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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Egyptian newspaper supports homicide bombings

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Egyptian newspaper supports homicide bombings
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 09 February 2004 12:28 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"Even if during [a martyrdom operation] civilians or children are killed - the blame does not fall upon the Palestinians, but on those who forced them to turn to this modus operandi.

"Ultimately, we should bless every Palestinian man or woman who goes calmly to carry out a martyrdom operation, in order to receive a reward in the Hereafter, sacrificing her life for her religion and her homeland and knowing that she will never return from this operation.


Al Massa

[ 09 February 2004: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 09 February 2004 12:33 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, isn't that the same excuse the IDF uses when it fires rockets from Apache helicopters into crowds? They can't be blamed for civilian deaths, the terrorists forced them to do it, the civilians should have know better, etc, etc, etc?
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 09 February 2004 12:36 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
Hey, isn't that the same excuse the IDF uses when it fires rockets from Apache helicopters into crowds? They can't be blamed for civilian deaths, the terrorists forced them to do it, the civilians should have know better, etc, etc, etc?
No and to make such a comparision between homicide bombers and the IDF taking action against terorrorists is frankly sick.

That innocent people get caught up and are killed in the war against terrorism is tragic. But for those who try to put it on the same scale...well all you are doing is trying to legitimize the murder of Israelis by terrorism. It is sick.

[ 09 February 2004: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 09 February 2004 12:40 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is the circulation of this paper? "Egyptian government daily" doesn't mean much, as the Egyptian government is certain to be full of factions.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 09 February 2004 12:50 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
What is the circulation of this paper? "Egyptian government daily" doesn't mean much, as the Egyptian government is certain to be full of factions.
True, that would be interesting to know.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 February 2004 12:52 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What is the circulation of this paper?

What would it need to be for a comment like this to be significant?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 09 February 2004 12:58 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What would "An End to Evil"'s circulation have to be for it to be a significant comment on Western political discourse?
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 09 February 2004 12:58 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For those who read Arabic here is it's home page.

Al Masaa


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 09 February 2004 01:12 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"Even if during [a martyrdom operation] civilians or children are killed - the blame does not fall upon the Palestinians, but on those who forced them to turn to this modus operandi.

Change "martyrdom operation" into "anti-terrorist operation" and "Palestinians" into "IDF" or "Israel" and you have exactly the same justification for the indiscriminate use of force by the IDF in its assassination operations, like this one.


quote:
well all you are doing is trying to legitimize the murder of Israelis by terrorism

Right on cue. I do no such thing, but why should that stop your pious indignation. All I'm doing is asking what's the difference? The effect (death of innocent bystanders) is the same, the purposes (displays of violence to achieve a political aim) are the same. In my book, they're both "sick". But you never cease to excuse Israeli violence, no matter the death toll or the illegality.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 09 February 2004 01:23 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Right on cue. I do no such thing, but why should that stop your pious indignation. All I'm doing is asking what's the difference? The effect (death of innocent bystanders) is the same, the purposes (displays of violence to achieve a political aim) are the same. In my book, they're both "sick". But you never cease to excuse Israeli violence, no matter the death toll or the illegality.


If there was evidence that Isreal had a policy of gratuitously killing as many Palestinian civilians as possible with a focus on woman children and the elderly then i might agree with you. But it is clear that while the odd civilians gets caught in crossfire in the occupied territories, it is not in the interest of the Israelis to purposely try to kill as many people as possible. If it were they could kill thousands a day. Similarly, if Hamas and co. limited themselves totally to attacking Israeli military targets and refrained from purposely trying to get maximum loss of life among civilians, I would also see the two sides as being equal.

To juxtapose civilians accidentally killed in the occupied territories during shelling or in crossfire with Israelis killed on purpose by genocidal terrorists is like juxtaposing the Nazis gassing millions of people at Auschwitz with Germans dying during allied bombing raids on Hamburg.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 09 February 2004 01:24 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The difference is one of intent. The IDF do not go looking for Palestinian Cafes and resteraunts, buses and community centres to target specifically women, children and other innocence for murder. You know that but to admit it would be well beyond your agenda.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 09 February 2004 01:32 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have no trouble whatsoever denouncing this as propoganda, and immoral to boot. Any appeal to murder, any justification of the killing of civilians, is horrendous and an insult to our common humanity.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 09 February 2004 01:37 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
Hey, isn't that the same excuse the IDF uses when it fires rockets from Apache helicopters into crowds? They can't be blamed for civilian deaths, the terrorists forced them to do it, the civilians should have know better, etc, etc, etc?

Yes, but innocent Israelis are worth more than innocent Palestinians don't you know?


NOT accepting that stepping into a crowd of innocent people and blowing yourself up in order to hit out against your enemies is morally the same as launching a high explosive missile into a crowed street to hit out against your enemies, is the real "sickness"!! Trying to claim that your own murdering is justifiable while your enemies murdering is terrorism is evil, selfish, and hateful (on all sides.)

But it seems to be a popular right wing extremest belief that their murder is justifiable, while other peoples murder is "terrorism" . . . just this weekend I sat through the whole "Meet the Press" Bush interview listening to him repeat over and over and over again how even if the information was wrong, he had to act on the information available at the time before it was too late . . . all the while not recognizing the irony that he was using the same logic, of taking unconsidered action, with flawed information, and biased hatered of your preceived enemies, that the "terrorists" always use . . . he was doing exactly the same thing as the "terrorists", but somehow the ends (killing your enemies) justified the means in his case, while his enemies, using the same justification to murder their enemies, were lableed "terrorists".

The Bush administration, Al-Qada, IDF, Arafat, Sharon . . . all the same as far as I'm concerned . . . a bunch of right wing murders trying to convince us that we need people like them in power in order to protect us from other people just like them!!


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 09 February 2004 01:56 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If there was evidence that Isreal had a policy of gratuitously killing as many Palestinian civilians as possible with a focus on woman children and the elderly then i might agree with you. But it is clear that while the odd civilians gets caught in crossfire in the occupied territories, it is not in the interest of the Israelis to purposely try to kill as many people as possible. If it were they could kill thousands a day. Similarly, if Hamas and co. limited themselves totally to attacking Israeli military targets and refrained from purposely trying to get maximum loss of life among civilians, I would also see the two sides as being equal.


What a bunch of nonsense . . . there are at least three times as many Palestinians dying as Israelis, most of which, on both sides, are innocent . . . and when pregnant women and their babies die because the are not allowed to make the trip to a hospital, that may not be as "romantic" as having yourself blown up by a human bomb, but the "terrorism" is still the same.

And since when did the number of people killed have anything to do with the morality of your murder??? If the fact that IDF is not killing thousands a day is some kind of indicator of their morality, then since the Palestininas are killing even less people per day, then they must therefore be even more "moral" in the murder . . . would that not follow from your confused logic!?

If Hamsa were to stick totally to attacking military targets, they would be quickly eliminated given that they are fighting a vastly superior military force . . . maybe is the IDF were to put away all their American provided military equipment then they could have a fair fight against Hamas and Hamas wouldn't feel they have to use such "unsavory" tactics.

As Jingles pointed out, maybe IDF apologists should take a step back and see exactly who it is that is justifying murder here . . . pointing out IDF murder and terrorism is not the same as justifying Hamas murder, it is simply condeming IDF murder . . . it is the IDF apologists who are the ones trying to justify murder.

IF some Hamas apologist wants to come on the board and claim that killing innocent people is justified, they will, and should, receive the same condemnation for supporting murder.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 09 February 2004 02:07 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

If there was evidence that Isreal had a policy of gratuitously killing as many Palestinian civilians as possible with a focus on woman children and the elderly then i might agree with you. But it is clear that while the odd civilians gets caught in crossfire in the occupied territories, it is not in the interest of the Israelis to purposely try to kill as many people as possible. If it were they could kill thousands a day. Similarly, if Hamas and co. limited themselves totally to attacking Israeli military targets and refrained from purposely trying to get maximum loss of life among civilians, I would also see the two sides as being equal.

To juxtapose civilians accidentally killed in the occupied territories during shelling or in crossfire with Israelis killed on purpose by genocidal terrorists is like juxtaposing the Nazis gassing millions of people at Auschwitz with Germans dying during allied bombing raids on Hamburg.


Exactly Stockholm but that would not compute for many here. Why? Because for many Babblers Israel MUST play the role of the demon in order for their blinkered view of the world to work.

[ 09 February 2004: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 09 February 2004 02:18 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If Hamsa were to stick totally to attacking military targets, they would be quickly eliminated given that they are fighting a vastly superior military force

Well that's their problem. There are 200 million Arabs plus trillions of dollars worth of oil revenue at the disposal of the Arab side in the conflict against 5 million Israelis in a country with no significant natural resources.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 February 2004 02:27 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Shhhhh! Do you want this to be 1967 all over again?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 February 2004 02:30 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There are 200 million Arabs plus trillions of dollars worth of oil revenue at the disposal of the Arab side in the conflict against 5 million Israelis in a country with no significant natural resources.

Another myth.

200 million Arabs are not on one side of a conflict against Israel.

A few million Palestinians are certainly engaged in a struggle for survival, but most of the rulers in the Arab world are ignoring their plight. Furthermore, the oil sheikhs, a great percentage of whom are US lackeys, are giving no monetary support to the Palestinians.

[ 09 February 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 09 February 2004 02:48 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
If there was evidence that Isreal had a policy of gratuitously killing as many Palestinian civilians as possible with a focus on woman children and the elderly then i might agree with you.

Just out of curiosity, you won't mind citing the actual death ratios (ie. the number of men versus women with a separate break-out for children, or number of civilians dead to number of "terrorists" dead - I put "terrorists" in quotes because it seems like they call any rock-thrower a "terrorist" these days), in order to prove your point...


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 09 February 2004 02:50 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS. It might be well taken by all concerned that the death of any human being is not cause for celebration, but a reflection on human imperfection.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 February 2004 03:06 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
you won't mind citing the actual death ratios

Here's a thorough fact sheet from PalestineMonitor.org that shows female Palestinians killed making up 6.7% of Palestinians killed by Israelis. Children under 15 make up 12.6%, but unfortunately that's not cross-referenced into the first figure.

And here's another site with some stats on the killings on both sides. According to their stats, "Women and girls account for 30 percent of all Israelis killed in the conflict, and almost 40 percent of the Israeli noncombatants killed by Palestinians. ", considerably more than 6.7%.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 09 February 2004 03:59 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
200 million Arabs are not on one side of a conflict against Israel.


There have been wars fought in 1948, 1967, 1973 that pitted Israel against just about the whole Arab world. There are countless trade embargoes and resolutions at Arab League summits etc... Its also common knowledge that wealthy Saudis send cash to families of suicide bombers to encourage more people to kill.

If the US really has such influence over those oil-rich sheikdomes why doesn Dubbya just pick up the phone and order the Saudi king to make friends with Israel and stop all assistance to Hamas and co?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 February 2004 04:03 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The above post is unsubstantiated hyperbole.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 09 February 2004 04:15 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If the US really has such influence over those oil-rich sheikdomes why doesn Dubbya just pick up the phone and order the Saudi king to make friends with Israel and stop all assistance to Hamas and co?

Ya, why doesn't he? There must be a reason the US president isn't interested in peace in the Middle East. But what is woefully naive about the above post is the assumption that Bush actually cares about peace in the first place.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 February 2004 04:44 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ya, why doesn't he?

Perhaps the House of Saud doesn't jump every time they're ordered to, especially if the order is "jump into bed with Israel". I think that was actually Stockholm's point.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 09 February 2004 05:42 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That was precisely my point. The US cen't even get Saudi Arabia to lift a finger to prevent its citizens from hijacking planes and flying them into buildings!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 February 2004 09:48 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, shucks, the US can't even stop folks like Tim McVeigh.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tolok
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4934

posted 09 February 2004 11:13 PM      Profile for Tolok        Edit/Delete Post
Tee Hee.

End the drug war!


From: Out of Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 09 February 2004 11:46 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

There have been wars fought in 1948, 1967, 1973 that pitted Israel against just about the whole Arab world.



More of Stockholm's mythological history.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 10 February 2004 12:27 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well then why don't you tell us who the belligernets were in each of those wars. In each case it was several countries against Israel and with vast numeric superiority and with the Arab side having bene given vast amounts of weapons by the Russians. Remember the US was actually quite pro-Arab until the early 70s.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tolok
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4934

posted 10 February 2004 12:58 AM      Profile for Tolok        Edit/Delete Post
Pro Arab?

I might as all be pro English.

Truth is a weapon in an army of lies.

We will survive.


From: Out of Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 10 February 2004 01:17 AM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Well then why don't you tell us who the belligernets were in each of those wars. In each case it was several countries against Israel and with vast numeric superiority and with the Arab side having bene given vast amounts of weapons by the Russians. Remember the US was actually quite pro-Arab until the early 70s.

Let's see. We have

1. Hyperbole and Equivocation: "Several countries" = "just about the whole Arab world." Does it?

2. Historical fiction: Contrary to your assertion, in 1948, for example, The Haganah was better trained and materially stronger than the combined Arab armies they faced. The numeric difference was minute, and more than made up for by the superior monetary resources found on the Israeli side.

Just for starters....

[ 10 February 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tolok
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4934

posted 10 February 2004 01:37 AM      Profile for Tolok        Edit/Delete Post
The master of pr flak.
From: Out of Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 10 February 2004 03:05 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The war of 1967 was a a joke of a "defensive" war. It's the closest thing to a pre-emptive strike that the Israelis ever made, from what I recall of reading about it.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 10 February 2004 03:47 AM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
1. Hyperbole and Equivocation: "Several countries" = "just about the whole Arab world." Does it?

You're absolutely right. The Bahrainian and Qatari armies sat those conflicts out. Probably could have turned the tide in favour of the home team huh?

quote:
2. Historical fiction: Contrary to your assertion, in 1948, for example, The Haganah was better trained and materially stronger than the combined Arab armies they faced. The numeric difference was minute, and more than made up for by the superior monetary resources found on the Israeli side.

This is just laughable on so many levels. Did the Jews throw money at the Arab soldiers to make them run away Courage?

The Arab armies lost, in all the conflicts, because they couldn't get their shit together amongst each other and were outmanouvered and outcoordinated by the Israelis every time.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 10 February 2004 05:09 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:
This is just laughable on so many levels. Did the Jews throw money at the Arab soldiers to make them run away Courage?

Don't be snide.

You know as well as I do that having money in a war situation means you can get weaponry and supplies more easily than if you did not have it.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 10 February 2004 08:12 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Hagannah was made up of the remenants of European Jewry. Under trained, little knowledge of the language and terrain the only real thing they had going for them was the belief that there was little else to live for.

To describe the fledgling nation of Israel in 1948 as rich and powerful is the height of spin and the beginning for those who paint Israel as demonic.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 10 February 2004 09:13 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
those who paint Israel as demonic

Which raises an interesting point: Is Israel Lawful Evil, like a devil (or Tanar'i, for those of you with AD&D Second edition) or Chaotic Evil? I suppose the case for Neutral Evil could be made, but Ariel Sharon really doesn't look like an arch-lich. Plus, I don't think he's got the Intelligence and Wisdom to be a magic-user or cleric.

Cleric. Sigh. I'm so first edition. Next I'll be going on about Thief-Acrobats.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 10 February 2004 10:51 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aRoused:

Which raises an interesting point: Is Israel Lawful Evil, like a devil (or Tanar'i, for those of you with AD&D Second edition) or Chaotic Evil? I suppose the case for Neutral Evil could be made, but Ariel Sharon really doesn't look like an arch-lich. Plus, I don't think he's got the Intelligence and Wisdom to be a magic-user or cleric.

Cleric. Sigh. I'm so first edition. Next I'll be going on about Thief-Acrobats.



I hope this is tongue in cheek if not it should be condemned as hate propaganda. Imagine if it read as follows:

"Which raises an interesting point: Is the Palestinian Authority Lawful Evil, like a devil (or Tanar'i, for those of you with AD&D Second edition) or Chaotic Evil? I suppose the case for Neutral Evil could be made, but Yasser Arafat really doesn't look like an arch-lich. Plus, I don't think he's got the Intelligence and Wisdom to be a magic-user or cleric."


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 10 February 2004 11:03 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

The only thing you can say about aRoused based on his D&D metaphor is that he is far too geeky for his own good.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 10 February 2004 11:07 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does Overexplained Jokes International have a copyright?

Can't we get the UBB "OJI" button on rabble, or is audra really the dragonic Smaug, hoarding all the good code in her evil lair?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 10 February 2004 12:38 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
The Hagannah was made up of the remenants of European Jewry. Under trained, little knowledge of the language and terrain the only real thing they had going for them was the belief that there was little else to live for.

I thought Hebrew and Yiddish were routinely taught to Jewish people - at least the more religious among them did, no?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 February 2004 12:43 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe it's along the lines of my (nominal) French education. Sure, I can state that the pencil is on the table, or ask where my umbrella is, but I sure wouldn't want to have to say "Send in an air-strike to the following co-ordinates" over a radio, in French.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 10 February 2004 02:15 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:

I thought Hebrew and Yiddish were routinely taught to Jewish people - at least the more religious among them did, no?


Hebrew was the biblical language. European Jews spoke Yiddish but not modern Hebrew which came into existance with the establishment of the state of Israel. Most Israelis in 1948 re-learned modern Hebrew. The survivors from Europe did not speak a word of the new Hebrew. For us it would be like trying to learn Olde English but in reverse so to speak.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 10 February 2004 02:49 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quibble (linguistic not political)
Quoting Mishei:

"Hebrew was the biblical language. European Jews spoke Yiddish"

Depends where they lived.

"but not modern Hebrew which came into existance with the establishment of the state of Israel. Most Israelis in 1948 re-learned modern Hebrew. The survivors from Europe did not speak a word of the new Hebrew. For us it would be like trying to learn Olde English but in reverse so to speak."

Yiddish wouldn't be much use in learning Hebrew except for the fact that it is written in a modified Hebrew alphabet (Semitic languages such as Arabic and Hebrew don't require short vowels to be written out as they can be deduced from the part of speech). Grammatically, Yiddish is a Low German dialect (though a language in its own right, from a cultural and literary standpoint) with an infusion of Slavic influences and many Hebrew words, often quite modified.

Actually several other dialects spoken by Jews were also written in Hebrew script. Studying Biblical Hebrew would definitely be a help in learning Modern Hebrew, however, and of course a lot of Jews studied it as they were growing up.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 10 February 2004 05:42 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
[QB]The Hagannah was made up of the remenants of European Jewry. Under trained, little knowledge of the language and terrain the only real thing they had going for them was the belief that there was little else to live for.

This is standard Israeli State Mythology.

Historians know better. Even arch-Zionist military historians like Efraim Karsh have come to admit that the Israeli side was far better prepared and at least as well-trained as the (also) mostly irregular forces on the 'Arab' side. The truth is that there was a core of soldiers on the Israeli side who had been training in militia and irregular units as early as the 1930's.

But hey, what do all those historians know that a little Mish-ification can't obscure?

quote:
To describe the fledgling nation of Israel in 1948 as rich and powerful is the height of spin and the beginning for those who paint Israel as demonic.

If only anyone had done that....

Wealth and military power are relative. In relation to the Arab states that Israel fought in 1948 they were well-funded and usually better equipped and organised.....

[ 10 February 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 10 February 2004 05:44 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:
The Arab armies lost, in all the conflicts, because they couldn't get their shit together amongst each other and were outmanouvered and outcoordinated by the Israelis every time.

So you admit that they were not a military juggernaut. Any working notion of military power must contain some standard of preparedness and organisation. The so-called 'Arab' side was actually rife with philosophical divisions and differences over both strategy and ends sought. For instance, it is now clear that Jordan had laid out it's goals as nothing more than gaining control over the territory alloted to an Arab state by the UN Partition Agreement. This was communicated by diplomatic channels prior to their engagement in the conflict as well. It's all there for reading. They confined much of their operations (they had the most 'regular' of the armies on the Arab side) to this end. Repeated attempts coordination of the command chains of the Arab armies was never highly successful. It was not 'David and Goliath'.

Thanks for making my point.

[ 10 February 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 10 February 2004 05:59 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The truth is that there was a core of soldiers on the Israeli side who had been training in militia and irregular units as early as the 1930's.

Soldiers without significant weapons, no artlillery, few munitions certainly no aircraft..all forbidden by the British mandate.

Yes what a superior army.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 10 February 2004 06:16 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It was not 'David and Goliath'.

Sure it was. Big, lumbering, clumsy Goliath versus lightly armed and nimble David. Overconfident Goliath lumbered in blindly and got his clock cleaned.

You'll be posting the order of battle for the Arab armies in the 1948 conflict to support your assertion that they were mostly untrained irregulars now, won't you Courage?

Please also expand on how the Israelis in 1948 were able to train their irregulars to a higher standard than the British trained Iraqi, Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian armies.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 10 February 2004 06:49 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Soldiers without significant weapons, no artlillery, few munitions certainly no aircraft..all forbidden by the British mandate.

Yes what a superior army.


Again, Mishei - it's relative. Do you suppose the Arab armies (essentially of the irregular militia type and made up of farmers and rural fellah) were any better equipped? They weren't. Moreover, just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Moreover, you are absolutely wrong to think that the Haganah was utterly forbidden as we shall see.

Anyway, thanks for serving up such a softball - you do me so many favours...

Come 1948, Jewish militia groups like the Haganah, Irgun and LEHI had been stockpiling weapons for some time. Moreover, from the late 1930's onward, the Haganah actually engaged in cooperative security efforts with the British Mandate authority. According to Dr. Me'ir Pa'il in a Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs article entitled From Hashomer to the Israel Defense Forces: Armed Jewish Defense in Palestine:

quote:
During the disturbances of 1936-1939 - called by the Arabs the "Arab uprising" - strategic interests persuaded the British governments in Jerusalem and London to allow a certain degree of military collaboration between the British army and police and the Haganah. This cooperation gave the Haganah a measure of legality for three years, manifested in the Supernumery Police venture that lasted until 1948...

From the earliest days of Zionist colonisation in Palestine there existed local self-defense organisations under the banner of the Haganah. Slowly, these groups evolved into militias and, according to Dr. Pa'il:

quote:
After about two decades of activity, clear indications of extensive professional institutionalization became evident. "Regional Defense" had come into being, as had Field Troops that operated for about two years (1937-1939). By this time, the Haganah had created a Field Corps, a Medical Service, a Signals Corps, an Intelligence service, Aliya Bet (which handled illegal immigration), an arms industry and services for the procurement and storage of weapons. The country was divided into operational districts and a professional military journal called Ma'arakhot (campaigns) made its debut. In 1941, the "Youth regiments" (Gadna) and the "Strike Force" (Palmach) were formed.

The period following WWII was rife with armed attacks on British military targets as well as the capture of military equipment (guns, mortars, artillery) etc. from British positions. The Haganah re-negged on their cooperation with the British and, joined by LEHI and Etzel (The Irgun), began attacks on British military targets.

As British interest in Palestine waned and policy waffled, their authority was barely existent and large amounts of weapons were being imported by the Haganah and other militia groups all the time. Still further, large weapons purchases were made -- a now-famous deal with Czechoslovakia brought several planes into Haganah/IDF hands in May 1948) -- in the months leading up to the beginning of inter-state (internecine conflict had started in 1947) conflict with the 'Arab States' in the spring of 1948.

Amazingly, Mishei, most of this information can be gleaned from official Israeli government sources. This is the first time we've ever seen you stray so far from the party line...

[ 10 February 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 10 February 2004 06:52 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Drone:

So many red-herrings, so little time.


One point though, just to demonstrate that you don't know the subject matter:

You say, "Please also expand on how the Israelis in 1948 were able to train their irregulars to a higher standard than the British trained Iraqi, Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian armies."

For starters, the British did not train Syrian forces. Egypt was independent from 1922 onward. Secondly, there is a logical contradiction here: the fact that many of the soldiers were irregular means that they weren't trained by the British, but only haphazardly thrown (often against their will) into the army by their respective governments. Thirdly, if it were that the Israelis managed to train their irregulars more swiftly and with greater success than the Arabs (and Pa'il's argument is that the institutions existed to do so), then this actually makes my point. My point being that the relation of military power between the two sides is currently understood to have been very even, if not tilted in favour of the Israeli side, by many historians.

Thanks for making my case some more.

You are really bad at this game.

[ 10 February 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 10 February 2004 08:13 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For starters, the British did not train Syrian forces.

Perhaps you ought to explain this one, Courage.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 10 February 2004 08:52 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So if in fact Israel actually had such a huge military advantage over the Arab countries on the eve of the 1948 war, why did the Arabs start a war they should have known they were destined to lose?? Why didn't they just accept the 1947 UN partition (which Israel was fully prepared to accept), sign a peace treaty, have all of pre-1967 Israel under their control, plus other chunks of Israel that are not even on the table now. And then everyone could have lived happily ever after.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 10 February 2004 09:05 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Great question, Stockholm.

Why did the US invade Vietnam, knowing they were going to lose?

Why did Hitler invade Russia knowing he was going to lose?

Why did the Persians invade Greece, knowing they were going to lose?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 10 February 2004 09:16 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For starters, the British did not train Syrian forces

You know, you're absolutely right Courage. My mistake. It was the French that trained the Syrian Army. That explains a lot. It's certainly a more plausible explanation for their defeat than "the jews had more money".


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 10 February 2004 10:26 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So do you wear a visor, drone?
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 February 2004 10:50 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now, now.

Also, worker_drone, I think most people see through your continuing attempt to pin an anti-semitic smear on Courage regarding Jews and money. That dog won't hunt, sorry.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 10 February 2004 10:51 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
7 second delay where are you?
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 10 February 2004 11:29 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Also, worker_drone, I think most people see through your continuing attempt to pin an anti-semitic smear on Courage regarding Jews and money. That dog won't hunt, sorry.

You know, I think anyone could be excused for thinking that Courage is either truly anti-semitic or an incredibly gullible dupe for some of the more common anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. He has treated us to his view that Israel won against overwhelming odds in 1948, because they had more money (they were Jews right and where there's smoke there's fire...if they won it must have been becaue they got money from the Rothchilds). He has also treated us to his view that when the Archbishop of Canterbury (who is actually very critical of Israel) condemns anti-semitism - it is all part of some global Jewish conspiracy to make people sympathize with Israel (is this the 2004 edition of the Protocols of Elders of Zion?). What more evidence do we need that this person obviously buys into all the classic anti-semitic canards of the last 100 years. I'm just waiting for April to come around and see if he starts telling us that Israelis are killing Palestinians children in order to use their blood to make Passover matzoh!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 10 February 2004 11:50 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Plus, he uses sources and cogent arguments! What more proof of anti-semitism do we need?

All those articles that MV painstakingly posts...I'd keep an eye on him too, people.

[ 10 February 2004: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tolok
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4934

posted 10 February 2004 11:53 PM      Profile for Tolok        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm just waiting for April to come around and see if he starts telling us that Israelis are killing Palestinians children in order to use their blood to make Passover matzoh!

I am shocked. What evidence is there that people are saying this? I mean I heard it but I'm not passing it on.

The white Angel favours but one side.


From: Out of Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 11 February 2004 12:13 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Great question, Stockholm.

Why did the US invade Vietnam, knowing they were going to lose?

Why did Hitler invade Russia knowing he was going to lose?

Why did the Persians invade Greece, knowing they were going to lose?


In each case they actually figured they'd win.

In each case I seem to recall bold bombastic pronouncements that the opposing side would collapse under the first solid blow.

20 million Soviets later, Hitler was proved wrong.
2 million Vietnamese later, the USA was proved wrong.

And who knows how many Greeks lost their lives to prove the Persians wrong.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 11 February 2004 12:16 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I'm just waiting for April to come around and see if he starts telling us that Israelis are killing Palestinians children in order to use their blood to make Passover matzoh!

Don't be an idiot.

The last time someone tried to use the "uttering a blood libel" smear job it wasn't clear-cut, but I think this is clear-cut enough to warrant a formal complaint to Michelle and audra.

The above is an unnecessarily inflammatory and useless statement, and you know better than to attempt to accuse anyone of hauling out that crap, because nobody believes that ridiculous thing about the babies.

Your statement was most assuredly not called for, and I certainly request an apology.

[ 11 February 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 11 February 2004 12:16 AM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Also, worker_drone, I think most people see through your continuing attempt to pin an anti-semitic smear on Courage regarding Jews and money. That dog won't hunt, sorry.

Okay, next time Courage needs to rely on an anti-semetic stereotype to make his points about how the entire history of Israel and the conflict in the Middle East is founded on nothing but lies, and that the Zionists run well financed campaigns to influence human rights advocates to pretend anti-semitism is on the rise so the Jews can play "victim" I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt like you. After all, he uses such big words and stuff. How could anyone so inteleckshual be a bigot?

What I don't understand is why so many people who claim to support Palestinian rights feel they need to buy into this line of historical revisionist thinking. Is the Palestinian cause built on such flimsy grounds that you need to rewrite history to bolster it?

I actually support a one state solution and I think Israel should pack up all of it's settlements, tear down the fence and deal with the right of return. But I refuse to swallow this "it's all Israel's fault" nonsense.

You know, it's often the case that whenever somebody can pin the blame for a problem %100 on another race, gender, religion or nationality, they're usually full of shit.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 11 February 2004 12:25 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, I love this. Every time someone mentions money in connection with Israel, worker_drone and Mishei just rush onto the "anti-semitic comment!" bandwagon.

Maybe if you weren't so damned interested in derailing debate on the subject you'd put your friggin' brain in gear for two seconds and realize that the majority of people on this message-board probably don't believe in those idiotic stereotypes about Jewish people.

I should know, considering Mishei tried hauling out this one on me when I casually mentioned that the CJC could likely afford to rent an office if they wanted to distribute all the flags and leaflets they wanted.

I especially resent being characterized as an anti-semite, particularly when the accusation is made slyly and without justification, and even more so because my fairly strong anti-religious bias is not confined to Judaism, and anybody who's paid attention to my posts on the subject would know better than to imply that my dislike of religion is selective.

[ 11 February 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 11 February 2004 12:28 AM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I especially resent being characterized as an anti-semite

Who's accusing you of being an anti-semite?


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 11 February 2004 01:12 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, don't deny it. Nearing up about it and then skittering off like Speedy Gonzales when called on it seems to be the favorite modus operandi among people who have no burning desire to discuss the substantiating factors surrounding the mess in Israel and Palestine.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 February 2004 01:18 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The accusation of anti-semitism was directed at Courage not Dr. Conway.

BTW Courage, do you also believe that maybe the whole Holocaust was a big Zionist conspiracy to make the world feel sorry for the Jews and pave the way for the foundation of Israel? That would be level of analysis of the Middle East that I'm sure would make you sit up and listen with sympathy.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 11 February 2004 02:02 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...(is this the 2004 edition of the Protocols of Elders of Zion?). What more evidence do we need that this person obviously buys into all the classic anti-semitic canards of the last 100 years. I'm just waiting for April to come around and see if he starts telling us that Israelis are killing Palestinians children in order to use their blood to make Passover matzoh!

Are you for real Stockholm? Every time I think you couldn't sink lower, you prove me wrong.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 11 February 2004 02:05 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then he digs himself deeper:

quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
The accusation of anti-semitism was directed at Courage not Dr. Conway.

BTW Courage, do you also believe that maybe the whole Holocaust was a big Zionist conspiracy to make the world feel sorry for the Jews and pave the way for the foundation of Israel? That would be level of analysis of the Middle East that I'm sure would make you sit up and listen with sympathy.


Just posting this in case Stockholm tries to delete it.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 11 February 2004 02:56 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
The accusation of anti-semitism was directed at Courage not Dr. Conway.

Maybe so, but he's used a pretty broad brush that could be construed as being partly aimed at me since I posted with respect to the money thing - after all, I logically pointed out that an army with some cash can buy weapons and ammo. An army without it can't do so as easily.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tolok
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4934

posted 11 February 2004 03:05 AM      Profile for Tolok        Edit/Delete Post
Who's your banker?
From: Out of Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 February 2004 08:19 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, worker_drone and Stockholm, could you do me a favour? You have both made some pretty serious allegations against Courage, and in the interest of fairness, I would like to review the threads where these things occurred, to see whether they were resolved.

I don't want to let anything anti-Semitic OR anti-Palestinian slide, but at the same time, I also know that, in the heat of battle, people on both sides of this debate misinterpret what "the other side" is saying. So I'd like to read it for myself.

Also, if you think someone is being anti-Semitic, it would be nice if you could give me a heads up at the time it's happening instead of dragging it up later when it's in the past. I know you think I'm always on the side of the majority here, but I really do try to be even-handed when it comes to moderating this forum, despite my personal opinions about what is happening in the Middle East.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 February 2004 08:20 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
BTW Courage, do you also believe that maybe the whole Holocaust was a big Zionist conspiracy to make the world feel sorry for the Jews and pave the way for the foundation of Israel? That would be level of analysis of the Middle East that I'm sure would make you sit up and listen with sympathy.

This is totally uncalled for, Stockholm. Courage has never denied the Holocaust, nor is there any indication that he would. Knock it off.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2004 01:25 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To juxtapose civilians accidentally killed in the occupied territories during shelling or in crossfire with Israelis killed on purpose by genocidal terrorists is like juxtaposing the Nazis gassing millions of people at Auschwitz with Germans dying during allied bombing raids on Hamburg.

Yes, Dresden, Hiroshima, Berlin, London. All deliberate targeting of civilians. Gassing at concentration camps. Yes those are all atrocious war crimes on exactly the same scale. How right you are.

Sucide bombing pales in comparison. At worst it is mass murder, those others are all state sanctioned acts of mass genocide.

Deutschland bleiche Mutter.

[ 11 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 February 2004 01:32 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes, Dresden, Hiroshima, Berlin, London. All deliberate targeting of civilians. Gassing at concentration camps. Yes those are all atrocious war crimes on exactly the same scale. How right you are.


I guess then that the Allies just weren't agressive enough diuring WW2. maybe they should have rounded up every single person of German, Japanese or Italian descent in the UK or North America and had them all massacred in the cruellest way possible. now, THAT could be compared to the Holocaust.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2004 01:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You obvioulsy don't have a clue.

The German civiians killed in Dresden, were not accidentally killed. They were deliberately targetted with phosphorus bombs designed to ignite their houses and burn them to death, There was no descrimination, no military target and very little industry to speak of in Dresden. For instance. The people who planned the raid, knew all that, and planned it that way.

[ 11 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 11 February 2004 01:43 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
maybe they should have rounded up every single person of German, Japanese or Italian descent in the UK or North America and had them all massacred in the cruellest way possible. now, THAT could be compared to the Holocaust.

What gives you the right to make a value judgement like this?

Stockholm, do yourself a favor and lay off the baiting, smearing, racist comments for awhile. mailboxes must be getting full of complaints regarding your behavior reccently in multiple threads. How about you just lay off babble.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2004 01:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
(edited to remove stupidity)

[ 11 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 February 2004 02:12 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you Cueball.

I'm not going to make an exhaustive search of everything that has ever been said on babble in the 6 months to find all the instances where Courage has appeared to be an apologist for suicide bombers.

The most recent example below, basically argues that it would be unreasonable to expect the Palestinians to stop their addiction to suicide bombing (even though i think there is an argument that as a tactic it has actually been totally counter-productive to their own cause)

"What I'm saying is that the demand made of the Palestinians to halt their violence is part and parcel of an ideology that tacitly allows the greater injustice (that of the violence visited on Palestinians almost ontologically - they are born into a position of being violated) by creating a false 'equality' between the two sides. It's a manner of quietly focussing all the attention and blame onto the tactics of certain Palestinians while there is a much larger violent crime being committed. Your argument actually fits in neatly as a piece of the violence that denies Palestinians their rights by blowing Israeli deaths out of proportion in comparison to Palestinian deaths. You admit to the kidnapping, but you want to argue over what rights the victim has BEFORE you've even apprehended the kidnapper."

What I wish would happen is as follows: there is total 100% end to all suicide bombings and terrorist activity. Israelis start to regard Palestinians as being interested in peace and get enough self-confidence to elect a dovish government of the Labour party and parties to its left. Then Israel fully withdraws from the occupied territories, Old Jerusalem is put under some kind of shared jurisdiction. Peace reigns and eventually Israel and Palestine become as friendly as Germany and France are today. But for any of this to happen, the terrorism has to stop. otherwise we never get to square one.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 11 February 2004 02:32 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The most recent example below, basically argues that it would be unreasonable to expect the Palestinians to stop their addiction to suicide bombing

I give up.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 11 February 2004 02:59 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tolok:
Who's your banker?

Does this actually have a point?

"My banker" is some faceless big corporation that I trust about as far as I can throw it, and which would steal my money in a heartbeat and then turn around and try to charge me with fraud if I demanded my money back.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tolok
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4934

posted 11 February 2004 03:05 PM      Profile for Tolok        Edit/Delete Post
What a tough world you live in, DrConway.
From: Out of Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 11 February 2004 03:08 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you have a point Tolok? If so, out with it, if your just being a pest well, it won't go over well. Your banker comment wasn't very wise, it can be taken wrong on so many levels? what exactly are you getting at?
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 11 February 2004 04:07 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it something like 86% of Palestinians polled support suicide operations and nearly %100 support for Arafat in the last 'election'?
From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 February 2004 04:29 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have also read that there is so much oppression WITHIN the Palestinian Authority (or whatever we call it now) that when the families oif suicide bombers are asked what they think of their son/daughter blowing themselves up, they know that they have two choices: 1. Tell the world that they are proud of their child for blowing themself up and killing as many people as possible in the name of Islam - in which case they stay in the good graces of the militias etc... or 2. They express sadness that their child killed him or herself and criticize the militias for using them as cannon fodder - in which they will probably get denounced as traitors and lynched.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 11 February 2004 04:35 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[QB]Thank you Cueball.

I'm not going to make an exhaustive search of everything that has ever been said on babble in the 6 months to find all the instances where Courage has appeared to be an apologist for suicide bombers.

The most recent example below, basically argues that it would be unreasonable to expect the Palestinians to stop their addiction to suicide bombing (even though i think there is an argument that as a tactic it has actually been totally counter-productive to their own cause)


Actually, the argument is no such thing. Unlike some, I'm not afraid to wade into the paradox of Palestinians being responsible for their individual acts of violence while arguing that the attempts to make these acts the lynchpin of the conflict are part of the support structure for denying Palestinians their membership in the community of human beings.

It's not the moral oppobrium for suicide bombings that I disagree with, it's the position from which it is enunciated. Many who try to continually draw attention to suicide bombings as some kind of abstract sublime Evil do so not from a position of objective morality or even reasonable judgement, but from an interested position dedicated to preserving Israel's innocence against charges of human rights abuses and the imprisonment of an entire people. Moreover, this position usually tacitly accepts that because of the acts of individuals who are 'Palestinian' the injustices which are carried out against Palestinians in general - as a group - are justified. There is a subtle move to justify the same collective punishment that you decry elsewhere when arguing against suicide bombings.

[ 11 February 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 11 February 2004 04:47 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[QB]. He has treated us to his view that Israel won against overwhelming odds in 1948, because they had more money (they were Jews right and where there's smoke there's fire...if they won it must have been becaue they got money from the Rothchilds).

Beautiful strawman. But, this crow isn't scared. In fact, what I said was that the odds weren't that overwhelming. The Haganah had a lot more material support at hand than the Arab states due to the large amounts of money raised by the WZO from both Jewish and non-Jewish sources. This is no conspiracy theory. Wars cost money and the Israelis had more to spend than their enemies. This is one facet of understanding military and state power. The argument is the same as saying that the U.S. essentially managed to outspend the U.S.S.R.. I suppose that you'll accuse me of being anti-American for that one.

quote:
He has also treated us to his view that when the Archbishop of Canterbury (who is actually very critical of Israel) condemns anti-semitism - it is all part of some global Jewish conspiracy to make people sympathize with Israel (is this the 2004 edition of the Protocols of Elders of Zion?).

Again, there is no conspiracy afoot. There are lobbying organisations for any number of causes, including Israeli interests. Welcome to Poli-Sci 101.

In fact, I would say that you are the one committing a kind of 'anti-semitic' fallacy. All I've done is to treat Israeli interests like any other political interests, and to analyse them in the same way that I would analyse American, Canadian, British or any other state's interests and the way in which they attempt to achieve them.
In effect, I'm attempting to include Jews/Israelis in the realm of politics as equal members who behave just as others do. It is you who is insisting that Jews/Israelis be treated seperately. According to you, they are to be considered immune to, or incapable of, acting in the same way that other political interest groups do. Any suggestion that Jews/Israelis might behave just like others is met with heaps of histrionics about conspiracies and the like. All the fantasies of antisemites were brought into the discussion by you: e.g. the mention of the Rothschilds, Blood Libel, etc. For whatever reason, you can't entertain the idea that Jews and Israelis are just like other people. Like an antisemite, you want Jews judged as something more/less than their fellow humans. Why?

[ 11 February 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 11 February 2004 04:51 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:

Actually, the argument is no such thing. Unlike some, I'm not afraid to wade into the paradox of Palestinians being responsible for their individual acts of violence while arguing that the attempts to make these acts the lynchpin of the conflict are part of the support structure for denying Palestinians their membership in the community of human beings.

It's not the moral oppobrium for suicide bombings that I disagree with, it's the position from which it is enunciated. Many who try to continually draw attention to suicide bombings as some kind of abstract sublime Evil do so not from a position of objective morality or even reasonable judgement, but from an interested position dedicated to preserving Israel's innocence against charges of human rights abuses and the imprisonment of an entire people.


Bravo Courage. I'd like to add that. The Illigal settlements in the Occupied territories have never decreased in size. The closest they come to this is a halt in Illegal construction. As a matter of fact Israel commonly breaks cease fires by continuing construction in the territorries. As long as there is settlements and a wall that cuts deep into the territories, Israel cannot continue to blame the situation on suicide bombers.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 February 2004 05:12 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just out of curiosity, what do you think would happen if tomorrow Hamas and Islamic Jihad etc... all announced a compolete ceasefire and there were no more terrorist attacks of any kind ever again.

I think that Israel would elect a moderate government and the occupation as we know it would end.

I actually think that the Palestinians should stop their campaign of suicide bombings for their own good. It sure isn't helping their cause at all.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 11 February 2004 05:27 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What I wish would happen is as follows: there is total 100% end to all suicide bombings and terrorist activity. Israelis start to regard Palestinians as being interested in peace and get enough self-confidence to elect a dovish government of the Labour party and parties to its left. Then Israel fully withdraws from the occupied territories, Old Jerusalem is put under some kind of shared jurisdiction. Peace reigns and eventually Israel and Palestine become as friendly as Germany and France are today. But for any of this to happen, the terrorism has to stop. otherwise we never get to square one.

And what I would like to see is Israel do a 100% total withdrawl from the occupied territories. Then any justifiable reasoning any Palestinian group might have for killing more Israelis would be removed . . . Palestinians would have no choice but to stop the suicide bombing, and if they didn't they would lose all support.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 February 2004 05:44 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
and if they didn't they would lose all support.

What if they didn't really give a crap? And how would that help Israel, who just gave away any leverage they have?

Israel obviously has a tiger by the tail, but I'm not sure you can just say "Oh, let it go. It won't bite you."


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 February 2004 05:56 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And what I would like to see is Israel do a 100% total withdrawl from the occupied territories. Then any justifiable reasoning any Palestinian group might have for killing more Israelis would be removed . . . Palestinians would have no choice but to stop the suicide bombing, and if they didn't they would lose all support.


If it was that simple then why were there constant terrorist attacks on Israel BEFORE 1967 when there was no "occupation"?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2004 06:19 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But for any of this to happen, the terrorism has to stop. Otherwise we never get to square one.

You can only negotiate peace while at war. You can not 'negotiate peace' during peace time.

Simple enough.

Even unconditional surrender is negotiated.

Did the allies negotiate unconditional surrender with Germany while Germans where still killing Russians and Americans? Yes. Did they demand that they stop killing Russians and Americans before they negotiated? No, They negotiated with the people who were able to give the orders to stop killing Russians and Americans to those who were killing Russians and Americans.

Again, you can only negotiate peace while at war.

Not only does Sharon refuse to talk to those who might be able to get Palestinians to stop killing Israelis (Arafat, Hamas et al) he also allows a logical conundrum to thwart the very peace settlement he says he would like by demanding peace prior to a peace settlement.

It it precisely because there is no settlement that the terror continues.

That is the reality.

quote:
All the fantasies of antisemites were brought into the discussion by you: e.g. the mention of the Rothschilds, Blood Libel, etc. For whatever reason, you can't entertain the idea that Jews and Israelis are just like other people. Like an antisemite, you want Jews judged as something more/less than their fellow humans. Why?

Hilarious!!!


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 11 February 2004 07:52 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And how would that help Israel, who just gave away any leverage they have?

Gee, Mr.M, do you think having the fourth largest military in the world would give Israel any leverage?

They go anywhere they want in the "PA administered" occupied territories now, what would stop them in the future?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 February 2004 08:00 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Not only does Sharon refuse to talk to those who might be able to get Palestinians to stop killing Israelis (Arafat, Hamas et al) he also allows a logical conundrum to thwart the very peace settlement he says he would like by demanding peace prior to a peace settlement.


Since when does Hamas want to negotiate? They are the ones who kill Palestinians who want to negotiate. Their whole raison d'etre is for Israel to disappear and 100% of the territory between the Meditterranean and the Jordan River to be under fundamentalist Muslim control. When has Hamas ever indicated that they are willing to negotiate anything? They regard Arafat as a traitor for even being in the same room as Israelis.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 11 February 2004 09:06 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:

I hope this is tongue in cheek if not it should be condemned as hate propaganda. Imagine if it read as follows:

"Which raises an interesting point: Is the Palestinian Authority Lawful Evil, like a devil (or Tanar'i, for those of you with AD&D Second edition) or Chaotic Evil? I suppose the case for Neutral Evil could be made, but Yasser Arafat really doesn't look like an arch-lich. Plus, I don't think he's got the Intelligence and Wisdom to be a magic-user or cleric."


My take on it: Hamas is chaotic evil, Likud is lawful evil. The majority of the Israelis and Palestinians killed in the conflict are neither. But then, I'm no expert.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 11 February 2004 09:54 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

If it was that simple then why were there constant terrorist attacks on Israel BEFORE 1967 when there was no "occupation"?


Ethnic cleansing in 1948 might be something to look into....


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2004 10:26 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Since when does Hamas want to negotiate?

Right, so Sharon and Hamas are really more or less of the same cloth. However, and this is the point that all of those who like to say that Arafat is irrelvant miss: Hamas will negotiate with Arafat, and if Sharon were sincere, he would talk to Hamas through Arafat. But Sharon will not talk to Arafat.

I am sorry. It is a fact of war. You must negotiate with those you hate, if you intend to negotiate. The fact that Arafat is who is, and has done whatever he has done, does not change the fact that he is the man who must be talked to.

Sharon demures.

The American's didn't negotiate the surrender of Germany with DeGaul did they.

And then of course there is this(posted on another thread:

quote:
The most dramatic evidence that territory remains the fundamental issue in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is the recent statement—in Ha'aretz and other Israeli papers on January 9—by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the leader of Hamas in Gaza, and repeated by Hamas's Abdel Aziz Rantisi and the Islamic Jihad's Nafiz Azzam, that their organizations are ready to postpone indefinitely their "military" operations in return for an Israeli withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders. This change in policy, which relegates the recovery of all of Palestine to an indefinite future, was not linked by these organizations to the return of refugees, to claims to Jerusalem, or to other issues concerning a permanent status agreement between Israel and Palestine; it was linked only to the territorial issue.

New York Review of books

And that movement in the negotiating postition of Hamas.

But this kind of thing must be ignored by Sharon because it undermines his intransigent position.

[ 11 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 February 2004 10:31 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hamas will negotiate with Arafat

Since when?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2004 10:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All the friggin time.

Read the friggin Hamas policy statement. They have a very clear position on relations with what they call the secular Arab resisitance.

Have you read any newspapers in the last four or five year? Have you never read it reported, such as during Abbas's tenure, that the PA (Abbas, Arafat and co) had to negotiate a unilateral truce with the militant organizations -- that means Hamas.

How do you thing they did this, by coming to this web site to talk to you?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 February 2004 10:57 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the past 10 years every time that there are terrorist attacks against Israel that go against the Oslo Accords, Arafat has always said that he has no control over what groups like Hamas do. He cannot make any promises on their behalf. They regard him as a rival and they would like nothing better than to undermine him so that they become the leading Palestinian organization. The idea that talking to Arafat will have any impact on Hamas is like thinking that you can influence the Israeli settler movement by talking to Shimon Peres.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2004 11:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No Hamas is not part of fatah. They do not take orders from Arafat. He does not control them. But they do talk, as evidenced by the fact that when the 'Road Map' came into being and Abbas went to Aqaba to meet Sharon, he went back to Ramallah, and somehow, someone at the PA (perhaps Arafat himself) got Hamas to state that they would pledge from doing what they like to call 'operations' in Israel. This of course lasted until the Israelis did one of there homocide/assassination bombings against Hamas people, and whomever else was standing around.

So, sorry. They do talk. You are in error.

Hamas even adjusts its position. Read the article I added to the post above (after you replied.)


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 February 2004 11:55 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The article is actually very good and I agree with most of it. I have always opposed all settlements in the occupied territories and I wish that Sharon would lose an election to more responsible politicians.

I also think that every time that Hamas and co. launch a suicide bombing, all they are doing is playing into the hands of the Israeli rightwing. Every time there is another attack, Israeli public opinion becomes more intransigent and support for parties of the far right increases. Maybe this is secretely what Hamas wants so that they never have to be put into the position of having to refuse an offer they can't refuse.

One of the problem with suicide bombings as a tactic, is that it only really succeeds in dehumanizing the perpetrators. Suicide bombing is regarded as such an irrational act of blind hatred that the opposing side is left to conclude that there is no way of ever negotiating anything and that the people who have produced a generation of suicide bombers are not really of the human race. They are seen to be completely irrational.

Similarly, some have argued that the Japanese use of kamikaze bombers during WW2 was a major reason why the A bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. When the Allies saw the Japanese sending a seemingly endless supply of willing kamikaze pilots against them, it made them think of the Japan as a nation of robotic killing machines who were completely irrational and would fight to the last man. It cemented the notion that no negotation could be possible and no surrender by the Japanese would be possible and that all the Japanese would become kamikazes if given the chance. Only a nuclear bomb could end the war. I'm not saying they were right but that is what they said.

When you use suicide terrorism as a tactic all you do is dehumanize yourself and you lose out in the end.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 12 February 2004 01:15 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I concur with just about everything you said, except this:

quote:
Maybe this is secretely what Hamas wants so that they never have to be put into the position of having to refuse an offer they can't refuse.

We have no way of knowing whether this is Hamas' plan.

On the other hand, we can be certain that the cries of "evil demonic murderers" will echo all over babble in the next day or two.


Fourteen Palestinians killed in Gaza clashes during Israeli operations; Hamas vows revenge
.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 February 2004 01:45 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
These are all very interesting a coherent ideas that speak some truth. I do not accept all of the conclusions. For instance the racist stereotyping of the Japanese came along way before there was Kamikaze attacks againss US ships. Also, the 'robotic killer' theme was heavily used to describe the Germans (and still is) yet they engaged in no such acts.

"We will smash your revered fathers heads against the walls and impale your naked infants on pikes."

-- Henry Five (negotiating with the French he has besieged in their town)

Quoting William Shakspeare by memory

Wars are fought in suicidal and murderous ways, all soldiers make a pact with death. Also civilians have always been the victims of war. This has always also been condemned. The killing of prisoners, the elderly and women and children is specifically prohibited by the Qu'ran for instance.

Whats new in that last hundred years is the effieciency of the murder.

Focusing on the modus of war, is to lose the thread of peace. The manner of death has no relevance, except to the berieved, and in terms of how much suffering a pain a person goes through before they sucumb.

At no point did I raise the issue of the means that some Palestinians choose to fight, yet you bring it up constantly. I was talking about the relationship between peace and war, whether fought with sticks and stone or sun-machine guns.

There are three ways to end a war:

1) Kill all of the enemy. This is what the Greeks did to the Trojans.

2) Drive the enemy away. This is what the Romans did to the Cartheginians, salting their fields so that once lush Carthage would become an umpopulated desert.

3) Negotiate peace with the enemy.

I assume that you agree that one and two are out of the question, and that three is the only viable option, under the present cirumstances.

This is why I excerpted your quote:

quote:
But for any of this to happen, the terrorism has to stop. Otherwise we never get to square one.

This is Sharon's position.

I identified it as being a logical falacy. You are asking for peace to happen out of thin air, and then for the peace settlement to be enacted. It does not work that way. The first tiny steps toward peace between combatants are always negotiated under fire because if there was no firing there would be no need to negotiate and end to the firing.

Sharon can only negotiate 'peace' under fire. By saying that he will not he shows that he is not interested in negotiating 'peace.'

It would all be so simple if the Palestinians stopped blowing themselves up. It would all be so simple if the Israelis just packed up and left the West Bank. The logic is exactly simlillar, yet the onus entirely opposite. It is an exact model of the intransigence that will lead nowhere, no matter which side says it of the other.

Neither of these things is going to happen until both side talk.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 13 February 2004 09:48 AM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
quote:

few million Palestinians are certainly engaged in a struggle for survival, but most of the rulers in the Arab world are ignoring their plight.


Does the Arab world have any responsibility regarding this crisis?

quote:

Plus, he uses sources and cogent arguments!

And rarely, if ever, focuses his/her talents on anything the Palestinians may have done to but
Israel as the sole

quote:

because nobody believes that ridiculous thing about the babies.


Really? Does the existence of the Protocals or its staying power tell you anything? What about it being a TV mini-series?

quote:

As a matter of fact Israel commonly breaks cease fires by continuing construction in the territorries.


How is construction breaking a cease-fire? What kind of construction materials are they using?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and if they didn't they would lose all support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What if they didn't really give a crap? And how would that help Israel, who just gave away any leverage they have?

Israel obviously has a tiger by the tail, but I'm not sure you can just say "Oh, let it go. It won't bite you."



Can't be said enough.

quote:

It it precisely because there is no settlement that the terror continues.


consessions are not peace

quote:
They go anywhere they want in the "PA administered" occupied territories now, what would stop them in the future?


Reconciliation and Israel's detractors saying to their masses that Israel has a right to exist.

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 13 February 2004 10:47 AM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
quote from Caoimhin should read
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus, he uses sources and cogent arguments!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And rarely, if ever, focuses his/her talents on anything the Palestinians or others may have done to exacerbate thier situation. Israel is the sole detractor why?

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tolok
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4934

posted 13 February 2004 11:03 AM      Profile for Tolok        Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by worker_drone:

quote:
You know, it's often the case that whenever somebody can pin the blame for a problem %100 on another race, gender, religion or nationality, they're usually full of shit.

Courage certainly does do that, and yes, he/she is full of shit.


From: Out of Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 February 2004 11:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isn't that special.

Oh, and this thread is over a hundred posts. I will mourn its closure bitterly.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   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