the few remaining main figures of the 1940s Zionist terrorism, Itshaq Shamir, had no qualms acknowledging it on international television during an interview a few years ago (Tim Sebastian's HardTalk on the B.B.C., if I recall correctly), most Israelis are no less realistic about it. So, the ?flexible? or selective perception of terrorism as such, is hardly a general rule.
If this is true, then I am glad. But allow me to think that the actions of the Israeli electorate in voting for Begin may speak louder than these words. If you would like to look, you will also find websites that will give you accounts of Begin?s heroic actions against the ?British occupation?.
As said previously, Begin's actions against the British in the nineteen-forties were not the issues over which he was elected in 1977. I was in Israel at the time (and voted for the other guy), so I don't need to find websites about it.
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think there's anything that could be ?working? against victims of terrorism, even Israeli ones, because some people might be ?flexible? with the term.
What an unusual statement. I think that some of those victims, and their families, might disagree with you. Those who excuse and even support Palestinian terrorism against Israel rely very much on a flexible interpretation of what is ?terrorism? to justify their support.
I don't think there's anything those who support terrorism, even Palestinian one, can do to undermine the case of victims of terrorism, even Israeli ones.
The only thing ?working? against victims of terrorism, is terrorism itself, not its interpretation or justification by its supporters.
From my perspective there is only ONE person who has consistently played the double game through out.
ARAFAT.
Now this dangerous old man insists on pulling the strings and undermining Abbas his own apppointed Prime minister..
The USA & Israel are absolutely correct in not wanting to deal with him .
He has become a dangerous impediment to the Palestinian people. Under his dictatorial rule Palestinian hopes for peace have gone backwards not forwards..
The Palestinian people know all of this, but because of his status as a folk hero they daren't topple Arafat directly. Secretly, many hope that the Israelis will take him out or exile him...
He is a fool of the first magnitiude...He has never wanted peace. Why should he ? when the on going intafada serves his greater self interest. His "end game " is to play for the ultimate high stakes..with him it's all or nothing. All the pretence to compromise with the Israelis has been nothing more than window dressing to a butcher shop. He and his henchmen are murderers of not just the Israelis, but of many ordinary palestinians. Summary executions being the order of the day, for anyone even remotely suspected of working with the Israelis.. No pretence to trial..just a bullet in the head...no questions asked....
Of course certain sectors of the western " intelligensia " & western media like to turn a blind eye to such killings as it doesn't " fit " with their fanciful idea of him being the loving chairman & benevolent father to his people...
He is nothing but a terrorist thug, addicted to total power, total control, total tyranny.
Arafat more than anyone or anything else is the roadblock along the roadmap to peace.....
I will not waver in my empathy & support for both the ordinary Palestinains & the ordinary Israelis who have had to bear the consequences of his murderous duplicity...
It's not just the body count..but the manner & methodology behind Arafats' control of Palestine. It's about his inability to let go of the reins of power and to trust in his very able Prime Minister Abbas.
My problem is with Arafat..not the Palestinian cause or their drive for self determination... its just that Arafat represents a corrupt system based on rule by the gun, whereas Abbas represents a very real threat to Arafat in that he is showing the Palestinian people that there can be a non violent way to solve their issues with Israel and to move them closer to their dreamed of state..
And Araft is shit scared of it because it represent the Ballot & Democracy as opposed to his Bullet and Dictatorship model of power.
Abbas IS the future..Arafat is the past..he should be buried..
I am well aware of Hamas' nuptuals with Israel...
Don't think I haven't noticed you trying to fudge the lines...
Sedgey, you failed to say anything about the well documented human rights violations by Arafat against his own people ? ( mainly executions without even the pretence of a trail ).?
Are you going to deny the findings of various international human rights groups on this point ?
I am not denying Sharon's place in the history of middle eastern killings..but how long has he been at it in comparison to Arafat....?
You mention Sharon's military history, but equally fail to mention terrorist killings & hijacking murders by the Palestinian Authority under Arafat from the Jordan to Lebanon & all points in between...
As for blaming Arafats' minions..you can't have it both ways Sedgey..otherwise the same rule would have to be applied to Sharon & his minions.
I stand by my support of the Palestinian rank & file as I do for the Israelis rank & file..but I condemm & and won't budge in my condemnation of Arafat. Nor will I stop calling him what he truly is..a murderer & international war criminal..just like Sharon but much much BIGGER.
Sedgey with the greatest respect , showing support for the Palestinian cause does not mean having to swallow Arafats' lies & duplicity..any more than supporting the right of Israel to exist means accepting Sharon's lies.
The sooner thinking people in the west and the rest of the world come to this realisation, the sooner we will have peace in Palestine & in Israel.
Sharons' power base is only as good as his coalition & only as lasting as the next set of general elections..
Unlike Arafat..Sharon can..( & most likely will ) be kicked out of office..
Arafat on the other hand gained his mandate via the bullet..not the ballot...
And as much as you might condemm Israel on certain matters, you cannot deny their democratic principles of government...& the thought that that sort of government might take root in Palestine is what is scaring the old dictator.
" Sharon is inseperable from the Israeli ideology and the concept of Israeli statehood,. He was.......... ELECTED.......... for those reasons, just as someone who wanted to dismantle or oppose the ideological basis of Israel would never be elected or would most probably be shot if they did. So much for democracy."
Notice my emphasis on ELECTED.....That is the biggy...
as it impinges directly on Sharon's power & tenure..
That is what democracy is..gee whizz...
And I am comforted by the fact that it is falling apart all around his ( sharon's ) ears....Yippee
Despite your sniping at it ( democracy ) ..like Churchill said...it is a bad form of government..but compared to any other model..its the best thing we've got...
Ps: I Am glad your seeing the light regarding Arafat...8)
I so wish Abbas God speed...
Ps Can't agree with your saying I've shot myself in the foot......smells more like I've winged a few of the olde pro Arafat supporters here in Ai...
Wow, that's a long exchange. All I can add right now is a hearty laugh at the fact that anyone is calling Sharon a 'minnow,' because he just so rotund.
Wow, that's a long exchange. All I can add right now is a hearty laugh at the fact that anyone is calling Sharon a 'minnow,' because he just so rotund.
Eerr He might be a pregnant minnow....
I understand that he is carrying democracy's love child ( peace ) but has corked his arse so that the pregnancy will never deliver in our life times....
PS Sedgy I understand that " Democracy " would get in the way of your designs for world hegenomy...( ain't that a nice word )...
But as much as your dream of benevolent dictatorship thrills me to the quick...I'd rather take a risk with my donkey voting cousins..
Beside which...how do I know you wouldn't force me into the imfamous Welsh Singing Gulags...?\
Comments
Originally posted by Aquafire
Very late in the day I know, but i should have given the name of the docomentary that I was watching. It was one of a four part series entitled :
" The Age of Terror " Produced by John Blair ( not not related to Tony ) for 3BM Television UK...
Blair states that the bombing of the King David Hotel forced the British to leave..
That statement alone is so ignorant and simplistic as to indicate the inanity of the entire broadcast, as there is no way a single bombing would force out the British.
But thank you for the info, now I can pre-empt any waste of time on any piece of journalism by Mr. John Blair.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
That statement alone is so ignorant and simplistic as to indicate the inanity of the entire broadcast, as there is no way a single bombing would force out the British.
But thank you for the info, now I can pre-empt any waste of time on any piece of journalism by Mr. John Blair.
Like I said Immanuel..I had my doubts whilst watching, but had to keep an open mind...
This Blair character is reputed to have won awards & acclaim for this series...
It makes me wonder about how politically biased so much of what passes for balanced documentaries is these days...
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Begin has turned himself into a regular politician, one reasonably respectful of the democratic rules. At the time when he was elected, his more chequered episodes were not electoral issues, as these were considered bygone times of the bygone Englishmen.
Perhaps in 30-40 years, after the establishment of a Palestinian state, we will cheerfully dismiss as bygones the ?chequered episodes? of terrorism that are happening today. But I hope not.
One of the few remaining main figures of the 1940s Zionist terrorism, Itshaq Shamir, had no qualms acknowledging it on international television during an interview a few years ago (Tim Sebastian's HardTalk on the B.B.C., if I recall correctly), most Israelis are no less realistic about it. So, the ?flexible? or selective perception of terrorism as such, is hardly a general rule.
If this is true, then I am glad. But allow me to think that the actions of the Israeli electorate in voting for Begin may speak louder than these words. If you would like to look, you will also find websites that will give you accounts of Begin?s heroic actions against the ?British occupation?.
I don't think there's anything that could be ?working? against victims of terrorism, even Israeli ones, because some people might be ?flexible? with the term.
What an unusual statement. I think that some of those victims, and their families, might disagree with you. Those who excuse and even support Palestinian terrorism against Israel rely very much on a flexible interpretation of what is ?terrorism? to justify their support.
Originally posted by segovius
Why ?
Was it the false equating of Palestinian kids with the organised cells of Real-IRA or the possibility that the editor wouldn't cut the rock-throwing scene before the kids got their heads blown off with a couple of rounds from an Abrams tank ?
No..Its the thought that violence is the way to get what you want...
Originally posted by segovius
Why ?
Was it the false equating of Palestinian kids with the organised cells of Real-IRA or the possibility that the editor wouldn't cut the rock-throwing scene before the kids got their heads blown off with a couple of rounds from an Abrams tank ?
Perhaps to offer more "balance" Blair should have also included a few scenes of Israelis picking their way through blown up buses or Pizza bars...but I guess Israeli children are fascists so they don't deserve sympathy...
Originally posted by segovius
No, 'balance' would be leaving Israel out of it completely....
Then that would have destroyed the entire premise of the series...! Ie Israel is to blame for ALL of the Terrorism..that we have experienced for the last 50 years or so....
Have I squared the circle yet ?
Originally posted by segovius
But that's my point Aqua - terrorism isn't a blanket term for 'using violence to get what you want' except for those who do employ it that way.
That's why the two examples at the end of the film are wrong - one (IRA) is using it in the way you claim, the other is resisting fascism imo.
Sometimes you need to use violence against the people who love violence. It doesn't always mean you love it too - sometimes it just means you don't want to lie still while they take you down.
I am not sure that I follow your point segovius, but I am not sure that we agree with each other here.
Whatever your view of the underlying politics of the Israeli/Palestinian situation, there can be no excuse for blowing up buses full of civilians. What is it in the mindset of a terrorist that allows him to look around him at a group of school children, at a young adults eager to live, at a mother feeding her child, at a father returning home to his family, and then push the trigger on his bomb. Whatever the cause, this is just wrong.
Originally posted by Aquafire
Then that would have destroyed the entire premise of the series...! Ie Israel is to blame for ALL of the Terrorism..that we have experienced for the last 50 years or so....
Have I squared the circle yet ?
Interesting thread Aqua. Although the premise and conclusions of the series that you talk about are flawed (no Israel did not invent terrorism; no, terrorists are not "freedom fighters") the activities of Irgun were very real, and were terrorism. This is not a knock just or in particular against Israel, but is rather is an illustration of a wider, worldwide phenomenon of flexible approaches to what is and what is not terrorism. Can we not all agree that the bus-bombing illustration I have given, regardless of cause, is terrorism and is reprehensible?
Originally posted by Chinney
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Begin has turned himself into a regular politician, one reasonably respectful of the democratic rules. At the time when he was elected, his more chequered episodes were not electoral issues, as these were considered bygone times of the bygone Englishmen.
Perhaps in 30-40 years, after the establishment of a Palestinian state, we will cheerfully dismiss as bygones the ?chequered episodes? of terrorism that are happening today. But I hope not.
Between 1993 and 2000, several Israeli governments, and a sizable part of the Israeli electorate had cheerfully dismissed Mr. Arafat's checquered episodes, assuming he turned himself into a normal politician. Their assumption proved to be less than accurate, alas.
One of the few remaining main figures of the 1940s Zionist terrorism, Itshaq Shamir, had no qualms acknowledging it on international television during an interview a few years ago (Tim Sebastian's HardTalk on the B.B.C., if I recall correctly), most Israelis are no less realistic about it. So, the ?flexible? or selective perception of terrorism as such, is hardly a general rule.
If this is true, then I am glad. But allow me to think that the actions of the Israeli electorate in voting for Begin may speak louder than these words. If you would like to look, you will also find websites that will give you accounts of Begin?s heroic actions against the ?British occupation?.
As said previously, Begin's actions against the British in the nineteen-forties were not the issues over which he was elected in 1977. I was in Israel at the time (and voted for the other guy), so I don't need to find websites about it.
I don't think there's anything that could be ?working? against victims of terrorism, even Israeli ones, because some people might be ?flexible? with the term.
What an unusual statement. I think that some of those victims, and their families, might disagree with you. Those who excuse and even support Palestinian terrorism against Israel rely very much on a flexible interpretation of what is ?terrorism? to justify their support.
I don't think there's anything those who support terrorism, even Palestinian one, can do to undermine the case of victims of terrorism, even Israeli ones.
The only thing ?working? against victims of terrorism, is terrorism itself, not its interpretation or justification by its supporters.
ARAFAT.
Now this dangerous old man insists on pulling the strings and undermining Abbas his own apppointed Prime minister..
The USA & Israel are absolutely correct in not wanting to deal with him .
He has become a dangerous impediment to the Palestinian people. Under his dictatorial rule Palestinian hopes for peace have gone backwards not forwards..
The Palestinian people know all of this, but because of his status as a folk hero they daren't topple Arafat directly. Secretly, many hope that the Israelis will take him out or exile him...
He is a fool of the first magnitiude...He has never wanted peace. Why should he ? when the on going intafada serves his greater self interest. His "end game " is to play for the ultimate high stakes..with him it's all or nothing. All the pretence to compromise with the Israelis has been nothing more than window dressing to a butcher shop. He and his henchmen are murderers of not just the Israelis, but of many ordinary palestinians. Summary executions being the order of the day, for anyone even remotely suspected of working with the Israelis.. No pretence to trial..just a bullet in the head...no questions asked....
Of course certain sectors of the western " intelligensia " & western media like to turn a blind eye to such killings as it doesn't " fit " with their fanciful idea of him being the loving chairman & benevolent father to his people...
He is nothing but a terrorist thug, addicted to total power, total control, total tyranny.
Arafat more than anyone or anything else is the roadblock along the roadmap to peace.....
I will not waver in my empathy & support for both the ordinary Palestinains & the ordinary Israelis who have had to bear the consequences of his murderous duplicity...
Originally posted by Scott
You people do realize that [Sharon] is a terrorist? In an ideal world he'd be tried in the US for first degree murder and put to death like McVeigh.
Originally posted by bunge
Sharon should be put on trial like Arafat...but in comparison to the amount of blood on Arafat's hands..Sharon is a minnow...
It's not just the body count..but the manner & methodology behind Arafats' control of Palestine. It's about his inability to let go of the reins of power and to trust in his very able Prime Minister Abbas.
My problem is with Arafat..not the Palestinian cause or their drive for self determination... its just that Arafat represents a corrupt system based on rule by the gun, whereas Abbas represents a very real threat to Arafat in that he is showing the Palestinian people that there can be a non violent way to solve their issues with Israel and to move them closer to their dreamed of state..
And Araft is shit scared of it because it represent the Ballot & Democracy as opposed to his Bullet and Dictatorship model of power.
Abbas IS the future..Arafat is the past..he should be buried..
I am well aware of Hamas' nuptuals with Israel...
Don't think I haven't noticed you trying to fudge the lines...
Sedgey, you failed to say anything about the well documented human rights violations by Arafat against his own people ? ( mainly executions without even the pretence of a trail ).?
Are you going to deny the findings of various international human rights groups on this point ?
I am not denying Sharon's place in the history of middle eastern killings..but how long has he been at it in comparison to Arafat....?
You mention Sharon's military history, but equally fail to mention terrorist killings & hijacking murders by the Palestinian Authority under Arafat from the Jordan to Lebanon & all points in between...
As for blaming Arafats' minions..you can't have it both ways Sedgey..otherwise the same rule would have to be applied to Sharon & his minions.
I stand by my support of the Palestinian rank & file as I do for the Israelis rank & file..but I condemm & and won't budge in my condemnation of Arafat. Nor will I stop calling him what he truly is..a murderer & international war criminal..just like Sharon but much much BIGGER.
Sedgey with the greatest respect , showing support for the Palestinian cause does not mean having to swallow Arafats' lies & duplicity..any more than supporting the right of Israel to exist means accepting Sharon's lies.
The sooner thinking people in the west and the rest of the world come to this realisation, the sooner we will have peace in Palestine & in Israel.
Sharons' power base is only as good as his coalition & only as lasting as the next set of general elections..
Unlike Arafat..Sharon can..( & most likely will ) be kicked out of office..
Arafat on the other hand gained his mandate via the bullet..not the ballot...
And as much as you might condemm Israel on certain matters, you cannot deny their democratic principles of government...& the thought that that sort of government might take root in Palestine is what is scaring the old dictator.
Originally posted by Aquafire
And as much as you might condemm Israel on certain matters, you cannot deny their democratic principles of government..
Oh yes, really democratic.
" Sharon is inseperable from the Israeli ideology and the concept of Israeli statehood,. He was.......... ELECTED.......... for those reasons, just as someone who wanted to dismantle or oppose the ideological basis of Israel would never be elected or would most probably be shot if they did. So much for democracy."
Notice my emphasis on ELECTED.....That is the biggy...
as it impinges directly on Sharon's power & tenure..
That is what democracy is..gee whizz...
And I am comforted by the fact that it is falling apart all around his ( sharon's ) ears....Yippee
Despite your sniping at it ( democracy ) ..like Churchill said...it is a bad form of government..but compared to any other model..its the best thing we've got...
Ps: I Am glad your seeing the light regarding Arafat...8)
I so wish Abbas God speed...
Ps Can't agree with your saying I've shot myself in the foot......smells more like I've winged a few of the olde pro Arafat supporters here in Ai...
Originally posted by bunge
Wow, that's a long exchange. All I can add right now is a hearty laugh at the fact that anyone is calling Sharon a 'minnow,' because he just so rotund.
Eerr He might be a pregnant minnow....
I understand that he is carrying democracy's love child ( peace ) but has corked his arse so that the pregnancy will never deliver in our life times....
PS Sedgy I understand that " Democracy " would get in the way of your designs for world hegenomy...( ain't that a nice word )...
But as much as your dream of benevolent dictatorship thrills me to the quick...I'd rather take a risk with my donkey voting cousins..
Beside which...how do I know you wouldn't force me into the imfamous Welsh Singing Gulags...?