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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Girl killed by "random" machine gun fire

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Girl killed by "random" machine gun fire
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 28 October 2004 05:56 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israeli troops shot and killed an eight-year-old Palestinian girl who was on her way to school in a Gaza Strip refugee camp today, witnesses said.

Rania Iyad Aram of the Khan Younis camp was killed by random machine gun fire an army outpost near the neighbouring Jewish settlement of Ganei Tal, they said.



Story

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
addie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7186

posted 28 October 2004 06:40 PM      Profile for addie        Edit/Delete Post
lets. not politicize this issue any more than it has to be.

there is only one thing to say about this...it is sad.

once again a child is killed. and the circle of violence will continue. it does not matter where the circle started


From: anchorage alaska as of 11/29/04 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 28 October 2004 06:51 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Congratulations, Addie! You have just passed Rationalizing Violence 101.
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 28 October 2004 06:52 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Without politicizing it, it is sad. And murder.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
addie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7186

posted 28 October 2004 06:58 PM      Profile for addie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Albireo:
Congratulations, Addie! You have just passed Rationalizing Violence 101.

albireo.. what a simplistic and ignorant response.

i never rationalized it, i never condoned it

rather i turned the attention to where it really should be.

i think it is sad that a girl was killed on her way to school. period.

i too have been affected by death in the middle east.

on the palestian side a class mate of mine from university was killed in gaza a year ago after "attacking" the IDF

on the israeli side a good friend from home's is a lawyer his partner is from israel....the lawyers 3 year old son was killed when terrorists stormed his kibbutz in the early 1970's and shot up the nursery.

there is that better....or would you have preferred that i left other stories of kids dying out of it and focussed on the death of a little girl on the way to school

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: addie ]


From: anchorage alaska as of 11/29/04 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 28 October 2004 07:00 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by addie:
and the circle of violence will continue. it does not matter where the circle started
No, it doesn't matter, it happens like the weather and the changing of the seasons. No need to assess blame or get all "political" about it.

Edited to add:

quote:
there is that better...
No.

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
addie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7186

posted 28 October 2004 07:07 PM      Profile for addie        Edit/Delete Post
that i agree with.

the circle of violence is like the weather.

we need the youth to want peace and make peace.....only then will the leadership on both sides create a livable, viable and safe peace


From: anchorage alaska as of 11/29/04 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 28 October 2004 07:13 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
addie, did you seriously not get the sarcasm?

It's essential to assign responsibility first and foremost.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
addie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7186

posted 28 October 2004 07:18 PM      Profile for addie        Edit/Delete Post
mandos i was trying to incorporate it into a larger point...that being we all can assign blame, we all have personal history and feelings and we all can observe and opnionate from a far.

the issue was a girls death


From: anchorage alaska as of 11/29/04 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 28 October 2004 07:21 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by addie:

the issue was a girls death



NO. The issue is a girl's murder, by agents of an occupying army
that never would have happened without the occupation. That's not politicization; that's fact.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 28 October 2004 07:24 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by addie:
lets. not politicize this issue any more than it has to be.

This isn't a friendly row after a proper piss-up down at the pub. This is an army killing an innocent civilian in the process of a military occupation. That's a political issue.

Seriously, it's like saying that it wasn't 'political' when South African police gunned-down children in the Bantus. You need only ask yourself, "under whose authority should such a death be investigated" and you are standing square on the doorstep of a political problem, aren't you?

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
addie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7186

posted 28 October 2004 07:26 PM      Profile for addie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:

NO. The issue is a girl's murder, by agents of an occupying army
that never would have happened without the occupation. That's not politicization; that's fact.


you know it is almost as sad the fact the here coyote and B.L. Zeebub lld and are "debating" the act of death. i could be wrong but i believe to be murdered one has to die. therefore a girls death is actually correct. the cause of death was according to you "murder by agents of an occupying army"

therefore i stand by what i said. the fact that a little girl died on her way to school is sad

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: addie ]

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: addie ]


From: anchorage alaska as of 11/29/04 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 28 October 2004 07:31 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think they are saying that it is not enough to be sad; it is necessary to be angry about it also.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 28 October 2004 07:32 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by addie:


you know it is almost sad coyote that here we are "debating" the act of death. i could be wrong but i believe to be murdered one has to die. therefore a girls death is actually correct. the cause of death was according to you "murder by agents of an occupying army"

therefore i stand by what i said. the fact that a little girl died on her way to school is sad


That's just obtuse. Of course she died. She was murdered. If your response is just to hang your head and say, aw, that sucks, then I guess that's up to you. The rest of us, however, choose to ask questions:

Why did the girl die?
She was murdered.

Who killed her?
IDF.

Why was the IDF in a position to kill her?
The occupation.

Therefore: The IDF would never have been in a position to kill this girl if there was no occupation.

Therefore: This girl, far from just "dying" has been killed, like so many other Palestinian children, as a result of the occupation.

I hope, if your child is ever murdered, the police do not simply respond by saying they are sad.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
addie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7186

posted 28 October 2004 07:36 PM      Profile for addie        Edit/Delete Post
contrarian i am saying that i am tired of both sides trying to use death as a pr tool.

a girl dies, a bus blows up, a missle strike in gaza, shelling of a kibbutz,

plo versus paratroop brigage 101,

golani brigade against syria

islamic jihad attacking


the list goes and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

my point is simply if their is ever going to be peace. a secure state of israel, a secure palestinian state with peace, commerce, trade and trust then the time for anger is over

the time to work together has begun. i wish the deaths would motivate negotiations and movement towards peace...

rather than acting as a pr campaign trying to prove that one death means more than another.

it is very simple....any death is too many


From: anchorage alaska as of 11/29/04 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
addie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7186

posted 28 October 2004 07:39 PM      Profile for addie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
I hope, if your child is ever murdered, the police do not simply respond by saying they are sad.

coyote i was almost killed about i guess it was 20 years ago or so at the airport in athens when the plo sprayed the departure lounge with gunfire.

why was i there... i was changing planes


From: anchorage alaska as of 11/29/04 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 28 October 2004 07:43 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by addie:

coyote i was almost killed about i guess it was 20 years ago or so at the airport in athens when the plo sprayed the departure lounge with gunfire.

why was i there... i was changing planes


And I was almost killed when the IDF entered Tulkarem and opened fire. Neither one of our anecdotes change the fact that this child was murdered, and for reasons. It is not just sad, it is political. Perhaps the saddest fact is that she died because of a political decision to occupy and oppress a people.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
addie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7186

posted 28 October 2004 07:45 PM      Profile for addie        Edit/Delete Post
or if we are going to go there maybe it is sad that in 1948 the original partition plan was not accepted.

you know the one that called for a palestinian state, a jewish state and that jerusalem would be an open city.

had partition been accepted then their would not have been a 67 war, no occupation of gaza and west bank.

and no little girl dead


From: anchorage alaska as of 11/29/04 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 28 October 2004 07:47 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
a girl dies, a bus blows up, a missle strike in gaza, shelling of a kibbutz,

All these are political acts. The girl didn't just up and die from 'natural causes'. She didn't just vanish - POOF! - into the waiting arms of Adonai. An unmanned machine gun didn't willy-nilly fire off a few rounds that by some terrible happenstance or twist of fate hit a small child. Rather, a unarmed civilian child was shot by soldiers. The circumstances of her shooting are of grave importance, if you'll forgive the pun.

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 28 October 2004 07:48 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah yes, and now begins Zionist propaganda 101.

Don't feed the trolls.

*PLONK*.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 28 October 2004 07:49 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by addie:
or if we are going to go there maybe it is sad that in 1948 the original partition plan was not accepted.

you know the one that called for a palestinian state, a jewish state and that jerusalem would be an open city.

had partition been accepted then their would not have been a 67 war, no occupation of gaza and west bank.

and no little girl dead


Or, conversely, if the decision hadn't been made to drive 800,000 Palestinians from their homes to make way for Israel. Or, if Israel had never even been conceived.

But these things happened. We can't do anything about that. We can do something about an ongoing occupation.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
addie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7186

posted 28 October 2004 07:50 PM      Profile for addie        Edit/Delete Post
BL the funny thing is that i am not a zionist, i am not an arabist, i am not a palestinian


i am a student of history and at times come across an interesting tidbit that i regurgetate.


From: anchorage alaska as of 11/29/04 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 28 October 2004 07:51 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by addie:


i am a student of history and at times come across an interesting tidbit that i regurgetate.


A student of history who has learned one thing: It's sad.

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: Coyote ]


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 28 October 2004 07:51 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
BL the funny thing is that i am not a zionist, i am not an arabist, i am not a palestinian

i am a student of history and at times come across an interesting tidbit that i regurgetate.


Actually, I've got you pegged as a bullshit artist.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
addie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7186

posted 28 October 2004 07:51 PM      Profile for addie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
But these things happened. We can't do anything about that. We can do something about an ongoing occupation.

that is the best thing you have said so far. and besides the simple kick the israelis out

what do you they do.

i say they have to start talking and trusting...

you?


From: anchorage alaska as of 11/29/04 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 28 October 2004 07:52 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Regurgitate is just what I was thinking of doing...

Bleeeeech....


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
addie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7186

posted 28 October 2004 07:53 PM      Profile for addie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

Actually, I've got you pegged as a bullshit artist.


care to elaborate? because anyone who knows me i can;t be an artist since i can not draw a straight line with a ruler


From: anchorage alaska as of 11/29/04 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 28 October 2004 07:54 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are many threads in this forum. Some are broader discussions about what should happen, how it could happen, etc. Start one. This thread is for the discussion of the murder of a little girl. Now grab a kleenex and stop being so damn obtuse.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 28 October 2004 07:54 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
No I'm not going to elaborate, Addie. You can revisit the thread in which I called you a bullshit artist and where I believe it was also clearly evident that you are.

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
addie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7186

posted 28 October 2004 07:56 PM      Profile for addie        Edit/Delete Post
true but our narrow discussion grew

but of course the discussion could stop and begin again if it must.

that being the case then nothing of good will come from this girls death.

we all will remain cemented in our opinions and look backwards rather than forward

so one side will say more kids will die until the evil, illegal occupiers leave

the other side will say but we can not leave since it will not be safe for us.


and in another hundred years or so we can meet again and talk about a girl that died and how nothing has changed


From: anchorage alaska as of 11/29/04 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
addie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7186

posted 28 October 2004 07:58 PM      Profile for addie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
No I'm not going to elaborate, Addie. You can revisit the thread in which I called you a bullshit artist and where I believe it was also clearly evident that you are.

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


you did not elaborat there either.


From: anchorage alaska as of 11/29/04 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 October 2004 08:41 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the circle of violence is like the weather.


Are you saying that it is sad that it rained on this 8 year old kid today?

You have summed up in eight simple words the whole problem with "the circle of violence" analysis -- weather is beyond human choice. This idea contributes to the occupation, by awarding both sides equal responsibility, or lack of responsibility. It denies the political reality of who is the occupier and who is the occupied.

Israel chose to invade in 1967. It chose to occupy. It chose to allow settlement. It chose to re-invade in 2000. Just as an Israeli soldier chose to gun down this little girl.

The cycle of violence analysis, allows us to take moral comfort of condeming both, without making us confront the political reality -- there are no Arab armies in Tel Aviv, there is an Israeli one in Gaza. That is the fact, and the why of the statistics that show the "cycle of violence" has killed four times more Palestinians than Israelis.

Four times as many? And we call it a "cycle?" Which death was this death in revenge for? Which specific one?

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dondan
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7262

posted 03 November 2004 12:50 PM      Profile for Dondan     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is a sad case. And at the last few weeks it happened 2 more times. It is very sad cause the Arab Palestinian broke into that Intifada war from midst of a political process to achieve peace.
And it is more sad that Arabs send young children in front of enemy posts, in closed military zones, in order to collect information or making them move and revealed to the rifles of Arab shoot snippers. Some times the send kids to suicide bomb (16 years old), as they did on sunday in Carmel Tel Aviv market. Why they afraid to send their kids to school? Heaven can wait for them, and the 72 virgins have full of jobs to make

By that behave Arabs gain some sympaty ruther than condemnation. Israelis never target civil population in purpose as Arabs do (Suicide bombers and free rockets into cities). IDF always check and gather intelligence before hitting a terror base or a terrorist in action. That fact inforce the Arabs to send kids into the edge of the fragile border between the IDF and the Palestinians. And that makes sad mistakes by the Israelis.


From: Europe | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dondan
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7262

posted 03 November 2004 01:04 PM      Profile for Dondan     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cueball:
[QB]

Israel chose to invade in 1967. It chose to occupy. It chose to allow settlement. It chose to re-invade in 2000. Just as an Israeli soldier chose to gun down this little girl.

Did you write a new history here? Israel did not chose to occupy Gaza strip. Israel was forced to do so by a combine military threat and attack of 7 Arab Armies in 3 arenas. In 2000 Israel was in Gaza strip and exposed her wish to get out of there by peace treaty. But the Arabs broke in Intifada war out of a political process wishing to gain more political assets.

In tose cases no one can blame the Israelis that can't deal with terrorists ovwe a political agenda.


you say: ""there are no Arab armies in Tel Aviv, there is an Israeli one in Gaza. That is the fact, and the why of the statistics that show the "cycle of violence" has killed [i]four times more Palestinians than Israelis."

Ecxuse me, should the Israelis say sorry they won the war that was imposed over them? Or should they kill their own people in order to meet your demand for equal casualties? Kind of weird way of thinking.


From: Europe | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 03 November 2004 01:11 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel was forced to do so by a combine military threat and attack of 7 Arab Armies in 3 arenas.

Silly! Everyone knows those armies weren't there to attack Israel. They had a huge birthday cake for Israel and some presents, and the 6 Days War* was how Israel repaid their kindness!


* someone is bound to post a quote from one Israeli who says it was some kind of 37 year plan for a land grab, and if you believe this one guy speaks for everyone, you can go with that theory too.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 November 2004 01:24 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And you just know that little girl was about to drive Israel into the sea, eh?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 03 November 2004 02:16 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course not, silly! She wasn't even born in 1967!

I've just always found it interesting the way armies from, what, 5 different countries, massed on Israel's borders, can be glossed over in favour of "Israel just wanted to occupy!"

I can't really see how any country would say to itself, "Hey, let's not conquer our neighbours, let's just occupy them... for 37 years! Let's lose thousands of our citizens needlessly (not to mention thousands more of theirs) for land we'll eventually have to either conquer properly or give back anyway. Get on the phone to all the neighbouring countries and ask if they'd do us a favour and mass their armies on our border so we'll be justified. They owe us a favour, don't they?"

I'm not suggesting that it justifies the fact that 37 years and thousands of dead later, Israel has a tiger by the tail and no real plan, but it gets sort of tiring to see MidEast history continually beginning the day after the 6 Days War, and to see the contribution that the countries around Israel made to their own present situation ignored.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Phileas Fop
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7100

posted 03 November 2004 02:37 PM      Profile for Phileas Fop     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Taking a leaf from a certain book of apologetics/propaganda that was in wide circulation in the aftermath of 9/11, another unidentified witness avers that it wasn’t the Israeli army that fired on the little girl at all.
It was the P.R. wing of Hamas.
By doing so they (Hamas) cunningly planned to evoke world sympathy for the wretched state of the Palestinians - who incidentally have been abandoned by their oil-rich brothers and willfully left as a point of contention so to distract attention from the barbarism of their own theocracies.

So those who glibly brandish the word "murder" about with the greatest of selectivity and for purposes of political exploitation would do well to examine their own motives.

A tree has never been known to hit an automobile except in self-defence.


From: aloft | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 03 November 2004 03:00 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Magoo, you're being disingenous. No one, repeat, no one, has ever walked in here jumping for joy at the behaviour of the Arab governments. That said, it's not as if the Israelis who have been cited, repeatedly,about the '67 Israeli war of aggression are just pulled off the streets of Tel Aviv; they were the architects of that action, and proud of its success (Moshe Dayan comes to mind). If you accept Richard Clarke or Paul O'Neil as valid, credible sources within the Bush administration (and so weight their testimony that the Iraq War was in the works from even before 9-11) then you have to accept these people as credible sources as well. Unless, as it seems, you just don't want to.

Moreover, it is incredibly naive to believe that the idea of "Greater Israel", which presupposes the necessity of settlement and conquest of Arab land, just suddenly occurred to the Zionist Right in the 70s. Their's is an ideological war, and has been from the very beginning. It has explicit and proudly proclaimed goals which have served to shape Israeli policy vis a vis the Arab countries (how many times, exactly, does Syria have to sue for peace and call for negotiations before they stop being labelled "rejectionists". How about save that label for the government doing the rejecting? It is also the crucial blueprint for Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories. People act as if the occupation has no context, as if somehow Israel subsidized 8,000 Israeli citizens to establish colonies in the midst of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza for the sake of security. Please.

I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not war between Israel and the Arab countries was just a matter of time or not. Certainly, only twenty years removed from a massive and organized ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs to make way for the new state of Israel, the desire to "drive Israel into the sea" was prevalent - just as I'm sure there were Native Americans and Canadians who wished to do the same to Custer and his ilk. It's irrelevant. The fact is that Israel chose war. At the very least, that makes Israel equally complicit. And even that is irrelevant as to whether or not the occupation is justified.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 November 2004 03:03 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
By doing so they (Hamas) cunningly planned to evoke world sympathy for the wretched state of the Palestinians - who incidentally have been abandoned by their oil-rich brothers and willfully left as a point of contention so to distract attention from the barbarism of their own theocracies.

Note the implied racism that Arab peoples are soley responsible for the plight of other Arabs thus allievating Israel and others for their role in the occupation and subjugation of a people.

This guy just drips of something that really stinks. I think it is hatred.

I think I see your point, Magoo, but if we were Arabs under similiar circumstances 60 years ago, wouldn't our pundits have been championing the build up of military force and denouncing sober second thoughts as appeasement and cowardice?

Why is it we would demand a more rational and careful approach to world affairs then we would demand of ourselves?

[ 03 November 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phileas Fop
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7100

posted 03 November 2004 03:42 PM      Profile for Phileas Fop     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

This guy just drips of something that really stinks. I think it is hatred.


And you're Mother Theresa.

quote:
Without politicizing it, it is sad. And murder.

You've written what you think, but I won't put down what I think about someone who would welcome the death of a little girl caught in the crossfire of an ongoing conflict, for purposes of political exploitation.

However I will say it's such people who fan the flames of hatred.
It's such people who assure that the conflict continues.


From: aloft | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 03 November 2004 04:01 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Magoo, you're being disingenous. No one, repeat, no one, has ever walked in here jumping for joy at the behaviour of the Arab governments.

Well, thanks for the not jumping for joy part, but I'm really thinking more of factoring the actions leading up to the 6DW into the present situation.

quote:
If you accept Richard Clarke or Paul O'Neil as valid, credible sources within the Bush administration (and so weight their testimony that the Iraq War was in the works from even before 9-11) then you have to accept these people as credible sources as well. Unless, as it seems, you just don't want to.

But then, to be fair, we'd also have to accept that Abdel Nasser was speaking for the Arab nations when he said of Israel that they would "push them into the sea". Which would then give Israel pretty much free rein to do whatever it takes to not get pushed into the sea.

Do you believe that Nasser could speak on behalf of the Arab states the way you believe that Dayan could speak for Israel?

quote:
as if somehow Israel subsidized 8,000 Israeli citizens to establish colonies in the midst of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza for the sake of security. Please.

Fair enough, but I reject just as quickly the assertion that 37 years of down and dirty war and billions (trillions??) of dollars have been spent solely to house 8000 Israelis.

Personally, I think the occupation was rational and made sense in 1967, and maybe in 1968. That they haven't come up with another plan in the 35 years since, I certainly lay at their feet.

quote:
The fact is that Israel chose war. At the very least, that makes Israel equally complicit.

With 5 nations massing on their borders, how would they have "chosen peace"?

quote:
And even that is irrelevant as to whether or not the occupation is justified.

At this point in time, agreed.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 03 November 2004 04:35 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Magoo:
quote:
But then, to be fair, we'd also have to accept that Abdel Nasser was speaking for the Arab nations when he said of Israel that they would "push them into the sea". Which would then give Israel pretty much free rein to do whatever it takes to not get pushed into the sea.
One does not lead to the other. Such a massing, which I will note could very easily have been a defensive posture, would certainly justify an equal or greater massing of Israeli forces - even a plan to respond fiercely in the event of an attack. But who has not claimed self-defence, or security, for their aggressive wars? Bush is just the latest in a long line. The fact is that for the agressor to claim self-defence kinda destroys any credibility.
quote:
Do you believe that Nasser could speak on behalf of the Arab states the way you believe that Dayan could speak for Israel?
That's a fair point. I guess I would respond by saying that bullshit posturing is a political staple. It may be 20/20 hindsight, but I don't think Nasser had any more confidence in his hope for victory than Saddam had in his. But how exactly do you say that, admit weakness, in such a situation? Whereas Dayan's testimony gives us a view into the planning and execution of the war.
quote:
Fair enough, but I reject just as quickly the assertion that 37 years of down and dirty war and billions (trillions??) of dollars have been spent solely to house 8000 Israelis.
Well, no. There's all the settlers in the West Bank and Golan, too. This is essential, Magoo. Either the occupation and settlement is an intentional process of colonization or it is an accident of history. I cannot believe something so deliberately planned, prepared, executed, and maintained can be accidental. The settlements are the point.

And actually, you have a better point here than I think you know. The 8,000 Gaza settlers are not intrinsic to "Greater Israel" - as the Sinai settlers were not; they are, rather, leverage for the greater prize of the biblical Israel imagined to consist of the West Bank, the Golan, and parts of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan . . . some maps I've seen stretch pretty damn close to Baghdad.

quote:
With 5 nations massing on their borders, how would they have "chosen peace"?
I think I've adressed this, but let me just say that being in a standoff is not justification for throwing the first punch. Particularly if there is a chance that no fight will occur unless you throw that punch.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 03 November 2004 04:42 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Magoo: I think I've adressed this, but let me just say that being in a standoff is not justification for throwing the first punch. Particularly if there is a chance that no fight will occur unless you throw that punch.

i agree with the above comment but would add that 6 years later the "pre-emptive" strike on yom kippur equalled the 6 day war "pre-emptive" stike. or maybe it was worse because of the day that the attack was launched


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 03 November 2004 04:50 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

* someone is bound to post a quote from one Israeli who says it was some kind of 37 year plan for a land grab, and if you believe this one guy speaks for everyone, you can go with that theory too.

Quote, shmote! Israel had grabbed land in the area before, when they were helping the British attack Egypt in the fities and tried to keep the Sinai. That time, the UN made them put it back. In 1966-7, they were doing various diplomatic and military actions that escalated tensions with Egypt. There was a certain amount of back-and-forth between the two.

They were also engaged in ongoing escalating provocations with Syria as the war approached. Most of the other countries involved in the 6-day war were allies of Egypt, Syria or both.

But anytime anyone talks about it, it's "Oh, those dreadful Arab countries were *massing their troops on Israel's border*! How awful! What could Israel have done other than attack?"

Piffle. Those countries were building up troops because they had reason to believe they or their allies might be attacked. They were not certain of it, but it was clear that the prospect was one not to be ignored; they would have been irresponsible not to have troops ready for the event. Indeed, as it turns out, clearly Egypt didn't mass nearly *enough* of its troops near the Israeli border, because in the event, Israel *did* attack very strongly, without a declaration of war, starting with a Pearl Harbour-style sneak attack on Egypt's grounded air force. If Egypt had really known what was going down, they might have pulled troops out of their adventure in Yemen. And this time, when the UN told Israel to give back what they had taken, they were strong enough (and had strong enough alliances) to ignore the UN, which is what they did.


Meanwhile, Phileas Fop and Dondan are indulging in the most vicious excesses of victim-blaming I have seen in a long time. You two really are among the most unethical spinners I've ever run across. Cluebat: When you shoot down a child, it's *your* fault. It's not the fault of some vague plot of the opposition to lure you into doing something bad. It's *your* fault. You did it. You looked at that child, aimed a gun at her, pulled the trigger intending it to end her life, a life as valuable as yours. More valuable, actually, because she's not a scumsucking child murderer. When you do something like that you can point all day at those nasty Arabs, but they didn't shoot her. The only other people who can partake of blame are people who act like it's OK, which in the Israeli case seems to include the military and vile apologists like Dondan and Phileas Fop (I really wasn't expecting someone with such a cool handle to be so evil).

Suicide bombers (of civilians) bear similar responsibility. Those who are against the oppression of Palestinians generally fully accept this fact. I find it staggering that we so often run across people on the Israeli side who seem to think killing Palestinian children is OK, or the Israelis somehow don't have to take responsibility for their actions. It's a disgusting viewpoint.

[ 03 November 2004: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 November 2004 05:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I do not think there has been a disinformation campaign as effective, as the one which lays the blame for starting the 1967 war on the "massed Arab armies." Israel began the war by conducting a suprise attack on the Egyptian air force (destroying most of it on the ground,) in response to Nasser's insistance that Egypt had sovereignty over the Enterprise Channel of the Straight of Tiran and blocking Israeli shipping. The channel, (the only usable one for large ships, lies within 50 miles of Egyptian land. Nasser asked that the matter be referred to the world court for adjudication (probably at the insistance of the USSR.)

There was plenty of room to manoover diplomatically.

Furthermore, I think it was, General Rabin who said that the idea that the Arab armies might be able to 'drive the Jews into the sea' was an insult to the IDF. I think it was Peres who later said "I do not think that Nasser wanted war," and that movement of the Egyptian army into the Sinai was meant to forestall it by a show of force.

Even, Menchem Begin, claimed in 1982 that Israel chose to go to war. He used that word exactly -- chose.

It is now nearly 40 years after the fact, and the government of Nasser has long fallen, the Soviet Union is gone yet I have yet to see a single Egyptian general come forward with the Arab invasion plans, or see anyone document Egyptian intent to prosecute a war. Fallen regiemes are notoriously bad at keeping secrets, their enemies benefit so much from exposing them, the only possible conclusion is there was no Arab plan to attack.

Certainly, something would have floated out of the Kremlin archive by now, given Nasser's very close realtionship with the USSR.

Geeze Magoo, Germany was surrounded by massed armies in 1939 -- being surrounded by other countries with armies is not an excuse for an attack.

[ 03 November 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 03 November 2004 05:20 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the only possible conclusion is there was no Arab plan to attack.

Maybe they should have carried white flags then. I don't think it's too much of a leap to imagine that if the armies of 5 different countries — five! — are all on your border at the same time, maybe trouble's brewing. And I disagree that any state, in a 5 to 1 fight, is obligated to "wait and see".

quote:
being surrounded by other countries with armies is not an excuse for an attack.

"Other countries with armies" is not the same as those armies on your border. Either the armies had a clear intent to invade, or they wanted to make it look like they were about to. If they were geniuinely surprised that Israel wasted no time in preventing that attack then all 5 leaders must have shared half a brain between them. That's like pointing a gun at a cop and hoping he'll somehow know that you're just "acting" and will wait to see if you kill him before he responds.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 November 2004 05:46 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And you're Mother Theresa.

No. She would kick your ass. I'd rather just say your an ass.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 November 2004 05:56 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"Other countries with armies" is not the same as those armies on your border. Either the armies had a clear intent to invade, or they wanted to make it look like they were about to. If they were geniuinely surprised that Israel wasted no time in preventing that attack then all 5 leaders must have shared half a brain between them. That's like pointing a gun at a cop and hoping he'll somehow know that you're just "acting" and will wait to see if you kill him before he responds.


Ok, so the fact that France, and Poland had there armies on the "border" of Germany is justification for the german attack of 1939? Do know what other regional power had all of its army on the Arab/Israeli border at the time?

The answer is Israel. If having your army on the border of a neighbouring country were justification for war, then the imaginary invasion plan of the massed Arab armies would in fact be justified by your logic.

Also counting states is silly. What is important is military capablility, again look at Germany 1939, how many 'hostile' countries is it surounded by -- at least five. Poor little Germany -- Yes, oh yes, the fearsome Polish cavalry...

[ 03 November 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 03 November 2004 05:57 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isn't it odd that these "massed armies" (why not quit prevaricating and just come out and say "Oriental hordes"?) that were all prepared to pounce on innocent little Israel could be so taken by surprise in an attack?

One might assume that these "massed armies" should have been in a state of alert, considering that they were preparing to drive poor little Israel into the sea.

quote:
...but it gets sort of tiring to see MidEast history continually beginning the day after the 6 Days War, and to see the contribution that the countries around Israel made to their own present situation ignored.

Broaden your reading, then. I recommend David Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East if you'd like to see how this situation had its beginnings, although it sounds as if you mightn't appreciate Fromkin's description of how Europeans are directly responsible for the mess in the Levant.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 November 2004 05:59 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmmmm, how will Magoo respond to that one, I wonder?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 03 November 2004 06:00 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When in doubt, use a smiley.

ed'd to add:

quote:
One might assume that these "massed armies" should have been in a state of alert, considering that they were preparing to drive poor little Israel into the sea.

Or similarly if they were simply preparing to defend themselves, no?

quote:
although it sounds as if you mightn't appreciate Fromkin's description of how Europeans are directly responsible for the mess in the Levant.

Well, I'm not a big advocate of White Liberal Guilt, but insofar as Israel was a creation, imposed on the area unnaturally, I'd be willing to entertain the idea.

Believe it or not, I don't visit the ME forum because I believe Israel is a poor innocent, nor because I despise the Arab hordes. It just seems that commentary on the situation has echoed around and around enough that all that seems to be left is the belief that Israelis are land-hungry sadists who can't laugh unless an Arab is crying, and the Palestinians are long-suffering bystanders whose only crime was planting olives. I think there's room for the current 100%/0% blame to maybe be, like, 70%/30%, just in the interest of some balance.

[ 03 November 2004: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 November 2004 06:05 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is really interesting. If you begin investigating this it turns out quite possible Israel was the instigator, allied with Turkey, of the war and the prize was water. West Bank aquifiers for Israel and control over water flow in the Tigris river for Turkey. And the loser was Syria. And Egypt only intervened because of a mutaul defence pact with Syria.

The plot thickens ...


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 November 2004 06:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Amazing really, they destroyed 300 Egyptian planes on the ground. I think they got 10 into the air. You would think that they would have been on alert, but then having them on 'alert' would have been seen as a provocation.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 November 2004 06:10 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Golan Heights were captured from Syria during the 1967 war. In 2003, Israel was still refusing to abide by U.N. Resolutions 93, 242 and 338, which ordered Israel to give the land back, because it claims:

1. Israeli farmers in the Hula Valley were the victims of relentless "unprovoked" shelling from the Golan Heights during the period leading up to the 1967 war.

2. Israel seized the Golan Heights in what it claims was a "defensive" war (see elsewhere public admissions by former Israeli Prime Ministers Begin and Rabin that Israel started the war, not the Arabs).

3. The Golan Heights is essential to Israeli security.

The main point of contention was Israel's illegal assertion of sovereignty over the demilitarized zone created on the Heights by the 1949 armistice that ended the first Arab-Israeli war. Israel began its incursions into the zone almost before the ink was dry on the armistice agreement. The U.N. Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) reported a series of border skirmishes between Israeli farmers and Syrians because of, as UNTSO put it, "progressive extension of Israeli cultivation toward the east" inside the demilitarized zone. Swedish General Carl von Horn of the U.N. peacekeeping forces wrote that, "gradually, beneath the glowering eyes of the Syrians, who held the high ground overlooking Zion, the area had become a network of Israeli canals and irrigation channels edging up against and always encroaching on Arab-owned property."

Then, beginning in 1951, Israeli army units entered Arab villages in the zone, destroyed Arab houses and property, and drove villagers out. Israel initially ignored UNTSO protests, but, following the passage of U.N. Resolution 93, allowed Arab residents to return. However, Israel refused to pay compensation for damages done.

Israeli farmers raised tensions further by installing irrigation systems that diverted water away from Syrian land. Israeli army units mounted additional raids. One on December 11, 1955 left 56 Syrians dead, seven wounded, and 32 missing. The U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 111 condemning Israel's "flagrant violation" of the 1949 armistice. Another assault was mounted by Israeli forces on March 16-17, 1962 that led to UN Security Council Resolution 171 strongly condemning Israel. (more on water issues in the Middle East)

In 1966, Israel provoked Syrian fire by again moving tractors and bulldozers into Syrian territory. Israel was to claim that Syrian fire forced her into the war which began the following year. But later, Israeli General Matityahu Peled was to admit that most of the border clashes before the 1967 war, "were a result of our security policy of maximum settlement in the demilitarized zone."

(See Sheldon Richman, "The Golan Heights: A History of Israeli Aggression," The Washington Report for Middle East Affairs, November, 1991, p. 23. See also Laura Drake, "The Golan Belongs to Syria," Middle East International , September 11, 1992, 24.)


Source


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 November 2004 06:17 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It should also be noted that Israel was in violation of the 1956 cease fire agreements in regards to controling the port of Eilat, in the far south near Aqaba. Arabs were guaranteed access and it was supposed to be under UN control. A very strategic location.

The Egyptian threat of closure of the Enterprise Channel in the Straight of Tiran, was framed in direct reference to Israel's violation of the 1956 truce agreement and Israel' siezure of the port of Eilat.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Maggot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3585

posted 03 November 2004 07:03 PM      Profile for Maggot   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
coyote i was almost killed about i guess it was 20 years ago or so at the airport in athens when the plo sprayed the departure lounge with gunfire.

why was i there... i was changing planes


Hi addie.

The only reference to a shoot-up by the PLO in Athens airport that I could find took place in 1973. Your profile says you were born in 1971. And yet, there you were, changing planes and dodging gunfire just like a grown-up person.

My, you must have been one intrepid little traveller! Changing planes, and your own nappies!

If I am confused about your claims or the alleged incident, please let me know. I will apologize immediately.


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
addie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7186

posted 03 November 2004 07:20 PM      Profile for addie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Maggot:

Hi addie.

The only reference to a shoot-up by the PLO in Athens airport that I could find took place in 1973. Your profile says you were born in 1971. And yet, there you were, changing planes and dodging gunfire just like a grown-up person.

My, you must have been one intrepid little traveller! Changing planes, and your own nappies!

If I am confused about your claims or the alleged incident, please let me know. I will apologize immediately.


maggot if i got the years wrong i apoligize. as far as memories go yes i was there, there are somethings you do not forget i could fax you a copy of the luggage tags ... my parents keep everything in the basement ... if that will give you the evidence you need.

or you can accept that i got the years wrong and leave it at that.

i am so sorry i got the dates wrong. i guess i am getting old

it is funny though i also remember specific things about my grandfather -- he died when i was about 1.5 years old

[ 03 November 2004: Message edited by: addie ]


From: anchorage alaska as of 11/29/04 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Maggot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3585

posted 03 November 2004 07:33 PM      Profile for Maggot   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
What, you forgot you were an infant when it happened? Are those the "years" you are apologizing about getting "wrong"?

You presented the incident as if you were a fully sentient adult who had the unfortunate experience of being in the Athens airport during a full-on terrorist attack. No mention that you were, at most, two years old.

You must have been an exceptional two year-old to remember such things so vivdly. I smell something.


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 03 November 2004 07:39 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Maggot:
You presented the incident as if you were a fully sentient adult who had the unfortunate experience of being in the Athens airport during a full-on terrorist attack. No mention that you were, at most, two years old.

You must have been an exceptional two year-old to remember such things so vivdly. I smell something.



maggot quick question do you know addie? do you have a beef with her?

it seems that you asked for clarification and she provided it.

now i agree that it seems weird that someone can remember things from such a young age with such clarity.

but i am not a psychologist and do not know a lot about how traumatic events stay with someone.

but let me ask you something. what is the big deal?

i read what addie said and she was talking about how a lot of people have been touched by terror. but she was saying not to loose sight of the fact that a little girl died and that was really sad.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Maggot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3585

posted 03 November 2004 07:41 PM      Profile for Maggot   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post

[ 03 November 2004: Message edited by: Maggot ]


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 03 November 2004 07:46 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Maggot:
Sock puppet.

is that to me?

that is a new one to be called. i do not even know what a feaken sock puppet is. is it a west coast thing?

if you read most of my postings here...i call them as i see them. and when in doubt i ask for clarifcation.

but no i guess i am just a sock puppet

[ 03 November 2004: Message edited by: miles ]


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 03 November 2004 08:00 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
maggot,

since you edited as well i figure i should do the same


by the way nice to meet you.

hi i am Miles who is cranky cause he has had a really bad day...

[ 03 November 2004: Message edited by: miles ]


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Maggot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3585

posted 03 November 2004 08:08 PM      Profile for Maggot   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I actually just edited that post, miles. Because the style of your post was very similar to that of addie, I assumed. But the sock puppet accusation was unfair.

For your edification, a sock puppet is someone who uses a variety of I.D.'s on a forum, usually to make it look like there is wide support for him- or herself.

As for addie, I have no history with him. It just seemed that he misrepresented an alleged incident from his past in order to bolster his position.


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 03 November 2004 08:11 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Phileas Fop
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7100

posted 03 November 2004 08:12 PM      Profile for Phileas Fop     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

No. She would kick your ass. I'd rather just say your an ass.

Uh oh,
Having a bad day are we? Because your Messiah lost the election?
Not to worry. You can try again in four years.


From: aloft | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 03 November 2004 08:13 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phileas Fop:

Uh oh,
Having a bad day are we? Because your Messiah lost the election?
Not to worry. You can try again in four years.


my candidate did not make it out of the primaries gen clark.

but then again as far as i am concerned an election is over as soon as the last ballot is counted. it is now on to the next adventure


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 03 November 2004 08:22 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
I don't think that comment was addressed to you, Miles.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 03 November 2004 08:23 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
I don't think that comment was addressed to you, Miles.

oops sorry then...i thought i was the centre of the universe for a minute there.


thank god....the responsibility was killing me


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 November 2004 10:47 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Having a bad day are we? Because your Messiah lost the election?

Highly doubtful, as the side in favour of unification of Church and State won.

quote:
Well, I'm not a big advocate of White Liberal Guilt, but insofar as Israel was a creation, imposed on the area unnaturally, I'd be willing to entertain the idea.

I can't say that I've experienced the emotion, but White Liberal Guilt has nothing to do with it.

Secret treaties, imperial expansion and betrayal of allies does, though.

[ 03 November 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Phileas Fop
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7100

posted 03 November 2004 11:17 PM      Profile for Phileas Fop     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Highly doubtful, as the side in favour of unification of Church and State won.

Oh, who advocates the unification of Church and State other than those terrorists you so ardently defend?

From: aloft | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 03 November 2004 11:32 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Don't be so stupid, Fop. No one's defending terrorists here (though some are apologists for state terror). And the American Right sees nothing wrong with an evangelised administration. If you can't see that, you're unconscious.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 November 2004 11:45 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
who advocates the unification of Church and State other than those terrorists you so ardently defend?

Who here is defending Budh, Cheney, Rupert Murdoch and Reverend Moon? Who?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phileas Fop
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7100

posted 04 November 2004 12:04 AM      Profile for Phileas Fop     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
Don't be so stupid, Fop. No one's defending terrorists here (though some are apologists for state terror). And the American Right sees nothing wrong with an evangelised administration. If you can't see that, you're unconscious.

Ah, “state terrorism” - an expression coined by the paramours of terrorists to mitigate the culpability of this odious cadre.

However an alleged or even a professed personal belief is a far cry from a theocracy, wouldn’t you say?

But stupid and unconscious..WOW, one more and I'll have the "hat trick"


From: aloft | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 04 November 2004 12:12 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's one small example of creeping theocracy for our confused dandy:

Faith-Based Parks

Next thing there'll be signs in paleontological museums saying that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans.

Expect more of this sort of thing now that the American Taliban have won re-election.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 November 2004 12:15 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But stupid and unconscious..WOW, one more and I'll have the "hat trick"

You'll notice I used "fop" in that post.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 November 2004 12:23 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Next thing there'll be signs in paleontological museums saying that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans.

Remember how doubly improbable the Flinstones Christmas episodes were? I mean, we knew as kids that the Christ story in prehistoric times with humans and dinosaurs was kind of dumb, but you know, it was a cartoon., after all. Little did we know...


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

posted 04 November 2004 12:33 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ah, “state terrorism” - an expression coined by the paramours of terrorists to mitigate the culpability of this odious cadre.

I like this, although as with most pretentious diction, it is quite meaningless.

One hopes our bloated coxcomb didn't tear his velvet knee-breeches while running hither and thither for his thesaurus as he composed this pompous muck.


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

posted 04 November 2004 12:47 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

Remember how doubly improbable the Flinstones Christmas episodes were? I mean, we knew as kids that the Christ story in prehistoric times with humans and dinosaurs was kind of dumb, but you know, it was a cartoon., after all. Little did we know...


Well, some people may not have found the Christmas episodes improbable.

I thought Jesus was an American

quote:
ONE NATION, UNDER GOD

Some years ago, at the University of California, San Diego, a young woman raised her hand in the middle of a seminar I was then teaching on the first century of Rome and the dawn of the Christian Era. She seemed genuinely disturbed by something. "I know you're all going to think this is crazy," she said, "but I always thought Jesus was an American."

A lovely moment. What she had articulated, as succinctly as I had ever heard it articulated, was the spirit behind three and a half centuries of American history: America as an elect nation, the world-redeeming ark of Christ, chosen, above all the nations of the world, for a special dispensation.

What she had expressed, with an almost poetic compaction, was the core myth of America. Had John Winthrop been sitting at the table with us that foggy day in La Jolla, he would have understood what she was saying, and approved of it. As would Harriet Beecher Stowe. And Ronald Reagan. And, apparently, Attorney General John Ashcroft.


[ 04 November 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 04 November 2004 02:06 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, what with the being blonde and blue-eyed and all, I could certainly see how Jesus could pass as American if He wanted. If He could win one of those "Green Card lotteries" or something, he'd be set.

For years now I've been looking for a recording of a song that I originally heard only a snippet of: "... bow down, to the Standard White Jesus on the cross...".


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 04 November 2004 02:51 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
uote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, “state terrorism” - an expression coined by the paramours of terrorists to mitigate the culpability of this odious cadre.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forsooth! 'Tis a post made by an idiot: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 November 2004 03:08 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Conrad Black is posting on babble? Guess that's what you do when you have no reason to change out of your PJ's. Still full of shit though.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 November 2004 04:55 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ah, “state terrorism” - an expression coined by the paramours of terrorists to mitigate the culpability of this odious cadre.

However an alleged or even a professed personal belief is a far cry from a theocracy, wouldn’t you say?

But stupid and unconscious..WOW, one more and I'll have the "hat trick"


This rhetoric rips ass.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 November 2004 05:13 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"odious cadre"

Sic? I mean sick!

Is your style guide Stalin's 1930's handy-dandy agitprop make your own disinformation guide: "how to write gooey prose and sell the party as well."

Sell it elswhere, no one is buying.

Here's a trick: Make it simple, stupid.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca