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   » War and Responsibility

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: War and Responsibility
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 20 June 2005 02:22 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
This question was asked in a previous thread.
"Do you believe that Isreal shares responsiblity for starting the 1967 war?"
To better understand the question I think it is important to first answer the following:
1) Who shares responsibility with Isreal in starting the war and why?
2) Has shared responsiblity waned in the following decades? If so, why?
3) what should (or could) the shared responsibility produce in terms of ending the conflict?

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 June 2005 03:02 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by caoimhin:
This question was asked in a previous thread.
"Do you believe that Isreal shares responsiblity for starting the 1967 war?"
To better understand the question I think it is important to first answer the following:
1) Who shares responsibility with Isreal in starting the war and why?

Well, I could, by analogy, look at several wars in the past and point out than generally it is concurred that there is an aggressor and the target of that aggression, for most wars.

Let us take the War of 1812 as an example. Clearly, the United States was then in a period of territorial expansion and desired to take by force from Great Britain what had not been yielded after the Revolution of 1774-1776.

Only a fool would then claim that the British were the aggressors in that case, simply because "Responsibility" should be shared.

Thus, by analogy to the 1967 war, the fact that Israel took the first shot and stomped all over the Arab opposition, what little of it there was, indicates that the aggressor was clearly Israel.

quote:
2) Has shared responsiblity waned in the following decades? If so, why?
3) what should (or could) the shared responsibility produce in terms of ending the conflict?

These two are nonsense questions. The only thing "shared responsibility" is intended to do in the context of the 1967 war is to try and blame the Arab opponents (Syria, Transjordan, and Egypt) for acts which were Israeli in origin.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 20 June 2005 03:41 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post
First shot is responsibility. Until then its always possible to negotiate. However we're talking about something that happened forty years ago, and we're not ever going to come to peace if every mistake done by every group over the last two millenia has to be settled. Its never worked anywhere else, and it won't work here.

Peace always comes when both sides try to make the best out of the current situation instead of drawing on a history book of injustices and boundaries that existed forty years or forty decades or forty centuries ago.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 03:52 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:

These two are nonsense questions. The only thing "shared responsibility" is intended to do in the context of the 1967 war is to try and blame the Arab opponents (Syria, Transjordan, and Egypt) for acts which were Israeli in origin.


Dr. I'm afraid I quite disagree with your "facts." Again this is a revisionist view of the 1967 war. I d was old enough to watch the daily news and understand what was going on in 1967.It was very clear that Egypt had massed it troops along the border (they weren't having a picnic!). Nasser had threated to wipe out Israel. The straights were closed other Arabs (Jordon, Syria) joined in too. It was a matter of hours before they actually attacked and would have had a tactical advantage.
The fact that it took 6 days to end the war indicates that it wasn't a mere cake walk. So it's all very well for you to sit in judgment almost 30 years later and rewrite history to your liking. It's just not accurate.

But I totally agree with the CJJ's post.We live in the present now and this is the time to negotiate peace from. History has neverbeen an accurate justification for war.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 20 June 2005 03:59 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
40 years is not forty decades or forty centuries. These are not injustices lost in the mists of history. We're not talking about Thermopylae. In the West Bank and Gaza lived 400,000 Jews with full political rights and four million Palestinians with no political rights. Why is this situation tolerated? In Israel, because many see Palestinians as less than human, and anything is permissible in the advancement of Zionism. But how do they justify that thinking? With the myth that the big, bad Arab world has always been at throat of poor little Israel. That myth is an roadblock to peace.

Why is it tolerated abroad? Because these lands are regarded as "occuppied territory," which came into Israel's possession as the result of self-defense and which they are not obligated to return until they are at peace with everybody, including, impossibly, the people they are occupying. Without the toleration of the world the occupation cannot continue. Israel's aggression in 1967 is relevant to undermining the basis for that tolerance.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 20 June 2005 04:33 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peechy, there was just an entire thread in which each and every one of your statements was hooked, landed, clubbed, gutted, de-boned, filleted, marinated, grilled to perfection and served in a delicious white wine sauce with shallots and mushrooms. Do you think that because that thread is now closed, the information contained within no longer applies?

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: The Dude ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 05:06 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Dude:
Peechy, there was just an entire thread in which each and every one of your statements was hooked, landed, clubbed, gutted, de-boned, filleted, marinated, grilled to perfection and served in a delicious white wine sauce with shallots and mushrooms. Do you think that because that thread is now closed, the information contained within no longer applies?

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: The Dude ]


Do you think that the amount of times previously posted propaganda is repeated affects its degree of "accuracy" ?

Obviously some of us here are still caught up in history (who is right or wrong over 40 years of history and whose history is more accurate) which only illustrates to me how hopeless that approach is towards peace. Thankfully we here, have no input in the ACTUAL peace process. The people who count (the participants) are willing to put history and diatribe aside and talk peace in the name of humanity. That's all that counts.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 05:12 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 20 June 2005 05:28 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Do you think that the amount of times previously posted propaganda is repeated affects its degree of "accuracy" ?

No, because your constant barrage of the stuff in no way changes the fundamental, inalieable fact that its bullshit.

quote:
The people who count (the participants) are willing to put history and diatribe aside and talk peace in the name of humanity. That's all that counts.

Aw, how sweet. Also: bullshit. The history is entirely relevant to the situation because if Israel had not attacked its neighbours in 1967 (a "defensive" war that was planned shortly after the 1956 war), the situation today would b every different. In the words of another poster, the myth is an roadblock to peace.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 June 2005 05:31 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Dr. I'm afraid I quite disagree with your "facts." Again this is a revisionist view of the 1967 war. I d was old enough to watch the daily news and understand what was going on in 1967.It was very clear that Egypt had massed it troops along the border (they weren't having a picnic!).

OH MY GOD THOSE TWO DIVISIONS ARE GONNA KILL US ALLLLLLLLLLLL!

Please. Spare me this crap.


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

posted 20 June 2005 05:39 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
a "defensive" war that was planned shortly after the 1956 war

How did they get Egypt onside with this plan?

It couldn't have worked without them, but what, exactly, did Egypt have to gain here? And if the Egyptian troops weren't actually going to invade, what were they doing?

quote:
OH MY GOD THOSE TWO DIVISIONS ARE GONNA KILL US ALLLLLLLLLLLL!

Do you really think it's realistic to think that any government would and should ignore a hostile army "just hangin' around" on its borders?

Seriously: what should Israel have done? Told them in a firm voice to go home?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 05:49 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Mr. Magoo. If Israel had waited around then they would possibly have been wiped out (as Nasser et al promised) and all us posters here wouldn't have anything to talk about. As for the bullshit comments...just because you don't like history doesn't make it bullshit. Now without turning history back (as much as you would like to) how do we productively talk about peace? Because after all isn't that we all really want (big assumption on my part).
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 20 June 2005 05:53 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How did they get Egypt onside with this plan?

It couldn't have worked without them, but what, exactly, did Egypt have to gain here? And if the Egyptian troops weren't actually going to invade, what were they doing?


Egyptian troop deployment in the Sinai (a move Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban said posed "no immediate military threat") came after the Soviet Union told the Egyptians that Israel had massed forces on the Syrian border.

quote:
If Israel had waited around then they would possibly have been wiped out (as Nasser et al promised) and all us posters here wouldn't have anything to talk about.

Funny, but your anxiety 40 years after the fact isn't shared by the Israeli leadership of the time. Rabin said, "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." Ben-Gurion himself said he "doubted very much whether Nasser wanted to go to war."

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: The Dude ]


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

posted 20 June 2005 05:54 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If Israel had waited around then they would possibly have been wiped out (as Nasser et al promised)

I don't know about that. But whether it fit in with a "plan" of Israel's or not, you kind of have to wonder what the Arab armies were doing. Surely they cannot have been there just to help their old buddy Israel finally fulfil a long-held plan.

And if they were, in fact, there as part of a military action, how was a preemptive strike inappropriate? Isn't that what countries in a situation like that do, if they believe it's the right strategy?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 20 June 2005 06:01 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
40 years is not forty decades or forty centuries. These are not injustices lost in the mists of history. We're not talking about Thermopylae. In the West Bank and Gaza lived 400,000 Jews with full political rights and four million Palestinians with no political rights. Why is this situation tolerated? In Israel, because many see Palestinians as less than human, and anything is permissible in the advancement of Zionism. But how do they justify that thinking? With the myth that the big, bad Arab world has always been at throat of poor little Israel. That myth is an roadblock to peace.

Why is it tolerated abroad? Because these lands are regarded as "occuppied territory," which came into Israel's possession as the result of self-defense and which they are not obligated to return until they are at peace with everybody, including, impossibly, the people they are occupying. Without the toleration of the world the occupation cannot continue. Israel's aggression in 1967 is relevant to undermining the basis for that tolerance.


Ask a native what they think about non-natives occupying North America, and how many non-natives are volunteering to leave.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 06:08 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Dude:

Funny, but your anxiety 40 years after the fact isn't shared by the Israeli leadership of the time. Rabin said, "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." Ben-Gurion himself said he "doubted very much whether Nasser wanted to go to war."

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: The Dude ]


Yes I have seen this repeated in Babble before. Cite for this please so I can see the context.

Magoo, I totally agree. Given th ecircumstances it was the right thing to do and also they thought they had a lot to lose and could handily defeat Egypt if they struck 1st. War is not "fair."

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 June 2005 06:19 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Blaming the victims, over and over and over again.

We have testimony from high-ranking Israeli decision makers that a) They did not believe the Arab countries, particularly Egypt (and no offensive of any kind could have been launched by the Arab nations without Egypt's involvement - surely that can be conceded), were prepared or preparing for war; and b) Israeli military officials considered a military coup if the civilian administration did not enter war pre-emptively.

So who gets blamed? Arabs, and Arab intransigence.

Blaming the victims. Over and over and over again.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 20 June 2005 06:23 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GJJ:

Ask a native what they think about non-natives occupying North America, and how many non-natives are volunteering to leave.


Apples and oranges. Their are currently millions of non natives living in North America. There are currently only about 250,000 settlers living in the West Bank and Gaza. If Israel wanted to, it could easily remove all the settlers from the territories and reintegrate them into society. It wouldn't be that easy to remove 330 million non natives from North America. Our occupation started 200 years ago. The Israelis started their occupation 38 years ago.
Besides we came to terms with the crimes we committed against the native peoples of this continent 30 years ago. The Israeli public has only started coming to grips with the crimes that were committed in their name.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 20 June 2005 07:02 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post
Edited to remove unnecessary quote.

Rationalization is a strange thing ... our situation is always different than other folks. Most native people don't see it quite that way, though they're pragmatic enough to know that non-natives aren't leaving. Some of the younger ones are becoming more militant though, and I'm not sure anyone should be too quick to talk about how well we've come to terms with the crimes. It looks different from a native perspective.

But I agree its alot harder to move 330 million people than 250 thousand ... the difference between 200 years and 40 I think is meaningless; 40 years gives you almost two generations, and throughout the world even the first generation born on land considers it as much their own as anybody elses. So unless you're a native, North Americans can only point out there's a pragmatic argument in changing the borders, any discussion of moral arguments is hypocritical.

And all the pragmatic solutions tend to try to make the best of the situation as is, same as over here.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: GJJ ]


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 20 June 2005 07:13 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why is this situation tolerated?

I thought the situation wasn't being tolerated by the international community.(with the exception of the US of course)

quote:
Because these lands are regarded as "occuppied territory,"

OK, this is just downright weird. Are you saying that the occupation dosen't exist? Is that why you have quotes around occupied territory

The boys at the CIA acctually refer to the WB and GS as disputed territory, so officialy the occupation is in fact non existant.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 20 June 2005 07:33 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes I have seen this repeated in Babble before. Cite for this please so I can see the context.

Rabin was quoted in Le Monde, February 29, 1968.

Bne-Gurion's quote, I beleive, came from his diaries. Can anyone confirm?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 07:35 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Blaming the victims, over and over and over again.

We have testimony from high-ranking Israeli decision makers that a) They did not believe the Arab countries, particularly Egypt (and no offensive of any kind could have been launched by the Arab nations without Egypt's involvement - surely that can be conceded), were prepared or preparing for war; and b) Israeli military officials considered a military coup if the civilian administration did not enter war pre-emptively.

So who gets blamed? Arabs, and Arab intransigence.

Blaming the victims. Over and over and over again.



That's so perverse that it's funny. Blaming the "innocent" Egyptians. Please!!! Cut the crap (to quote one of your comrades).

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 07:37 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GJJ:
Edited to remove unnecessary quote.

Rationalization is a strange thing ... our situation is always different than other folks. Most native people don't see it quite that way, though they're pragmatic enough to know that non-natives aren't leaving. Some of the younger ones are becoming more militant though, and I'm not sure anyone should be too quick to talk about how well we've come to terms with the crimes. It looks different from a native perspective.

But I agree its alot harder to move 330 million people than 250 thousand ... the difference between 200 years and 40 I think is meaningless; 40 years gives you almost two generations, and throughout the world even the first generation born on land considers it as much their own as anybody elses. So unless you're a native, North Americans can only point out there's a pragmatic argument in changing the borders, any discussion of moral arguments is hypocritical.

And all the pragmatic solutions tend to try to make the best of the situation as is, same as over here.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: GJJ ]



Pragmatism begets compromise which leads to peace. Assertation of right over wrong leads to generations of hostility (Balkans) and not peaceful co-existence

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 07:43 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Apples and oranges. Their are currently millions of non natives living in North America. There are currently only about 250,000 settlers living in the West Bank and Gaza. If Israel wanted to, it could easily remove all the settlers from the territories and reintegrate them into society. It wouldn't be that easy to remove 330 million non natives from North America. Our occupation started 200 years ago. The Israelis started their occupation 38 years ago.
Besides we came to terms with the crimes we committed against the native peoples of this continent 30 years ago. The Israeli public has only started coming to grips with the crimes that were committed in their name.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


The 1st stage of the removal of settlers from the territories is scheduled in August (in case you missed that positive piece of news ...hard to imagine how.) Then what? Do you, like many Palestinians feel all of Israel is an occupied territory????


http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/slideshowimages/slide1.html

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 20 June 2005 07:59 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The 1st stage of removal of settlers from the territories is schedule din August (in case you missed that positive piece of news ...hard to imagine how.

Yes, I heard. The problem is that this isn't the first step towards a withdrawal. Sharon plans to annex 58% of the West Bank, steal it's water and then use all that lovely H2o support isreal's growing population. So what if he dismantles all of the settlements in Gaza and a few outposts in the West Bank? His plans remain unchanged.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 20 June 2005 08:22 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Dude:
Peechy, there was just an entire thread in which each and every one of your statements was hooked, landed, clubbed, gutted, de-boned, filleted, marinated, grilled to perfection and served in a delicious white wine sauce with shallots and mushrooms.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: The Dude ]


Mmmmmmm . . . propagandelicious . . . Aaaaaah . . .

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 20 June 2005 08:27 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

I don't know about that. But whether it fit in with a "plan" of Israel's or not, you kind of have to wonder what the Arab armies were doing. Surely they cannot have been there just to help their old buddy Israel finally fulfil a long-held plan.

And if they were, in fact, there as part of a military action, how was a preemptive strike inappropriate? Isn't that what countries in a situation like that do, if they believe it's the right strategy?


Look at the closed thread. Israel was harassing Syria and Eygpt had a defense treaty with Syria, so they moved two divisions into defensive positions in the Sinai (where they had every right be be.)

Israel set a trap and Nasser walked into it. That is all he is guilty of.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 20 June 2005 08:30 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GJJ:

Ask a native what they think about non-natives occupying North America, and how many non-natives are volunteering to leave.


Relevance to the present discussion? Or are you just reading from the JDL's "How to deflect a discussion of Israel's warmongering and ethnic cleansing" handbook?


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 20 June 2005 08:53 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post
No, just questioning why what's happening in Israel/Palestine is considered a moral issue rather than a pragmatic one by Canadians.

And okay, maybe a bit pissed that Canadians have one hundred times the interest on the middle east than we do on what's going on at home ... it stinks of hypocracy to say the least. But that's my take for my own personal reasons, and you're right, its the wrong thread, so I'll leave it alone.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: GJJ ]


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 08:57 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

Relevance to the present discussion? Or are you just reading from the JDL's "How to deflect a discussion of Israel's warmongering and ethnic cleansing" handbook?


The "JDL"? what exactly do you imply by that?


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 09:01 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Yes, I heard. The problem is that this isn't the first step towards a withdrawal. Sharon plans to annex 58% of the West Bank, steal it's water and then use all that lovely H2o support isreal's growing population. So what if he dismantles all of the settlements in Gaza and a few outposts in the West Bank? His plans remain unchanged.


Sounds too good for me. Been reading "the Prince" too much lately? Or do you have proof?
BTW which state was responsible for bringing water to the desert anyway???


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 20 June 2005 09:08 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GJJ:
No, just questioning why what's happening in Israel/Palestine is considered a moral issue rather than a pragmatic one by Canadians.


[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: GJJ ]


Can't it be both?

I think you make a good point that our first responsibility is to recognize and deal with injustices that we contribute to and benefit from. It's all too easy to focus on injustices far away at the expense of treating the people around us justly and respectfully.

But neither can we ignore injustice elsewhere because there are problems at home. Why did no Allied power take steps to disrupt the German death camps operation? Because the people, and land, and the problem were all far away and the decision-makers had other things on their minds.

So I think there is a necessary tension between community obligations, and those to all people as parts of the human family. Neither can automatically take precedence over the other. Every activist has to make their own choice. I believe and hope that if we could see with the eyes of God, we would know that the choice does not matter to those who work sincerely for what is right; injustice anywhere is a threat to justice anywhere, and contrawise, justice anywhere is a threat to the unjust.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 20 June 2005 09:12 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Sounds too good for me. Been reading "the Prince" too much lately? Or do you have proof?
BTW which state was responsible for bringing water to the desert anyway???


Weisglass: Disengagement is formaldehyde for peace process .

Israel gets most of its water from aquifiers in the West Bank and the Golan. They didn't make the water, nor did they "bring it to the desert" that's just old fashioned "taming the savage land" colonialist rhetoric. They stole the water along with the land.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 20 June 2005 09:17 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

The "JDL"? what exactly do you imply by that?


That the JDL has all but forgetten its original mission of fighting discrimination in favor of fighting to preserve discrimination.

That the JDL is a stooge, a toady, a lickspittle, an ass-kisser, bootlicker, brownnose, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groveler, lackey, sycophant, truckler and propaganda organ of the Zionist movement.

I hope this clarifies things for you.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 20 June 2005 09:18 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The thread asks who is responsible for the 67 war.

Well I guess that the sad irony is that if the original partition plan created and voted on by the UN in 1948 had been accepted and 2 countries had been founded and lived in peace. Then today we would have an Israel, a Palestine and an international city of Jerusalem.

Had this happened then this entire discussion would be moot.

Therefore I place the responsibility of the '67 war on the same that I put the responsibility of the '56, '73 and all other wars between Israel and its neighbours.

The responsibility is squarly on the shoulders of those who rejected the partition plan.

Decades of bloodshed would have been avoided if 2 countries had been accepted and allowed to live in peaceful coexistance


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 09:21 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

Weisglass: Disengagement is formaldehyde for peace process .

Israel gets most of its water from aquifiers in the West Bank and the Golan. They didn't make the water, nor did they "bring it to the desert" that's just old fashioned "taming the savage land" colonialist rhetoric. They stole the water along with the land.


I have to say RS (reluctantly) that I do not think Sharon has a handle on or a vision for the withdrawal. And only a total withdrawal (in my humble opinion) will work. I found alot to agree with in the article you cited...unfortunately.

As for the water they "stole"...I suggest you have a long look at the glass or bottle you hold and ask exactly where it comes from, which group of displaced indigenous peoples originally "owned" the land from which it came? As for my old fashioned view of colonial history (makes me chuckle to think someone refers to me as old fashioned) have a look at your own views...ever heard of Lawrence of Arabia...? Talk about old fashioned romantic (and incorrect) views of the noble natives being colonialized by the infidel.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 09:23 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Johnpauljones....hit the nail on the head. Had the partition been accepted we would be here discussing more pressing issues such "where will Belinda go next?"
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 09:26 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

That the JDL has all but forgetten its original mission of fighting discrimination in favor of fighting to preserve discrimination.

That the JDL is a stooge, a toady, a lickspittle, an ass-kisser, bootlicker, brownnose, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groveler, lackey, sycophant, truckler and propaganda organ of the Zionist movement.

I hope this clarifies things for you.


OIC...so anyone who defends Zionism or Israel then is an " ...ass-kisser, bootlicker, brownnose, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groveler, lackey, sycophant, truckler" Intesting choice of phrase. It certainly clarifies what colours your point of view. You and your views are living proof of why the JDL is necessary. Thank you for that.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 20 June 2005 09:43 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

OIC...so anyone who defends Zionism or Israel then is an " ...ass-kisser, bootlicker, brownnose, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groveler, lackey, sycophant, truckler" [ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]



Straw man subfallacy: Extreme man

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 10:19 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Nice smoke screen RS but just repeating your words which per se are bigoted.

http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe07.html

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 20 June 2005 10:31 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Nice smoke screen RS but just repeating your words which per se are bigoted.

http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe07.html

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


So now your fallacies are my smokescreen? But how did I make you compose a worthless straw man argument to begin with? Pretty clever of me, forcing you to make an absolutely facile argument so that I could use it as a smokescreen.

When your arguments and accusations are shreaded, you go for the "You're an anti-Semite" card. Why not? Even if the mud doesn't stick, maybe you can pull the thread away from the issues (where you lose, every time) into yet another no-I'm-not-yes-you-are discussion.

So predictable. Excuse me if I don't bite.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 10:48 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

So now your fallacies are my smokescreen? But how did I make you compose a worthless straw man argument to begin with? Pretty clever of me, forcing you to make an absolutely facile argument so that I could use it as a smokescreen.

When your arguments and accusations are shreaded, you go for the "You're an anti-Semite" card. Why not? Even if the mud doesn't stick, maybe you can pull the thread away from the issues (where you lose, every time) into yet another no-I'm-not-yes-you-are discussion.

So predictable. Excuse me if I don't bite.



I din't say anti-Semite you did . You also said: " JDL is a stooge, a toady, a lickspittle, an ass-kisser, bootlicker, brownnose, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groveler, lackey, sycophant, truckler and propaganda organ of the Zionist movement." So anyone who supports the Zionist movement and ergo Israel is " a stooge, a toady, a lickspittle, an ass-kisser, bootlicker, brownnose, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groveler, lackey, sycophant, truckler and propaganda organ." Need I repeat it for 4th time??????
Those are YOUR words !!!! Damn it, not mine. And they colour your thinking making it impossible for you to have a debate. ANYONE who supports Israel in your own words is (need I repeat it again??? apparently so..." stooge, a toady, a lickspittle, an ass-kisser, bootlicker, brownnose, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groveler, lackey, sycophant, truckler and propaganda organ for the Zionist movement." ) THEREFORE you are bigoted.

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or POLITICS and is INTOLERANT of those who differ."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot

YOU used the word ani-semite....not I....a freudian slip on your part perhaps?

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 June 2005 10:53 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You have to learn how to read.

The car is red does not mean ALL cars are red. His statements was direct: JDL is [to sum up: bad]. To try to construe from that an insinuation of ANYONE ELSE being "bad" is simply not present in what was written.

You're either being deliberately obtuse or you are dangerously ignorant.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 June 2005 10:54 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or both.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 10:55 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Coyote you have to learn to read out of YOUR BOX. You took what he said out of context. He said the JDL used to be valid but since it now supports Zionism it is....need I repeat it again. The logic is simple. YOU need to learn logic.
You and Farrell are just plain dangerous. Dangerous in that that people who read these posts will ACTUALLY believe that either of you actually knows what you're talking about or that you provide balance..I stand by my post RS is a bigot in the true sense of the word.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 June 2005 10:58 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, you twit. JDL has ALWAYS defended Zionism. It is the TACTICS and POSITIONS in defence of Zionism that have made it a horrible, un-credible organization with which the majority of mainstream Zionist and Jewish cultural refuse to be associated.

Peech, you should at least try to understand what is being discussed BEFORE jumping in with the big kids.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 June 2005 11:00 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you know anything about the JDL, Peech? About the death threats against pro-Palestinian activists? Trashing Edward Said's apartment? Bullying non-Zionist Jews for the slightest criticism of the Occupation?

Is this really an organization with which you wish to make common cause?


