babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Armed uprising denounced

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Armed uprising denounced
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 27 November 2002 06:52 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This just in:

Some common sense at last??

quote:
Yasser Arafat's top deputy said the armed uprising against Israel has been a mistake for the Palestinians and must be stopped, declaring it had held up Palestinian independence and let to a reoccupation of West Bank cities by Israeli troops.

Will a wave of rationality break out in the Middle East?

quote:
"If we do a calculation of the gains and losses ... we will see that without any doubt is that what we lost was big and what we gained was small," he said.
"We should ... ask ourselves where we are headed, not by beating ourselves up, but by reviewing the mistakes we have made."

This guy could replace both Arafat and Sharon at the same time.

quote:
For two years, Palestinian leaders and the public have strongly endorsed the intefadeh, or uprising, and public debate has been minimal, despite heavy losses. The fighting has put off any prospect of Palestinian independence in the near future, has left the economy in shambles and led to the reoccupation of most West Bank towns by Israeli troops, in retaliation for Palestinian attacks. Almost 2,000 Palestinians and more than 650 Israelis have been killed.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what have many of us been posting here forever

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: mandrake ]

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: mandrake ]


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 28 November 2002 05:28 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No responses to this thread? I guess the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli, U.S. bashers don't like to see anything positive that might burst their hate bubble. Their philosophy seems to be, "If you can't say something nasty, don't say anything."
From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 28 November 2002 05:37 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Aw, diddums.

Maybe because we don't equate opposition to Israel's OT policies with support for an armed uprising?

You said yourself:

quote:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what have many of us been posting here forever...

So, what's your point?
(Please don't answer that, I have no desire to get sucked into a completely pointless "debbate" over the Israel/Palestine issue.)

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: black_dog ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 28 November 2002 05:45 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh quit yer crying.

People start threads all the time that arent responded to. Usually because something exciting is going on somewhere else.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 28 November 2002 05:59 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Usually because something exciting is going on somewhere else.

So the possibility of peace isn't exciting?


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 28 November 2002 06:01 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
why yes it is. but sometimes people's attention is elsewhere.

Hey I feel your pain. I've had many threads I thought were important get no attention. But ya gotta deal.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 28 November 2002 10:20 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For my part, I think it's great. But peace isn't controversial.

If I see a topic that I find interesting and agreeable, I don't always reply. Nor do I expect that there will be replies to any such topics I may start.

Maybe I'm just burning out on discussing things in this realm, from Israeli-Palestine to Iraq. Either stating my opinions wouldn't be helpful (maybe because I've already done so repeatedly, or maybe because those opinions are already in play) or might actually cause problems by inflaming already blurry perceptions.

And at least in my case, there are plenty of folks here who say much the same things I would, and more eloquently.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 28 November 2002 11:07 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As an aside, I thought the PA was a virtual dictatorship, where Arafat was the sole figure of importance within a monolithic power structure.... According to our Zionist friends this fellow should be found hacked up in an Orange grove in a day or two, no?

Also, I disagreee with him.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 28 November 2002 11:11 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Also, I disagreee with him.

What's to disagree with. He's one of the few Palestinians who's making sense.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 28 November 2002 11:43 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
who, Arafat?
From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 29 November 2002 12:35 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, Mr. Abbas. The problem in the first place was renoucing the first intifada and signing a peace accord with the duplicitous, and deceitful Israeli's before havding the concrete deal worked out. The result was expanded settlments, and more lying and cheating on behalf of the Israeli's. That was the mistake.

Never surrender.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 29 November 2002 01:44 AM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: flotsom ]


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 29 November 2002 01:56 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No responses to this thread? I guess the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli, U.S. bashers don't like to see anything positive that might burst their hate bubble. Their philosophy seems to be, "If you can't say something nasty, don't say anything."

Yes, so unlike you. "Palestinian says Palestinians overwhelmingly support the armed uprising. Bad Palestinians. No state for you."


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
pericles
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3403

posted 29 November 2002 08:42 AM      Profile for pericles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pericles says:

It should come as no surprise that the second uprising has been a disaster. Guerilla operations -- and terrorist operations fall under this umbrella -- are always adopted by the weaker belligerent against the stronger until a full-scale conventional campaign can be fought. Once Israel started aggressively checkpointing entrance points into Israel from the Palestinian territories the ability of Palestinian insurgents to wage a successful campaign was essentially nullified. Why? First, because these kinds of tactics are only really useful when insurgents can operate freely in the enemy rear area; second, because of the aforementioned checkpointing, the staging areas of the insurgents has been clearly identified. This allows for the targeted application of force. Arafat and the PA grossly miscalculated their strategic position when they began the uprising and have paid dearly in terms of political credibility for the same.


From: somewhere | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 29 November 2002 08:54 AM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Never surrender.

A recipe for perpetual slaughter and never-ending war.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 29 November 2002 09:21 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We can agree on something, mandrake! Now, how do we get Arafat and Sharon to surrender to each other?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 29 November 2002 01:47 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Guerilla operations -- and terrorist operations fall under this umbrella -- are always adopted by the weaker belligerent against the stronger until a full-scale conventional campaign can be fought. Once Israel started aggressively checkpointing entrance points into Israel from the Palestinian territories the ability of Palestinian insurgents to wage a successful campaign was essentially nullified.

Interesting ideas. However two points:

1) Someone blew up the World Trade Center last year. That seems like a fairly effective 'rear' area operation.

2) Phrases like 'liberty or death' may sound like rallying cries that speak to higher ideal, but are usually the whimper of the totally desperate, without ideals.

One must ask oneself why young people, with a whole life ahead of them, would blow themselves up. It would seem that they do not feel that they have a 'whole life ahead of them' that is worth living for. Therefore, the action of a sucicide bombing is ultimately the action of someone who is not concerned with the political ramifications but with solving their own personal dilema while seeking revenge on those who they perceive as the cause of their dilema.

It may not be preventable, even if Hamas banned it as a means of resistance. If they did, another organization would take it up as means to a deadly end.

But on the topic of guerrilla war, Mao's war went on for 20 years, and in 1927 the CP of China was written of as a political force, over-awed by superior force and without a popular base. It was a war of will as much as anything else, in my view, and one where attrition, as opposed to specific tactical success was the deciding factor.

We will see, but my thinking leads me to believe that there will be a Palestine some day. Today Israel depends largely on the US for its strength. Allies of the US have a bad habit of falling out of favour, when it does not suit the policy goals of the US, Noreiga can tell you that.

Also, one has to ask: Can the US support such a huge burden of military outlay, if its domestic economy collapses?

And, will military operations, including Afghanistan, a potential Iraq, support for Israel, the war in Colombia and activity in the Philipines all culminate in precipitating such a collapse? Even now, the South American States are falling from its grasp, one by one, while the president singlemindedly pursues the oil fields of the Middle East. It was just such an over-extension that brought the Soviet Union to its knees.

The decision that Israel is faced with today is one of showing magnamity when it is strongest or not. If it does not, someday, its enemies may take advantage of its weakness.

We will see.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 29 November 2002 03:00 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
never unconditionally surrender?
From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 29 November 2002 03:06 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One thing that can be learned from the Palestinian uprising is that the PA does not represent Palestinians effectively. The history of the PLO shows that Arafat and friends care for nothing but power. They have given nothing back to the Palestinian people but more misery.

A Palestinian state is a possibility only because it seems to suit America's interests.

But I don't believe it will be the key to peace in the Middle-east, as many are hoping.
I imagine a Palestinian state will be just another oppresive autocracy like all the other Arab states. There are already far too many of them.

The only just way to have real peace in the region, is to make peace with the people, not the politicians.
That means formal recognotion of the injustices of Israel, and satisfactory compensation for the lives and livelihoods taken from the Palestinians. And whether the solution is one state, which would be ideal, or two states, peace should also mean equal rights, and, hopefully, an equal standard of living between the indeginous people and the colonizers of Palestine.

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
agent_saboteur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2588

posted 29 November 2002 03:10 PM      Profile for agent_saboteur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Once Israel started aggressively checkpointing entrance points into Israel from the Palestinian territories the ability of Palestinian insurgents to wage a successful campaign was essentially nullified.

really? because it seems like 'insurgents' are still pulling off suicide bombings, while the rest of the palestinians are losing their ability to get to hospitals, harvest fields, and attend schools.


From: behind you | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 29 November 2002 03:16 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The history of the PLO shows that Arafat and friends care for nothing but power.

Exactly the need for resistance was so great, that the people felt that Oslo was a sell out for an aging Arafat to retire under, and so the people turned to Hamas.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Section 49
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3186

posted 29 November 2002 03:24 PM      Profile for Section 49     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No, Mr. Abbas. The problem in the first place was renoucing the first intifada and signing a peace accord with the duplicitous, and deceitful Israeli's before havding the concrete deal worked out. The result was expanded settlments, and more lying and cheating on behalf of the Israeli's. That was the mistake.

Never surrender.


Just so I understand, all Israelis are deceitful and duplicitous? Or have I misunderstood you?


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 29 November 2002 03:29 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
One must ask oneself why young people, with a whole life ahead of them, would blow themselves up. It would seem that they do not feel that they have a 'whole life ahead of them' that is worth living for.

Did they come to this conclusion themselves, or were their minds made up for them. Why do you think it's mostly young people who sacrifice their lives for the cause? It's because they are so easily molded and manipulated and brainwashed. If logic drove suicide bombers, it would be the elders, nearing the end of their useful lives anyway, who would die for the cause, but they are too wise to needlessly sacrifice themselves for an increasingly futile objective.

Not only are the young homicide bombers, but they themselves were murdered by those whom they probably thought were their friends and mentors. They died so that those too cowardly to do the job could live and recruit ever more gullible dupes to do their bidding.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 29 November 2002 03:34 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Just so I understand, all Israelis are deceitful and duplicitous? Or have I misunderstood you?

No.

But the overall historical record shows:

A) That Israel is an agressive power with territorial ambition as a major theme.

B) That one government offers the olive branch of peace, only to have the next withdraw the deal.

The overall effect for the Arabs, is that Israel is decietful, if not by design then by a gradual, often unconscious process.

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 29 November 2002 03:41 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Did they come to this conclusion themselves, or were their minds made up for them.

Children do a lot more thinking for theselves than you would like to believe. Suicide bombing among other things is something of a fad, like bell bottom jeans, and rave music.

But, of course they are influenced by the society around them, and yes, are taught to hate Israel, but their is also usually catalysing incident, a death in the family, an uncle killed by the IDF for instance. To Mossad and the IDF he (the uncle) may be a terrorist, but Uncle Atif, is the friendly giving uncle who brings treats on holidays. The whole effect of the occupation is undending hopeless horror for the youth of Palestine. They kill themselves, not just because they hate Jews but also because they have been taught to hate themselves.

I think.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
pericles
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3403

posted 29 November 2002 03:44 PM      Profile for pericles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pericles says:

I shall respond to Moredreads later this evening as his message was of some length and his points must be addressed in depth; for the mean time, I will turn my attentions towards other Agents, as it were.

Suicide bombers may still be inflicting casualties on Israeli civilians, but you will note that I said "successful campaign." I do not define a successful insurgent campaign as one which merely continues to inflict civilian casualties; I rather define success as the ability to achieve the political and military objectives laid out at the beginning of the campaign.

As far as I have been able to determine, the net effect of the intifada has been to alienate support both in Israel and in the west for the peace process and to successfully characterize the Palestinian people as terrorists. Though Israeli civilians continue to die, I do not see the Israeli resolve slackening; quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. In attempting to eliminate support for the established government and instill a sense of terror in the civlian population (the latter objective is of primary importance in accomplishing the former in any insurgency operation) the Palestinians appear to have failed.

Above and beyond this, the campaign has led to widespread Israeli destruction of civilian infrastructure in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This is not a "good thing" for Palestine.

Insurgency requires stable and secure rear areas in which the insurgents can train new followers and manufacture weapons. It is critical that the opposing force not know where these rear areas are; this is why the Russians kept their partisan bases in WWII in inaccessible swamps, as an example. Mao himself said that "The guerilla must swim like a fish through the sea of the population" (roughly paraphrased). Ideally, partisans must be indistinguishable from ordinary civilians in order to successfully wage their campaign. The Israelis know who the insurgents are and where they are coming from, and as such and can check their attempts at terrorist action; they also know where the terrorist rear area is, and can apply targeted military force to this area. They have and retain the initiative, and I have no doubt that the intifada will end in failure for this reason.

The Israelis and the United States understand the tenets of guerilla warfare. The former has received an education in the same throughout its existence as a state; the latter synthesized latent anti-partisan strategic doctrine during the period after the Vietnam War. The irony of Vietnam was that the strategy required to win the war had been penned by US military personnel as early as 1961 -- I have an excellent book which indicates the same. I mention this fact as there is a recent real-world example of US understanding of counter-insurgency tactics: the campaign in Afghanistan. It wasn't about oil and it wasn't about revenge; it was about depriving Al-Qaeda of a stable rear area from which they could continue to mount further terrorist operations.

I apologize if I have left anything out; I will be more than happy to clarify my reasoning if requested.


From: somewhere | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 29 November 2002 03:55 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Suicide bombers may still be inflicting casualties on Israeli civilians, but you will note that I said "successful campaign." I do not define a successful insurgent campaign as one which merely continues to inflict civilian casualties; I rather define success as the ability to achieve the political and military objectives laid out at the beginning of the campaign.

The problem with the premis, is that the Intifada was chosen course of action. I believe in the begining, it was, when the stone throwing began, more or less a Palestinian sponsored event. However, Israel manipulated the 9/11 incident and used it as a cover to heighten repression. After that point the need to resist was more or less thrust upon them by Sharon.

There is a stark contrast between the vocal and sometimes violent demonstration that took place two years ago, and the suicide attacks of the last year. There was a sense of public display and protest two years ago, whereas today there is a sense of desperate urgency coming from a violently militant population under siege.

Again, I don't think it will stop until Israel withdraws.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 29 November 2002 04:08 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its the utter frustration.

Anyone who talks to Arabs, or listens to interviews about the situation in the middle-east, can sense that the most pervasive sentiment is frustartion.

Frustartion with their so-called leaders, who care for nothing but control.
Frustration with the US, and it allies, who support these leaders.
Frustartion that no one else is doing anything to relieve the ongoing injustice in the region.

I think this is what drives young people to violence.
They have no other example to follow.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 29 November 2002 04:11 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Children do a lot more thinking for theselves than you would like to believe. Suicide bombing among other things is something of a fad, like bell bottom jeans, and rave music.

I cannot belive some of the things I'm reading on various boards these days. The casual indifference to human suffering here is stunning. And your pro-palestinian? I'll think I'll skip your posts Moredreads. I don't think I'll be missing much.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 29 November 2002 04:19 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Israelis know who the insurgents are and where they are coming from, and as such and can check their attempts at terrorist action; they also know where the terrorist rear area is, and can apply targeted military force to this area. They have and retain the initiative, and I have no doubt that the intifada will end in failure for this reason.

This is doubtful in a number of ways.

The reason that Israel is killing so many bystanders is precisely because they do not know who the inssurgents are. Their targetting is not precise in the same way that French were in Algeria, for instance. There the French were able to decapitate the revolutionary movement by a series of quick arrest, not by bombing campaigns. It is exactly because of this ham-handedness, and the fact that the insurgents are, in fact, hidden within a sizable civilian population that Israel has embarked on the strategy on containement for the whole population and not the arrest if individual militants.

This method of operation is exactly parrallel to 'Strategic Hamlets' strategy used by the US during the Vietnam War -- the system adopted from the succesful British anti-communist campaign in Malaysia.

I will not quarrel with hypothetical, proposed counter-insurgency technics that may or may not have been succesful, had they been applied in Vietnam.

As for initiative etc., etc., I raised the issue of Mao's campaign because it came at the tale end of the massive defeat in Shanghai in 1927. At that time it was Chiang who held the initiative, and had overwhellming force. He lost in the end.

That was the point.

Among other things, to date, the Intifada has cost Israel 8 Billion dollars. In the end it may be just to damn expensive to continue.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
peacepiper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2489

posted 29 November 2002 04:22 PM      Profile for peacepiper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've got to try this innovative baiting technique to get responses to the 'no response' threads i started. Sometimes i don't see new threads for a few days or weeks.

ANyway. I would like to see a Ghandi style resistence - thousands of Palestinians blocking Israeli troops. It would be a great story. But, the media wouldn't cover it. And it would just make it easier for the Israeli Government (not the Israeli people) to continue the occupying, the bulldozing and re-building of 'settlements', the poverty, the lack of fresh water, the total lack of jobs, the humiliation, etc, etc. The best example is in Tibet where they've tried non-violent resistence for years. They are now being assimulated into Chinese culture, losing identity with Bhuddism, having railway lines and nightclubs built on one of the last serene places on earth - losing autonomy, and losing freedom forever.

So will non-violence work in the West Bank? Only when the Western powers and media are overthrown with the true voice of the people - The hundreds of thousands of, unheard/unseen in the mainstream, protesters who want peace, social justice, and freedom throughout the world. See Spain, Britain, Brazil, and even the, so far, dissapointing Canadian protests.

Why has the media NOT ONCE tried to explain the roots of third world "terrorism" - poverty, desperation, oppression? Or the terrorism that's instigated by Western powers? Why? How do we get the 60's and 70's back. When the media COULD and WOULD show the true faces of American presidents and the total futility of Vietnam. The corporate media, aka- what the Government wants us to hear, feeds more "terrorists" by making the average westerner a Terrorist - get it? What happened to the CBC and This Hour has 7 Days from the 70's. Now we're stuck with 'no news, CNN filtered, Mansbridge'.

We in the West are the ones who need to make that change. Change for the helpless in those third world countries. Because we still have some freedom left. And our non-violent resistence is starting to work. More and more people are protesting, the media can't ignore us much longer. And the "homeland security" types are very afraid. They will and are doing everything in their power (which is a lot) to stop us. An example is the non-violent Jaggi Singh, who isn't allowed to "use a megaphone or be a leader" - those are his bail conditions.

The January protest will be the biggest in Canada. Be there. It's the only way. We are a media driven culture, and it's sad. Examples are all the high school anorexics. And the more blatant "Fight terrorism with Terrorism" bandwagon - people are easily scared into buying anything<--in both ways.

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: peacepiper ]


From: fd | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 29 November 2002 04:27 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I cannot belive some of the things I'm reading on various boards these days.

You don't believe its a fad? They have posterboys, they have key chains, they have amulets, etc. All the things that kids in the west have except their heros blow themselves up. They are the rock stars of Palestinian youth, just like Kurt Cobain, who also, you should note killed himself.

Its nihilistic and its crazy and its ugly and its very, very sick and Israel is a very big part of the sickness and you can't just pin it on Arafat, sorry.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
peacepiper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2489

posted 29 November 2002 04:27 PM      Profile for peacepiper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
AND I WANT PEOPLE TO RESPOND TO WHAT I SAID, DAMMIT!
From: fd | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 29 November 2002 04:39 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It wasn't about oil and it wasn't about revenge; it was about depriving Al-Qaeda of a stable rear area from which they could continue to mount further terrorist operations.

And finally, this is what you don't understand about gurilla war. For the Guerilla there is no rear area, only the front. It is all front. This is one of the things Mao meant when he made the 'big fish' analogy, that you paraphrased earlier.

I suggest you read 'On Guerilla War' you will not see the phrase 'rear' area anywhere in it, nor anything about supply lines or anything else, they forage and they steal. They train in the battlefield, or die, in the case of the suicide bombers, the latter is of no consequence, obvioulsy

The front has now moved to Pakistan, it moved to Bali last month and earlier this week it was in Kenya.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 29 November 2002 07:01 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
They kill themselves, not just because they hate Jews but also because they have been taught to hate themselves.

Brainwashing?

quote:
They have posterboys, they have key chains, they have amulets, etc. All the things that kids in the west have except their heros blow themselves up. They are the rock stars of Palestinian youth, just like Kurt Cobain, who also, you should note killed himself.

Exactly so. The Palestinians have created this culture of 'martyr'-worship, just as the West has created the cult of hero-worship of athletes and entertainers. Fans would do almost anything for their heroes. And just as in the West, young, impressionable Palestinian minds are manipulated to do what no rational human being would be willing to do. I repeat; this is why most of the homicide bombers turn out to be youngsters.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 29 November 2002 07:50 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Frustration and desperation are more significant factors, in my opinion. Hero-worship only follows in their wake; similar fads in the US are often involved with escapism. "If I were a pop star, I wouldn't have to worry about school."

This isn't to trivialize youth, nor to suggest that they aren't being preyed upon. But their vulnerability to be preyed upon comes from the pressures of frustration and despair.

And we need to be doing more than just observing their desperate situation. Unfortunately, that means getting those in power, in the middle east and in the west, to be willing to do more.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
pericles
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3403

posted 30 November 2002 04:08 PM      Profile for pericles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pericles, speaking again on the subject of guerilla war, says:

Although in terms of pure strategic concept there is supposed to be no rear area in insurgency wars the historical record of such conflicts indicates the difference between concept and reality. Examples:

"Permanent camp sites for larger units were carefully chosen for concealment, inaccessibility to the enemy, defensibility, and quick route of escape. these installations studded the partisan areas behind the German lines in marshes, impassable woods, gorges, and hidden caverns. They were usually protected by mine fields, strategically placed observation posts, and weapons emplacements. Smaller units, on the other hand, made practically no defensive preparations for their camps, relying instead on concealment, an alert guard, and mobility for escape if attacked." -- Brooks McClure, "Russia's Hidden Army," 1949.

"The guerilla base is the most highly developed and complex form of organization for guerilla warfare. In the overall plan, the base forms the actual rear for the guerilla forces, and is indispensable for the existence and development of this form of warfare. The Eighth Route Army broke its major control down into eleven large semi-self-sustaining bases known as 'Anti-Japanese Bases.' From these bases military, political and civil officers engaged in one or another phase of guerilla activity. The military spread out and took charge of independent guerilla units in the area. . . Most of the fighting from these bases and areas consisted of individual small-scale operations." Gene Z. Hanrahan - "The Chinese Red Army and Guerilla Warfare," 1951.

"Taking advantage of the situation, and favored by the fact that heavy snowfall had rendered many routes impassable, the Communists were able to gain complete control over large mountain areas, whence they would frequently emerge to the nearby plains to raid villages or harass troups. A study of the positions thus occupied reveals that they extended progressively southward, reacing out towards the ultimate objective - Athens, the capital. Moreover, an unbroken network of mountain corridors linked hte strongholds to one another and to the northern frontier; not all the corridors were under Communist control, but the guerilla bands had comparative ease of movement and supply from the north." -- Alexander Papagos, "Guerilla Warfare in Greece," 1952.

"French internal military and political problems and, importantly, outside Arab League financial and political support have helped sustain the rebel cause. Bases in the Tunisian and Moroccan santuaries obviously are crucial." -- Peter Braestrup, "Partisan Tactics - Algerian Style," 1960.

"The MRLA, upon taking up its abode in the jungle, reactivated and extended its wartime network of campsites, which were ingeniously camouflaged against air attacks and carefully defended against ground approach . . . As [British Army Regulars] approached a guerrilla campsite, a sentry fired a warning shot and a small rear guard held the track for a few minutes while most of hte fighters made their getatway to another campsite, perhaps one which they had abandoned weeks or months previously." -- James E. Dougherty, "The Guerilla War in Malaya," 1958.

In light of the above I claim that the assertion that there is no "rear area" in guerilla wars is a false one. Every army -- even an irregular one -- requires a rear area in which they can concentrate supplies, train new members and engage in political indoctrination of their conscripts; this area was North Vietnam in that conflict, and it was Afghanistan for al-Qaeda. That the "front has moved" only speaks to this conclusion; the insurgents were forced to relocate since their stable rear area had been deprived of them. In the case of Mao's army in China, Chaing's loss of the initiative can be traced to two things: the desire of regular armies to protect cities, which guerillas are not interested in doing, and the territorial vastness of China itself, which made holding every square inch of territory an impossibility. The differences between these situations and the Palestinian situation is as follows:
1) The Palestinians are located in an exceptionally small territory;
2) Access from this territory to greater Israel can be checkpointed by the numerically-superior IDF;
3) As the IDF knows where the insurgent rear areas are and has precision weapons at its disposal, "targeted assassinations" can, and have been carried out quite successfully.

The problem with Israel withdrawing from the Palestinian territories is that it will only encourage further terrorist attacks. The objective of Palestinian militants is not just to carve out their own state inside Israel; the intention is to eliminate the state of Israel as a whole, as the Arab world has been unsuccessfully trying to do since 1948. If the Israelis fall back the Palestinians will interpret the retreat as being in response to their tactics, and this will only encourage further attacks while weakening Israel's strategic position, which at this time is supreme.

As to containment, this is only one element of the Israeli strategic response to terrorism; contrary to your assertion, the other side of is the arrest of Palestinian militants and the assassination of particularly violent or distasteful types. Every time the Israelis have led incursions into PA-controlled territory or UN refugee camps they have siezed weaponry and made arrests, often of dozens of suspected militants.

Incidentally, the French targeting in Algeria can't have been terribly precise as a) they lost the campaign and b) the majority of French troops stationed in Algeria were either defending fortresses or cities. Traditional light-infantry search-and-destroy operations were of secondary importance, and this is one of the mistakes that cost them the war. In addition, the guerillas had rear areas in Morocco and Tunisia, as indicated previously; these regions were beyond the reach of the French military due to the territorial sovereignty of these nations. The US attempted to learn from these mistakes by inserting special operations groups into Laos during the later stages of the Vietnam war; this was insufficient, however, as the US was unwilling to bring the war in a conventional fashion to North Vietnam itself.

As I have stated previously, guerilla war is adopted by the weaker belligerent until the initiative of the stronger one has been sapped and the guerilla force has grown to a size sufficient to mount conventional campaigns; this was true in China, and it would have been true in Vietnam had the disastrous Tet offensive not completely destroyed the Viet Minh as an effective fighting force. The Palestinians will never be able to convert their guerilla operations to conventional ones; this is not the only reason why the intifada will fail, but it is the best one. As to the cost of sustaining the Israeli response against terrorism, I don't think it's a major concern to them; they can always depend on the US for assistance in terms of materiel, and the US will always support Israel as it is the middle east's only democracy.


From: somewhere | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 30 November 2002 07:43 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Alhough, I would dispute on points your conception of a rear area, in the specific, it would take some time.

One example of an error, is your example of the 8th route army. The period described is the period when it was fighting the Japanese, and had been incorporated in the larger defence of China. They were actually being supplied and supported as a regualr army not a guerilla army, as there was a truce between the communists and Chiang. They were not in fact fighting a guerilla war at the time and the army was reorganized for fighting the Japanese.

Hence te use of the term: 'Anti-Japanese Bases.'

There are others areas that I could dispute but that is one example of insufficient research.

However, the main point that you are missing is that most of these wars were won and lost due to larger strategic consideration, not the specific tactical formulation, whatever advantages or disadvantages either side may have had due to logistic or topographical consideration. Cost is one of the biggest factors.

For instance the French lost in Algeria, not because they weren't winning the war (because they clearly were) but because the could not afford the expense of maintaining an empire, while there was no will for it in France.

The same is true of the US in Vietnam, as you say the Tet offensive was a disaster for the Viet Cong* as the Viet Cong was destroyed but also a revelation for the US. The revelation was that there was not going to be a quick and easy victory for the USA, which withdrew because the overiding cost of pacifying Vietnam was way beyond any forseable benefit. Again the cost of the war was the preminent cause of defeat, not tactical considerations or methods of warfare.

As for Palestine, as I said before, so far the recent Intifada has cost the Israeli's 8 Billion dollars -- there is more to come.

As a friend of mine said of Afghanistan, what is the cost benefit of using a $50,000 bomb to destory a $50 tent?

quote:
The problem with Israel withdrawing from the Palestinian territories is that it will only encourage further terrorist attacks. The objective of Palestinian militants is not just to carve out their own state inside Israel; the intention is to eliminate the state of Israel as a whole, as the Arab world has been unsuccessfully trying to do since 1948.

This is mostly paranoid fantasy. Many people believe this, since its founding in 1967, the PLO has never suggestted driving he "Jews" into the sea, they have rejected the errection of Jewish state. They have always proposed a secular state in its place, one where Muslim Arabs, Christian Arabs and Jews are equal under the law. Every PLO document supports this.

Hamas is another story.

quote:
As the IDF knows where the insurgent rear areas are and has precision weapons at its disposal, "targeted assassinations" can, and have been carried out quite successfully.

They have certainly been very effective at killing people but so far they have not in fact reduced the number of attacks against Israeli's. In other words they serve to terrorize Palestinians, but do not secure Israeli's. In fact it would seem that as of last week, Israeli's are vulnerable to attacks worldwide. Collateral damage ensures the creation of new militants every day, thus replacing those killed in the atacks. In the end these methods create more militants not less.

*not Minh BTW, Minh being the organization oragnization specifically raised by Ho to fight the Japanese and the French. Cong being the organization created in the South after 1960 as a seperate political entity to fight the war against the US, et al. Of course it is clearly linked influenced by Hanoi, but it is actually a seperate organization -- bet your ass there were more than a few smiling faces in Hanoi when the Viet Cong got crushed during Tet)

Link here for a great site on the Viet Minh, and one of the best for reference to guerilla war theory, from the people who make it happen.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 30 November 2002 08:22 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is mostly paranoid fantasy. Many people believe this, since its founding in 1967, the PLO has never suggestted driving he "Jews" into the sea, they have rejected the errection of Jewish state. They have always proposed a secular state in its place, one where Muslim Arabs, Christian Arabs and Jews are equal under the law. Every PLO document supports this.

Hamas is another story.


Every PLO document? Dream on. Fatah and Hamas have concurrent goals, it's just that Fatah is more circumspect in their operations (remember the shipload of arms the Israelis intercepted - directly traced back to Arafat?). Fatah never claims direct credit for a terrorist act, they leave that to others. As for the 'paranoid fantasy' statement, just try living over there for a few months and see how 'paranoid' you get.

quote:
They have certainly been very effective at killing people but so far they have not in fact reduced the number of attacks against Israeli's. In other words they serve to terrorize Palestinians, but do not secure Israeli's. In fact it would seem that as of last week, Israeli's are vulnerable to attacks worldwide. Collateral damage ensures the creation of new militants every day, thus replacing those killed in the atacks. In the end these methods create more militants not less.

So what do you suggest; unconditional surrender by Israel?


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 November 2002 08:30 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Witnesses: Israeli Troops Kill Palestinian Teen

quote:
JERUSALEM — A 16-year-old Palestinian boy was shot and killed Saturday on his way home from school east of Gaza city, and another was wounded, hospital officials said.

Witnesses said Israeli soldiers fired on the teenagers as they walked with a group of schoolchildren about 700 yards from an Israeli army outpost at the Karni Crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Military sources said soldiers fired warning shots at the teens when they neared a border fence. The military was investigating the incident.



From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
xrcrguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1562

posted 30 November 2002 09:49 PM      Profile for xrcrguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So what do you suggest; unconditional surrender by Israel?

quote:
JERUSALEM — A 16-year-old Palestinian boy was shot and killed Saturday on his way home from school east of Gaza city, and another was wounded, hospital officials said.
Witnesses said Israeli soldiers fired on the teenagers as they walked with a group of schoolchildren about 700 yards from an Israeli army outpost at the Karni Crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Military sources said soldiers fired warning shots at the teens when they neared a border fence. The military was investigating the incident.


surrender by whom?

No one is suggesting that civilians aren't being targetted, on either side, but certanly this is crossing the line:

quote:
In violence Saturday, witnesses said several schoolchildren were walking about 700 yards from an Israeli army outpost at the Karni Crossing east of Gaza City when soldiers fired at them.



*my bold

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: xrcrguy ]


From: Believe in ideas, not ideology | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
DJStealth
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3309

posted 30 November 2002 09:56 PM      Profile for DJStealth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
With respect to that teen that was killed. It's tragic. We'll see what comes out of the investigation. Keep in mind this was an act of an individual not done on any orders. But it's interesting to note that CNN reports him as "Bird Hunting on the road". Does that not seem somewhat suspicious?
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 30 November 2002 10:06 PM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A second boy was hit with a bullet in the back, they said, and was hospitalized.

(From DrC's link)

What is more cowardly than shooting a child in the back? Sickening.


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
xrcrguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1562

posted 30 November 2002 10:19 PM      Profile for xrcrguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
have you ever paced out 700 yards?
Either the soldiers greatly over-reacted or they have decided that the border fence should be a killzone.
Unacceptable either way
Edited to add:
the fact that CNN reported the boy as "bird hunting" is irrelevant, is that the type of excuses we are supposed to accept? That's an unacceptable justification.

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: xrcrguy ]


From: Believe in ideas, not ideology | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 30 November 2002 11:04 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What is more cowardly than shooting a child in the back? Sickening.

How about blowing up a bus carrying kids to school? How about setting a bomb in a pizza joint full of kids and mothers? How about bombing a wedding? How about setting off a bomb in a crowded street, then another when rescuers arrive? You want to trade stories of sickening and cowardly behaviour. For every one you come up with, I'll bet I can come up with three atrocities committed by the terrorists you appear to love so much (and none of them will involve errors in targeting or recognition).

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: mandrake ]


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 30 November 2002 11:21 PM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How about blowing up a bus carring kids to school? How about setting a bomb in a pizza joint full of kids and mothers? How about bombing a wedding? How about setting off a bomb in a crowded street, then another when rescuers arrive? You want to trade stories of sickening and cowardly behaviour. For every one you come up with, I'll bet I can come up with three atrocities committed by the terrorists you appear to love so much (and none of them will involve errors in targeting or recognition).

Each of the atrocities you have listed are as wrong and cowardly as shooting a child in the back. No question. Worse, though, maybe in scale, but not in intent or depravity.

I'm not trying to get in a pissing match over who can name the most heinous activities, no matter who committed them. I was simply stating my feelings in regards to what I read. If you can't accept that, you show yourself to be a very small person indeed.

And I really resent the statement that I love the terrorists. That is completely uncalled for, and I expect, no demand, an apology for that slander.


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 30 November 2002 11:26 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For every one you come up with, I'll bet I can come up with three atrocities committed by the terrorists you appear to love so much (and none of them will involve errors in targeting or recognition).

Which is why approximately three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have died since 2000. Right.

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
xrcrguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1562

posted 30 November 2002 11:35 PM      Profile for xrcrguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The killing of children only serve galvanize the extremist responses on both sides.
Priorities should not be on enforcing curfews in the occupied territories. There are many options Israel could be exercising. Such as evacuating the settlements, as a way of easing tensions.

IMO I think the onus is on the IDF as a vastly superior force to conduct themselves in at least a semi-respectable manner


From: Believe in ideas, not ideology | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 November 2002 11:44 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Not only are the young homicide bombers, but they themselves were murdered by those whom they probably thought were their friends and mentors. They died so that those too cowardly to do the job could live and recruit ever more gullible dupes to do their bidding.

I agree with this entirely. On the other hand, I think it's even more cowardly to pick off children with a rifle knowing that you're going to survive and probably only get a slap on the wrist if you make up some flimsy excuse.

As for calling the 16 year old a "child" - I'm not so sure about that. This is a part of the world where women sometimes get married at 13 years old. My ex was a soldier when he was 17. I assume if the boy was "hunting birds" then he probably had a gun. And some 16 year olds look like adults - the sight of an adult with a gun...

I don't know. This one does sound somewhat ambiguous to me, unless I've got the facts wrong.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 30 November 2002 11:50 PM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well Michelle, I stopped for a minute before writing 'child', but the article I quoted said "boy" and did not give his age, but I figured 'boy' referred to a child, otherwise they would have said 'young man' but then it was fox so... I don't know. Either way it was a very shitty thing to do.
From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 01 December 2002 12:02 AM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And I really resent the statement that I love the terrorists. That is completely uncalled for, and I expect, no demand, an apology for that slander.

You only seem to post statements that are anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian. You never spare any sympathy for dead Israeli, but find ways to justify anything the terrorists do. If the slander fits, wear it!


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 December 2002 12:09 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And you love dead Palestinian children, mandrake. Congratulations, you defend child-killers.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 01 December 2002 12:22 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mandrake, I stand on my record. I have denounced violence by both sides in this conflict, and will continue to do so.

If you are not brave enough to apologize on the board in front of everyone, at least have the cajones to PM me with a recantation of your allegation, and I will not bring it up again.


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
xrcrguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1562

posted 01 December 2002 12:28 AM      Profile for xrcrguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's utter nonsense!

No one here at babble supports terrorism but your a fool if you refuse to address the root causes to the problem.


From: Believe in ideas, not ideology | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
DJStealth
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3309

posted 01 December 2002 02:01 AM      Profile for DJStealth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You must also look at the difference in the case of terrorist ordered to kill as many Jews as possible versus isolated cases where IDF did something wrong as individuals (not by orders). There will be an investigation into it, and chances are that this "child" that was 16 years old was shooting at something other than birds.

But if you were to see a case of a 16 year old here in North America shooting birds on the side of the street, and a cop walks by not knowing what he's shooting at, you'd have to wonder what would happen?

It's like those 'kids' (16, 17 years old) last year hiding in the cemetary at midnight shooting mortar shells at an Israeli villiage. You have to wonder why they were injured.

It's a shame that they're braught up in their childhoold to handle such weapons. It's even more of a shame when they abuse those weapons and get hurt.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 01 December 2002 02:38 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In violence Saturday, witnesses said several schoolchildren were walking about 700 yards from an Israeli army outpost at the Karni Crossing east of Gaza City when soldiers fired at them.

A 16-year-old boy died after he was hit in the abdomen and leg, hospital officials said. A second boy was hit with a bullet in the back, they said, and was hospitalized.

Military sources said soldiers fired warning shots in the air at the teens when they neared a border fence but didn't think anyone was injured. They said an investigation was started after learning that someone had been killed. {emphasis mine}


Ok if the 16 year old that was killed was shooting a gun, (as CNNsays) there was a second boy shot in the back. There is no suggestion that this boy is doing anything besides walking 700 metres from a fence. At the very least the IDF soldiers are claiming that they shot indiscriminately

quote:
fired warning shots in the air at the teens when they neared a border fence but didn't think anyone was injured

(if they didn't know anyone was injured, they did not watch where they shot - more likely they did know exactly where they shot; they targetted these children/teenagers) into a crowd of schoolchildren. How can you apologize for this event, in either scenario, and accuse me of supporting terrorism for finding it repugnant?

From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
xrcrguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1562

posted 01 December 2002 02:40 AM      Profile for xrcrguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's like those 'kids' (16, 17 years old) last year hiding in the cemetary at midnight shooting mortar shells at an Israeli villiage. You have to wonder why they were injured

cite this please, if your going to justify the killing of minor children, at least do us the courtesy of sourcing these claims

From: Believe in ideas, not ideology | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
DJStealth
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3309

posted 01 December 2002 03:08 AM      Profile for DJStealth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's like those 'kids' (16, 17 years old) last year hiding in the cemetary at midnight shooting mortar shells at an Israeli villiage. You have to wonder why they were injured
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


cite this please, if your going to justify the killing of minor children, at least do us the courtesy of sourcing these claims



Sorry, it was over a year ago, I'll have to get back to you on that one; however, I don't ever justify killing anybody who is unarmed. The point is there were mortar shells shooting at Israelis coming from a cemetary at midnight. The IDF fired back. Palistinian news agency later reports that schoolchildren were injured by the IDF not stating the time, location or context. If I find the article, I'll post it.

From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
xrcrguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1562

posted 01 December 2002 03:31 AM      Profile for xrcrguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
DJStealth: Please do

Michelle: I would also argue the other side of the coin that the IDF conscripts are mainly "kids", probably being 18-19 years old. Being conscripts, many probably feel "It is better to be judged by six than buried by twelve".


From: Believe in ideas, not ideology | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
DJStealth
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3309

posted 01 December 2002 03:45 AM      Profile for DJStealth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
xrc, in Israel, killing anyone innocent is a serious crime, reguardless whether or not you are military. These 18-21 year old conscripts (they serve 3 years) surely know how serious it is to cause loss of life to any innocent civilian. There have been cases in the past where IDF soldiers were jailed for shooting innocent Arabs.

On the other hand, maybe they simply screwed up; or maybe they even had valid reason to shoot. I simply just don't know enough about this particular situation.

On a sidenote, It's very interesting what the media requirements are to get into (or out of) the PA territories. If the PA doesn't like a story that you write, they simply don't let you (and your company) back in; as a result, many journalists are forced to leave out important information from their stories.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
xrcrguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1562

posted 01 December 2002 04:17 AM      Profile for xrcrguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
or you can just shoot them
From: Believe in ideas, not ideology | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
DJStealth
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3309

posted 01 December 2002 04:52 AM      Profile for DJStealth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That works too..

I heard about a few cases where Palistinians shot journalists. Didn't mention it because I don't remmeber where I heard it from..

but an interesting quote in that article..

quote:
IPI also criticized Palestinian authorities, saying them seem "oversensitive to media criticism of their form of government." The organization urged Palestinian leaders to "end their arbitrary detention and intimidation of journalists and should refrain from closing or censoring media outlets."

This is a more common scene.

From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
xrcrguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1562

posted 01 December 2002 05:07 AM      Profile for xrcrguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In addition, IPI reported 43 "incidents of journalists being shot" since late September, adding that "all but one of these shootings [was] probably carried out by Israeli armed forces."



BTW This figure is from July 30, 2001

There is a difference you know, from censoring and targeting journalists.

I'm not defending the crimes of either side but there's a lot that could be done about Israeli heavy handedness.

You would have us believe that these are isolated incidents when in fact these "isolated incidents" are occuring on a regular basis.
Edited to add:
I'm curious to know how many times something has to occur before it comes "common".

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: xrcrguy ]


From: Believe in ideas, not ideology | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
DJStealth
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3309

posted 01 December 2002 05:33 AM      Profile for DJStealth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't hear about it very often, but I do hear about those cases of Journalists hurt in either crossfire from unknown source, or being targetted by Palistinians who dislike their reporting. It's unfortunate, these people (hopefully) only want to tell a true story.

The PA probably won't do anything about it because of their policies against journalists who report against their favour. The IDF can't do very much except restrict journalists to certain areas away from live conflict.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DJStealth
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3309

posted 01 December 2002 05:34 AM      Profile for DJStealth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"all but one of these shootings [was] probably carried out by Israeli armed forces."

Sorry, couldn't help, but I just noticed this.

Did you spot the word "PROBABLY"? What kind of journalism uses the word "PROBABLY"? That's obviously someone trying to impinge a bias on its readers. GET THE FACTS, CHECK THE FACTS, then report them.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 06:58 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't hear about it very often, but I do hear about those cases of Journalists hurt in either crossfire from unknown source, or being targetted by Palistinians who dislike their reporting.

Uh huh. You have sources for this, I suppose?


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 08:15 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've been sitting self-imposed exile for a while after asking to be banned from this site (there were some remarks made that I thought were hate speech against Americans).

Anyhow Audra apparently did not ban me. The lure of intelligent debate is just too strong (even i I disagree with 50% of what is said here).

Minigun is back--and waiting to be bashed.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 01 December 2002 08:22 AM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Minigun is back--and waiting to be bashed.


Shouldn't that be fired?


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 08:32 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Glad you changed your mind, minigun.

We "excessive socialists" aren't so bad...really.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 08:38 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Smith:

The ends (goals) of socialism are admirable. It's the means that cause me grief.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 08:49 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Fatah and Hamas have concurrent goals, it's just that Fatah is more circumspect in their operations (remember the shipload of arms the Israelis intercepted - directly traced back to Arafat?).

Prove this. Show us source documentation that proves Hamas and the PLO have 'concurrent goals.' You are just speculating and feeding annihilation paranoia. your proof (the arms shipment) is flawed: Possessing weapons is evidence of means not intent. Or are you suggesing that any armed person is bent on a religious crusade against Israel.

I'll remind you that many Australians are heavily armed. Perhaps Sharon should be conducting counter-terrrorism activities there as well.

Hamas and Fatah are clearly in competition for the hearts and minds of Palestinain youth. One has to ask why they would be seperate organizations if they had the same objectives.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 08:53 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We "excessive socialists" aren't so bad

Nor are we soldiers. I spent Friday night getting drunk with some of my wife's friends (she is black): African-American Marines who are preparing to ship out for the Gulf next week.

I know how much my type is reviled here, but I can guanrantee you that these men (and one woman) dealry want a quick, bloodless end to this campaign.

I regaled them with some stories of my own (I was a Kiowa pilot in Desert Storm). The people of Iraq are no different than any of us here--but I guarantee you that they long to be free of Saddam Hussein. I personally heard that from POW's (in their halting English) in 1991.

An aside: I would like to say semper fi to any Marines who read this site, but of course I cannot since I was lowly Army


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 08:59 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moredreads:

I don't want to over-simplify, but at some point it really does come down to this: either you believe and apologize for known terroists, or you believe Australia, the United States, the UK, etc.

We (the good guys) don't have to produce documentation. We are the good guys axiomatically. It is up to terrorists to renounce terror, not up to us to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that they are nefarious.

We have enough evidence. I personally am probably going to re-enlist. My business and my family will suffer immensely. Putting an end to terror is woth it.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 09:08 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I know how much my type is reviled here

You know, I really don't have a problem with soldiers. I respect them greatly.

It's those who send them, and who lie to us about why they're sending them, who upset me.

See the "sons and mothers" thread.

quote:

The people of Iraq are no different than any of us here--but I guarantee you that they long to be free of Saddam Hussein.

Oh, yes, I know that well. But we cannot ignore our complicity in keeping him in power, nor can we pretend the US government doesn't have ulterior motives.

As for us "excessive socialists" - I don't see what the difference is between us and the States in that regard, except that we have government-run health care (for practices the government deems medically necessary; for elective procedures like plastic surgery, we have private clinics) and all our universities are run like state schools in the US (if you didn't have to be in-state to pay in-state tuition). And The US government actually spends as much, if not more, of its revenues on health care as we do.

So what, exactly, is your problem with us?

We are often portrayed by the American media as some kind of socialist dystopia where everyone is poor (incidentally, our GNP per capita is a third lower, not 50% lower as you once claimed, and that's not taking into account differences in cost of living) and it's impossible to run a business. This is simply not true.

quote:
We (the good guys) don't have to produce documentation. We are the good guys axiomatically.

That was once true. I'd say that after Iran, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc., we have plenty of reason to distrust you "good guys."

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 09:16 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well then, if your world is axiomatic and based on apriori principals beyond dispute then there is not need for you to argue, explain or elucidate any of your thinking, as there is none.

In the light of this: Why post?

Now why don't you go and re-enlist, like a good boy, because there are also a great number of people in the Middle East who also live in a world of axiomatic apriori principals beyond dispute. However you and they disagree. Funny that.

Perhaps a cronosynclasticinfundibulum (K. Vonegut -- Sirens of Titan) will appear over Baghdad and you, and your counterparts, will miraculously discover that in fact you do agree on one very essential point: That you, and they are stupid.

Besides I denounce the terorists daily. I'll do it again: Sharon is an ass.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 09:20 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
we cannot ignore our complicity in keeping him in power, nor can we pretend the US government doesn't have ulterior motives

Yes and yes. But two wrongs don't make a right. Just because we propped up dictators in the past does not prevent us from learning from our mistakes and taking action to depose them now (as we deposed the racist and misogynist Taliban).

Ulterior motives? It would be naive in the extreme to assume that our government is pure of motive--but hat makes us human, not evil

We are self-interested to an extent, but we also would like people world-wide to share on some of the bounty that we have fought and died to secure: freedom, prosperity and justice (never perfect, but good in comparison to others).

Americans generally--and I personally--have a particular admiration and even love for Canadians. We are not the ones calling Canadians war criminals, imperialists, etc.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 09:25 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In the light of this: Why post?

Americans--and Canadians--have fought, and will continue to fight for the right of sites like this to exist.

I do not abhor debate by any means. But life is short and there are times when words must backed with action.

I just hope they've fixed the bug in the collective on the Kiowa--that sucker scared the shit out of me more than Iraqi fire did.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 09:28 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canadians are imperialist and war criminals, as well. The act of its creation as a county was an imperialist act, ask the Indians.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 09:31 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes and yes. But two wrongs don't make a right. Just because we propped up dictators in the past does not prevent us from learning from our mistakes and taking action to depose them now (as we deposed the racist and misogynist Taliban).

But the fact that you propped up dictators in the past does make it understandable that the rest of the world would expect you to do it again, no?

quote:

Ulterior motives? It would be naive in the extreme to assume that our government is pure of motive--but hat makes us human, not evil

It doesn't make you human unless you can acknowledge it. I hear no humility, no uncertainty coming from Bush. Or from you, for that matter. We are Good; They are Evil. From such simplistic thoughts are terrors made.

quote:

Americans generally--and I personally--have a particular admiration and even love for Canadians. We are not the ones calling Canadians war criminals, imperialists, etc.

No, you call us freeloaders, pussies and Communists.

As for "war criminals" and "imperialists," I've never heard of Canada conspiring to depose a democratically appointed leader and prop up a military dictator in another country. Maybe we would have if we could have. But as far as I know, we didn't.

quote:
Canadians are imperialist and war criminals, as well. The act of its creation as a county was an imperialist act, ask the Indians.

Oui, vraiment.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 09:32 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moredreads:


In an abstract sense you are correct. But you can also dredge up past sins in any and all human societies. We cannot re-write history from 1620 onward. We cannot all go back to Europe (or in my wife's case, Africa). What's done is done. I fully support the right of American Indians to seek reasonable redress. But I also personally know some Indians. One is a lawyer, another a carpenter. Frankly I don't think either is particularly interested in ripping Western civilization apart so that they can recapture some idyllic past.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: minigun ]


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 09:35 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The point is, it was a long time ago, and we admit it, and we no longer hold ourselves up as The Ideal Society, A City On A Hill.

Americans, on the other hand, denounce our prime minister when he suggests that poverty and social injustice may contribute to terrorism. For many of them, there is absolutely nothing wrong with America but the jealousy of those outside it.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 09:38 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In an abstract sense you are correct. But you can also dredge up past sins in any and all human societies. We cannot re-write history from 1620 onward. We cannot all go back to Europe (or in my wife's case, Africa). What's done is done.

Exactly! And under this principal alone, the motive of all Zionist ambitions, the reclaimation of land lost thousands of years ago, is a total fraud.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 09:39 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It doesn't make you human unless you can acknowledge it. I hear no humility, no uncertainty coming from Bush. Or from you, for that matter.

You won't hear it from Bush, just you didn't hear from Churchill. Neither minced words when it came to reisiting those who murder in the name of, repsectively, Nazism or Islamic fascism.

You will hear it from me. I am a veritable Proust when it comes to examining and re-examining my country's role in the world. I am the one who is called a pussy by my fellow soldiers because of my left-leaning views. But I have also proved myself to them. I did not flinch when we were almost shot down. And I did not hesitate to retuen deadly fire.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 09:43 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OH-58D Kiowa Warrior

The OH-58D Kiowa Warrior is a two-place single engine armed reconnaissance helicopter. The OH-58D's highly accurate navigation system permits precise target location that can be handed-off to other engagement systems. The OH-58D has an infrared thermal imaging capability and can display night vision goggle flight reference symbology. It's laser designator/laser rangefinder can provide autonomous designation for laser-guided precision weapons. Air-to-Air Stinger (ATAS) issiles provide the Kiowa Warrior with protection against threat aircraft.


The primary mission of the Kiowa Warrior is armed reconnaissance in air cavalry troops and light attack companies. In addition, the Kiowa Warrior may be called upon to participate in the following missions or tasks:

Joint Air Attack (JAAT) operations

From this site:

Weapons of War for cowards: how to slaughter people carrying spears with a carbine, and still feel like a man.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 09:46 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You won't hear it from Bush, just you didn't hear from Churchill. Neither minced words when it came to reisiting those who murder in the name of, repsectively, Nazism or Islamic fascism.

As opposed to those who murder in the name of capitalism or Christian fascism?

Neither of these, by the way, describes Saddam Hussein. The conflation of Saddam and al-Qaeda is one of the hardest things for me to swallow - there are no proven links between the two.

I'm not saying there are no good reasons to intervene in Iraq - there are. But sometimes it looks an awful lot like Bush is just making things up.

quote:
I am the one who is called a pussy by my fellow soldiers because of my left-leaning views.

Now that is creepy.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 09:48 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the reclaimation of land lost thousands of years ago, is a total fraud.

I am not Jewish. In fact I am an atheist. In all honesty I would have vastly preferred that we had given the Jewish people North Dakota (or whatever) as a homeland after the Holocaust. Most Americans would agree with this sentiment. But Israel does exist, and they are assailed not only by disposessed Palestinians, but by the entire Arab world. Israel occupies <1% of the Middle East. They are <1% of the population. They have no oil. Yet still there are daily calls to drive the Jews into the sea, etc.

How would it seem if there were calls in America to drive the Indians into the sea? To stamp out the "Indian blight"?


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 09:50 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It would seem like the nineteenth century.

And sometimes I daydream about that, re: Israel. North Dakota, or maybe a slice of Manitoba. How much simpler it would have been.

I think Moredreads was just trying to point out the inconsistency of the "what's done is done" argument (although at this point it's consistent - America is done, Israel is done). You're not the one who made the "original inhabitants" argument - that was someone else - but it's very annoying when white people sit in their houses in Toronto and write about the right of original inhabitants to depose settlers from their land.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 09:50 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Weapons of War for cowards: how to slaughter people carrying spears with a carbine, and still feel like a man.

I refuse to repond to this type of thing.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 09:53 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And that is why you are a coward.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 09:56 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moredreads:

I may be many things, but I am not a coward. I have literally put my life on the line for what I believe in. I have risked my life to resuce my fellow soldiers and to guard POW's against Republican Guard reprisals (they automatically killed Iraqi regulars who were trying to surrender.

I don't expect you to "get it", sir. It is about honor, a conept lost on many these days.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: minigun ]


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 09:58 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ooo, Moredreads, it might not be such a good idea to insult the soldier in this way.

Yes, the man with a plane and bombs has a huge advantage over the man with a spear. However, the man who sits at home safely typing about injustice has a huge advantage over the man overseas with a plane and bombs.

minigun risked getting blown up. I would not voluntarily put myself in that position, but he did, because he believed it was right. I have to respect that.

We can argue about the cowardliness of cruise missiles and the like if we want, but maybe we should hold off on the personal attacks, eh?


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 10:06 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
it's very annoying when white people sit in their houses in Toronto and write about the right of original inhabitants to depose settlers from their land

It is equally annoying to hear it in Boston. The problem is not a lack of recognition of past injustice. I recognize it. My ancestors enslaved my wife's ancestors. But we cannot overturn Western civilization. Well, more accurately, we will not allow those who wish to destroy Western civilization to succeed (Moredreads?).

What we can do is be up front about past injustice and seek to improve ourselves.

We can also help oppressed people in places like Afghanistan (part way there) and Iraq (coming to a CNN station near you soon!).

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: minigun ]


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 10:15 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You call wiping out Arab society of the former Palestine Mandate an act of civilization?
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 10:22 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re the slagging of the helicopter:

It is not a simple case of overwhelming force in the hads of evil warmongers. Small military helicopters like the Kiowa and the Little Bird are tremendously difficult to fly in combat conditions. A small fraction of those who would like to be pilots can do so. Recon is not that difficult, but the Kiowa--unlike the Apache, etc.--is routinely called upon to go into ]actively hostile enemy territory. We are the guys--alnog with F-15 and F-16 pilots in the "no fly" zomes--who actually get shot at. The minigun (M134) that I manned (as co-pilot) is a lethal weapon both for the enemy and potentially for us. The amount of counter-thrust generated by this gun if it is fired for more that 1/2 a second or so is enough to spin the helicopter around unless it is countered perfectly by the pilot. And yes, they are trying to automate this, but we are still trained to perform the ballet in ant case.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: minigun ]


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 10:23 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What we can do is be up front about past injustice and seek to improve ourselves.

Then why is it that the USA only chooses right 'injustices' in the countries that are not within its direct sphere of political and economic influence. The only commonality that the that Iraq, North Korea and Iran have is that they exist indpendently of what you like to call western 'Civilization.'

This fact is blatantly obvious to the majority of people in the rest of the world, if not you.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 10:25 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, but it was surely no worse than wiping out the First Nations societies of North America.

That's done. It's tragic, but it's done. And a civilization has grown up on top of it, and once again, two wrongs (three wrongs? four? more?) don't make a right.

I am all in favour of a two-state solution in the case of Israel (a fair two-state solution, none of this "you get the worst land, and Israel can cut one part of your country off from the other if you piss us off" nonsense), and whatever can be done to help the remaining First Nations people, but unfortunately, we cannot erase our mistakes.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 10:25 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
why is it that the USA only chooses right 'injustices' in the countries that are not within its direct sphere of political and economic influence

If the decision was made to liberate Cuba I would be there in a heartbeat. It pisses me off to no end that we do not liberate enough enslaved and oppressed populations.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 10:28 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The only commonality that the that Iraq, North Korea and Iran have is that they exist indpendently of what you like to call western 'Civilization.'

And I'd be willing to go enormous lengths not to have to live in any of them.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 10:30 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cuba matches the description above, I left it out only because the Bush and Co. have a special place for it -- it is not part of the 'Axis of Evil.'

I'll tell you what, go liberate Pakistan from Musharaff, you know the military dictator. Why not? Because Pakistan is open to US inlfluence and finance.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 10:32 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And I'd be willing to go enormous lengths not to have to live in any of them.

But if you did you would not necessarily wish to have fly-boy come free you from this mortal coil.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 10:33 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or Saudi Arabia, while we're listing places that suck.

quote:
But if you did you would not necessarily wish to have fly-boy come free you from this mortal coil.

True dat. Although if I were in a North Korean, Iranian or Iraqi prison, I'd probably have good reason to wish I were dead.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 10:34 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moredreads

I gotta agree with you, pal. Not only Pakistan but the mother of all repressive, terrorist-supporting, decadent regimes: Saudi Arbia. I was stationed there and I hated every fucking thing about that hellhole. It would take 30 years just to get the men there to stop hating (and often killing) their own women.

You're damn right. Us soldiers don't call the shots. If we did I'd be fighting for democracy in about 50 countries at once.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 10:40 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hehe, great minds, minigun.

Unfortunately, the USA is willing to do a lot of dick-sucking for oil. Not surprising, but sad, and yet another reason to be suspicious, not of the ordinary soldier, but of the government.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 10:44 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah. The oil thing. Problem is that oil is actually worth fighting over. Cut off oil and coal to Canada tomorrow and--barring outside assistabce--5,000,000 or more of you would be dead by May (same here in Mass).
From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 10:46 AM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Welcome back, minigun! And yes, you are wise to ignore spoiled bait.

I think my biggest problem with at this turn of the debate is any assumption that "we are the good guys" means that we're automatically right, or that our actions are automatically good. Good intentions, if not conscientiously examined, don't necessarily produce good results. And personally, I'm not sure that I think many of the intentions currently driving government policy are really good.

There's also this extremely irritating to overgeneralize: Terrorists are indisputably (and surely nobody would disagree?) evil, whether their motivations are comprehensible or not. And many palestinian citizens are sympathetic to terrorism purely because of the situation that they find themselves in. Furthermore, there are still many palestinians who, despite their situation, aren't sympathetic to terrorism. The same can be said of so many populations from which terrorists arise. To paint them all as evil is as ludicrous as painting all americans, or all israelis, or both, as evil.

At this point, I'm not sure how the palestinian-Israeli conflict can be resolved. It would be highly ironic, and catastrophic, if the Israeli proceeded to wipe out palestine, claiming all the while that the palestinians wanted to drive them into the sea. Should things come to this, then Israel would have cause to fear. If the rest of the middle east is hostile to them now...

Things shouldn't have gotten to this point in the first place.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 10:51 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Cut off oil and coal to Canada tomorrow and--barring outside assistabce--5,000,000 or more of you would be dead by May (same here in Mass).

Quite possible; however, Canada does have oil reserves of its own (the US actually buys more oil from us than from Saudi Arabia) and my hope is that as we investigate new, cleaner sources of power, we will become less dependent on oil and coal.

There is hope.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 01 December 2002 10:53 AM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Cut off oil and coal to Canada tomorrow and--barring outside assistabce--5,000,000 or more of you would be dead by May

Don't be so damnd silly. We've got plenty of oil. Enough to export to your chilly hide up their in Mass. too. We've gotcoal a-plenty also. Also it's a little odd to hear you mention the Saudis condemnable violence against women but I have to ask you - how many American soldiers have murdered in cold blood their own wives and children since the Gulf War? You tell me.

Moredreads


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 10:54 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To paint them all as evil is as ludicrous as painting all americans, or all israelis, or both, as evil.

I don't think they are all evil. I think there are aspects of their culture which are deeply flawed, to say the least. Celebrating the death of your own son in advance of his impending murder/suicide is simply depraved, end of story.

I ceratinly don't want Israel to "wipe out" Palestine. I honestly hope they would simply relocate the entire nation within America if things got that bad.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 11:00 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Welcome back, minigun! And yes, you are wise to ignore spoiled bait.

Pointing out that killing Afghan or Iraqi soldiers with highly sophisticated killing machines, while they are armed with relatively primative assault rifles, RPG's and 40 year old tanks is tantamount to mass murder and not an act of bravery, is prolematic for you?

Mowing down Apache Indians with gattling guns may have required some measure of technical skill but I would hardly call it warfare.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 11:06 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Pointing out that killing Afghan or Iraqi soldiers with highly sophisticated killing machines, while they are armed with relatively primative assault rifles, RPG's and 40 year old tanks is tantamount to mass murder and not an act of bravery, is prolematic for you?

Not intrinsically, but you have to do it tactfully, especially when you're discussing it with someone who has actually been there.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 11:07 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moredreads

You are welcome to take on a Republican Guard division with your trusty Enfield .303

Be my guest. Your lifespan will be measured in minutes.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 11:07 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I gotta agree with you, pal. Not only Pakistan but the mother of all repressive, terrorist-supporting, decadent regimes: Saudi Arbia. I was stationed there and I hated every fucking thing about that hellhole. It would take 30 years just to get the men there to stop hating (and often killing) their own women.

I gotta agree with you, pal. Not only Saudi Arabian but the mother of all repressive, terrorist-supporting, decadent regimes: the United States of America. I was born there and I hated every fucking thing about that hellhole. It would take 30 years just to get the men there to stop killing each other and there wives. 10,000 murders a year and climbing

Liberate your own damn country first then come talk to me about Saudi Arabia.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 01 December 2002 11:08 AM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You are welcome to take on a Republican Guard division with your trusty Enfield .303

Be my guest. Your lifespan will be measured in minutes.


You mean about as long then as the Panamanians or the people of Grenada.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: flotsom ]


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 11:10 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Not intrinsically, but you have to do it tactfully, especially when you're discussing it with someone who has actually been there.


Oh! So, I run into Karla Holmolka on line and I'm supposed to not mention Kristen French, because she was there?


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 11:12 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I gotta agree with you, pal. Not only Saudi Arabian but the mother of all repressive, terrorist-supporting, decadent regimes: the United States of America. I was born there and I hated every fucking thing about that hellhole. It would take 30 years just to get the men there to stop killing each other and there wives. 10,000 murders a year and climbing

I'm going to stop responding to you. From my past exeperience on this site I know that there are a lot of smart people with whom I can debate. It is also the case that there is a regular contingent of posters who--in my opinion--are emotionally, and possibly mentally, ill.

There is nothing I can say to people like you except to ask why you stay in the US or Canada at all?

Anyhow, good luck in your future America-hating endeavors. Let me know when you've acheived world peace, won't you?


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 11:18 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One final thing, Moredreads, since you said you were born in the US I strongly suspect you were a draft dodger. Is that so?

You can imagine my opinion of draft dodgers. Quakers are pacifists, yet they routinely volunteer for duty as medics when war breaks out (they stipulate that they will treat friend and foe alike on the battlefield).

Draft dodgers are the lowest form of life America has yet produced. We owe Canada a huge aplology for inflicting these vermin on your country.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 11:20 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So, I run into Karla Holmolka on line and I'm supposed to not mention Kristen French, because she was there?

That's a really bad analogy. Really bad. Honestly, that analogy is so bad I don't think I'm even going to try to take it apart.

As for the US/Saudi Arabia comparison, while I don't aspire to live in either of those countries, ever, if I had to live in one of them, I'd choose the US. In a heartbeat. Trying to equate the two is silly.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 01 December 2002 11:28 AM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's right the lowly draft dodger courageous enough to think for himself and question the morality of killing and refusing to kill poor Vietnamese women, children, and farmers who wanted nothing but to live and instead got napalmed into eternity. Vietnam. It's astonishing what a people who have nothing can do in defence of it.
From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 11:29 AM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I still say be careful to differentiate between the soldiers that fight and the leadership which sends them in.

And nobody is well served by specious attacks and overgeneralizations.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 11:36 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the server ate my post. Anyway, some of Canada's nicest citizens are draft dodgers from 'Nam; not to mention that if you look at Bush's cabinet, most of them are draft dodgers of one sort or another - they just didn't go to Canada to avoid service. Bush himself is a deserter, no?

Anyway, Moredreads' profile would indicate he was probably too young to serve in Vietnam, at least most of it.

As for "the lowest form of life the US has ever produced" - no, no, you've done much better than that! Look at Timothy McVeigh, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the Klan, Ann Coulter, etc. - there's plenty of competition.

All the draft dodgers did was refuse to fight a war they thought was unjust.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 11:37 AM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
flotsom:

There is a huge difference between being a pacisfist or a conscietous objector who refuses to bear arms yet does agree to provide humanitarian services in a war-torn region, and the stark, ugly, self-interested, morally dubious stance of the draft dodger.

This is a simple statemtent of fact, I neither condone nor approve of this: Cowards and deserters were routinely shot by all nations, even Canada (in WWI -- I looked it up).


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 01 December 2002 11:39 AM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes be careful to differentiate between the sociopathic masters of the global geo-political chess game and their pitiful dupes - the largely economically alienated youth of America's underclass.
From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 11:46 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Cowards and deserters were routinely shot by all nations, even Canada (in WWI -- I looked it up).

Yeah, well, too bad they didn't stick to that routine in the case of Dubya Bush, eh?

Is it "self-interest" not to want to watch people get killed? Is it self-interest not to want to kill people, or watch your allies kill people for a cause you think is wrong?

If so, I guess I'm a very selfish person.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 01 December 2002 11:48 AM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You call wiping out Arab society of the former Palestine Mandate an act of civilization?

You've been reading "Sophism for Dummies" again, haven't you!

quote:
And under this principal alone, the motive of all Zionist ambitions, the reclaimation of land lost thousands of years ago, is a total fraud.

Moredread, the Font of All Truth and Wisdom, has spoken. No need for further debate.

quote:
Weapons of War for Cowards

Then by all means let's pass laws that prohibit anyone from owning anything more dangerous than a knife. That would level the battlefield, except that we would have to allow only equal numbers of combatants. Warfare in the real world cannot be regulated like this. Only a fool would believe it could be. One side always has an advantage, whether it be numbers, weapons, or strategic position. To call the side with the advantage 'cowards' is just plain irrational.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: mandrake ]


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 01 December 2002 11:51 AM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There is a huge difference between being a pacisfist or a conscietous objector who refuses to bear arms yet does agree to provide humanitarian services in a war-torn region, and the stark, ugly, self-interested, morally dubious stance of the draft dodger.

You cannot equate WW2 and Vietnam. A person does not need to qualify his or her objection to violence through religious affiliation. Nor is one under any moral obligation to follow a despotic nation to the ends of the world to kill poor farmers women and children or to aid the victims of either side with medical or humanitarian aid. I think it was Bertrand Russell who once asked "what if they gave a war and no one showed up." The vast majority of people worthy of veneration have been pacifists of this, recent, or any generation. Go peddle your blood trade elsewhere.


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 01 December 2002 11:54 AM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you are not brave enough to apologize on the board in front of everyone, at least have the cajones to PM me with a recantation of your allegation, and I will not bring it up again.

FBI: If you can point me to just one post where you specifically condemned violence by the terrorists or expressed sympathy for the Israeli dead, then I'll apologize.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 01 December 2002 12:05 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Prove this. Show us source documentation that proves Hamas and the PLO have 'concurrent goals.' You are just speculating and feeding annihilation paranoia. your proof (the arms shipment) is flawed: Possessing weapons is evidence of means not intent. Or are you suggesing that any armed person is bent on a religious crusade against Israel.

I don't have to prove it. The IDF found documents signed by Arafat, approving funding for the purchase, when they occupied his compound the first time earlier this year. If you paid attention to the news, you'd know this.

I know; don't bother to tell me. The Israelis forged the documents to discredit Arafat (as if he needed any more discrediting). For some of you, no amount of evidence is enough!

And yes, I'm suggesting that any armed Palestinian fanatic is bent on a religious crusade agains Israel. That's why, when the IDF sees an armed Palestinian coming at them, they tend to shoot first and ask questions later. Right or wrong, I'd do the same thing! There's more than ample evidence that this is good proactive policy, unless you want to get your ass shot off.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 12:10 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mandrake, you do realize that you're embodying the very attitude that you're condemning in those you hate?
From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 12:30 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"I can only hint at how much I despise a left that thinks of Osama bin Laden as a slightly misguided anti-imperialist. Instead of internationalism, we find among the left now a sort of affectless, neutralist, smirking isolationism and a masochistic refusal to admit that our own civil society has any merit."

-- Christopher Hitchens


Chris Hitchens is, of course, a good leftist. Those who routinely side with murderers, dictators, terrorists etc. over their own nation are frightening and dangerous. But because we are a free society we are bound to defend their right to malign their home and aplogize for mass murderers.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 12:36 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I think that perspective has always been present within the left. As long as this isn't being generalized to the majority or entirety, I agree.

Our positions are only as good as the assumptions that they're based on. And we all have to be careful of that.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Daoine ]


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 12:45 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I go to a number of websites that span the political spectrum. One thing I have noticed is that on "conservative" sites the truly nasty people (racists, religious bigots, etc.) are routinely identified, confronted and refuted by the general community (though they never seem to get banned--commitment to free speech, etc.). On the left side it seems to me that a lot of stuff that should qualify one for a date with Uncle Thorazine gets tossed about as though it is a completely legitimate viewpoint. It is not legitimate to call for racial segregation, and it is not legitimate to call America a "despotic nation".

If America is a despotic nation, it is a strange one considering people all over the world are clamoring to get the out of repressive communist or fascist hell-holes so that they can get in to America (or Canada).

IMHO the Left needs to reclaim the moral high ground from the various communists, "activists" and misfits that currently make all the noise. Some decency would not hurt.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 12:48 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well well well, a lot happens here in fifteen minutes....

quote:
I have risked my life to resuce my fellow soldiers and to guard POW's against Republican Guard reprisals (they automatically killed Iraqi regulars who were trying to surrender.

?!

While in the cockpit of this, no less.
Or so we are told!

However you want to pitch it. Here an Iraqi soldier being rescued from the Republican Guard, while surrendering, no doubt.

But the point is this: If the 1991 Gulf War was so risky, how come none of you guys died, while on the road from Kuwait City to Basara the US slaughtered as many as 10,000 Iraqi Soldiers:

"U.S. planes trapped the long convoys by disabling vehicles in the front, and at the rear, and then pounded the resulting traffic jams for hours. "It was like shooting fish in a barrel," said one U.S. pilot. The horror is still there to see."

More on US 'Bavery' during the gulf war.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 12:52 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is not legitimate to call for racial segregation, and it is not legitimate to call America a "despotic nation".

Who's calling for racial segregation?

As for calling America a "despotic nation" - frankly, that's what it looks like to a lot of us. When America makes clear that it won't answer to the UN, the ICC, or anyone else, when it informs us that its military policy will henceforth be "attack whenever we want," when it has a history of toppling inconvenient democracies and installing dictatorships in foreign nations and yet refers to itself as the guardian of freedom and justice in the world - well, maybe "despotic nation" is an overstatement, but it sure as hell isn't unfounded.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 12:53 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But the point is this: If the 1991 Gulf War was so risky, how come none of you guys died

Some did.

I don't think this black-and-white thinking is going to get us anywhere good.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 01:02 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
that it won't answer to the UN, the ICC, or anyone else

The US hosts the UN--although many of us would like it to go elsewhere. Do you guys want it? Please, take it!

We cannot participate in the ICC even if we wanted to because it is forbidden in our Constitution. It would take a Constitutional ammendment to change that, and there is basically zero support for that.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 01:03 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, now, there are some real oversimplifications there

People want to come to america because of our stated ideals, generally. We're hated by those who hate us, inside and out, because our actions often belie those ideals.

Personally, I'm probably a "misfit activist", although I haven't really been actively activist for a while now. Activism isn't something that should be discouraged, although things would certainly be more orderly.

I think we're each sensitized to notice perceived attacks disproportionately. Generally, I see forums in which either left or right dominate (mostly), and usually either banning is balanced (all extremists or no extremists) and everybody gets to speak, they're just endlessly derided if they're in the minority; or minority extremists get banned. This is by far the most balanced forum I've participated in, and it seems to be somewhat heavily oriented to the left.

We are constantly bombarded with nationalistic messages. For a while there, questioning GWB at all was considered traitorous by an alarming number of people, at least in my vicinity, and as evidenced by quite a bit of activity in the media. I think that this is probably why there is more tolerance for anti-american sentiment among americans: because it's an alternative perspective that isn't getting much airplay nationally. This is of course disputed! Personally, my experience has been that this is the case, that mainstream media are centrist, with notable exceptions such as Fox News. Let's not even get into talk radio

And as for decency, that's another problematic concept. Alternative viewpoints shouldn't be considered indecent. Calls for reform aren't calls for overturning everything civilization stands for, however common that comparison may be.

Besides, we should be thicker-skinned than that. We're america, the remaining world super-power. We can take it.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 01:07 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The US hosts the UN--although many of us would like it to go elsewhere. Do you guys want it? Please, take it!

Would you stop trying to block its movements half the time if we took it? Would you pay your dues?


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 01:12 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For a while there, questioning GWB at all was considered traitorous by an alarming number of people

That tends to happen when the equivalent of a 150 kiloton nuke hits Manhattan. Actually, I was surprised that there was very little hysteria, and surprisingly few anti-Muslim acts (around 450, compared with around 10,000 anti-gay actions in the same period).

As for our status as a superpower (or "hyperpower" as the French would have it) -- it is all the more reason to be extremely careful about allowing political exteremism on the right or the left to take hold. America is physically capable of destroyng 85% of the world's population in 72 hours. Balance is essential.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 01:15 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for the US/Saudi Arabia comparison, while I don't aspire to live in either of those countries, ever, if I had to live in one of them, I'd choose the US. In a heartbeat. Trying to equate the two is silly.

Let me explain myself. The justification that Mr. Gun uses for attacking Saudi Arabia is based on a socio-cultural prejudice.

This prejudice is justified by the following (in this case sexist treatement of women by men): "It would take 30 years just to get the men there to stop hating (and often killing) their own women."

As reprehensible, and truthful, as that may is, we can in fact find many such problems in the United States, racism and sexism, and have plenty of evidence to support that, spousal abuse, a massive murder rate, etc., etc.

Yet, Mr. Gun wishes to go to Saudi Arabia to clear up the issues, while in his own home town equally horrific things are being perpetrated. He justifies his by saying that he is civilized, while the 'other' (Saudi Arabia) is not.

I was not equating the two countires, I was equating the logic. If men are sexist and beat women to death in Saudi Arabia, and the solution is military action, then if men are sexist and beat women to death in the US, then military action against the US must be the solution, as well.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 01:15 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Would you stop trying to block its movements half the time if we took it? Would you pay your dues?

We would not act against our own interests if the UN was in Montreal instead of New York. I expect we would pay our dues. I can't see why we would want to though. America got bounced from the UNSC in favor of Syria for god sake (you know, the place where "honor killings" of "sluts" and torture-killings of gays are daily events).


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 01:16 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can you seriously believe that the extreme left is going to rise to power because we hear from then in the press and online?

And I just don't accept that it's reasonable in a free society to deny criticism of the president's actions in such circumstances.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 01:21 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
while on the road from Kuwait City to Basara the US slaughtered as many as 10,000 Iraqi Soldiers

Retreat is not the same thing as surrender.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 01:21 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We would not act against our own interests if the UN was in Montreal instead of New York. I expect we would pay our dues.

Huh? Well, you don't pay 'em now. As for acting against your own interests, the US has pulled out of not only the ICC but the anti-torture legislation (which it tried to block entirely) and the population fund. It has refused to allow UN weapons inspectors in.

quote:

I can't see why we would want to though. America got bounced from the UNSC in favor of Syria for god sake (you know, the place where "honor killings" of "sluts" and torture-killings of gays are daily events).

Yeah, I can think of many worthier potential members too, but you don't dump a worthy organisation just because it pisses you off.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 01:22 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And I just don't accept that it's reasonable in a free society to deny criticism of the president's actions in such circumstances.

I wouldn't censor anyone. I hope that on boards like this a moderate opinion comes to dominate. I don't like right-wing hate-mongers, and I don't like left-wing apologists for the likes of the Khmer Rouge or Hamas.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 December 2002 01:23 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
America is physically capable of destroyng 85% of the world's population in 72 hours. Balance is essential.

skdadl is weak with laughter.

Oh, Stanley Kubrick, where are you now that we really, reeeealllly NEED you?

Quite the white man's burden you've got there, Mr Gun.

*skdadl rolls off, holding tummy*


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 01:26 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yeah, I can think of many worthier potential members too, but you don't dump a worthy organisation just because it pisses you off.

We have not dumped the UN and realistically we probably will not do it ever. Much of what passes for "worthy" discussion at the UN bolis down to US and Israel-bashing. Just check the record.

If we were "despotic", would GWB have sought the resolution on Iraq? I know there is a cynical reply coming from somebody on thus, but it's just a nother case of damned if we do, damned if don't.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 01:27 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Oh, Stanley Kubrick, where are you now that we really, reeeealllly NEED you

Not quite sure why this is funny. One Trident submarine can obliterate 160 cities. Most of the world's population lives in cities. We have many, many Tridents.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 December 2002 01:30 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We have many, many Tridents.


Oooh, make him stop, make him stop! It hurts; it hurts!

*skdadl puts on girdle to hold sides in*

Oooh, Mr Gun -- I'm skeert. Tell me more about what you're a gonna do.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 01 December 2002 01:31 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
. I hope that on boards like this a moderate opinion comes to dominate.

Are you nuts? Are you confusing moderate with logical. I am generally pretty moderate, but I know that sometimes the radical solution is the right one, its not always best to have a compromise. Moreover, sometimes when we look at the radical solutions we are able to peel off a lot of layers and find out what the real issues are.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 01:34 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If we were "despotic", would GWB have sought the resolution on Iraq? I know there is a cynical reply coming from somebody on thus, but it's just a nother case of damned if we do, damned if don't.

Well, it would have helped if he'd sought the resolution on Iraq before informing the world that he didn't give a shit whether he got it or not.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 01:36 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Moreover, sometimes when we look at the radical solutions we are able to peel off a lot of layers and find out what the real issues are.

Exactly. Which is why we are gonna fry Saddam's ass and free his people.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 01:37 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just praying you haven't got that backwards.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 01:42 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Some women, emboldened by the flight of their Taliban bullies--their jailers, if the truth be told bluntly--revealed portions of their face in public. In Thursday's New York Times, there was a photograph of an Afghan woman smiling. Romantics would say that that one picture, by itself, justifies our war in Afghanistan. -- WSJ

This is what it's all about.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 01:43 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"damned if we do, damned if we don't"

Where have I heard that recently?

Well, there's a certain amount of sense in examining US actions more than just superficially. We certainly have the military might to invade Iraq unilaterally, without any international support (although it would be more complicated, not having access to local BOO), but it would be a diplomatic nightmare. There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that our appeal to the UN isn't driven by any real concern for solidarity, but to avoid that nightmare. And that means that there's some basis for criticism.

Hussein and his dominion are despiccable, and I've known several individuals whose families had to flee Iraq; I'm not unaware that it would be a good thing if he weren't in power. But is a US military attack the only way to accomplish this?


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 December 2002 01:51 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Romantics would say that that one picture, by itself, justifies our war in Afghanistan. -- WSJ

The ignorance and self-preening egotism of this statement are unspeakably obscene.

You haven't the faintest notion of what life is like in Afghanistan right now, and clearly couldn't care less. You prefer your own self-aggrandizing mythology. Despicable, and dangerous to us all.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 01 December 2002 01:51 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mandrake, you do realize that you're embodying the very attitude that you're condemning in those you hate?

Daoine; please enlighten me. I don't see it.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 01:51 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
According to Amnesty, the human rights watchdog, he [Saddam] has murdered 100,000 Kurds including 5,000 in a mustard and nerve gas attack on a single town in northern Iraq.

As we used to say at Ft. Knox, some people just need killin'. We should have done it 1991. We will do the job right this time.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 December 2002 01:52 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS: I'm so glad that this thread has now hit three pages, and will be closed by audra as soon as she sees it.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 01:56 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You haven't the faintest notion of what life is like in Afghanistan right now

But you do, right? I fought against Saddam personally. I shared cigarettes with Iraqi POW's and listened to their stories.

unspeakable obscenity to me is represented by those who would allow vicious murderers to stay in power simply becahse they are too effete and powerless to do anything about it. Sit in Canada at your keyboard. Somebody in Iraq right now is no doubt thinking how they would like to do the same thing. Problem is, they would be instantly killed for making the kind of remarks you do.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 01:58 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mandrake, it's been pointed out amply throughout many threads.

One-sided overgeneralizing demonization is precisely the justification used by the terrorists. And horrible grammar, yes, I know.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 01:59 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
unspeakable obscenity to me is represented by those who would allow vicious murderers to stay in power simply becahse they are too effete and powerless to do anything about it.

"Effete"?

I don't think that's fair.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 02:01 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm so glad that this thread has now hit three pages, and will be closed by audra as soon as she sees it.

Sentiments of a true censor. Gosh you're a great person!


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 02:05 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Smith

Not all Canadians, by any means. skdadl seems to be implying that Afghanistan would be better off if the Taliban was still in power. How else would you read his/her remarks?

I find that despicable. The Taliban was a horrible, repressive gang of thugs. They are gone now because the US--and Canada--forced them out. Afghanistan has a long way to go, but it won't make any progress just because prickly Canadian ideologues hate the US.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 December 2002 02:10 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But you do, right? I fought against Saddam personally. I shared cigarettes with Iraqi POW's and listened to their stories.

Honey, for first-hand information from Afghanistan since 1979, and from Dhahran, I outrank you. Sorry I can't tell you how, but I do.

Your egotistical sentimentality would be comical -- if only it weren't more important to you than the lives of millions of people who just don't give a damn about your bleeding self-image and self-esteem -- not to put too fine a point on it.

Closing threads over two pages long is SOP on babble, not censorship.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 01 December 2002 02:12 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Welcome back mr. minigun. I do wish you'd take a deep breath and realize that no one on this board wants Saddam Hussein to stay in power. (Me, i've said many times that an indictment before the International Criminal Court is the way to go with him, and obviously that means the ICC will need some enforcement machinery.)

quote:
America got bounced from the UNSC in favor of Syria for god sake (you know, the place where "honor killings" of "sluts" and torture-killings of gays are daily events).

The US was not removed from the UN Security Council; it is a permanent member and cannot be removed. I assume you are referring to the UN Human Rights Commission as this got a lot of press ink. The US lost its CHR seat in 2001, in an election for three seats allotted informally to the Western Europe and Otehrs group. Due in large part to the disappointment of its allies with the US failure to support evolving internaitonal human rights mechanisms, it finished behind three other Western states (if memory serves, these were Sweden, Austria and France). Syria did not replace the US, although against all logic it is a CHR member. The US as a leading proponent of international human rights law (including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) was on every CHR since the body was established. It has been re-elected to the CHR for the 2003-4 term.

The membership of the CHR is of course absurd in its inclusion of states that are only there to obstruct, but let's at least get our facts straight. The UN is not Out to Get America; that is another myth of the US media. It is out to enmesh the US in multilateralism.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 01 December 2002 02:13 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Taliban was a horrible, repressive gang of thugs. They are gone now because the US--and Canada--forced them out. Afghanistan has a long way to go, but it won't make any progress just because prickly Canadian ideologues hate the US.

But, minigun, don't you see? Innocent civilians had to die in order to stop the Taliban from massacring innocent civilians in perpetuity. We must not do that. It's not only politically incorrect, but is probably some kind of racism, too. We're not allowed to save anyone from fanatics and dictators unless those fanatics and dictators invite us to do so.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 02:15 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't think this black-and-white thinking is going to get us anywhere good.

The photo may be black and white but the thinking isn't.

In a certain respect, I risk my life driving a car, but the risk is marginal, I would hardly call driving bravery.

The chances of a US soldier being killed by enemy fire was hugely disproportionate to the amount of killing that they did. In fact it is probably more dangerous to live in South Central LA than fight in the gulf war, per capita.

If a child comes at me with a rock, I judge that it is unlikely I will be killed, if I am a combat trained solder with a gun. I disarm the child, I do not kill him. That, in a nutshell is the comparative level of technological disparity between the US and Iraq.

quote:
Retreat is not the same thing as surrender.

A routed army is a routed army, slaughtering retreating soldiers is against the geneva convention. As likely as not they will surrender if surounded or cut off, at West Point they know this.

This was murder. It’s like shooting a man in the back.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 December 2002 02:15 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, skdadl is implying that Afghanistan would be better off if:

1. The Brits hadn't mucked about there;

2. The Russians hadn't mucked about there;

3. The CIA hadn't mucked about there;

4. American client-warriors hadn't mucked about there; and

5. Many of their citizens and mountains hadn't been compositionally rearranged by Daisy-Cutters and anti-personnel cluster bombs over the last year.

Otherwise, the Afghans are well known to be a great people.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 01 December 2002 02:16 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh and no one here supported the Taliban; several were in groups protesting against its particular brand of tyranny and against US willingness to deal with its despicable regime.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 02:18 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
swallow:

I stand corrected. I did indeed mean to say the UNHRC.

I do not believe that the US is in any way obligated to take advice from such regimes, nor of course is Canada. The fundamental problem with the UN is that it attempts democracy when nearly 2/3 of the members are autocracies, and some of those are tyrannies.

My view is that we need to encourage all nations to support fundamental justice, liberty, democracy etc. Sooner or later I believe we will achieve "critical mass". The organizations such as the UN will be far more useful.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 02:19 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Taliban was indeed a horrible, repressive gang of thugs. And feminists and leftists were calling for intervention from 1996 onward.

The US didn't much care about the women of Afghanistan until 9/11. Or at least that's how it looked.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 02:21 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I can't tell you how, but I do.

Hmm. So the Free Republic of Trinitarian Spadinistan conducts it's own espionage, huh? As for being outranked, I think you'll find you have to be in the same Army for that to happen. If you are in fact a Canaidan Army officer then holy shit are you guys in trouble.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 02:23 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Smith

This is a red herring. It is a truism that America has not stopped tyranny and repression everywhere on earth for our entire history. But that is not an argument against stopping it sometimes, when we can.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 December 2002 02:24 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, because the only way you can find out information first-hand from people in other countries is if you're in the army.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 December 2002 02:24 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We are the good guys axiomatically.

This is the part that bugs me.

The Soviets used to say this to themselves, too.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 02:25 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Soviets used to say this to themselves, too.

Maybe they were right. Most people aren't all that eager to find out.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 02:28 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is a truism that America has not stopped tyranny and repression everywhere on earth for our entire history.

Quite the opposite, rather.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 02:29 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yeah, because the only way you can find out information first-hand from people in other countries is if you're in the army.

Did I say that? I am taking issue here with skdadls seeming support for the Taliban. He/she made some remark along the lines that he/she has inside information, but cannot reveal it. That's not very helpful. I could claim that I have all sorts of information about Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In one sense I did briefly during the war. Today I have no more or less info than anyone else, and all of what I hear leads me to believe that the majority of Afghans are pleased that the Taliban is gone, especially women.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 01 December 2002 02:32 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, and the Nazis thought that way too.

"We are the good guys axiomatically" is not a rational thing to think or say. That is what DrC was trying to point out, I think. And I don't think you really believe that you are "the good guys, axiomatically," because if you did, you would not examine your country's history and you would not brook debate on the subject.

Isn't it possible that skdadl actually does have connections to Afghanistan about which s/he genuinely can't tell you?

As for the Taliban...I'm not saying America should be expected to stop all injustice everywhere, but if this were really about liberating the women of Afghanistan, it would have happened five years before it did. America very, very seldom acts primarily out of humanitarian concern.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 02:33 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is the part that bugs me.

The Soviets used to say this to themselves, too


By the way, Dr. by "we" I mean the entire West (NATO, I suppose), not just the US. Or do you propose to maintain that Canada is not one of the "good guys", all things considered.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 02:35 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Isn't it possible that skdadl actually does have connections to Afghanistan about which s/he genuinely can't tell you?

skdadl may well be Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan for all I know. He or she may know lots about that country. That still won't make me accept the argumtent that deposing the Taliban was "obscene".


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 02:38 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quite wrong. They now see that the Taleban has been replaced by another bunch of thugs, they are stockpiling their weapons, and getting ready for you guys to leave so that they can knock of Kharazi and institute some other kind of regieme. that is the tradition.

Soon, they will begin to anxious to have an Afghanistan run by Afghans and not by Mobil Corp. When they get anxious, they will kill Americans in lager and larger numbers until it is no longer cost effective for you to be there. Once that end is achieved, civil war will break out and Afghans will say, 'too bad about the Taleban at least there was no war when they were in charge.' they will say this, however Afghans might feel about the Talebban's religious philosophy.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 02:39 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that's a conflation unwarranted by examination of skdadl's statements.

It isn't the deposition of the Taliban that's objectionable. It's the timing, self-righteousness, and perhaps methodology of that deposition that is being scrutinized.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 01 December 2002 02:41 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am watching this post with interest. While I fully believe that the United Sates has much to do to become a better nation I wonder where all of us might be today if it were not for the USA.

Interested to see your answers on this one.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 02:43 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It isn't the deposition of the Taliban that's objectionable. It's the timing, self-righteousness, and perhaps methodology of that deposition that is being scrutinized.

Canda and Europe's "solution":

1. Timing: None.
2. Self-righeousness: If the shoe fits...
3. Methodology: See #1


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 02:45 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think that's a conflation unwarranted by examination of skdadl's statements.


Here is one of skdal's "statements":


"ignorance and self-preening egotism of this statement are unspeakably obscene"

I thought Canadians were supposed to be friendly and polite...


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 02:46 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Personally, I would have absolutely no idea how to answer that question, being at least a 7th generation american.

While we're hardly free of evil intents and deeds, we're also responsible for some really good things as well. No doubt, both of these assertions are open to controversy


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 December 2002 02:47 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
By the way, Dr. by "we" I mean the entire West (NATO, I suppose), not just the US. Or do you propose to maintain that Canada is not one of the "good guys", all things considered.

My point still stands. Canada is not necessarily axiomatically the "good guys". After all, we have a few domestic examples of not being "good guys" (Indians on reserves, the glacial pace of treaty negotiations, etc).

And I'm impressed that your use of the "We" is not restricted to the USA. Babble has another poster who lives in Canada but regularly confuses himself and us by using the word "we" to refer to the United States only.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 December 2002 02:47 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
minigun, you bad reader you: I didn't say that I supported the Taliban (in fact I was a critic long before you, I suspect, had ever heard of them), nor that I thought that getting rid of them was "obscene."

I said:

quote:
The ignorance and self-preening egotism of this statement are unspeakably obscene.

"This statement" was a quote you offered as a justification for your own impervious innocence about what your war-machine had wrought in a country about which you know nothing and care less -- except when you can exploit the misery of Afghan women under the Taliban to justify any blind international thrashing you happen to think might work at the moment.

Tell me, something, Gun: you ever heard of RAWA? (No, I'm not RAWA -- God, the simplicities one has to anticipate in these conversations.)


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 December 2002 02:50 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Incidentally I used to, in my most acerbic moments, half-facetiously advocate air-testing nukes over Taliban HQ in Afghanistan.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 02:52 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I thought Canadians were supposed to be friendly and polite...

Sometimes directness is teh better part of diplomacy. Her description of you is generally accurate and so therefore not truly rude. It is more of an attempt to be helpul. Call it tough love.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 02:56 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
you ever heard of RAWA

Yes indeedy. What I am I supposed to do here, skdadl, roll over and bow to your obviously superior wisdom?

Screw that. If the Taliban comes back we'll kick 'em out again. If we had the ability to do it I can think of at least 20 or 30 countries where I'd like to unload some JDAM right on their vicious murdering dictator's head.

If you find the New York Times observation that Afghan women are no longer as badly off as they once were then fine. I am most interested to hear how you propose to deal with repression and tyranny. For example, would you have appeased Hitler? If not, then presumably you admit that armed force is sometimes the lesser of two evils.

If you would appease Hitler and his ilk, with all that that entails, well then.... what can I say?

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: minigun ]


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 December 2002 03:02 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you would appease Hitler and his ilk,

An American has the nerve to write that to a Canadian.

For your information, Gun, in Canada, WWII began in September 1939. And it was Hitler we went to war against.

Both my parents. All their siblings. And no, none of us thinks that Hollywood won that war.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 03:03 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not a proponent of tough love.

I think skdadl was referencing first the author of the quote, and then your use of that quote to justify unilateral action by the US, in her denunciation. The personalization is your degree of personal investment in that justification.

Of course, it doesn't take much for digs to build momentum of their own...


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 03:04 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My point still stands. Canada is not necessarily axiomatically the "good guys".

As far as is possible in political terms, I believe the Western ideals of tolerance, diversity, justice, democracy, liberty and prosperity are axiomatically superior to their opposites. By extension, I hold Western the Western social model to be superior to all others in existence. This does not mean that I believe Western people are superior to others, only that all people are better off in a system which at least attempts to promote the virtues listed above.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 01 December 2002 03:05 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This whole hitler/WW2 thing really busts a cap in my ass, as you say. The thing about Hitler is that he made his extraterritorial intentions abundantly clear by invading other countries. War was the last resort, not the first impulse which is the way the US is doing things now.

In fact the general behaviour in the US in 2002, is far closer to that of Germany in 1938. This whole sending armies hither and thither 'protecting' people from international conspiracies of religious extremists bent on ruling the world 'thing' has a nasty ring to it.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 03:06 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
An American has the nerve to write that to a Canadian.

I'm not writing to a "Canadian". I'm writing to you, because you still seem to think that liberating Afghanistan was a horribly bad thing. Rhetoric and ad hominems will not change my mind.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: minigun ]


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 December 2002 03:10 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
minigun, you have repeatedly put words in my mouth, as when you said "If you would appease Hitler," and that is a no-no on babble.

Your problem, I think, is either that you don't read carefully or you don't know how to think in anyone else's shoes but your own.

And don't worry, Daoine: I admit that I have been responding to Mr Gun sarcastically through this page. Go back to the foot of page two, and you will see why. I will stop now; I think there is no point in my talking to someone this impervious to perspectives other than his (sadly limited) own.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 December 2002 03:11 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS, Little Gun: You had no trouble generalizing above from one of my posts to all Canadians: why the problem now?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 03:16 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
generalizing above from one of my posts to all Canadians

I clarified that in another post. For the record, America itself is infested with people who hate their own country to the point of paranoia.

If I had to generalize about Canadians, I think the actions of the people of Newfoundland on September 11th (taking in stranded US passengers, etc.) is a far better gauge of Canadian character than those few who would side with any random tyrant if it meant stinking it to the hated Americans.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 December 2002 03:18 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And have you met the latter on babble, Mr Gun?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 03:22 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think you are like that, but I certainly have seen numerous remarks which would qualify as hate speech if they were directed at, say, Russia or Mexico. There is a strong ant-American vibe here. It is extremely rare to see anyone spontaneously post something good about the US (surely we do something that you aprrove of)?
From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 01 December 2002 03:25 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't worry, skdadl. The momentary won't trump the whole.

Mishei: perhaps you might try posting your question as a new topic? This one is pretty pointedly directed, and promises to be otherwise enmired until its closure

And I mantra: Generalizations are very likely to provoke unnecessary negative responses.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 01 December 2002 03:25 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The suggestion that "ideals of tolerance, diversity, justice, democracy, liberty and prosperity" are somehow uniquely "Western" (or in another variant, "Judeo-Christian") is, i feel i must point out, another myth. These are universal values.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 01 December 2002 03:29 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: swallow ]


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
minigun
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3345

posted 01 December 2002 03:32 PM      Profile for minigun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
These are universal values.

Perhaps so. But they certainly are universally practised. Western nations are overwhelmingly better at these things than, say, China or Nigeria. Of course I realize that this is a massive generalizaton, so I don't want to pursue it much further. I simply believe that the commitment to these things is strongest in the West. There is, or at least should not be, anything stopping all nations from adopting these things, and yet be able to maintain rich cultural diversity.

I simply will never give in to the pomo argument that notions of good and evil are entirely fluid and based on one's "perspective". Stoning women to death for adultery is just plain wrong.


From: Boxford MA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 01 December 2002 03:36 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sadly there is one thing stopping many countries from adopting universal human rights values, and that is their governments and militaries. Indigenous democracies throughout the cold war period were toppled by client regimes backed by the US or the USSR, their social structures crippled, their economies warped to meet the needs of a global economy based on North American, European and/orJapanese dominance. North American prosperity has too often trumped the liberty of others: democracies like Iran toppled to make room for a dictatorship that will serve the needs of the US economy.

If the Bush regime really wanted to change, it would make at least one admission that US foreign policy has been a major factor in creating the very regimes it now condemns. In short, it would drop its pig-headed ignorance of context, history and nuance.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: swallow ]


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
DJStealth
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3309

posted 01 December 2002 03:49 PM      Profile for DJStealth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow.. major change in topic here.. There were like 1000 posts here this morning alone.. too much for me.. I support minigun; although I haven't had the chance to read everything here.

My last comments back to the previous topic, then I'll go chat in another thread.

quote:
Exactly! And under this principal alone, the motive of all Zionist ambitions, the reclaimation of land lost thousands of years ago, is a total fraud.

The land was never completely lost, Jews had a continuous presence for 3300 years; however, many of them were exiled.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 01 December 2002 05:02 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...tolerance, diversity, justice, democracy, liberty and prosperity
These are great ideals. The problem is that the people in power believe these ideals only apply to their own people, and only when it serves their interests.

Don't kid yourself. American military intervension has always been to protect and further American interests only. Its not about "liberating" Afghani women, or Iraqi children, or even Jewish prisoners.
American interests always take precidence over democracy and liberty.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 01 December 2002 05:27 PM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
FBI: If you can point me to just one post where you specifically condemned violence by the terrorists or expressed sympathy for the Israeli dead, then I'll apologize.

Mandrake, eat me.
I have in the past, and will continue to in the future, condemn the violence committed by "the terrorists" (like there is only one specific group of them?) I abhor violence, no matter who commits it. Use the search function, and read my posts. I'm not doing that for you.

"We're so stupid, killing each other. Don't we learn nothing?" - Jesse Michaels.


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 01 December 2002 06:58 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mandrake, eat me.

Meet me behind the bleachers after class.

quote:
I have in the past, and will continue to in the future, condemn the violence committed by "the terrorists" (like there is only one specific group of them?) I abhor violence, no matter who commits it. Use the search function, and read my posts. I'm not doing that for you.

Sorry. Couldn't find any specific instance.

quote:
"We're so stupid, killing each other. Don't we learn nothing?" - Jesse Michaels.

"It doesn't matter if you're black or white." - Michael Jackson


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 01 December 2002 07:05 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just having a little fun with you there, FBI. I think we all need to lighten up, even though this is an extremely serious topic.

quote:
I abhor violence, no matter who commits it.

O.K. I believe you. I apologize for my unwarrented accusation.

On a more relevant note:Arafat's declining influence


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 01 December 2002 07:20 PM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
O.K. I believe you. I apologize for my unwarrented accusation.

Thank you. Not so hard now, was it?. BTW, your link is dead.


From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
peacepiper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2489

posted 01 December 2002 07:53 PM      Profile for peacepiper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Minigun,

You've written some comments like, the US "frying Saddam and freeing his people", the Taliban's bad because of how they treat women and "gays", etc. I think you want people to have peace and freedom just like us, BUT,

The problem is that most of us know, at least a little, of the history of the MidEast - How Saddam was friends with the US government while he gassed the Kurds. How Osama was trained by the US. How the US supplied Saddam weapons/chemicals and knew what he would do with them - what else would he do with them? There are more US/Saddam/Al-Qaida "relations", but these few alone hopefully makes you realize why we know that the US is full of crap when it says it's trying to "free" people. Full of crap when it says that "THEY hate us because of our way of life". The US just wants control, just like it's trying to do in every part of the world. Look at Hawaii, Columbia and the DEA money making "drug war", Argentina (where there's a huge threat to the US- oil control wise), Honduras, Somalia, the West Bank with it's US supplied weapons/attack choppers for Israel (choppers to fight rocks and a few stolen guns??- a few in terms of comparison).

The US has sanctions under the name of the UN that have made the mortality rate skyrocket in Iraq. Before this embargo was started against the Iraqi's, the CIA, and many other respected government and humanitarion agencies agreed that that the sanctions would KILL innocent people. Most of them children. Iraq HAD universal healthcare/education (just like CUba does now),
and a good economy-And this is just Iraq. The info is easy to find.
The US wants control of the Middle east, replacing it with another dictator. They are about control.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: peacepiper ]


From: fd | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 01 December 2002 09:55 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
BTW, your link is dead.

Try again. I just brought it up onscreen.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 December 2002 10:58 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The land was never completely lost, Jews had a continuous presence for 3300 years; however, many of them were exiled.

Being ten percent of the population is hardly a mandate to rule.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 02 December 2002 11:16 AM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've been completely flummoxed myself about the continued sanctions against Iraq. They've never been shown to have any substantial impact on Hussein or his regime, and it has been more than obvious that it inflicted tremendous suffering on the Iraqi people.

It just doesn't make sense to me to keep doing something that we know isn't helping, and that's causing serious problems. And for a decade? I really don't understand.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 02 December 2002 12:58 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the West Bank with it's US supplied weapons/attack choppers for Israel (choppers to fight rocks and a few stolen guns??-

You see, you can't claim, in one sentence, to know something of the history of the middle east, and then turn around and claim that the only threat to Isreal, and the reason for its US supplied weapons, is to defend against a few demonstrators hurling rocks.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 December 2002 01:12 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And so what are the threats?

The fact is that after devestating losses to the armed forces of the Arab countries in 1973, the Soviet Union tired of the game and never resupplied them to the level where they could mount such an attack again. Since then the disparity between the military might of the Israeli state and the Arab nations has increased even further, as Israel has been resupplied by the US, or used US money to develop the latests military technology on its own, while the Arabs have not.

A quick look at the disparity in losses between Iraq and the US during the Gulf war, shows quite clearly that the Arab nations have nothing that will compete on the field with the Israeli army. Even in 1973 the Israeli' shot down Russian Mig 21's at a rate of 100 to 1.

The concept of Israeli anihilation at the hands of its Arab neighbours is a propoganda fantasy.

BTW, regarding your last comment on Begin's 1982 admission that Israel started that 1967 war, I was wondering if you were aware that at that time 1/3 of the Egyptian Army was in Yemen -- hardly a sign that they were preparing a mass assault against Israel. On the contrary, I am sure that this factor contributed to Israel's decision to attack.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 02 December 2002 01:12 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
True. Very true.

But, see, say I'm your neighbour. Say I have a gun. Or a lot of guns. So you get a bunch of guns to protect yourself from me. (Say we're in the States.) And then my kid comes over to your house and throws a rock at you.

Do you shoot him? No. No you don't. That's an overreaction. Swatting a fly with a catapult.

This is what happens in Israel. I'm not saying the threat isn't there, but the reaction to it is disproportionate. Save the choppers for when you need them.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 02 December 2002 02:15 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
BTW, regarding your last comment on Begin's 1982 admission that Israel started that 1967 war, I was wondering if you were aware that at that time 1/3 of the Egyptian Army was in Yemen -- hardly a sign that they were preparing a mass assault against Israel. On the contrary, I am sure that this factor contributed to Israel's decision to attack.

About a third of the US Army is in Europe, so obviously, they can't be planning to attack Iraq, right?

quote:
The concept of Israeli anihilation at the hands of its Arab neighbours is a propoganda fantasy.

Due only to the fact that Isreal has a superior military, not because of pacifism or a desire amongst Israel's neighbors for peaceful and normal relations.

It's just not fair isn't it? That one side of a conflict has superior weapons. You've made this point a couple of times now. Are you saying that Israel should take stock of Jordan's, Egypt's, Syria's and Saudi Arabia's armies and cut their defense spending to match them...so that if the Arab nations decide on another invasion it'll be a fair fight?

Isreal firing first in the 1967 war is a historical fact. Your assertions that Israel's neighbors were not actively preparing to fight that war is historical fiction.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: sheep ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 02 December 2002 02:27 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
hmmm... What percentage of the US army is needed to take on Iraq, d'ya think?

And what percentage of the Egyptian army might've been necessary to take on Israel?

I dunno, maybe it is a fair comparison.... but I really doubt it.


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 02 December 2002 02:33 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe Egypt and their allies were just overconfident in their ability to defeat Israel. Wouldn't be the first time.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 02 December 2002 02:37 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, it wouldn't. But then again, "maybe" isn't a very good basis for determining historical "fiction".
From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 02 December 2002 02:45 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And we've determined, 35 years after the fact, that Egypt was not going to war against Israel because???????? Because they didn't shoot first? Because of their history of non-aggression?

Or does it simply spring from a desire to paint Israel as some demonic aggressor waging war for no reason against it's peaceful Arab neighbors, who were just minding their own business, and who really are the true victims here.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: sheep ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 02 December 2002 02:56 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
...whereas we all know that israel has never been anything mor ethan a beacon of human rights and non-aggression throughout its history. I mean, there it was just minding its own business, when all these yahoos started blowing themselves up on buses and shit. I mean, what's up with that?
Pick your fiction.

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 02 December 2002 03:01 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So it's either/or then. You're with Israel, or you're with the Arabs. Only one side can be right eh black_dog? Maybe Bush jr. is onto something with that "with us or against us" huh?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 December 2002 03:08 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't see black_dog say that. I heard him say that you could "pick your fiction" which to me implies that he was countering your unbelievable viewpoint with an opposing, equally unbelievable viewpoint as an illustration of two "fictions". So perhaps it is YOU who is into dichotomies, not him.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 02 December 2002 03:12 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So perhaps it is YOU who is into dichotomies, not him.

Perhaps. Anything's possible. Heck, some people even believe that Israel started all of the wars it's fought against it's Arab nations.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Daoine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3321

posted 02 December 2002 03:37 PM      Profile for Daoine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought I was just pointing out that uncertainty is a bad basis for establishing certainty.

I certainly wasn't saying, or implying, that Israel is a demonic warmongering state, as you seem to have gathered.

It's definitely sophistry to rebut your opponents' positions by extrapolating them to absurd extremes. Respond to the points, not to your own assumptions, please? And I'll try to do the same.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Daoine ]


From: Gulag Alabamadze | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 December 2002 03:42 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No one said ALL. I said, that accoridng to Menachem Begin, former prime minister of Israel they started 56, 67 and 82, by choice. Who am I to believe you or he?

Also, in the light of the fact that Israel started the 1967 war, the one which incoprporated the WB, Gaza Strip, Sinai, and the Golan Heights is too much to suggest that the Arab states were at least somewhat justified in Starting the Yom Kippur War in an attempt to resecure the territory lost in 1967.

I am reffering to official statements by Israeli's, what are your sources to the contrary?


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 02 December 2002 04:00 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I certainly wasn't saying, or implying, that Israel is a demonic warmongering state, as you seem to have gathered.

I didn't gather that's what you were saying Daoine, I'm gathering that's what Moredreads is saying.

Your belief of Begin seems somewhat selective Moredreads. Obviously you believe him when he says that Israel decided to fire the first shot, yet you don't believe him when he says Israel reacted in self defense. But hey, if you want to hinge all your arguments on an out of context statement, be my guest.

I seem to recall that Canada declared war on Japan on Dec 7, 1941, despite the fact that we weren't attacked. I guess that makes us the aggressor in World War 2. Heck, we declared war first on Germany too.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 December 2002 04:04 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here are a few other quotes that you can stuff into your Anihilation Myth folder where you keep your so called facts. 1967:

"there was never any danger of extermination" Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann -- Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972

"All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories"

(former Israeli cabinet minister) Mordechai Bentov -- Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972.

"To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal (AKA the IDF)."

General Peled -- Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972.

Impartial observers noted the following:

Nasser's purpose was clearly "to deter Israel rather than provoke it to a fight"

The Observer, London, 4 June 1967.

New York Times reported that "Egypt does not war [...] certainly is not ready for war" (columnist James Reston in the New York Times, 4 and 5 June 1967).

A few months after the war, General Yitzhak Rabin remarked: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).

During the war this Nobel prize winning peacenik also said: "The moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian Government," on Israeli radio.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 02 December 2002 04:20 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The only thing your quotes "prove" Moredreads, is that many high ranking Israelis did not believe that Egypt was intent upon, or capable of "annihilating" the state of Israel in 1967. Doesn't mean that they did not have good reason to believe Egypt was about to go to war with them...again. Annihilation of a country is not the only reason to wage war upon them. Japan in 1941 was well aware that they did not have the ability to destroy the United States, and indeed, would lose a protracted battle. Didn't stop them from attacking though.

Perhaps the entire 1967 war could have been averted if the leaders of Israel only had a subscription to the New York Times, or the Observer, where they could have easily determined both Egypt's capabilities and motivations. Ah, hindsight.

Your last quote there sounds supiciously close in tone to this thread.

Course that's just anti-Arab racism right? Whereas you're simply relying on the facts and the truth.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: sheep ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 02 December 2002 09:48 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If one is sufficiently paranoid, one can see death coming in any shadow.

In a just society, war is the last resort. This was the position of the allies in WW2, none of the allies went to war unless they were declared upon first, or to support nations that were declared upon. Thus, in the sight of history, though sometimes it may seem that one is choosing between evils, the moral weight falls on the side of the allies, even the Soviet Union.

Simply suggesting that someone has reason to fear that someone may be out to get you, is no justification to get them first. Your logic leads everyone, and all nations to perpetual slaughter, as all people and nations have are potentially dangerous to one another.

This 'potential' is not jusification for a prepemtive strike.

In this case there is aboslutely no evidence to support the thesis that the Israeli attack of 1967, was anything but a bold land grab made against weaker neighbours. The fact that Israel did not retreat to its original borders after soundly defeating the Arab armies proves that clearly.

Add to this the fact that Israel immediatly started moving in settlers to the areas captured is yet more evidence of its agressive, not defensive intent.

It took some time, but after defeating Germany and Japan the occupation of those two countries was relatively short. It is now 35 years, since Israel invaded the West Bank and Gaza Strip.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 02 December 2002 09:55 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I mean, there it was just minding its own business, when all these yahoos started blowing themselves up on buses and shit. I mean, what's up with that?
Pick your fiction.
This statement comes awfully close to trying to find a justificztion for homicide bombings. For the record, there can never be any such justification.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 02 December 2002 10:07 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Feh.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 December 2002 11:04 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No it doesn't. If you'd read the post before it you would have the context, Mishei. Tough beans if you don't like it when the same rhetorical device used to support your point of view is used to support the opposing one.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 02 December 2002 11:06 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*SMASH*

(sound of glass house panel breaking)

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 03 December 2002 01:53 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A four page thread? Audra must be on well deserved holiday.

I call the question.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 03 December 2002 01:57 AM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This one makes 240 posts. *Glurp*
From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 December 2002 09:09 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No it doesn't. If you'd read the post before it you would have the context, Mishei. Tough beans if you don't like it when the same rhetorical device used to support your point of view is used to support the opposing one.
Michelle, I read the post before it and I still hold to the point. I said it came close and one has to be careful, I believe not to give any support whatsoever to the concept that homicide bombings may serve some higher goal.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 December 2002 09:15 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with Mishei. There can never be any justification for suicide bombings. Likewise, however, there can never be any justification for collective punishment, using civilians as human shields, bulldozing homes, seizing lands and shooting farmers trying to harvest their crops.

I am sure we can see eye-to-eye on this one without having to resort to an eye for an eye.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 03 December 2002 01:27 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Likewise, however, there can never be any justification for collective punishment, using civilians as human shields, bulldozing homes, seizing lands and shooting farmers trying to harvest their crops.

Oh, WingNut, cut the crap. That's SELF-DEFENSE, and therefore COMPLETELY different.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
peacepiper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2489

posted 03 December 2002 10:03 PM      Profile for peacepiper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You see, you can't claim, in one sentence, to know something of the history of the middle east, and
then turn around and claim that the only threat to Isreal, and the reason for its US supplied weapons,
is to defend against a few demonstrators hurling rocks. "

That wasn't what i said.

links-
http://www.iacenter.org/palest_gaza-2002.htm
"The Pentagon has provided the Israeli military with F-16s, attack helicopters and other high-tech weaponry that has been extensively used to attack Palestinian civilian areas." ..."Numerous governments and organizations issued statements condemning the Israeli bombing and the heavy civilian toll...After 15 hours of silence, the White House issued a statement criticizing Israel in moderate language. "

http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/security/articles/sec_0065.htm
"Israeli helicopters strike at strategic targets
Shortly before 2 p.m. yesterday afternoon Israeli Apache helicopters fired at least two "smart" missiles into the third floor offices of the Hamas headquarters in Nablus. Three key members of the Hamas military wing, Jamal Mansour, 41, Jamal Salim, 43, and Fahim Ibrahim Mustafa Dawabsheh, 32, and three others in the offices at the time were killed instantly. Two children, Ashraf and Bilal Khader, brothers aged five and eight, who were walking nearby, were also killed in the attack.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/israel050602.html

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: peacepiper ]

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: peacepiper ]


From: fd | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 04 December 2002 03:17 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your implication peacepiper, was that the US supplies helicopters to Israel for the purpose of fighting Palestinians throwing rocks.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 04 December 2002 04:17 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Oh, WingNut, cut the crap. That's SELF-DEFENSE, and therefore COMPLETELY different
Smith we finally agree!

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 December 2002 04:30 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This has got to be the longest thread in history.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 December 2002 04:33 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, I think there was a 5 page thread at one point.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 04 December 2002 05:21 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I am sure we can see eye-to-eye on this one without having to resort to an eye for an eye.

Nice phrasing, and a nie sentiment too, but you seem to spend most of your time condemning Palestinian acts, as if they equitable with Israeli acts of terrorism. It is all very well and fine to condemn violence, after these are heinous acts we are talking about, but you have to be very clear about the primary source of Palestinian anger, and it is, in the end an unjustifiable occupation.

Morally, despite the nature of the act, given that neither side seems too reticent when it comes to making civilian populations the hostages of fear, one can only come to the conclusion that Palestinian atrocities are less morally reprehensible, as they are acts of societal self-defence, while Israel acts as the agressor.

Given the conditions, as nasty as it seems, I land on the side of the bombers, for this reason alone.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 04 December 2002 05:25 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
you seem to spend most of your time condemning Palestinian acts, as if they equitable with Israeli acts of terrorism.

Mr. Pot? There's a kettle here who would love to meet you.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 04 December 2002 05:26 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the record, Mishei thinks
quote:
shooting farmers trying to harvest their crops
is self defense. Good to know...

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, however, there can never be any justification for collective punishment, using civilians as human shields, bulldozing homes, seizing lands and shooting farmers trying to harvest their crops.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, WingNut, cut the crap. That's SELF-DEFENSE, and therefore COMPLETELY different.
---------------------------------------------
Smith we finally agree!


Just goes to show, if you're going to start making accusations based on sarcastic remarks, maybe it's not wise to open yourself up for the same. At least, I really hope your remark was sarcastic. If not, you're an utter creep.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 04 December 2002 05:42 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mr. Pot? There's a kettle here who would love to meet you.

Thems the the brakes pall, I've looked at it, I've researched it, and I have decided that overall that Israel is the agressor. I know what side I'm on, is all.

This is not to deny wrongdoing from the Arabs, the PLO or Fatah etc,. unlike the above obfustication based on very dubious legal grounds that is being presented as some justification for his election prime minister. He got a slap on the wrist when he should have got life.

The same might be said about Arafat, as he is no choir boy, but he has at least shown that he is tractable within the political situation. For instance he negotiated and signed Oslo. Sharon has never done much more than figure out new justifications for slaughtering Arabs.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 04 December 2002 05:48 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The same might be said about Arafat, as he is no choir boy, but he has at least shown that he is tractable within the political situation. For instance he negotiated and signed Oslo.

quote:
"I don't consider the [1994 Oslo] agreement any more than the agreement
which was signed by our prophet Mohammad and the Qurayish,"
-Yassir Arafat, speaking in South Africa in 1994, referring to a temporary
peace agreement the Islamic prophet Mohammed signed with the Qurayish tribe,
until he was strong enough to conquer them.

What a trustworthy guy!


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 04 December 2002 05:57 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Given the conditions, as nasty as it seems, I land on the side of the bombers, for this reason alone.

Nice to know that Moredreads has good reasons for supporting butchers and cowards who target civilians for slaughter. As long as your at it, M, give us the ten top reasons why you support Al Quida.


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 04 December 2002 06:00 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What do you want? Arafat is a politican. Musharaff said the same thing about supporting the USA in the war in Afghansitan, but he again is tractable in the political siuation.

There is a big difference between sabre rattling, and action. On the other hand, at no point has Israel ever given up sending new settlers to the West Bank. Arafat for his part, substantially kept Hamas in check after the accord was signed up until 2000.

Actions speak louder than words.

In fact a great number of Palestinians are disssaffected with Arafat because he acted to quell the first Intifada. They believe that he should kept up the pressure.

Hence the increased popularity of Hamas, who are definitely not 'tractable.'


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 04 December 2002 06:07 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nice to know that Moredreads has good reasons for supporting butchers and cowards who target civilians for slaughter.

At least I don't pretend that the Palestinians don't target civilians for slaughter, unlike you who seems to retreat into some kindy of fuzzy-wuzzy, never never land when anyone suggest, that maybe just possibly, the IDF are not just a nice bunch of young men, out for holifday strolls aroung the pretty streets of Hebron.

quote:
As long as your at it, M, give us the ten top reasons why you support Al Quida.

Fatah and Al Queda are not the same thing, but I guess if you seen one arab you've seen them all. Am I right?


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 04 December 2002 06:14 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Morally, despite the nature of the act, given that neither side seems too reticent when it comes to making civilian populations the hostages of fear, one can only come to the conclusion that Palestinian atrocities are less morally reprehensible, as they are acts of societal self-defence, while Israel acts as the agressor.
I sympathize with Moredreads'reasoning.
But I have to make a distiction I feel is important. I am not on the side of Arafat or his affiliates. I don't believe they are working for anything more than positions of power.

I am on the side of the people. The inhabitants of Palestine who have lost their homes and livelihoods, whose only crime is being of the wrong ethnic/religious group.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 04 December 2002 06:15 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My apologies then Moredreads. It's just that when I saw you post your objections to Rabin saying:

quote:
"The moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian Government,"

I kind of figured you were opposed to leaders saying these kinds of things.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 04 December 2002 06:19 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hear audra coming... hide!

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 04 December 2002 06:21 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hide! Hide!
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 04 December 2002 06:22 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ha!

I'm the worst thread closer EVER.


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca