revisionist arab propaganda - uh-huh....ok.....but let's get back to the issues.
Basically, the prevailing US attitude is Israel = good vs pals = evil. This is derived almost entirely from media portrayals of events. I don't say that the media censors reports but that it biases reports (to coin a phrase). For example, Fox News reported on May 5, 2002 that a mother from Jenin and her three and four year old children were all shot to death, each hit in the head or upper body, and in a separate incident the same day a nine year old boy from Tulkarem was shot twice in the chest and killed...these were reported as 'an operation targeting terrorists'. And that is one report at random - there are hundreds of such incidents, all 'targeting terrorists' and all contributing to the image that Israel is 'fighting evil' - that is, they are operating in a way morally differentiated from the suicide bombers. They are not, they are both the same.
Another form of bias which forms the opinions of the more 'hard-line' pundits is the suppression of 'good' news relating to the Palestinians.
I recently read an account of the father of a boy who was shot in the back by the Israelis for no reason. there is no doubt as to this because he was waving goodbye to a UN force at the time and they witnessed the whole thing.
That's the sort of thing that creates suicide bombers - I wouldn't turn into one personally but you can bet I'd start taking some shooting lessons (if you catch my drift) - who wouldn't ? This boy's father for one - he calls for forgiveness and an end to violence.
He's a better man than me, better than the suicide bombers, better than Sharon but do we hear of his example ? No. We hear of 'evil' Palestinians and 'good' Israelis. But life isn't like that.
It's time to promote people like this man's father - they are the answer to this situation and there are many of them. That is the real division - it is not Israel vs Palestinian, it is people like him (Israeli or Palestinian) vs people like Sharon and Hamas (Israeli or Palestinian).
It always has been.
So according to your "reasoning", pirates that sink ships, and ships that counter them by sinking those pirate ships, are really operating on the same level. Both are up to no good. To qualify for your moral high ground, the only response to the pirates sinking those ships - is a no response. For as soon as one engages the pirates/terrorists one becomes no better than them. Now, why wouldn't it surprise me that this moral non action, is advocated by none other than those sympathetic to the pirate's cause. Of course, I'm not going to ask you about your background. But I bet I can guess it right.
Anyhoo. There's going to be a limit as to how far you can ran away from these pirates and this problem. In the case of islam, I think we've just about hit that limit. It's an existential problem really. Us or them. There is no middle ground. You can even observe this in immigrant Muslim populations. As they become more and more comfortable in their host countries, they turn more and more into a fifth column for Islamic domination. Just look at what's going on now in Kosovo. They managed to ethnically cleanse the most of the Serbs from their homeland and are now carrying pogroms on the remaining. Of course, there's little headline news concerning this, as there is no headline news regards the plight of Africans in Sudan and elsewhere in North Africa. Such programs of Islamization are occurring around the globe. But Saudi Arabia just doesn't subsidize this kind of news, you know.
There was an offer of roughly 98% of the land the Palestinians wanted but the 2% that was left out was a dealbreaker to them. They offered them everything BUT the land they REALLY REALLY wanted. I have a feeling it was just a PR move.
If that's the deal he's talking about then the 2% was access to things like water. I don't blame them for nixing the offer.
A BBCi article by Professor Adam Roberts about the history of terrorism:
The word 'terrorism' entered into European languages in the wake of the French revolution of 1789. In the early revolutionary years, it was largely by violence that governments in Paris tried to impose their radical new order on a reluctant citizenry. As a result, the first meaning of the word 'terrorism', as recorded by the Académie Française in 1798, was 'system or rule of terror'. This serves as a healthy reminder that terror is often at its bloodiest when used by dictatorial governments against their own citizens.
During the 19th century terrorism underwent a fateful transformation, coming to be associated, as it still is today, with non-governmental groups. One such group - the small band of Russian revolutionaries of 'Narodnaya Volya' (the people's will) in 1878-81 - used the word 'terrorist' proudly. They developed certain ideas that were to become the hallmark of subsequent terrorism in many countries. They believed in the targeted killing of the 'leaders of oppression'; they were convinced that the developing technologies of the age - symbolized by bombs and bullets - enabled them to strike directly and discriminately. Above all, they believed that the Tsarist system against which they were fighting was fundamentally rotten. They propagated what has remained the common terrorist delusion that violent acts would spark off revolution. Their efforts led to the assassination of Tsar Alexander II on 13 March 1881 - but that event failed completely to have the revolutionary effects of which the terrorists had dreamed.
You can arguably find it anywhere in history. Just the the weapons differ.
Besides the concept of having distinct civilian and military zones or roles is not universal throughout time. Feudal fortress cities blurred what was fair game (it all was at the time). Tribal warfare makes civilians do fighting too.
Basically its only prevalent now because there is such distinct separation between military and civilian (in certain places). Not all people in history had that luxury of having things be off limits.
You can arguably find it anywhere in history. Just the the weapons differ.
Besides the concept of having distinct civilian and military zones or roles is not universal throughout time. Feudal fortress cities blurred what was fair game (it all was at the time). Tribal warfare makes civilians do fighting too.
Basically its only prevalent now because there is such distinct separation between military and civilian (in certain places). Not all people in history had that luxury of having things be off limits.
You are right, it was just a joke for the above poster.
I don't really see a quoted threat there, but more of a broad interpretation. Seems like if the Hamas guy said "we're going to kill Americans everywhere" or something like that, that is the first thing that CBC or anyone else would quote... no?
The new leader of Hamas, unlike the hidden threats made by the military branch of the Hamas, made a comment about this issue. " we would not attack US, we will strike the occupying ennemie, and USA is not occupying our lands. "
The Provisional IRA maintained that it only attacked viable military targets (but civillians often got killed). The Israeli Defense Force frequently kills innocent civillians (but maintains that it does not target them intentionally). Which of these is the terrorist organization?
Perhaps more importantly, who gets to decide which organization is the terrorist organization?
Harrods department store in London, the Tavern in the Town and Mulberry Bush pubs in Birmingham UK, Euston Rail Station London, The Unionist HQ in Birmingham, The Arndale Shopping Center in Manchester UK, the hotel in Brighton UK where the conservative conference delegates were staying...and scores of other civilian targets where bombs were planted and people were killed with no warning. Strange kind of 'military targets'....
The new leader of Hamas, unlike the hidden threats made by the military branch of the Hamas, made a comment about this issue. " we would not attack US, we will strike the occupying ennemie, and USA is not occupying our lands. "
Clearly USA is not a target for Hamas.
Hilarious. You think this new "leader" will discreatly advise American tourists in Israel not to ride buses or enjoy cafes or dance halls before a suicide bomber goes off?
Sorry, Americans ARE affected!
"Since Yasser Arafat ?renounced? violence in the Oslo Peace Accords on September 13, 1993, at least 52 American citizens, including women and children, have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists, and at least another 83 Americans have been injured."
Hilarious. You think this new "leader" will discreatly advise American tourists in Israel not to ride buses or enjoy cafes or dance halls before a suicide bomber goes off?
Sorry, Americans ARE affected!
"Since Yasser Arafat ?renounced? violence in the Oslo Peace Accords on September 13, 1993, at least 52 American citizens, including women and children, have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists, and at least another 83 Americans have been injured."
Honestly, I can't wait until I read that Arafat gets a missile (USA missile I might add) enema...
Artman i was replying to Moogs. If you have read all my posts in this thread you will have known my opinion on Hamas.
Terrorist bombing is blind by definition. For example the last bombing in Madrid, even killed Muslim or foreigners. Nobody emphasized this point to much, because every victims are equal.
I spake of direct attacks against USA. Perhaps you are not interested by this info, but Moogs obviously was. Just wanted to point out that he was right.
Wow, 52 dead people in 10+ years. That's AN INCREDIBLY HUGE NUMBER.
OH MY GOD! I don't think this many people are murdered EVER.
ESPECIALLY in the MIDDLE EAST.
Sorry powerdoc. I'll relent. But you Ganondorf...get a clue. Or get a friend/relative/loved one blown into little zip-lock bags back to the states from one of these terrorists...and let us know how you'd feel then.
So according to your "reasoning", pirates that sink ships, and ships that counter them by sinking those pirate ships, are really operating on the same level. Both are up to no good
That depends on being able to accurately define who were the pirates and who was merely countering them. Your analogy uses an emotive term for the 'pirates' indicating an assumption that theirs is the first act of violence. In real life things are not so clear.
(If we were talking slave ships trading human misery, or pre-war Nazi supply ships would the ship sinkers be 'pirates' or heroes? Being in a position of authority does not auomatically make ones acts legitimate)
The fact that both sides in the middle East, Israelis and Palestinians, may plausably claim some legitimate grievance against the other muddies the water. Both parties justify their violence against the other - you did this to us first - we are fighting for our survival, blah blah blah. Who is the pirate?
A further problem for the people who advocate violence is the erroneous conflation of the acts of the leaders and the people they are supposed to represent. So long as the assumption is made that all Israelis are responsible for the percived injustices to the Palestinians and all Palestinians for those against the Israelis, there are no illegitimate targets, it is a war for survival.
Killing, when you do not have to is wrong. Here there are two groups doing it to each other but one of them obviously has the power to choose another option.
This man could have been arrested and tried.
(BTW. If I were rebuilding my walls because I was afraid that bad people would come onto my land and kill me...I'd build it nice and high, nice and sturdy and on my side of the divide.)
Israel is in a position to gain the support of most of the world, if only its leaders would refuse to live down to the worst standards of behaviour it has to face.
That depends on being able to accurately define who were the pirates and who was merely countering them. Your analogy uses an emotive term for the 'pirates' indicating an assumption that theirs is the first act of violence. In real life things are not so clear.
(If we were talking slave ships trading human misery, or pre-war Nazi supply ships would the ship sinkers be 'pirates' or heroes? Being in a position of authority does not auomatically make ones acts legitimate)
The fact that both sides in the middle East, Israelis and Palestinians, may plausably claim some legitimate grievance against the other muddies the water. Both parties justify their violence against the other - you did this to us first - we are fighting for our survival, blah blah blah. Who is the pirate?
A further problem for the people who advocate violence is the erroneous conflation of the acts of the leaders and the people they are supposed to represent. So long as the assumption is made that all Israelis are responsible for the percived injustices to the Palestinians and all Palestinians for those against the Israelis, there are no illegitimate targets, it is a war for survival.
Killing, when you do not have to is wrong. Here there are two groups doing it to each other but one of them obviously has the power to choose another option.
This man could have been arrested and tried.
(BTW. If I were rebuilding my walls because I was afraid that bad people would come onto my land and kill me...I'd build it nice and high, nice and sturdy and on my side of the divide.)
Israel is in a position to gain the support of most of the world, if only its leaders would refuse to live down to the worst standards of behaviour it has to face.
So the palestinians have to kill jews? Please correct me if I am wrong, but that is the impression I get.
Is it that they can't help it? These suicide vests just fall out of the sky and land on them and they wander aimlessly until they get to a bunch of jews and their finger just happens to twitch and press that button? Or are they being forced to kill by the big bad wall?
I have no relatives foolish enough to go to that Hell-hole called the Middle East.
If one of my relatives got mauled to death by a grizzly bear, perhaps I would be more sympathetic toward grizzly bears murdering Americans as well. But it ain't gonna happen.
Comments
Originally posted by Harald
Hi Mika!
uh?
Originally posted by segovius
revisionist arab propaganda - uh-huh....ok.....but let's get back to the issues.
Basically, the prevailing US attitude is Israel = good vs pals = evil. This is derived almost entirely from media portrayals of events. I don't say that the media censors reports but that it biases reports (to coin a phrase). For example, Fox News reported on May 5, 2002 that a mother from Jenin and her three and four year old children were all shot to death, each hit in the head or upper body, and in a separate incident the same day a nine year old boy from Tulkarem was shot twice in the chest and killed...these were reported as 'an operation targeting terrorists'. And that is one report at random - there are hundreds of such incidents, all 'targeting terrorists' and all contributing to the image that Israel is 'fighting evil' - that is, they are operating in a way morally differentiated from the suicide bombers. They are not, they are both the same.
Another form of bias which forms the opinions of the more 'hard-line' pundits is the suppression of 'good' news relating to the Palestinians.
I recently read an account of the father of a boy who was shot in the back by the Israelis for no reason. there is no doubt as to this because he was waving goodbye to a UN force at the time and they witnessed the whole thing.
That's the sort of thing that creates suicide bombers - I wouldn't turn into one personally but you can bet I'd start taking some shooting lessons (if you catch my drift) - who wouldn't ? This boy's father for one - he calls for forgiveness and an end to violence.
He's a better man than me, better than the suicide bombers, better than Sharon but do we hear of his example ? No. We hear of 'evil' Palestinians and 'good' Israelis. But life isn't like that.
It's time to promote people like this man's father - they are the answer to this situation and there are many of them. That is the real division - it is not Israel vs Palestinian, it is people like him (Israeli or Palestinian) vs people like Sharon and Hamas (Israeli or Palestinian).
It always has been.
So according to your "reasoning", pirates that sink ships, and ships that counter them by sinking those pirate ships, are really operating on the same level. Both are up to no good. To qualify for your moral high ground, the only response to the pirates sinking those ships - is a no response. For as soon as one engages the pirates/terrorists one becomes no better than them. Now, why wouldn't it surprise me that this moral non action, is advocated by none other than those sympathetic to the pirate's cause. Of course, I'm not going to ask you about your background. But I bet I can guess it right.
Anyhoo. There's going to be a limit as to how far you can ran away from these pirates and this problem. In the case of islam, I think we've just about hit that limit. It's an existential problem really. Us or them. There is no middle ground. You can even observe this in immigrant Muslim populations. As they become more and more comfortable in their host countries, they turn more and more into a fifth column for Islamic domination. Just look at what's going on now in Kosovo. They managed to ethnically cleanse the most of the Serbs from their homeland and are now carrying pogroms on the remaining. Of course, there's little headline news concerning this, as there is no headline news regards the plight of Africans in Sudan and elsewhere in North Africa. Such programs of Islamization are occurring around the globe. But Saudi Arabia just doesn't subsidize this kind of news, you know.
Originally posted by BR
There was an offer of roughly 98% of the land the Palestinians wanted but the 2% that was left out was a dealbreaker to them. They offered them everything BUT the land they REALLY REALLY wanted. I have a feeling it was just a PR move.
If that's the deal he's talking about then the 2% was access to things like water. I don't blame them for nixing the offer.
Originally posted by tonton
Google the terms "Irgun" and "Stern" and the word "terrorism".
Feeling lucky?
Try a little earlier:
A BBCi article by Professor Adam Roberts about the history of terrorism:
The word 'terrorism' entered into European languages in the wake of the French revolution of 1789. In the early revolutionary years, it was largely by violence that governments in Paris tried to impose their radical new order on a reluctant citizenry. As a result, the first meaning of the word 'terrorism', as recorded by the Académie Française in 1798, was 'system or rule of terror'. This serves as a healthy reminder that terror is often at its bloodiest when used by dictatorial governments against their own citizens.
During the 19th century terrorism underwent a fateful transformation, coming to be associated, as it still is today, with non-governmental groups. One such group - the small band of Russian revolutionaries of 'Narodnaya Volya' (the people's will) in 1878-81 - used the word 'terrorist' proudly. They developed certain ideas that were to become the hallmark of subsequent terrorism in many countries. They believed in the targeted killing of the 'leaders of oppression'; they were convinced that the developing technologies of the age - symbolized by bombs and bullets - enabled them to strike directly and discriminately. Above all, they believed that the Tsarist system against which they were fighting was fundamentally rotten. They propagated what has remained the common terrorist delusion that violent acts would spark off revolution. Their efforts led to the assassination of Tsar Alexander II on 13 March 1881 - but that event failed completely to have the revolutionary effects of which the terrorists had dreamed.
Originally posted by Scott
So the FRENCH invented terrorism.
No it's Attilah. Attilah the terror of the huns.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
No it's Attilah. Attilah the terror of the huns.
Humans invented terrorism. Period.
You can arguably find it anywhere in history. Just the the weapons differ.
Besides the concept of having distinct civilian and military zones or roles is not universal throughout time. Feudal fortress cities blurred what was fair game (it all was at the time). Tribal warfare makes civilians do fighting too.
Basically its only prevalent now because there is such distinct separation between military and civilian (in certain places). Not all people in history had that luxury of having things be off limits.
Originally posted by johnq
Humans invented terrorism. Period.
You can arguably find it anywhere in history. Just the the weapons differ.
Besides the concept of having distinct civilian and military zones or roles is not universal throughout time. Feudal fortress cities blurred what was fair game (it all was at the time). Tribal warfare makes civilians do fighting too.
Basically its only prevalent now because there is such distinct separation between military and civilian (in certain places). Not all people in history had that luxury of having things be off limits.
You are right, it was just a joke for the above poster.
Originally posted by Moogs
I don't really see a quoted threat there, but more of a broad interpretation. Seems like if the Hamas guy said "we're going to kill Americans everywhere" or something like that, that is the first thing that CBC or anyone else would quote... no?
The new leader of Hamas, unlike the hidden threats made by the military branch of the Hamas, made a comment about this issue. " we would not attack US, we will strike the occupying ennemie, and USA is not occupying our lands. "
Clearly USA is not a target for Hamas.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
The Provisional IRA maintained that it only attacked viable military targets (but civillians often got killed). The Israeli Defense Force frequently kills innocent civillians (but maintains that it does not target them intentionally). Which of these is the terrorist organization?
Perhaps more importantly, who gets to decide which organization is the terrorist organization?
Harrods department store in London, the Tavern in the Town and Mulberry Bush pubs in Birmingham UK, Euston Rail Station London, The Unionist HQ in Birmingham, The Arndale Shopping Center in Manchester UK, the hotel in Brighton UK where the conservative conference delegates were staying...and scores of other civilian targets where bombs were planted and people were killed with no warning. Strange kind of 'military targets'....
But the provisional IRA arent the only ones.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
The new leader of Hamas, unlike the hidden threats made by the military branch of the Hamas, made a comment about this issue. " we would not attack US, we will strike the occupying ennemie, and USA is not occupying our lands. "
Clearly USA is not a target for Hamas.
Hilarious. You think this new "leader" will discreatly advise American tourists in Israel not to ride buses or enjoy cafes or dance halls before a suicide bomber goes off?
Sorry, Americans ARE affected!
"Since Yasser Arafat ?renounced? violence in the Oslo Peace Accords on September 13, 1993, at least 52 American citizens, including women and children, have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists, and at least another 83 Americans have been injured."
LINK.
Honestly, I can't wait until I read that Arafat gets a missile (USA missile I might add) enema...
OH MY GOD! I don't think this many people are murdered EVER.
ESPECIALLY in the MIDDLE EAST.
Originally posted by Artman @_@
Hilarious. You think this new "leader" will discreatly advise American tourists in Israel not to ride buses or enjoy cafes or dance halls before a suicide bomber goes off?
Sorry, Americans ARE affected!
"Since Yasser Arafat ?renounced? violence in the Oslo Peace Accords on September 13, 1993, at least 52 American citizens, including women and children, have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists, and at least another 83 Americans have been injured."
LINK.
Honestly, I can't wait until I read that Arafat gets a missile (USA missile I might add) enema...
Artman i was replying to Moogs. If you have read all my posts in this thread you will have known my opinion on Hamas.
Terrorist bombing is blind by definition. For example the last bombing in Madrid, even killed Muslim or foreigners. Nobody emphasized this point to much, because every victims are equal.
I spake of direct attacks against USA. Perhaps you are not interested by this info, but Moogs obviously was. Just wanted to point out that he was right.
Originally posted by Ganondorf
Wow, 52 dead people in 10+ years. That's AN INCREDIBLY HUGE NUMBER.
OH MY GOD! I don't think this many people are murdered EVER.
ESPECIALLY in the MIDDLE EAST.
oh ok then well forget about that then, it doesn't natter in this conversation.
That is what you are saying right?
Originally posted by Ganondorf
Wow, 52 dead people in 10+ years. That's AN INCREDIBLY HUGE NUMBER.
OH MY GOD! I don't think this many people are murdered EVER.
ESPECIALLY in the MIDDLE EAST.
Sorry powerdoc. I'll relent. But you Ganondorf...get a clue. Or get a friend/relative/loved one blown into little zip-lock bags back to the states from one of these terrorists...and let us know how you'd feel then.
So according to your "reasoning", pirates that sink ships, and ships that counter them by sinking those pirate ships, are really operating on the same level. Both are up to no good
That depends on being able to accurately define who were the pirates and who was merely countering them. Your analogy uses an emotive term for the 'pirates' indicating an assumption that theirs is the first act of violence. In real life things are not so clear.
(If we were talking slave ships trading human misery, or pre-war Nazi supply ships would the ship sinkers be 'pirates' or heroes? Being in a position of authority does not auomatically make ones acts legitimate)
The fact that both sides in the middle East, Israelis and Palestinians, may plausably claim some legitimate grievance against the other muddies the water. Both parties justify their violence against the other - you did this to us first - we are fighting for our survival, blah blah blah. Who is the pirate?
A further problem for the people who advocate violence is the erroneous conflation of the acts of the leaders and the people they are supposed to represent. So long as the assumption is made that all Israelis are responsible for the percived injustices to the Palestinians and all Palestinians for those against the Israelis, there are no illegitimate targets, it is a war for survival.
Killing, when you do not have to is wrong. Here there are two groups doing it to each other but one of them obviously has the power to choose another option.
This man could have been arrested and tried.
(BTW. If I were rebuilding my walls because I was afraid that bad people would come onto my land and kill me...I'd build it nice and high, nice and sturdy and on my side of the divide.)
Israel is in a position to gain the support of most of the world, if only its leaders would refuse to live down to the worst standards of behaviour it has to face.
Originally posted by Zarathustra
That depends on being able to accurately define who were the pirates and who was merely countering them. Your analogy uses an emotive term for the 'pirates' indicating an assumption that theirs is the first act of violence. In real life things are not so clear.
(If we were talking slave ships trading human misery, or pre-war Nazi supply ships would the ship sinkers be 'pirates' or heroes? Being in a position of authority does not auomatically make ones acts legitimate)
The fact that both sides in the middle East, Israelis and Palestinians, may plausably claim some legitimate grievance against the other muddies the water. Both parties justify their violence against the other - you did this to us first - we are fighting for our survival, blah blah blah. Who is the pirate?
A further problem for the people who advocate violence is the erroneous conflation of the acts of the leaders and the people they are supposed to represent. So long as the assumption is made that all Israelis are responsible for the percived injustices to the Palestinians and all Palestinians for those against the Israelis, there are no illegitimate targets, it is a war for survival.
Killing, when you do not have to is wrong. Here there are two groups doing it to each other but one of them obviously has the power to choose another option.
This man could have been arrested and tried.
(BTW. If I were rebuilding my walls because I was afraid that bad people would come onto my land and kill me...I'd build it nice and high, nice and sturdy and on my side of the divide.)
Israel is in a position to gain the support of most of the world, if only its leaders would refuse to live down to the worst standards of behaviour it has to face.
So the palestinians have to kill jews? Please correct me if I am wrong, but that is the impression I get.
Is it that they can't help it? These suicide vests just fall out of the sky and land on them and they wander aimlessly until they get to a bunch of jews and their finger just happens to twitch and press that button? Or are they being forced to kill by the big bad wall?
If one of my relatives got mauled to death by a grizzly bear, perhaps I would be more sympathetic toward grizzly bears murdering Americans as well. But it ain't gonna happen.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Hate the US much?
You need to read up on that whole thing, it is well documented from many sources. Take your hate somewhere else.
Die. Please.
Originally posted by 709
Die. Please.
I will some day, if that is any consolation.
Let's see how many people will speak up about that last post.