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 June 2005 11:02 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PM Macabee. I'm certain he'll not defend the JDL.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 11:05 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
No, you twit. JDL has ALWAYS defended Zionism. It is the TACTICS and POSITIONS in defence of Zionism that have made it a horrible, un-credible organization with which the majority of mainstream Zionist and Jewish cultural refuse to be associated.

Peech, you should at least try to understand what is being discussed BEFORE jumping in with the big kids.


This is his post "That the JDL has all but forgetten its original mission of fighting discrimination in favor of fighting to preserve discrimination. et et etc." Maybe you should read the posts before you jump in to defend the bigots you lackie for the ISM

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 June 2005 11:05 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, and after you go and look up who the JDL actually are, and what they've actually done, you can post your apology to rs and I right here on this thread.

Thanx.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 11:08 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Oh, and after you go and look up who the JDL actually are, and what they've actually done, you can post your apology to rs and I right here on this thread.
Thanx.

Once again for the record I DO NOT SUPPORT THE JDL. I was refering to RS's post.

And

Don't hold your breath...no in fact do hold your breath.

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 June 2005 11:09 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you attack a member of a non-violent organization to defend one which beats, harrasses, and attacks its opponents? You make your position VERY clear, Peech.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 June 2005 11:11 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But of course you are right: It is too much to expect of you, this research or actual knowledge of facts before you set down to type.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 11:14 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
So you attack a member of a non-violent organization to defend one which beats, harrasses, and attacks its opponents? You make your position VERY clear, Peech.

Non violent....you're kidding right?

The I (palestinian) S Movement has been known to assist in suicide bombing by bringing in and hiding operatives furthermore it's mission statement has been (until recently edited) to "resist " the occupation using ANY MEANS.

So piss off with your OH so holy ISM. And I am not defending the JDL you idiot but I was using RS's own words (which you apparently are to pig headed to have read!!!)) Stop ofiscating.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 11:15 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 11:17 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
But of course you are right: It is too much to expect of you, this research or actual knowledge of facts before you set down to type.

You didn't even read his post before LEAPING to conclusions consistent with your President's Choice, club pack, politically correct, store bought ideology did you? I wouldn't expect more from you.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 June 2005 11:21 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Non violent....you're kidding right?

The I (palestinian) S Movement has been known to assist in suicide bombing by bringing in and hiding operatives furthermore it's mission statement has been (until recently edited) to "resist " the occupation using ANY MEANS.

So piss off with your OH so holy ISM. And I am not defending the JDL you idiot but I was using RS's own words (which you apparently are to pig headed to have read!!!)) Stop ofiscating.



This is quite plainly slander, and I do think you should be removed from these boards for uttering it.

The "assisting in suicide bombing" garbage has been dealt with easily, with the majority of the Israeli press retracting any claim that might have been insinuated in this direction. Two Hamas men approached ISMers at a public, non-violent rally. Period. It's like me walking up to you on the street and someone taking from that that you are a member of the ISM.

The ISM has always and solely operated within the context of non-violent resistance, and has condemned all acts of violence against civilians. It has not repudiated the right of the Palestinian people to use violence in the context of national liberation; a right granted by numerous international treaties and laws. The ISM itself is a non-violent organization, made up of Palestinians, many Israelis, and other internationals.

I will place the ISM against the JDL any day. And I will be sending this thread to Michelle for her perusal, and hopefully your slander will have consequences.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 June 2005 11:28 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Heh. He's probably gone to google JDL so can figure out just what kind of trouble he's landed himself in.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 11:36 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:

This is quite plainly slander, and I do think you should be removed from these boards for uttering it.

The "assisting in suicide bombing" garbage has been dealt with easily, with the majority of the Israeli press retracting any claim that might have been insinuated in this direction. Two Hamas men approached ISMers at a public, non-violent rally. Period. It's like me walking up to you on the street and someone taking from that that you are a member of the ISM.

The ISM has always and solely operated within the context of non-violent resistance, and has condemned all acts of violence against civilians. It has not repudiated the right of the Palestinian people to use violence in the context of national liberation; a right granted by numerous international treaties and laws. The ISM itself is a non-violent organization, made up of Palestinians, many Israelis, and other internationals.

I will place the ISM against the JDL any day. And I will be sending this thread to Michelle for her perusal, and hopefully your slander will have consequences.


Slander has to be false so I stand by my allegations which are supported in the media.


"And while ISM's own literature and spokesman claim that they support non-violent "resistance to Israel's occupation," they also openly state, "We recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via armed struggle."

web page


"While we do not advocate adopting the methods of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., we do believe that learning from their experience... can be quite valuable and of great utility. The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics -- both nonviolent and violent. But most importantly it must develop a strategy involving both aspects. No other successful nonviolent movement was able to achieve what it did without a concurrent violent movement... in India militants attacked British outposts and interests while Gandhi conducted his campaign."


Shapiro and Arraf, who is listed as a coordinator on the ISM website, wrote in the Palestine Chronicle: "[W]e accept that Palestinians have a right to resist with arms, as they are an occupied people upon whom force and violence is being used. The Geneva Conventions accept that armed resistance is legitimate for an occupied people, and there is no doubt that this right cannot be denied."

One of Ryter's anti-Israel diatribes can be found at:
http://www.electronicintifada.net/features/articles/20010627tsaporah.html

Read the Shapiro-Arraf manifesto at:
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20020129050221695

The IDF charges that many of the self-proclaimed peace activists are "provocateurs" and "riot inciters" who deliberately interfere with the IDF's work, with the goal of blackening Israel's image. Army sources noted that in one case, they discovered a wanted terrorist being hidden by ISM activists in Jenin.

The sources said the activists received training overseas in how to deceive border control officials at Ben-Gurion International Airport in order to be allowed into the country.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml? itemNo=291714&contrassID=1&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

AND once again for the record I am NOT defending the JDL. Get off your high horses and read hiss post and the following ones before leaping to you ridiculous conclusions and go crying to the moderator. It's so consistent with your "position" to silence the opposition like what was done at Concordia. You're afraid of dialogue aren't you.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 20 June 2005 11:36 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder if he's come across a reference to their defense of Baruch Goldstein yet?
From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 11:37 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Heh. He's probably gone to google JDL so can figure out just what kind of trouble he's landed himself in.

Is this a threat? That's what you're so good at isn't it...intimidation.

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 20 June 2005 11:51 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
More on the Holy ISM...


"Though acknowledging that "comparing Marla and Rachel opens a Pandora's box," the Union-Tribune goes right ahead and makes that comparison, drawing a highly offensive moral equivalence between an innocent student terror victim and a militant who actively participated — unauthorized and unprepared — in the heart of a combat zone.

Conspicuously absent from the Union-Tribune article was the fact that Corrie's organization, the "International Solidarity Movement" (ISM), was found to be harboring a senior Islamic Jihad terrorist in Jenin in March, and served as cover for the terrorist who bombed a Tel Aviv nightclub in April, killing 3 and injuring more than 60.

The Union-Tribune merely refers to the ISM as a "pro-Palestinian activist group" that is part of the "peace movement," ignoring their ties to terror groups similar to the very one that murdered Marla Bennett."

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Tactless_in_San_Diego.asp

And from that well-known "pro-zionist" entity magazine

The Death of Rachel Corrie

News: Martyr, idiot, dedicated, deluded.

describes theISM as

" International Solidarity Movement, a pro-Palestinian activist group founded just the year before. A motley collection of anti-globalization and animal-rights activists, self-described anarchists and seekers, most in their 20s, the ISM upholds the right of Palestinians to carry out "armed struggle" and seeks "to establish divestment campaigns in the U.S. and Europe to put economic pressure on Israel the same way the international com- munity put pressure [on] South Africa during the apartheid regimes."

"The group has courted controversy from the start. Embracing Palestinian militants, even suicide bombers, as freedom fighters, ISM has adopted a risky policy of "direct action" "


ISM has also found itself placed on the defensive by its own recklessness. During a raid on their Jenin office on March 27, Israeli soldiers arrested Shadi Sukiya, an alleged Islamic Jihad guerrilla found hiding with two ISM activists. The idf says that Sukiya, 20, was a "senior militant" who'd sent four suicide attackers into Israel. ISM insists he was an innocent, terrified teenager who'd asked for refuge during an Israeli sweep. But following the incident, the International Committee for the Red Cross, which occupies an office in the same compound, asked the ISM to leave the premises. In late April, two Pakistan-born Britons posing as activists stopped in for tea at the group's office in Rafah. Five days later one Briton blew himself up at the entrance to a Tel Aviv pub called Mike's Place, killing three and wounding dozens. (The other escaped; his battered body later washed ashore near Tel Aviv.) The ISM denied any link to the bomber. "Their sole contact [with us] was a brief social encounter in Rafah in the Gaza Strip and no ‘links' were ‘forged' in such a short time," a spokesman said. Still, the perception has lingered that the group is a sympathizer -- and even a harborer -- of terrorists. "

I don't think Mother Jones issued a retraction as you stated in you post.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/09/ma_497_01.html

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 21 June 2005 12:43 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Is this a threat? That's what you're so good at isn't it...intimidation.

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


You just can't read, can you? I meant that you have no idea WHAT you are talking about, so you've gotten yourself into such a deep hole, rhetorically, that you're now just flailing about, hoping to hit something.

I said exactly what my friend Huwaida said: The ISM is a non-violent organization, but it recognizes the RIGHT to armed resistance by the occupied. No mystery there.

Mother Jones published a one-sided piece of slander, demonstrating once again the cowardice that has permeated so much of the American Left. It was a factually-challenged, shall we say, piece, that confused dates, locations, and persons; kind of like Peech.

NO ISMer has EVER been convicted of any violence, or connection to violence, ever; this despite the fact that the IDF has raided their offices and the homes of their activists in Israel and Palestine on a consistent basis, not to mention jailing them on spurious charges only to let them be released later.

The fact is that the hard-line, anti-peace lobby in the Zionist ranks has conducted a campaign of intimidation and lies against the ISM, because the ISM puts the lie to the occupation: through us, just a little, the world can see what Israel's occupation has done and continues to do. And like all occupiers, and their apologists, you cannot handle the truth; it burns.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 21 June 2005 01:00 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ISM is international solidarity movement?

One of my dad's friends was part of that. I got the impression that it was a profoundly non violent experience.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 21 June 2005 01:04 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have been a part of it as well; the only violence I experienced was a the hands of the children with guns thrust in their hands by the Israeli military that make up the occupying force.

At one time, I was very angry at those kids. Now I feel sorry for them. I try to remember myself at 18, and the cruel young man I would have been had I been shoved into a similar circumstance.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 21 June 2005 01:11 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does anyone suppose the Occupation could be enforced by non-violent means?

If not, why should Palestinians be condemned for using violence in their resistance to their land being occupied?

By the way, how many Israelis have ISM members killed? How many ISM members have Israelis killed?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 21 June 2005 01:25 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
You just can't read, can you? I meant that you have no idea WHAT you are talking about, so you've gotten yourself into such a deep hole, rhetorically, that you're now just flailing about, hoping to hit something.

I said exactly what my friend Huwaida said: The ISM is a non-violent organization, but it recognizes the RIGHT to armed resistance by the occupied. No mystery there.

Mother Jones published a one-sided piece of slander, demonstrating once again the cowardice that has permeated so much of the American Left. It was a factually-challenged, shall we say, piece, that confused dates, locations, and persons; kind of like Peech.

NO ISMer has EVER been convicted of any violence, or connection to violence, ever; this despite the fact that the IDF has raided their offices and the homes of their activists in Israel and Palestine on a consistent basis, not to mention jailing them on spurious charges only to let them be released later.

The fact is that the hard-line, anti-peace lobby in the Zionist ranks has conducted a campaign of intimidation and lies against the ISM, because the ISM puts the lie to the occupation: through us, just a little, the world can see what Israel's occupation has done and continues to do. And like all occupiers, and their apologists, you cannot handle the truth; it burns.



Your only defence to opposition to your propaganda is intimidation and threats. If the articles are indeed slander (maybe you should lookup the meaning of the word before displaying your ignorance) then a law suit would have occurred. Please point to such a case. Otherwise it's clear you are unable to refute the facts in the article and resort to your own form of inneudo and above all intimidation by threatening to report me to the mediator for daring to challenge your belief in the holy ISM. Did your mommie do your homework for you too? Because apparently you can't read or understand plain english .....supporting the armed right to "resist" means the use of VIOLENT means. Speaking of rhetorical, how can a nonviolent organization support violence??? Answer they can't be non violent.

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 21 June 2005 01:30 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
I have been a part of it as well; the only violence I experienced was a the hands of the children with guns thrust in their hands by the Israeli military that make up the occupying force.

At one time, I was very angry at those kids. Now I feel sorry for them. I try to remember myself at 18, and the cruel young man I would have been had I been shoved into a similar circumstance.


Did you get angry at "Militants" training Palestinian children to "martyr" themselves and murder other children????????????
I would think not given the hypocritical nature of your posting to date.

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 21 June 2005 01:33 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 21 June 2005 01:37 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are just absolutely pathetic. My record of support for non-violent resistance is clear; my opposition to suicide-bombings and the jihadist mentality that recruits and indoctrinates to that end is equally clear.

You, on the other hand, stand up to support thugs like the JDL, and the hatchet jobs done by propagandists.

Intimidation? Refusing to be bullied by a know-nothing thug, and refusing to lay down before your ignorant slander, is somehow intimidation? You do not belong on babble. You are a stranger to the truth, and a troll to boot.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 21 June 2005 01:49 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
You are just absolutely pathetic. My record of support for non-violent resistance is clear; my opposition to suicide-bombings and the jihadist mentality that recruits and indoctrinates to that end is equally clear.

You, on the other hand, stand up to support thugs like the JDL, and the hatchet jobs done by propagandists.

Intimidation? Refusing to be bullied by a know-nothing thug, and refusing to lay down before your ignorant slander, is somehow intimidation? You do not belong on babble. You are a stranger to the truth, and a troll to boot.


1. I said I don't support the JDL (I think I said 4 times now),

2. You have attempted to bully me (threotoning to report me ......)

3.I have put forth evidence of the ISM being directly or indirectly supporting terrorism and violence from sources stated (which of course you dislike) but,

4. You haven't refuted any sources I referred to but rather to some mythical "slander" without pointing to any legal precedent.

5. You persist in accusing me personally of slander.

6. Now you accuse me of being dishonest (because I repeat what is written and well-documented) and finally the piece de resistance:

7. After leaping into a debate (which obviously you hadn't read) and obviously misunderstood what was said, commence a personal attack (i.e.trolling) but.....wait for it.... you accuse me of trolling???!!!!!

You are a piece of Work and not nearly as clever as you think you are!

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 21 June 2005 01:51 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All of these histrionics, of course, have been by way of hi-jacking a thread (mea culpa to my part in it) wherein once against the Occupation's apologists are absolutely unable to provide any credible evidence to justify Israel's war of aggression and expansion in 1967. It's like I asked Magoo, a long time ago in another thread on this subject: given the testimony of Israel's elites regarding Egypt's preparedness for war; Egypt's desire for war (or lack thereof); the Israeli militaries consideration of a coup d'etat to ensure war; and the longstanding commitment of Eretz Israel expansionsists to re-unite "Biblical Israel", how on Earth can one come to the conclusion that the '67 war was anything other than an Israeli creation?

Now, to be clear: I almost never argue about these matters, nor '48 for that matter. To me, the important thing is to end the Occupation and let Israelis and Palestinians live in a negotiated peace that meets their mutual needs. But it is instructive to see that those who defend the Occupation return to the same tactics no matter what the subject: lies, slander, and histrionics. It is a shame. Such people should wish better for themselves, and for the people of Israel and Palestine.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 21 June 2005 02:00 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Psst: Opinion articles don't count as sourced material. I can point to a thousand articles by Said and others that counteract every one of your editorials, but they do not substantiate a claim one way or another.

The one piece of hard evidence you put forward I acknowledged; of course, it only re-iterated what I had already said: The ISM is a non-violent organization, but is does acknowledge the RIGHT to armed resistance as articulated in international law. I have stated numerous times my preference for non-violence - that's why I support the ISM.

Where did I see you condemn the JDL, Peech? Where? This all started from your inability to read what is actually written; I will not continue with that as the basis for conversation.

I did not "threaten" you with anything. I reported what I feel to be a slander to the moderator, in part because the slander is applied to me (as you intended it to be) by your reference to me as an "ISM lackie" (which makes me laugh in and of itself; ah, the grand benefits and privileges of non-violent activism on behalf of Palestinian self-determination!). The moderators can do with that complaint what they will.

But thank you for exposing yourself as what you are, once again. Trust me when I tell you, this has been educational; you will never be taken seriously again, which is as it should be. Seriousness is beyond you.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 21 June 2005 02:07 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Coyote:


Since it was you who didn't read or understand the context of my posts, before you stuck your nose in and made wild accusations, do me and everyone else here a big favour next time be properly informed.

PS What you "feel" to be slander doesn't coincide to what actaully is slander.And I am asuming you meant libel.

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 21 June 2005 02:08 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Coyote:

if you looked before you leaped you would have seen from my previous posts (above)that
a) I am 100% in favour in finding a peaceful solution for all people in the Middle East to co-exist REGARDLESS of their stated history,
b) all for total withdrawal of all settlers from all the lands presently occupied and or settled by Israelis or foreigners (not partial withdrawal as scheduled for August).

I obviously disagree with your interpretation of History BUT History has been a very poor justification for war. Now anything else in a positive direction? I beleive that was the original thread....

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 21 June 2005 02:31 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wouldn't call it libel; I don't consider discussion forums to be in the same nature as a published material like a book. Perhaps simply "defamation" would have been a better word.

But the fact remains that you still have not acknowledged that rs was referring to what the JDL has become, not what it started as; his criticism was not that it supports Zionism (which he has been strong enough in condemning in its own right, and which the JDL supported even at the time when rs would have admired the organization) but what it has done in supporting that ideology - the same criticism of it made by most mainline Jewish groups and Zionist organizations.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 21 June 2005 02:58 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
I wouldn't call it libel; I don't consider discussion forums to be in the same nature as a published material like a book. Perhaps simply "defamation" would have been a better word.

But the fact remains that you still have not acknowledged that rs was referring to what the JDL has become, not what it started as; his criticism was not that it supports Zionism (which he has been strong enough in condemning in its own right, and which the JDL supported even at the time when rs would have admired the organization) but what it has done in supporting that ideology - the same criticism of it made by most mainline Jewish groups and Zionist organizations.


Coyote:

You have been unable point to any ACTUAL legal precedents where the ISM (i don't even know if the ISM is a legal "person") has successfully sued anyone for those accusations. With all due respect the comments from reprinted sources (which I believe to be likely true) are not libel, slander, or defamatory.

Secondly I agree partially with your (present) interpretation of what RS said, that the JDL started out with a good intention. However you have read into what RS meant and not what he actually said about the JDL's support for Zionism. He said: because it supports Zionism then it is: " a toady, a lickspittle, an ass-kisser, bootlicker, brownnose, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groveler, lackey, sycophant, truckler and propaganda organ of the Zionist movement." So the logic is plain then ANYONE who supports Zionism is......"a toady, a lickspittle, an ass-kisser, bootlicker, brownnose, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groveler, lackey, sycophant, truckler and propaganda organ....". And for the 6th or 7th time now (I'm not sure why I am bothering because if you read the posts you'd get it)that statement can be considered bigoted (in the true dictionary definition sense,which is: people who are blinded by politics and cannot tolerate the other point of view.)
Rs then accused me of accusing him of being an anti-semite ....which I plainly did not. Then you came along and jumped in.......

(For the record I do NOT support the JDL or it's extreme tactics nor have I ever stated that I did but I do support Zionism)

Don't you think it's time to move on and be more productive? (However I can see no why peace is so difficult to obtain!)

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 21 June 2005 03:20 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
He said: because it supports Zionism
Stop right there. Because that's not what he said. It's what you want him to have said, but it's not what he said.

As for moving on, how can one trust you to engage in any kind of meaningful debate when you cannot simply admit you were in error?

As for the ISM not suing anyone, piffle. The Israeli government has never taken them to court for ANY involvement with violent acts, this despite numerous raids. The burden of proof is not on the ISM to prove innocence; it is on you to prove guilt of any kind. This has not been done, despite Israel's best efforts.

You are, quite simply, wrong.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 June 2005 07:13 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Dr. I'm afraid I quite disagree with your "facts." Again this is a revisionist view of the 1967 war. I d was old enough to watch the daily news and understand what was going on in 1967.It was very clear that Egypt had massed it troops along the border (they weren't having a picnic!). Nasser had threated to wipe out Israel. The straights were closed other Arabs (Jordon, Syria) joined in too. It was a matter of hours before they actually attacked and would have had a tactical advantage.
The fact that it took 6 days to end the war indicates that it wasn't a mere cake walk. So it's all very well for you to sit in judgment almost 30 years later and rewrite history to your liking. It's just not accurate.

But I totally agree with the CJJ's post.We live in the present now and this is the time to negotiate peace from. History has neverbeen an accurate justification for war.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]



Correction. Half of Egypts army was in Yemen. Also 2 divisions is not a "mass." It is a penny ante.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 21 June 2005 10:11 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Stop right there. Because that's not what he said. It's what you want him to have said, but it's not what he said.

As for moving on, how can one trust you to engage in any kind of meaningful debate when you cannot simply admit you were in error?

As for the ISM not suing anyone, piffle. The Israeli government has never taken them to court for ANY involvement with violent acts, this despite numerous raids. The burden of proof is not on the ISM to prove innocence; it is on you to prove guilt of any kind. This has not been done, despite Israel's best efforts.

You are, quite simply, wrong.


I disagree with your "interpretation" of what RS said. The words speak for themselves.

YOU are the one who alleged slander lies etc. I asked you to prove it and you can't. You just parrot what is on your ISM's site.


Furthermore I find it highly ironic that whenever you don't like what the other side says; you allege slander, complain to the moderator and then (in RS's case) allege that he has been called an anti-Semite all with the express purpose of chilling or silencing any opposing views.

I will not engage in any more mind-fucking "debate" with you. No thanks.

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 21 June 2005 10:26 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:

what are you saying then,that Egypt was bluffing when it amassed it's troops on the border and threatened Israel? And can you point to a source that shows exactly how many troops Egypt had and where. (it'll look too). Thanks


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 21 June 2005 11:05 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Complete lack of honesty. How disappointing.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 21 June 2005 11:34 AM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I disagree with your "interpretation" of what RS said. The words speak for themselves.

There's quite simply noother way to interpret the following as being directed at the JDL and the JDL alone.

quote:
That the JDL has all but forgetten its original mission of fighting discrimination in favor of fighting to preserve discrimination.

That the JDL is a stooge, a toady, a lickspittle, an ass-kisser, bootlicker, brownnose, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groveler, lackey, sycophant, truckler and propaganda organ of the Zionist movement.


No mention of any of these traits applying to Zionists as a whole. Your inability or unwillingness to comprehend such a straight-ahead sentence speaks volumes: either you're a recalcitrant idiot or a stooge.

Keep it up, though: you're only embarrassing yourself further with every half-assed post you make.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 June 2005 02:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Cue:

what are you saying then,that Egypt was bluffing when it amassed it's troops on the border and threatened Israel? And can you point to a source that shows exactly how many troops Egypt had and where. (it'll look too). Thanks


Listen peech. I'll let you in on a little secret. I never lie. So. take it from me. If I am telling you that I have read that Egypt put two divisions in the Sinai, as an act of chest thumping, and the rest of its army was in Yemen, then you can take it from me.

quote:
"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.

Menachem Begin (1982)

He is one of the more established sources. Also:

quote:
Nasser, as the undisputed leader of the Arab world, took up the challenge. On May 14 and 15 lead units of two Egyptian divisions rolled into the Sinai Peninsula. He placed the Egyptian Army on full alert.

[SNIP}

It was true that as early as 1960, following skirmishes on the Israeli-Syrian border, Egypt had sent large forces into the Sinai with the intention of "deterring Israel from attacking Syria." But the Egyptian troop deployments of May 1967 were different. "Unlike 1960, when the Egyptians had entered secretly so that their eventual withdrawal could be low-key and honorable, there was no radio silence in this operation, no secrecy; in fact, the sight of Egyptian tanks in a bright sand camouflage en route to push the Jews into the sea was covered with great glee by the Arab media."


JVL

Not always politcally objective but usually good on the facts. Look how they have to explain, that this had happened before, but this time it was different... because, well, sorry Peech, my view is that they wanted a pretext for war.

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 21 June 2005 03:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
[Yemen] The revolution was supported by Egypt who supplied troops and supplies, while Badr was supported by Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The revolutionary republican forces split into opposing factions over the issue of Egyptian support. This dispute led to the ouster of the ruling junta in 1966 and its replacement by a pro-Egypt regime. The conflict lasted until 1967 when Egyptian forces withdrew, Saudi aid to the royalists was halted, and the opposing leaders reached an agreement. The new state was called the Yemen Arab Republic, and Saudi Arabia recognized the new republic.

Yemen

Egypt withdrew its army after the war. Now if Egyt was going to attack Israel, wouldn't they wait for the army to come back home. What kind of general plans a sneak attack with only hale their army?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 21 June 2005 03:15 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Dude:

No mention of any of these traits applying to Zionists as a whole. Your inability or unwillingness to comprehend such a straight-ahead sentence speaks volumes: either you're a recalcitrant idiot or a stooge.

Keep it up, though: you're only embarrassing yourself further with every half-assed post you make.


Listen jerk...why not let RS explain the words himself. Otherwise but out.
I could care less what YOU think those words mean.

BTW have a good look at your posts...which are tellingly devoid of spelling and grammar.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones or in your case shovels of.....bullshit.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 21 June 2005 03:17 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Grammar flames=lame; and speaking of glass houses . . .
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 21 June 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Yemen

Egypt withdrew its army after the war. Now if Egyt was going to attack Israel, wouldn't they wait for the army to come back home. What kind of general plans a sneak attack with only hale their army?


An Egyptian one. (joking) Any way I'll have a look and I am sure I will find evidence to the contrary. ( There may be a delay as I have some urgent deadlines to meet today.) BTW I have never doubted your truthfulness, just respectfully disagreed with your positions which is more than I can say for some of your colleagues posting here. Thanks again.

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 21 June 2005 04:51 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Listen jerk...why not let RS explain the words himself. Otherwise but out.
I could care less what YOU think those words mean.

Sorry sunshine, but it's a public forum.

Let me walk you back a ways. After RS posted his opinion of the JDL, you responded with this:

quote:
so anyone who defends Zionism or Israel then is an " ...ass-kisser, bootlicker, brownnose, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groveler, lackey, sycophant, truckler" Intesting choice of phrase. It certainly clarifies what colours your point of view. You and your views are living proof of why the JDL is necessary. Thank you for that.

In other words, you stated that RS was applying the litany of negative traits to all Zionism's supporters despite the fact he quite specifically referred to the JDL only.

Understandably, he refused to justify your distortion of his statement with a response, allowing the words to stand for themselves. You, however, refused to relinquish that particular line of thinking.

quote:
ANYONE who supports Israel in your own words is (need I repeat it again??? apparently so..." stooge, a toady, a lickspittle, an ass-kisser, bootlicker, brownnose, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groveler, lackey, sycophant, truckler and propaganda organ for the Zionist movement." ) THEREFORE you are bigoted.

Note how you substituted "anyone who supports Israel" for "JDL", making a lie of your assertion that the reference was “in your (rsfarrell’s) own words”. You intentionally distorted the original post to further an accusation of bigotry against the poster. It's weak, transparent and as much proof of your own failure here as the following:

quote:
BTW have a good look at your posts...which are tellingly devoid of spelling and grammar.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones or in your case shovels of.....bullshit.

If you think spelling/grammar flames are going to distract from your pathetic efforts to tar a poster here with the stain of anti-Semitism, you're even dumber than you've come across so far. And that would be an achievement.

If you had a shred of integrity, you would own up to distorting rsfarrell’s words and apologize for using that distortion as a basis for an accusation of racism.

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: The Dude ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 21 June 2005 08:01 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:

I haven't read in detail your cites yet but I will. However here are some quotes from General Moshe Dyan’s autobiography “Story Of My Life” ( I figure he was there so it’s good place to start.)

p.287. “ Sunday May 14th, 1967 Nasser demanded the ousting of the UNEF which had been stationed along the Sinai and Gaza Strip border following the 1956 Sinai Campaign. The UN secretary general agreed. Within another few days, some 80,000 Egyptian troops and 800 tanks were in the Sinai, with advanced formations approaching Israel’s border, swelling the forces already stationed there.”

(Maybe they were planning an innocent Bar B Que?)

“On May 22, Nasser declared the blockade of the straits of Tran to all ships bound to or from Israel. When Israel had withdrawn her troops from Sharm el-Sheik after the Sinai campaign , she had clearly stated reimposition of the blockade by Egypt would be an act of war.”
“On May 26, Nasser announced that Egypt intended to destroy Israel. Four days later King Hussein placed Jordan’s armed forces under Egyptian command. So did Iraq. Expeditionary units arrived from Kuwait…
(continued on page 288)
and Algeria to add to the Egyptian strength in Sinai. By the opening days of June, Israel was threatened on all fronts by Arab armies vastly outnumbering us in troops, tanks, artillery and war planes. To the world Israel seemed doomed.”

Sounds like more than a piffle to me.

But I guess according to your sources Dyan was mistaken, deluded, overreacted, or just wrong? Hmmm I think, given that he was there and the General in charge of the 1967 War. I am leaning towards a source that is 1st hand. (But I will read your cites Cue.) I haven’t found the book on the web so I am just typing it direct. I can scan and post the pages if you like. Cheers

[ 21 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 22 June 2005 01:24 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:

Having had an opportunity to read your sources her is my reply:
You previously stated and repeated that there were only 2 Egyptian divisions. According to your source The JVL:

" By May 19 the Egyptians had deployed six divisions in the Sinai. "
[URL=JVL]JVL[/URL]


(This already in addition to the 2 divisions initially deployed. So it appears that Dyan's version was accurate. Eight Egyptian divisions deployed. Nothing to sniff at.

Furthermore from the same source above:

"On May 20 Israeli Intelligence learned that Nasser had recalled three Egyptian brigades from Yemen."

That would appear to total 11 (eleven) divisions.

And:

" The same day Egyptian forces took over Sharm El-Sheik, at the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula. At midnight on May 22 Nasser announced the closure of the Straits of Tiran, at the entrance of the Gulf of Aqaba, thus closing off Israel's only shipping route through the Red Sea. This was a clear causus belli, which had been understood since 1956 - Israel's shipping routes through the Red Sea would not be impeded."

Also as stated by Dyan.

And again from the same source above:

"On May 30 King Hussein of Jordan made a surprise visit to Nasser in Cairo. While there had been a lot of animosity between Nasser and Hussein in the past, they made up and signed a mutual defense pact. Jordan was brought "into a joint military command with Egypt." An Egyptian general was put in command of Arab forces on the Jordanian front."

Looks awfully like acts of war to me.

So (also from your source above mentioned Cue):

"On June 2 the Israeli Cabinet decided in principle on war. The military realized the dangers of waiting any longer: more Egyptian troops would arrive from Yemen, and the Soviet Union would continue with its supply of weapons to Egypt. Moreover, it was understood that the United States and Washington would do nothing to break Nasser's blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba."

Makes sense to me.

As for the Begin speech:

I would submit that he was boasting. Furthermore given the facts above mentioned he was just plain incorrect. The rest of the article you cite is an op-ed (opinion ) on what Begin's speech really meant. I would submit that his words by themselves are inadequate for the proposition that you put forward. (ie that Egypt was bluffing and couldn't or wouldn't possibly pose any danger to Israel.)

So Cue I respectfully disagree with you position. Based on the facts outlined above and my previous post I submit that there were acts of war committed. Did Israel really have to start? I don't think the niceties (politenesss) of the situation required splitting hairs. Had they not attacked, but waited they might not have been successful in the campaign. Plain and simple.

[ 22 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 June 2005 06:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
3 to 4 brigades is a single division, generally.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 June 2005 06:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Dyan's comment are self-serving. Would you consider an autobiography by Nasser as a reliable source?

I find is remarkable that you will quote Dyan without comment or questions, and trash Begin, Begin after all served with (under?) Dyan. It is obvious that you put your ideolological view first and then find the facts that fit it later, or simply find way to disgard those sources that don't conform to your pre-disposed position.

And yes, Begin was boasting, that does not mean that the essentials are untrue.

Do you even no whay triggered Egypt decision to close the Enterprise Channel to Israeli shipping?

[ 22 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 22 June 2005 09:29 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I think Dyan's comment are self-serving. Would you consider an autobiography by Nasser as a reliable source?

I find is remarkable that you will quote Dyan without comment or questions, and trash Begin, Begin after all served with (under?) Dyan. It is obvious that you put your ideolological view first and then find the facts that fit it later, or simply find way to disgard those sources that don't conform to your pre-disposed position.

And yes, Begin was boasting, that does not mean that the essentials are untrue.

Do you even no whay triggered Egypt decision to close the Enterprise Channel to Israeli shipping?

[ 22 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Yes I suppose Dyan's comments are self serving. But the facts that he states are also found in JVL and Wikedia. (JVL is your sources) Therefore I assumed (since these are neutral sources)that this was more than a coincidence (ie = truth.) I am open to looking at other factual accounts.
You're right we are all susceptible to looking for facts to fit our ideology (some of us more than others perhaps), that's a fair criticism. Over all ll though I (who am old enough to remember) had family living in Israel at the time and watched the daily news which was less political then. I do recall distinctly the sense of panic and urgency when the events that preceded the war occurred. Of course my recollection could be coloured by those emotions. So Cue I am not totally closed...I just think it is also too facile to say Israel was a power hungry, bloodthirsty, Imperialist, expansionist nation and wanted to attack purely to get land. Perhaps it's more complex? And besides regardless of who is at fault where do we go from here?


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 June 2005 06:02 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nice of you to say that. And I think you have a point. But Israel started the shooting and that is how the war start. And while there may have been genuine fear in some quarters, I think there were a great number of Israeli's wondering why they gave back what they gave back in 56. There has always been a fairly powerful group in the zionist movement who wanted "it all." I have seen proposed maps from the 20's and 30's that include way more than what Israel has now.

I think you should read Naguib Mafhouz, Egypt's Nobel prize winning novelist. In particular you should look out for Autumn Quail. It covers the period in Egypt in the run up to the 56 war. The revolution. The rise of Nasser, etc. At the end there is a very cmpelling scene of the panic in the Cairo streets when "the Jews are coming," and the British and French actually do bomb Cairo.

The invasion actually happened to them, whereas it did not actually ever come to Tel Aviv. I'm not going to get into the politics of it any more, but

Other great books by Mafhouz are The Thief and the Dogs, and also Midaq Alley. The former will be a timeless calssic and has only a small amount to so with politics, and has to do with the personal undoing of morality. Mafhouz is usally comparable to Saul Bellow, but I'd say the Thief and the Dogs is in the vein of "Notes From the Underground" by Dostoyevsky.

[ 24 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 24 June 2005 12:15 PM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ask any soldier whether he would rather attack, or defend, a piece of ground. Israel attacked because it had a huge strategic advantage; US eyes and ears providing location and strength of enemy assets.
From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 June 2005 01:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know about that. They attacked the USS Liberty. Or do you know something I don't?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 24 June 2005 01:59 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nister

It is always almost better to be in a Defensive Position than in an Attacking Force.

Most modern tacticians agree that that defending force is more likely to be successful unless the attacking force outnumbers them by at least 6:1

This number will increase depending how well prepare the defending force is, where it is located, and how well it is armed.

A defending force in the city can take on an attacking force 10 times its own size.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 June 2005 02:05 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is for conventional forces, of course.

If defending troops are surrounded facing similar terrible odds, they often fight with a certain desperation that makes them that much harder to defeat.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 24 June 2005 02:16 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Paxamillion

"This is for conventional forces, of course"

There are no more cinventioanl forces, warfare has changed, there are no longer any frontlines or safe areas.

The whole country that you fight in is a warzone.
The enemy is everywhere, all the time.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 June 2005 02:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, well, that is an interesting phenomena. I remember Mao making only one reference to Clauzewitz, and that was Clauzewitz suggesting that it might not be possible to formulate a comprehensive system of warfighting applicable to all periods of history, (as a thing in itself) as the political and technological environment of war is always changing. So I guess the experts agree the idea of "conventional war," is another of those famous oxymorons that pop up frequently in discussions about the military.

That said, it is the case that what most people consider 'conventional' wars have been fought as recently as the Iran-Iraq war, so who knows? China V India again might be another contest to appear again in the next 50 years, for instance.

Also, China v. Vietnam was conventional as well.

[ 24 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 24 June 2005 05:20 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I don't know about that. They attacked the USS Liberty. Or do you know something I don't?

That's a Very Interesting point Cue and very controversial. The popular belief is that israel did so because (in the usual propaganda vein) it is a war like. imperialistic nation and (it couldn't help itself?). But John Loftus in his treatise "Secret War Against the Jews"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-descri ption/0312156480/ref=dp_proddesc_0/102-0749528-8444144?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155
makes the incredible case that the Liberty was spying against Israel for Egypt and that Israel sunk it to the embarrassment of the USA which then gave Israel money to pay the compensation to avoid further discovery.

BTW thanks for the above book references.

[ 24 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]

[Edited by Michelle to get rid of sidescroll.]

[ 25 June 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 June 2005 05:31 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Spying for the... Jesus Christ.

I swear to god, you spin conspiracy theories that make the 9/11 people look amateurish with their sillyass ideas about the Teflon being taken out of the World Trade Center towers or whatever.

You're starting to remind me of another individual who would take anything that favored Israel and wave it around like a magic amulet. Even if it turned out to be one very stupid magic amulet made out of cardboard.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 24 June 2005 07:49 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
Spying for the... Jesus Christ.

I swear to god, you spin conspiracy theories that make the 9/11 people look amateurish with their sillyass ideas about the Teflon being taken out of the World Trade Center towers or whatever.

You're starting to remind me of another individual who would take anything that favoured Israel and wave it around like a magic amulet. Even if it turned out to be one very stupid magic amulet made out of cardboard.


Perhaps before shooting from the hip you might wish to actually check out the source....but of course that might let the facts get in the way of your "opinion". Loftus is an ex CIA member who had a lot of 1st hand experience and information on the subject. And by the way this is supposed to be a forum; meaning discussion of varied opinions. Not just a PCC (politically correct club) sounding board to blindly bash Israel just because it's fashionable to do so.

[ 24 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 25 June 2005 12:30 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
What I find sad Peech is that you seem to have identified the problem. Some on Babble do view this Board not for discussion but rather as "secret garden" open to only one view specifically when it comes to Israel.

Now for the record I surely do not believe that this is true for the vast majority of Babblers because on other thread I have seen a tremendous diversity of opinion. Even the dreaded maccabee agrees with many progessive issues outside the Middle East topic. But here Maccabbee is loathed, I would say feared because he (and you) have the audacity to buck the politcal way as expressed by those like Cueball, Al A'ubong, Hephestation and others.

Even those who on many other threads would agree with you and Macabbee when it comes to anything on Israel you are both shunned in a way that is very intolerant of your views.

Now that stated, I would say that from time to time Macabbee's passion gets the best of him/her/her and while I understand his/her feelings his passion is not just rejected but used against him/her. Despite the fact that I too may disagree with hisher feelings on what as he/she puts it "crosses the line" I would never engage in the intolerant rhetoric I have seen from some here.

Yes I guess I too may be pegged now for coming to your defence and understanding the despised Macabee but I am hoping that my words will have a sobering effect on some and help them realize that we are all not cut from the same cloth, that we have passionately held ideas and sometimes may say things that deeply disturb but to demand these people be silenced is neither the progressive way nor is it mature.

Just my thoughts as they may be.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 25 June 2005 03:05 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But here Maccabbee is loathed, I would say feared...

Only if you confuse a distaste for talking points presented replete with malapropisms, logical fallacies, hasty generalisations and - everyone's favorite - 'antisemitic' smear jobs, with "fear".

I don't fear Macabee, I fear for those Palestinians who have to live under the boot of those he defends and the ethically challenged worldview they espouse.

[ 25 June 2005: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


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

posted 25 June 2005 03:38 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ohara, defending the indefensible.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, to see you come to Mac's defence.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 25 June 2005 04:13 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
There is nothing that would make me happier than to get some really intelligent Zionists on the board and talk the talk with them. I don't know how we could get intelligent ones; maybe trade in the ones we have.

Perhaps I ought to take a month off advocating for justice and show them how effectively and rationally you can argue for Zionism if you know how. Unfortunately, in addition to being immune to logic and evidence, they are also impervious to irony.

[ 25 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 June 2005 04:58 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread.
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