The ability of palistinians to express themselves politically

[Ed]

From the NYT.
Remind me again why some people do not condem this stuff in the strongest possible way.


" Suicide Bombing Kills Scores in Northern Israeli City
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: October 4, 2003



Filed at 10:45 a.m. ET

JERUSALEM (AP) -- A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowded Mediterranean beach restaurant Saturday, killing at least 18 people. The attack, one of the deadliest in the past three years, raised the possibility Israel might take action against Yasser Arafat."

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ed
From the NYT.
Remind me again why some people do not condem this stuff in the strongest possible way.


Hey, its OK because Israel has tanks, planes, and helicopters and the Palestinians do not.....:rolleyes:

[Richard G]

Israel is not targetting civilians, and busses full of kids with those tanks and planes. If they decided to do so, there would be no Palestinians.

When they launch a bomb, its aimed dead center on a mass murdering Palestinian.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Richard G
Israel is not targetting civilians, and busses full of kids with those tanks and planes. If they decided to do so, there would be no Palestinians.

When they launch a bomb, its aimed dead center on a mass murdering Palestinian.

I was being sarcastic.

[Richard G]

Doh!

[Mycroft]

Because in that conflict, we only expect civilized behavior from Israelis.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Richard G
Israel is not targetting civilians, and busses full of kids with those tanks and planes. If they decided to do so, there would be no Palestinians.

When they launch a bomb, its aimed dead center on a mass murdering Palestinian.

When they launch a bomb aimed dead center on a suspected mass murdering Palestinian, innocent people who are in the target area with the suspect are also killed or injured.

[Ed]

Originally posted by tamiO


When they launch a bomb aimed dead center on a suspected mass murdering Palestinian, innocent people who are in the target area with the suspect are also killed or injured.

The technical term for that is "whoopsie"

[Richard G]

Are you willing to wade into that mass of armed, inhumane murders to apprehend the targeted individual? Its been tried before and it erupts into open house to house street fighting, which causes even more casualties.

The Israelis drop a bomb, and don't have to worry about losing any of their own.

(The Palestinians know this very well, and have had trained police, paid for by the U.S. to deal with their radical fringe of people. They have chosen not to deal with it, and in fact, those same police turned against their own enablers.)

Simply put, the Palestinians are so ignorant andstupid, they can't stop kicking themselves in the ass.

(The Hamas is one of the best inteligent agancies in the world. If they suspect the individual, you can pretty much gaurantee they have the right man).

[TwoShanks]

(The Hamas is one of the best inteligent agancies in the world. If they suspect the individual, you can pretty much gaurantee they have the right man).

I've heard CIA is pretty good, but they don't seem to have turned up any WMD yet..


On the broader issue, of course everyone should be condemning the suicide bombers. I can't say I'm a supporter of the Israeli strategies either, but bombing civilian targets is completely wrong.

Both sides need to stop the revenge cycles or there'll never be any progress.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Richard G (The Hamas is one of the best inteligent agancies in the world. If they suspect the individual, you can pretty much gaurantee they have the right man).

The Israeli intelligence agency is called Mossad. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Other than that, your point is dead on!

[Richard G]

Doh!

[Dilettante]

Originally posted by Mycroft
The Israeli intelligence agency is called Mossad. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Other than that, your point is dead on!

That's true of course...but Israeli intelligence depends on a large network of informers, so there may be some overlap!

God I hate these bombers.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.machtres.com/F16.jpg

Are these the bombers you are talking about?

You could be right, given the number of IDF fighter pilots who have gone on strike that are saying the same thing.

[Dilettante]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those are fighter planes.
Incidentally, it sounds as though Israeli pilots have finally been given some better work to do: today they hit a training camp inside Syria. :D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Dilettante
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those are fighter planes.
Incidentally, it sounds as though Israeli pilots have finally been given some better work to do: today they hit a training camp inside Syria. :D

For short range work, like around Israel to Palestine, an F16 is an effective strike fighter. For a place like Australia, the ancient F111 is still better value.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


For short range work, like around Israel to Palestine, an F16 is an effective strike fighter. For a place like Australia, the ancient F111 is still better value.

You have Hamas training camps in Australia? God it's worse than I thought.:D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


You have Hamas training camps in Australia? God it's worse than I thought.:D

Actually, it is due to the need for a very long range capability. Australia is a big island/continent, surrounded by water and sparsely populated.

If you read the 'internal politics of Muslim Extremists' thread I started, there were some cells here, funding extremists overseas. When asked if they could plant a few bombs here, they turned down the offer, because they had jobs, family, houses etc. I think that this motivation for deterring terrorism is the most effective and humane.

[Skeptic]

So, because israel has F-16s, it's its own fault that suicide bombers blow themselves up in its cities. I keep forgetting.

Short quiz, AUP: what would happen if israel gave up its fighter planes and army? How long will it be before the "peace loving" palestinians butcher every jew? A week? Two?

By the way, why do you keep adding "/palestine" every time you talk of israel, AUP? Why is it NEVER just "israel" but ALWAYS "israel/palestine"--except, of course, when you are criticizing israel for something?

Should I start referring to australia as "Australia/the islamic chalifate of south east asia"? Or perhaps as "australia/the aboriginal kindgom stolen by AUP's ancestors"? After all, some people believe that too...

[Cleopatra]

What I find shocking in this case is that the suicide bomber was a trainee lawyer.

This tells a lot about the ways Palestinians choose to defend themselves.

Have a look at this story (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/59EA05DD-FC14-4E2A-A430-80195AB42DAA.htm) from Al Jazeera, it includes a photo of hers too.

She was a very beautiful young Palestianian that could fight for the cause of her people having as weapon her studies. Instead she chose to kill 20 people and herself.

I think that Mycroft was right about the gift of Arafat to his people.

"Charming" detail from Al Jazeera's article:

It is not known whether Hanadi would have acted differently had she been aware Maxim was frequented by Arabs as well as Jews.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Skeptic
"australia/the aboriginal kindgom stolen by AUP's ancestors"? After all, some people believe that too...

:roll:

[DanishDynamite]

If only someone could make a case that the Palestinians had tons of WMD ready to launch within 45 minutes or (equivalently) that the thought of WMD once crossed some Palestinian's mind, then the US could invade and make it all better. ;)

Seriously, Ed, we can condemn the suicide bombings in the strongest possible way from now until the cows come home, and so what? How is that going to solve anything?

[billydkid]

My personal (and not very expert opinion) is that the perpetual crisis in the middle east is starkly illustrative of the fact that societies and nations and cultures that base their identities on ethnicity or religion or any other such attribute are by their very nature bad things. Now, I realize that this is not some sort of brilliant insight on my part, but there are obvious things that just don't get said because they are not politically correct. It would not have taken tremendous insight to realize what would happen when the Israeli state was created there in the middle east.

There will be no peaceful resolution in the middle east, ever. It is such a sad and complicated story and it has gone on for so long. They will simply never stop killing each other until there is noone left to kill.

In my mind, the single thing that makes the US and other similar cultures superior to others in the world is the fact that we are a motley culture and that what defines and unites us is simply our desire to remain a culture - an some arbitrary attribute such as race or religion or background. Of course, there are a few amoung who desire that we be defined by one of these sorts of attributes or another - those who insist that we are a "Christian" nation or a white nation (it could be any religion or race or background) or an exclusive nation of any sort or other - but these people are in the minority. The whole melting pot thing is what makes us great and why some other nations never will be.

[Skeptic]

Seriously, Ed, we can condemn the suicide bombings in the strongest possible way from now until the cows come home, and so what? How is that going to solve anything?

But, DD, NONE of these posts in this forum will "solve anything" in the middle east, as you no doubt are acutely aware. But you still post about the middle east.

The fact is, you voice moral outrage about others things there, such as israeli "human rights violations", despite the fact that you know it would "not solve anything"--but do not bother to voice the outrage about suicide bomings.

This shows that, from your point of view, israeli actions are more evil, more atrocious, more deserving of censure and comment (despite the fact that it "won't solve anything"), than horrific suicide bombing of jews by genocidal maniacs. It shows that blowing up jewish babies is, for you, less important, more excusable, less of an issue, than building a fence to keep those bombers out, for instance.

THIS is why the fact that you don't bother to condemn the suicide bombings is important. Ever heard the expression "deafening silence"? Well, that's what we get from you, AUP, and the rest every time such a horrific butchery by the "opressed palestinian freedom fighters" occured. Your apathetic response in such cases shows your true sentiments: "well, it's not such a big deal".

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:But, DD, NONE of these posts in this forum will "solve anything" in the middle east, as you no doubt are acutely aware. But you still post about the middle east. For once, I agree with you Skeptic.
The fact is, you voice moral outrage about others things there, such as israeli "human rights violations", despite the fact that you know it would "not solve anything"--but do not bother to voice the outrage about suicide bomings. If I have done so, I expect is has been to offset the notion that Palestinians are born as bloodthirsty baby-killers and that Israelis are born saints.
This shows that, from your point of view, israeli actions are more evil, more atrocious, more deserving of censure and comment (despite the fact that it "won't solve anything"), than horrific suicide bombing of jews by genocidal maniacs. It shows that blowing up jewish babies is, for you, less important, more excusable, less of an issue, than building a fence to keep those bombers out, for instance. Could you give an example where the above diatribe is a logical conclusion of something I've said?
THIS is why the fact that you don't bother to condemn the suicide bombings is important. Ever heard the expression "deafening silence"? Well, that's what we get from you, AUP, and the rest every time such a horrific butchery by the "opressed palestinian freedom fighters" occured. Your apathetic response in such cases shows your true sentiments: "well, it's not such a big deal". OK. From now on just assume that whenever there is a suicide bombing in Israel, I automatically condemn it in the strongest possible way.

Now that this bit of irrelevant condemning is clear, perhaps we can move onto relevant topics, such as how to solve the problem.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Seriously, Ed, we can condemn the suicide bombings in the strongest possible way from now until the cows come home, and so what? How is that going to solve anything?

But, DD, NONE of these posts in this forum will "solve anything" in the middle east, as you no doubt are acutely aware. But you still post about the middle east.

The fact is, you voice moral outrage about others things there, such as israeli "human rights violations", despite the fact that you know it would "not solve anything"--but do not bother to voice the outrage about suicide bomings.

This shows that, from your point of view, israeli actions are more evil, more atrocious, more deserving of censure and comment (despite the fact that it "won't solve anything"), than horrific suicide bombing of jews by genocidal maniacs. It shows that blowing up jewish babies is, for you, less important, more excusable, less of an issue, than building a fence to keep those bombers out, for instance.

THIS is why the fact that you don't bother to condemn the suicide bombings is important. Ever heard the expression "deafening silence"? Well, that's what we get from you, AUP, and the rest every time such a horrific butchery by the "opressed palestinian freedom fighters" occured. Your apathetic response in such cases shows your true sentiments: "well, it's not such a big deal".

That is sorta what I meant.

Anyway, I have a theory. I believe that well educated people, such as the ones posting here, are racist with respect to the palestinians. You see, they perceive the Isreali's (much as they might hate to admit it) as being closer to themselves culterally, in terms of values and so on. The Palistinians, on the other hand, are unwashed, ignorant, savage and nothing more than murder can really be expected from them. Given this, naturally, excuses must be made. You see precisely the same thing amoung white liberals when it comes to black out of wedlock births, incarceration and so on in this country. Getting laid and having a child is as much a volantary act as strapping a bomb to one's self and killing innocents, yet somehow there are mitigating factors in both cases. I think it comes down to racism.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
What I find shocking in this case is that the suicide bomber was a trainee lawyer.


Quoted from the Al-Jazeera article:

"But we are receiving congratulations from people," Thahir said.

"Why should we cry? It's like her wedding today, the happiest day for her," he said.

Thahir is her brother. This is more sick than the actual bombing.

[Jon_in_london]

I dont think any decent peace loving person can condone this kind of thing. The response (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3165394.stm) is also going to do a f*ck load of good isnt it? Sure that will really help! Just as well they built that wall and bull-dozed Jenine too! otherwise there might might have been another bombing recently...oooops! there have been several! Just as well though otherwise there might have been another brutal incursion/bombing of a refugee camp! this is a very constructive way for human beings to carry on isnt it?

Build a wall around the whole fooking region and let them sort themselves out!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ed

Anyway, I have a theory. I believe that well educated people, such as the ones posting here, are racist with respect to the Blacks. You see, they perceive the whites (much as they might hate to admit it) as being closer to themselves culterally, in terms of values and so on. The Blacks, on the other hand, are unwashed, ignorant, savage and nothing more than murder can really be expected from them. Given this, naturally, excuses must be made. You see precisely the same thing amoung Isreali liberals when it comes to Palestinian out of wedlock births, incarceration and so on in this country. Getting laid and having a child is as much a volantary act as strapping a bomb to one's self and killing innocents, yet somehow there are mitigating factors in both cases. I think it comes down to racism.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Ed
Anyway, I have a theory. I believe that well educated people, such as the ones posting here, are racist with respect to the palestinians. You see, they perceive the Isreali's (much as they might hate to admit it) as being closer to themselves culterally, in terms of values and so on. The Palistinians, on the other hand, are unwashed, ignorant, savage and nothing more than murder can really be expected from them. Given this, naturally, excuses must be made.

Bingo!

The media portrays it all as a “cycle of revenge and violence”. When stories come out of a suicide bombing or a strike by the IDF against some terrorist, they always pair it up with the most recent action from the other side, as though one caused the other and it’s not a continuing war. The average spectator thinks, ”Someone needs to make the first step towards peace, someone needs to turn the other cheek and be the first to make concessions.’ and they always look to Israel to be that someone because they don’t expect civilized behavior from Palestinian-Arabs.

It’s anti-Arabic racism.

[Skeptic]

OK. From now on just assume that whenever there is a suicide bombing in Israel, I automatically condemn it in the strongest possible way.

Now that this bit of irrelevant condemning is clear, perhaps we can move onto relevant topics, such as how to solve the problem.

TRANSLATION: "Johnny, can you play 'pretend I care about the victims' over there on the carpet, please? Now, THERE'S a good boy. You see, daddy is VERY BUSY finding a 'solution to the problem', so you can't really remind him of those irrelevant victims all the time, OK? Just 'assume I automatically condemn it' and stop bothering me..."

If I wasn't sure you couldn't care less about the victims before, now I am, DD.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Richard G


When they launch a bomb, its aimed dead center on a mass murdering Palestinian.

You mean like this one?:

"During the night of 22 July, the IDF dropped a one-ton bomb from an F16 fighter jet on a densely populated neighbourhood of Gaza City, killing Hamas activist Salah Shehada, the target of the IDF attack. Seven other adults and nine children were also killed, and more than 70 injured. The IDF accused Salah Shehada of having organized attacks against Israelis. Six nearby houses were also destroyed in the attack. The following day Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called the attack "one of the most successful operations"."

http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/isr-summary-eng

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
What I find shocking in this case is that the suicide bomber was a trainee lawyer.




On the bright side, that's one less lawyer.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Bingo!

The media portrays it all as a “cycle of revenge and violence”. When stories come out of a suicide bombing or a strike by the IDF against some terrorist, they always pair it up with the most recent action from the other side, as though one caused the other and it’s not a continuing war. The average spectator thinks, ”Someone needs to make the first step towards peace, someone needs to turn the other cheek and be the first to make concessions.’ and they always look to Israel to be that someone because they don’t expect civilized behavior from Palestinian-Arabs.

It’s anti-Arabic racism.

Yeah, I think I am right.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Ed


On the bright side, that's one less lawyer.

Despite myself, I laughed...

[gnome]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Seriously, Ed, we can condemn the suicide bombings in the strongest possible way from now until the cows come home, and so what? How is that going to solve anything?

But, DD, NONE of these posts in this forum will "solve anything" in the middle east, as you no doubt are acutely aware. But you still post about the middle east.

The fact is, you voice moral outrage about others things there, such as israeli "human rights violations", despite the fact that you know it would "not solve anything"--but do not bother to voice the outrage about suicide bomings.

This shows that, from your point of view, israeli actions are more evil, more atrocious, more deserving of censure and comment (despite the fact that it "won't solve anything"), than horrific suicide bombing of jews by genocidal maniacs. It shows that blowing up jewish babies is, for you, less important, more excusable, less of an issue, than building a fence to keep those bombers out, for instance.

THIS is why the fact that you don't bother to condemn the suicide bombings is important. Ever heard the expression "deafening silence"? Well, that's what we get from you, AUP, and the rest every time such a horrific butchery by the "opressed palestinian freedom fighters" occured. Your apathetic response in such cases shows your true sentiments: "well, it's not such a big deal".

I think you've missed the point here... at least regarding some of us. I can't speak for AUP but for myself. The purpose of a discussion or debate is to communicate an idea, and possibly convince the other participants and listeners of your point of view, or at least reach a consensus.

I have no need to convince you or anyone else that killing civilians is wrong. Most people agree on that... it'd be an awfully short discussion.

On the other hand, I may have a desire to convince you that Israel's response to these attacks is unwise. The answer is not obvious, requires discussion. I could be wrong. In fact, it is precisely because Israel's actions are less clearly wrong than Palestine's, that it requires so much discussion.

To put it into another perspective, how much do I have to talk about how much I hate murder, to be considered sincere enough to debate the wisdom of the death penalty?

Another point: Israel is US's ally. They receive a great deal of financial aid from us, and perhaps righfully so. The point being, that the US has more influence over Israel than it does over Palestine, and so it makes more sense to protest Israel when they screw up, because there's a chance they might listen if it affects US policy towards them. At least, more of a chance than simply protesting with no leverage.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Should I start referring to australia as "Australia/the islamic chalifate of south east asia"? Or perhaps as "australia/the aboriginal kindgom stolen by AUP's ancestors"? After all, some people believe that too...

Stay tuned: the AUP/Fool Axis of Nuttiness wiil soon reveal that US Government led conspiracies were the reason for Aboriginal maltreatment and for the current trend of Aussies-Converting-To-Islam (The Religion Of Peace). :D

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by gnome


I think you've missed the point here... at least regarding some of us. I can't speak for AUP but for myself. The purpose of a discussion or debate is to communicate an idea, and possibly convince the other participants and listeners of your point of view, or at least reach a consensus.

I have no need to convince you or anyone else that killing civilians is wrong. Most people agree on that... it'd be an awfully short discussion.

On the other hand, I may have a desire to convince you that Israel's response to these attacks is unwise. The answer is not obvious, requires discussion. I could be wrong. In fact, it is precisely because Israel's actions are less clearly wrong than Palestine's, that it requires so much discussion.

To put it into another perspective, how much do I have to talk about how much I hate murder, to be considered sincere enough to debate the wisdom of the death penalty?

Another point: Israel is US's ally. They receive a great deal of financial aid from us, and perhaps righfully so. The point being, that the US has more influence over Israel than it does over Palestine, and so it makes more sense to protest Israel when they screw up, because there's a chance they might listen if it affects US policy towards them. At least, more of a chance than simply protesting with no leverage.


Hi Gnome,
I do not know if your analogy holds about murder and the death penalty. You are assuming that it is a given that people are against what happened in Haifa. Having read many posters's views on the whole conflict, I do not think that is a safe assumption.

I think there are some that would see it as a legitimate form of resistance to the Israelis.

I think there intense dislike of Israel would allow for any type of action to be morally justified.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Skeptic
So, because israel has F-16s, it's its own fault that suicide bombers blow themselves up in its cities. I keep forgetting.

Short quiz, AUP: what would happen if israel gave up its fighter planes and army? How long will it be before the "peace loving" palestinians butcher every jew? A week? Two?


Indeed.

I know many make the cute moral equivalency of saying that a terrorist is only a group that doesn't have an airforce, etc...

But does that hold?

What would Hamas do if it had the firepower Israel has? Would they show restraint in destroying the "Zionist entity."

What would Al Queda do if it had American firepower? Would they use "smart bombs" to limit civilian casualties?

My guess is a big fat no on both of those questions.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Ed


On the bright side, that's one less lawyer.

I saw that.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Hi Gnome,
I do not know if your analogy holds about murder and the death penalty. You are assuming that it is a given that people are against what happened in Haifa. Having read many posters's views on the whole conflict, I do not think that is a safe assumption.

I think there are some that would see it as a legitimate form of resistance to the Israelis.

I think there intense dislike of Israel would allow for any type of action to be morally justified.

I have looked through this thread carefully, and have not seen a word of support for the palestinian terrorist' methods. Even so, if I'm required to devote a certain amount of my writing to say that I am against killing civilians before I enter into the debate, what use is that? If someone deep inside thinks the palestinians are right to blow up innocent children, they know better than to come out and say so. So such a requirement is useless for separating the sincere from the supporters of murder.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:TRANSLATION: "Johnny, can you play 'pretend I care about the victims' over there on the carpet, please? Now, THERE'S a good boy. You see, daddy is VERY BUSY finding a 'solution to the problem', so you can't really remind him of those irrelevant victims all the time, OK? Just 'assume I automatically condemn it' and stop bothering me..."

If I wasn't sure you couldn't care less about the victims before, now I am, DD. I care about them to the same extent that I care about 20 people killed by an earthquake somewhere. However, I care even more about better earthquake predictions and stricter building codes, if you get my metaphor. I'm interested in preventing more victims whereas it seems you would rather discuss how evil the earthquake was.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I saw that.

Yeah, but I hope you at least saw a tinge of humor. :D

[Ed]

Originally posted by gnome


I have looked through this thread carefully, and have not seen a word of support for the palestinian terrorist' methods. Even so, if I'm required to devote a certain amount of my writing to say that I am against killing civilians before I enter into the debate, what use is that? If someone deep inside thinks the palestinians are right to blow up innocent children, they know better than to come out and say so. So such a requirement is useless for separating the sincere from the supporters of murder.

It's been justified since they have no army and the Isreali's kill women and children.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk


Stay tuned: the AUP/Fool Axis of Nuttiness wiil soon reveal that US Government led conspiracies were the reason for Aboriginal maltreatment and for the current trend of Aussies-Converting-To-Islam (The Religion Of Peace). :D

thought I could smell something....I there Hammy, is it hot in the white hood today?

Don't suppose you are interested in siting any posts of mine to support the constant dribble you post? Though not.....

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Ed


It's been justified since they have no army and the Isreali's kill women and children. Ed, your impersonation of the Devil's Advocate is lacking. Kindly stick to your usual divine duties. ;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


It's been justified since they have no army and the Isreali's kill women and children.

From the parents of the latest bomber.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/05/1065292478048.html

You seem to confuse observation with justification. In this case, the claim is reprisal.



The mother of Hanadi Tayssir Jaradat holds her picture as she grieves at home in Jenin.

The parents of a Palestinian suicide bomber who killed 19 people at a restaurant in northern Israel have spoken of their pride in their daughter, and said she had avenged the death of her brother at the hands of the Israeli army.

Hanadi Tayssir Jaradat, 29, who worked as a lawyer in the centre of the West Bank town of Jenin, was a devout Muslim who would assiduously pray and read the Koran, her parents said.

The unmarried woman had witnessed the death of her brother, Fadi Jaradat, and cousin, Saleh Jaradat, during an Israeli army operation in Jenin on June 12. Both were members of the radical Palestinian Islamic Jihad group.

"She saw the killing in the house of her brother and cousin three months ago," her mother, Umm Fadi, said. "She was deeply upset, as she was very close to her brother.

"I am happy with her because she has killed those who have killed my son. They kill us every day, and demolish our homes every day."

Speaking in a neighbour's house, after the family home was destroyed by the Israeli army early today, Umm Fadi said that she had had no idea what her daughter was about to do.



In this link

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/05/1065292467935.html

the victims, which included Arabs, by the way, ask why?



Standing outside her wrecked restaurant as relief workers searched for human remains, co-owner Miray Tayar, an Arab Christian, was bewildered. "Why would people do this? For land? They can have the land," she said.

The restaurant was also the home away from the athletic field for Israel's best soccer team, Maccabi Haifa. Players and staff routinely gathered at the airy, bright restaurant before and after home games, and rendezvous there before away games.

Team manager Aryeh Burenstein, who was wounded in the blast, said the bombing would not upset Israeli-Arab relations in the city.

"I've received get-well calls from Christians and Arabs," said Mr Burenstein, 48, from his hospital bed in the Rambam Medical Centre in Haifa, where he was recovering from neck and forehead wounds. He and the team's general manager and coach were dining next to the window of the restaurant when the blast erupted.

This restaurant was a microcosm of Haifa society - Jews, Christians and Arabs worked together in this restaurant.

"I pray to God this will be the last bombing," said Joseph Assad, an Israeli Arab who rushed to the restaurant, where a relative worked as a waiter. Najar Osama, the husband of Mr Assad's niece, was among those killed, he said.

"If we continue with this bloodshed, we are all losers," he said.



This Arab is quite happy to give the Palestinians land, as I believe, do the majority of Israelis. However, due to the vagaries of the Israeli political system, the incompetence of Arafat and the bloody mindedness of Sharon and his fellow extremists, the answers to the problem have not yet been tried.

That is, security of your home and farm, prosperity, and tolerance. In Haifa, these were all present, and proven to work. In the West Bank, the process of creating more settlements and isolating and marginalising the Palestinians has never stopped.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


the incompetence of Arafat and the bloody mindedness of Sharon and his fellow extremists,

This is the racism that I was talking about. Arafat is simply "incompetent" (stupid, shiftless ni**er) while Sharon and Co. are the bloody minded ones.

I think that when the arab apologits start thinking of them as "bloody" too we might have terms for discourse.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


This is the racism that I was talking about. Arafat is simply "incompetent" (stupid, shiftless ni**er) while Sharon and Co. are the bloody minded ones.

I think that when the arab apologits start thinking of them as "bloody" too we might have terms for discourse.

I don't think it is at all racist. I have read about Palestinians whom I think deserve respect. This one particular one, however, appears to be incompetent. That is, he knew how to be a brave guerilla fighter, but not much else. Many of the alternatives, who may have done much better, have been politically suppressed by him and his faction.

After Oslo, when so much was in the balance, Arafat blew the millions of aid dollars on developing a beauracracy, and not much else. At the same time, he did not manage to stop the settlement process.

However, as you appear to have ignored the other points in my post, I take it you agree with them.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool


Don't suppose you are interested in siting any posts of mine to support the constant dribble you post? Though not.....

Why? You have no better luck finding them yourself than you do with spelnig & grammur? :rub:


Go back to Dream Time unless you lost that too.

[ssibal]

It is funny you would call Sharon and the Israelis extremists. If they were extremists in any sense of the word, the Palestinians would not exist right now.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
What I find shocking in this case is that the suicide bomber
was a trainee lawyer. This tells a lot about the ways Palestinians
choose to defend themselves. She was a very beautiful young Palestianian
that could fight for the cause of her people having as weapon her studies.
Instead she chose to kill 20 people and herself.

She became a layer to better things for her people.
People who become educated make the same sort
sacrafices needed to become a bomber. If you have
a PhD your a gonner. Read this article from the 2003
October Issue of Discover to learn about the psychology.

The Surpises Of Suicide Terrorism (http://www.discover.com/oct_03/featdialogue.html)

P.S. Me stick around long time. Yeah! But me sleepy. :)

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Indeed.

I know many make the cute moral equivalency of saying that a terrorist is only a group that doesn't have an airforce, etc...

But does that hold?

What would Hamas do if it had the firepower Israel has? Would they show restraint in destroying the "Zionist entity."

What would Al Queda do if it had American firepower? Would they use "smart bombs" to limit civilian casualties?

My guess is a big fat no on both of those questions.

I bet a fiver that Palestinian sympathizers would use the smart bombs to increase civilian casualties.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Synchronicity

She became a layer to better things for her people.
People who become educated make the same sort
sacrafices needed to become a bomber. If you have
a PhD your a gonner. Read this article from the 2003
October Issue of Discover to learn about the psychology.

The Surpises Of Suicide Terrorism (http://www.discover.com/oct_03/featdialogue.html)

P.S. Me stick around long time. Yeah! But me sleepy. :)

Interesting link. He does not try to demonise them, and tries to see what see how to solve the problem. Many here would say this makes him a sympathiser.

Some quotes



How on earth does anyone sane work up the gumption to blow himself up, together with what is often hundreds of bystanders?
A: Exactly the same way that you get soldiers on the front line of an army to sacrifice themselves for their buddies. What these cells do is very similar to what our military, or any modern military, does. They form small groups of intimately involved "brothers" who literally sacrifice themselves for one another, the way a mother would do for her child. They do it by manipulating universal heartfelt human sentiments that I think are probably innate and part of biological evolution. In fact, I think most culture is a manipulation of innate desires. It's the same way that our fast-food industry manipulates our desires for sugars and fats, or the way the pornography industry manipulates people to get all hot about pixels on a screen or on wood pulp.



The soldier who sacrifices himself has always been held up to be the greatest hero in Western society, although he is in effect committing suicide.



What else?
A: Another thing is, yes, protect some of the vulnerable targets, but I think that actually is less important than trying to stop this phenomenon from becoming adopted, like a sort of virus, by these populations. How do you prevent the ideology of suicide terrorism from attaching itself to the populations that support it? How do you get the people themselves to stop harboring the suicide terrorists? You've got to talk with them. You've got to address their grievances. Not the grievances of Al Qaeda, but the grievances of these people. Then there's got to be support for moderate groups. Alan Krueger in his last study looked at poverty and civil liberties as two factors in suicide terrorism. He found that poverty is not an appreciable selection factor but that the lack of civil liberties is a predictor of where you'll find suicide terrorism. When you don't give these people any political space to express themselves, they become radicalized.

Have you ever met a potential or surviving suicide terrorist?
A: Yes. It's someone whose father was humiliated in front of him when he was sixteen. He was kicked and spit on by Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint. In an Arab family, the father is a figure of respect and even awe. That was a big factor in this guy's decision. And a cousin was killed. He also had a number of brothers and sisters, so he knew that by going he wouldn't cause the family any great sacrifice. So he decided to be a suicide bomber.



Humiliation and racism, and death in the family. These appear to concur with the most recent suicide bomber, who saw her brothers killed in front of her.

You have to listen to their grievences. You have to give them respect and dignity.

I would disagree with the bit about poverty. Not so much poverty, as a future that is secure and has a future, not a country that, every day, grows smaller.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Humiliation and racism, and death in the family. These appear to concur with the most recent suicide bomber, who saw her brothers killed in front of her.

You have to listen to their grievences. You have to give them respect and dignity.

I would disagree with the bit about poverty. Not so much poverty, as a future that is secure and has a future, not a country that, every day, grows smaller.

Great article, though your reading of it seems selective. You missed this:

So what's your strategy for combating suicide terrorism?
A: I think it has to be a multilayered strategy. You've got to be able to--and this I'm all for--go after the guys who operate the cells. Take them out. Get rid of them. Jail them or kill them, because they are not willing to compromise. What do you do with somebody who says, "All Americans and Jews have got to die"? The point of talking to such people has passed. Whatever the grievances were that caused such people to have such ideas, if they show that they're willing to implement them, then you've just got to make a decision whether you want to see this guy survive or you and your people survive.

[a_unique_person]

Israel already seems to be trying that. It needs no encouragement.

I was more interested in the fact that a solution needs much more than that. As I already pointed out in the thread on the internal dissent between Muslims in Australia for the support of terrorism, not even those who supported the extremists wanted to plant a bomb here because they had too much to lose.

Just using the blanket "Palestinians" label for terrorism is too simplistic and doomed to failure if you want a solution to the problem. As I have noted here before, there have been peaceful protests, but these appear to have been ignored.

Also note that one of the major motivations for this last attack was this woman seeing her siblings summarily executed. 'Taking out' the extremists does not include taking out the rank and file, but the leaders only. Israel seems to be able to find a lot of 'Hamas Leaders'.

[a_unique_person]

Just how good is this Israeli Intelligence?

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/06/1065292513124.html



Israel struck empty camp: residents

October 6, 2003 - 2:09PM

A camp that Israeli warplanes struck today was abandoned by Palestinian militants long ago, and for decades the valley of olive and fig groves had only been used by picnickers and walkers, residents said.

The airstrike - which Israel said targeted an Islamic Jihad training base in retaliation for a deadly suicide bombing the day before - raised condemnations from Syria and Arab nations. Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher warned that Israel's strike could "drag the whole region into a circle of violence".

It was the first Israeli attack so deep into Syria in three decades, and Syrian security forces swiftly cordoned off the area around the camp and barred reporters from nearing the bombing site, about 22km north-west of Damascus.

The Ein Saheb camp - which residents said contained two two-storey buildings and a huge field surrounded by a fence - was used for "military" purposes by Palestinian militants, particularly during the 1970s, residents of Ein Mneen, a nearby village, told The Associated Press.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Just how good is this Israeli Intelligence?

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/06/1065292513124.html



A journalist who entered a valley in which the targeted camp is located reached the centre's red metal gate, where two security men refused to speak about the attack and prevented him from taking photographs. He said he did not see any military presence or damage.

Hmm, I wonder why they didn't let the journalist in?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person Also note that one of the major motivations for this last attack was this woman seeing her siblings summarily executed. 'Taking out' the extremists does not include taking out the rank and file, but the leaders only. Israel seems to be able to find a lot of 'Hamas Leaders'.

People lose loved ones in armed conflicts all over the world. In only one place are people encouraged to turn that grief into suicide-murder.

That requires a cultural acceptance of suicide-murder, plus a great deal of support. It takes work to recruit bombers, indoctrinate them, make the bombs, and plan the missions. This is not just an expression of grief, it is the end result of a great deal of planning by people other than the suicide-bomber.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


People lose loved ones in armed conflicts all over the world. In only one place are people encouraged to turn that grief into suicide-murder.

That requires a cultural acceptance of suicide-murder, plus a great deal of support. It takes work to recruit bombers, indoctrinate them, make the bombs, and plan the missions. This is not just an expression of grief, it is the end result of a great deal of planning by people other than the suicide-bomber.

Not at all true.

Try, Sri Lanka, for example, or Chechnya.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Synchronicity

She became a layer to better things for her people.
People who become educated make the same sort
sacrafices needed to become a bomber. If you have
a PhD your a gonner. Read this article from the 2003
October Issue of Discover to learn about the psychology.

The Surpises Of Suicide Terrorism (http://www.discover.com/oct_03/featdialogue.html)

P.S. Me stick around long time. Yeah! But me sleepy. :)

I have in my hands the whole survey of Scott Atran, I took part in a rather interesting debate in another forum that hosted him as guest in the summer

I can post large parts of his article if people find the issue interesting.

Just for the record. The survey has been debunked.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I have in my hands the whole survey of Scott Atran, I took part in a rather interesting debate in another forum that hosted him as guest in the summer

I can post large parts of his article if people find the issue interesting.

Just for the record. The survey has been debunked.


And.......

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

And.......

What do you mean do you want me to elaborate on that?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


What do you mean do you want me to elaborate on that?

Yes.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Great article, though your reading of it seems selective. You missed this:

So what's your strategy for combating suicide terrorism?
A: I think it has to be a multilayered strategy. You've got to be able to--and this I'm all for--go after the guys who operate the cells. Take them out. Get rid of them. Jail them or kill them, because they are not willing to compromise. What do you do with somebody who says, "All Americans and Jews have got to die"? The point of talking to such people has passed. Whatever the grievances were that caused such people to have such ideas, if they show that they're willing to implement them, then you've just got to make a decision whether you want to see this guy survive or you and your people survive.

Who's even talking about trying to get a foaming-at-the-mouth American-hater to see reason? Maybe some of us want to see if we can reach some of them with diplomacy BEFORE they go apesh*t?

(edited for clarity)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Not at all true.

Try, Sri Lanka, for example, or Chechnya.

In what way does that make any difference? My point is that grief alone does not make a suicide-bomber. It requires a cultural acceptance of suicide-murder, plus a great deal of support from organized terrorists.

She didn’t just wake up one morning in the mood to die in a spectacular way. She was recruited, indoctrinated, someone made a video (to help recruit future bombers), someone gave her a bomb, and helped her plan her target and choose her timing. Take away the network that supports this horror and people like her find positive (or at least less deadly) ways to express their anger.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


In what way does that make any difference? My point is that grief alone does not make a suicide-bomber. It requires a cultural acceptance of suicide-murder, plus a great deal of support from organized terrorists.

She didn’t just wake up one morning in the mood to die in a spectacular way. She was recruited, indoctrinated, someone made a video (to help recruit future bombers), someone gave her a bomb, and helped her plan her target and choose her timing. Take away the network that supports this horror and people like her find positive (or at least less deadly) ways to express their anger.

From what I have read, many of them volunteer. The indoctrination process was complete when she saw her brothers killed.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk


Why? You have no better luck finding them yourself than you do with spelnig & grammur? :rub:


Go back to Dream Time unless you lost that too.

No? thats what I thought...no evidence to support his usual racist dribble.

Is it a rule of yours that you must make a derogatory reference to Aboriginal Australians in every post you make? Please don't change Hammy, every forum needs some human garbage to amuse the masses.

I sometimes wonder at why you have this problem about Black people, did they throw your ass out of Africa? Confiscate the plantation?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool


Is it a rule of yours that you must make a derogatory reference to Aboriginal Australians in every post you make?

Are you an Abo? That might explain your obvious distaste for life in the first world (well, Australia -- second world anyway).

Are you neighbors with AUP, or just a*shole buddies? Or is it something in the water ya'all drink that rots your brains?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk


Are you an Abo? That might explain your obvious distaste for life in the first world (well, Australia -- second world anyway).

Are you neighbors with AUP, or just a*shole buddies? Or is it something in the water ya'all drink that rots your brains?
Lol....do racist rants get you horny hammy? I understand the importants of free speech in a modern society, Its a pity it means slime such as you get a soapbox.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
From what I have read, many of them volunteer.

Yeah? What have you read? How does it take away from the roll Hamas or Al-Aqsa martyrs brigade plays? Are you saying she did this all on her own?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The indoctrination process was complete when she saw her brothers killed.

Was it really? How do you know this? Did you talk to her? I'd like to know your source of special knowlege on this one terrorist.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
From what I have read, many of them volunteer. The indoctrination process was complete when she saw her brothers killed.

From your link:
The unmarried woman had witnessed the death of her brother, Fadi Jaradat, and cousin, Saleh Jaradat, during an Israeli army operation in Jenin on June 12. Both were members of the radical Palestinian Islamic Jihad group.

It seems she was pretty indoctrinated before, at least her brother and cousin were. Do you know what the goal of the Islamic Jihad is AUP? No less than the death of every Jew.

Seems to me the Israeli's got the right people, of course you seem to think they joined the Islamic Jihad to find a peaceful way to coexist w/ Israel.

[ssibal]

I cannot believe that people are making excuses and trying to rationalize this girl's suicide attack (oh, she saw her brothers killed in front of her:rolleyes: ). If you think what she did is excusable under any circumstances then you have problems. If she had a problem with the IDF then why not blow up some IDF soldiers? No, she went to some innocent people and decided to blow them up instead. This is why the situation will never change until one side is wiped out. You can rationalize all you want about illegal settlements, or bulldozing houses but that is no excuse to strap a bomb to yourself and blow up some kids in a bus or some people sitting down for a drink. Maybe all Palestinians are not fanatics, but the fanatics are certainly dictating their fate and almost everyone seems to just be going with the flow. I will not be surprised if Israel snaps one day and decides to launch an all out war against these fanatics, I will not be disappointed either. The problem is not just the suicide bombers, it is also the mass of people who have no problem with their actions.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by WildCat


From your link:


It seems she was pretty indoctrinated before, at least her brother and cousin were. Do you know what the goal of the Islamic Jihad is AUP? No less than the death of every Jew.

Seems to me the Israeli's got the right people, of course you seem to think they joined the Islamic Jihad to find a peaceful way to coexist w/ Israel.

And from that article on the bombers, the 'ground troops' are not the ones to go for. From what I can see, she joined when she could see no peaceful way to co-exist. Co-existence, to me, implies equality. When land is taken away and a society broken up, acre by acre, passively accepting such acts has been shown to be pointless. Witness the death of Rachel Corrie.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


And from that article on the bombers, the 'ground troops' are not the ones to go for. From what I can see, she joined when she could see no peaceful way to co-exist. Co-existence, to me, implies equality. When land is taken away and a society broken up, acre by acre, passively accepting such acts has been shown to be pointless. Witness the death of Rachel Corrie.

How shocking! Someone stood in front of a moving bulldozer and was run over! Israel can take all the land and break society and that will never justify blowing up babies or other innocents!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


How shocking! Someone stood in front of a moving bulldozer and was run over!

I think they got that message years ago.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think they got that message years ago.

And guess what, it does not justify what the fanatical suicide bombers are doing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


And guess what, it does not justify what the fanatical suicide bombers are doing.

So, if peaceful protest does not work, and they don't have an army to take on the IDF, what else is there?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So, if peaceful protest does not work, and they don't have an army to take on the IDF, what else is there?

Oh, I see... if your situation is hopeless might as well take with you every innocent person you possibly can.... When were peaceful protests attempted on a massive scale, like the Indians did to remove the British? If they do not have an army to take on the IDF then make one, you know like the American Colonists did to take on the British. Let me ask you this, since you seem to think that their only alternative is to blow up innocent people do you agree with what they are doing? If not, what should the Palestinians do instead? Lets leave the evil land stealing Israelis out of this, do you agree with what the Palestinians are doing? I am sure you can come up with something more constructive and practical for them to do to 'defeat' Israel but are the current Palestinian actions justified in your eyes?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


Oh, I see... if your situation is hopeless might as well take with you every innocent person you possibly can.... When were peaceful protests attempted on a massive scale, like the Indians did to remove the British? If they do not have an army to take on the IDF then make one, you know like the American Colonists did to take on the British.



Israel controls the borders and does not permit weapons smuggling. Especially not tanks and fighter planes. They are a no-no. The days of the colonists fighting the army are long gone, it is no longer a case of shooting guns at each other. Israel just flies an attack helicopter up to a convenient stand off distance to line things up, then fires a missile.




Let me ask you this, since you seem to think that their only alternative is to blow up innocent people do you agree with what they are doing?



No, I didn't say it was the only alternative. I just can't think of another one. I was hoping you could come up with one.

The thing that annoys me is, if all I do is read the paper, I can find plenty of details about families suffering in Israel. And there are genuinely sad stories. However, I don't have to dig too hard to find equally heart rending stories of misery for the Palestinians. All the stories are sad.

The question is, how do we get the sadness to end? For the Palestinians to unilaterally run up the white flag and just take whatever is handed to them would be good for many Israeli's. They may not feel so magnanimous, however.



If not, what should the Palestinians do instead? Lets leave the evil land stealing Israelis out of this, do you agree with what the Palestinians are doing? I am sure you can come up with something more constructive and practical for them to do to 'defeat' Israel but are the current Palestinian actions justified in your eyes?

You can't leave the land theft out of it.

I have said before, I would try for different targets, eg, power stations, water supplies, etc. However, the bombs to attack these have to be huge, much bigger than one person can smuggle in, since they are 'hard' targets.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


And from that article on the bombers, the 'ground troops' are not the ones to go for. From what I can see, she joined when she could see no peaceful way to co-exist. Co-existence, to me, implies equality. When land is taken away and a society broken up, acre by acre, passively accepting such acts has been shown to be pointless. Witness the death of Rachel Corrie.

Again, you claim psychic powers. How do you have such special knowlege of what she was thinking?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So, if peaceful protest does not work, and they don't have an army to take on the IDF, what else is there?

Who said peaceful protest doesn't work?

One girl sits down in front of a moving tractor and gets killed, and that means it's over for peaceful protest?

That's interesting logic. One peace protestor dies, so we have to give up that tactic, the losses are just too high! But the Intifata, about 3000 have died from that, so obviously that's the tactic they should keep using.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So, if peaceful protest does not work, and they don't have an army to take on the IDF, what else is there?

Unique

Maybe 40 years ago, Abu Mazen studied Law in order to defend the righst of his people. In the meantime he participated in an organization that at the beginning of its action was involved in terrorist acts but years do pass and PLO of 2000 is not the PLO of the 1970ies.

Abu Mazen who is a fighter experienced a huge disappointment at the end of his career. Did he wore a jacket filled with explosives to demonstrate his anger? He had every reason to, according to your logic. He was a fighter that experienced a great humiliation.


I cannot understand this woman and I cannot justify her. She had studied Law and not Poetry. I have started wondering what sort of Legal Education do they get in Jordan.

This woman did a great damage to her people. She could have served as a model, as a positive example but what she did instead? She put aside her books to take up Qumran.

Education works as a shield that protects us primarily from ourselves. None is born unbiased.You have to work hard in order to fight your prejudices.

It's very hard believe me but I am persuaded that it worths the effort.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So, if peaceful protest does not work, and they don't have an army to take on the IDF, what else is there?

My earlier point. The palistinians love death and misery, they never have given peaceful protest a chance, it would not play well with other Arabs. One nutter is not a movement.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Ed


My earlier point. The palistinians love death and misery

Arafat doesn't let them leave the camps although he has received financial help in order to dismantle the refugee camps...

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person



No, I didn't say it was the only alternative. I just can't think of another one. I was hoping you could come up with one.



Peaceful protest, which I outlined in some detail and you ignored.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


Peaceful protest, which I outlined in some detail and you ignored.

And I have already pointed out is

a) ignored
b) you get run over, shot or teargassed.

[gnome]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


And I have already pointed out is

a) ignored
b) you get run over, shot or teargassed.

If peaceful resistors getting run over, shot, or teargassed, were the dominant event... and the violent actions mostly ceased... the political situation would be quite different.

I'm hard pressed to come up with a situation that needs a page from the book of Gandhi more.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool

Lol....do racist rants get you horny hammy? I understand the importants of free speech in a modern society, Its a pity it means slime such as you get a soapbox.

Good answer; I'd dodge too.

If you are aboriginal, *you* could plan (or lead) the wave of abo suicide bombers attacking the white man. Use the Palestinian methods that work so well. Even if you are just fellow-traveler, you maybe still could, huh? :rub:

BTW, why would you consider Dream Time to be slanderous? Only materialists/atheists would be 100% certain it was bunkum. Perhaps you could try it ... calm down some. Keep that blood pressure at lower levels. Think of the children.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


My earlier point. The palistinians love death and misery, they never have given peaceful protest a chance, it would not play well with other Arabs. One nutter is not a movement.

You try to have it both ways here. She is a nutter, so she deserved to die. But peaceful protest is the only valid method to use.

Should the US have used peaceful protest against England?

Here are the top links on Google about peaceful protests by Palestinians. Your ignorance on this matter is amazing. To say that they should try it when they have been trying it from the first moment is incredible.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0428-03.htm



Peaceful Activists Caught in Fight
Protesters recently killed or injured in the Palestinian territories highlight the perils of peaceful protest

by Nicole Gaouette

JERUSALEM – The death of one foreign activist and serious injury of two others has underscored the growing presence and potential of nonviolent protest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even as it shows the limits of such movements in a war zone.

Within the past six weeks, Tom Hurndall and Brian Avery were grievously wounded by Israeli army gunfire; Rachel Corrie died confronting an army bulldozer.

While the Israeli army and eyewitnesses give starkly divergent accounts of those events, experts who study protest movements all say that these events will give nonviolent activism here new momentum.

"[Corrie's] death will galvanize others," says Dr. Nancy Snow, a political scientist at California State University, Fullerton, who studies social movements. "They will not want her to die in vain. But you have to understand that [in nonviolence protest movements] there will be people who die. Outsiders can help, but they have to pass the baton to those living there day in, day out, because you have to rebuild not only homes but trust and respect."



http://www.newsreview.com/issues/chico/2002-04-18/news.asp



Peaceful protests

Middle Eastern conflict comes home as Arab students try to raise local consciousness

By Bonnie Roy

LOOK WHAT'S GOIN' DOWN Sinan Al-Faqeeh (foreground) leads a mock funeral procession of Muslim students and supporters from the campus of Chico State University to the Downtown Plaza Park. The demonstration was held to mark the death and bloodshed occurring in the Middle East.

Peace train: At the April 11 demonstration, as many as 175 participants, supporters and curious onlookers gathered in the Downtown Plaza Park. On April 15, another 75 to 100 took part or listened to the peaceful protest.



While the Palestinian-Israeli conflict rages in the Middle East, more peaceful expressions of the frustrations are taking the stage at Chico State University.

On April 11, the General Union of Palestinian Students organized a march from campus to the Downtown Plaza Park, and on Monday, April 15, Muslim students gathered in the Free Speech Area to offer a better understanding of their faith to anyone who would listen.

Khaled Dudin, who organized the march and was the introductory speaker on Monday, told the 50-plus people gathered after the April 11 march that he was "concerned about the deterioration of the situation in this Holy Land that means so much to so many of us."

Dudin, like other students gathered at the event, has family in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Some demonstrators held signs that read, for example, "Did you help kill a Palestinian today? U.S. taxes did."



http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/db.php?tid=74



Article/book #434: In favor of Gandhi's Legacy
By: Akiva Eldar
Published in: Ha'aretz
Date of issue: 10 October 2002
Topics addressed: Peaceful protest strategy; Israel: abuses by army/police; Israeli massacres of Arabs; Barak/Clinton negotiations with Arafat
Abstract: Shadan Abu-Hajla was 50 years old when she died on Friday from an Israeli soldier's bullet as she sat embroidering in Rafadiyeh park in Nablus. Her husband, an elderly, well-known doctor, was wounded in the head, and their son got a bullet in the neck. Abu Hajla was the neighborhood coordinator of a Nablus women's organization which, since the intifada, has been providing aid to the needy and preaching non-violent civil disobedience as a form of resistance to the occupation. ... Unfortunately, particularly for those who will lose loved ones, the established, Zionist left still hasn't shaken off the traumatic myth that "Barak gave the Palestinians everything and they responded with violence."



http://www.amin.org/eng/uncat/2003/aug/aug17.html



The first obstacle is the Israeli military occupation’s reliance on the 1945 British Mandate Emergency Law, which gives the Israeli military absolute powers to extinguish any form of mutiny (protest), including arbitrary detention and administrative detention (jailing any individual without legal charge or trial). In spite of that, many Palestinian attempts were made to organize a national non-violent resistance movement against occupation, especially in the first few years of the occupation. But these attempts were aborted in light of the magnitude of the Israeli occupation assault and oppression against all forms of peaceful resistance.

Second, the failure of the Palestinian non-violent remonstrations to achieve the national goals during the British Mandate period, in addition to the absence of any support from Arab countries later on in the fifties and sixties, which instigated the national Palestinian resistance movement to adopt and deepen violent means instead of using peaceful struggle methods.

Third, and most important, is the fact that the contemporary Palestinian revolution, and specifically its backbone organization Fateh, were formed outside the Palestinian occupied lands. Since the outset, the movement was deprived of the ability to direct its struggle and develop its forms of resistance to suit the Palestinian situation inside the occupied territories. When the Fateh leadership realized the importance of establishing its resistance in its various forms inside the occupied territories, which were supervised by the Palestinian leader and martyr Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad) at the end of 1979, Fateh always insisted on supporting the non-violent struggle inside Palestine with external “armed struggle” operations, even during the first Palestinian Intifada.

Both the Israeli and Palestinian sides have contributed to aborting the non-violent alternative resistance of the Israeli occupation. The Israelis did so through extensive repression of peaceful Palestinian resistance movements, compelling Palestinians to abandon this approach and adopt violent resistance methods. The Palestinians did so through their rapid impatience and short breath in practicing non-violent resistance. The Israeli security apparatus often participated, through its agents, in aborting non-violent resistance options through planting agents in peaceful protest activities and events to sabotage their peaceful nature.



http://www.palsolidarity.org/reports/writings/Tulkarem_protest.htm



Report on the Peaceful Protest in Atil-Tulkarem
January 10, 2003

Approximately 150 Palestinian citizens from the village of Atil joined with ten international peace activists and ten Israeli peace activists in a peaceful march on January 9 to protest Palestinian farmers' inability to access their land.

For the last month and a half, five families from Atil have been prevented from reaching their farmland which lies on the other side of the path for the Israeli "security wall". This wall has been dubbed "the Apartheid Wall" by Palestinians and international groups.

Palestinian families in numerous villages like Atil that lie along the wall's path in the West Bank are being denied access to farmland which lies between the Green Line and the path of the Apartheid Wall that is being bulldozed through Palestinian farms and villages in the West Bank.

Approximately 10% of the West Bank is in danger of being effectively annexed to Israel by the wall by the wall which is being built deep inside the Palestinian West Bank, at some points up to six kilometers from the Green Line, the 1967 border between Israel and the West Bank.

For the last month and a half, farmers from Atil have been denied the ability to reach their land with cars or tractors by the Israeli military and private security guards, and have only sometimes been allowed to reach their land by foot or with donkey carts.

Palestinian farmers in villages like Atil are losing large amounts of money because they cannot quickly and effectively transport their produce and other equipment on foot and by donkey carts along muddy tracts that have been torn up by Israeli Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) and bulldozers along the wall path.In some villages Palestinian farmers are being completely prevented from even walking to their land.
A number previous peaceful efforts by families from Atil, the Mayor of Atil and international peace activists to re-secure access to this farmland had failed and were met with shows of force and threats by the Israeli military and private security.

The January 9 march was organized by the Palestinian NGO consortium, the National Committee against the Apartheid Wall. Participants included Palestinian farmers, a large group of Palestinian women from the area, ten Israelis connected to the Israeli organization Rabbis for Human Rights, and ten members of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who hailed from the US, UK, Ireland, Canada and Sweden.
The group walked from the village of Atil, north of Tulkarem, to neighboring farmland where the wall is being built approximately one kilometer from the Green Line. The group then stood on the bulldozed farmland where the wall is being built, blocking the movement of contractors' trucks and bulldozers for an hour while attempting to negotiate for access to the land with armed Israeli soldiers, private security and the wall contractor. Two Israeli Armored Personnel Carriers, two Israeli military jeeps and a number of armed private security guards took up positions around the marchers. Palestinian farmers and international and Israeli participants were threatened with arrest by the Israeli military, but efforts to arrest Palestinian protesters were blocked by Israeli and international participants who stood between them and the soldiers.

After an hour of negotiations with soldiers and the private wall contractor, the protesters agreed to end the march in exchange for a promise that farmers would be able to access their land today using tractors. So far today, it appears that this commitment has been kept by the Israeli military and private security, and the farmers in Atil have traveled to their land by tractor. Participants will continue to monitor the situation on the ground to ensure that this commitment to allowing access is maintained.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by gnome


If peaceful resistors getting run over, shot, or teargassed, were the dominant event... and the violent actions mostly ceased... the political situation would be quite different.

I'm hard pressed to come up with a situation that needs a page from the book of Gandhi more.

I think you don't realise the intent of those behind Sharon.

[Chaos]

Peaceful protests "Gandhi-style" won´t work for Palestinians.

The British held on to their colonies because of prestige and
profit.
A colony filled with protest (peaceful or otherwise) gave no prestige, and a colony whose population was determined not to work for the British gave no profit. So the British left India.

(I know that is simplified, but it shows the essential points)

The hardliners in the Israeli government and in the Israeli society want to hold on to the Palestinian´s land because they want to build settlements there. If Palestinians choose not to cooperate, that´s fine for them; they want no cooperation, they want land. Add to this that their faith says this land is theirs (which was also not the case in India), and you see why peaceful protests won´t work.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You try to have it both ways here. She is a nutter, so she deserved to die. But peaceful protest is the only valid method to use.

I have no idea whether she was a nutter. If you choose to characterize her that way, it is ok with me. No, she did not deserve to die. Your bias shows, you are averring that suicide bombings are another "valid" form of protest

Should the US have used peaceful protest against England?

Misdirection and irrelevant

Here are the top links on Google about peaceful protests by Palestinians. Your ignorance on this matter is amazing. To say that they should try it when they have been trying it from the first moment is incredible.

Poor boopsies. A few got killed. So? Is palestinian death only ok with you when they take jewish children with them? God, your bias is showing.

My point is simple. Peacefully protest and do it right. Get a PR firm, suborn the press, if you are going to die document it and make sure it is splattered on the front page of every newspaper in the world. Take no violent action that would cause you to loose the moral high ground. ORGANIZE. Put the money that they put for bombs against a concerted effort. They have not tried. Period.

[Skeptic]

Just how good is this Israeli Intelligence?

Of course, if the attacked HAD resulted in many casualties, you'd be all over the forum, ranting about the "latest israeli massacre" and Sharon's "bloodthirstyness", like you did numerous times. So now you are criticizing israel for NOT causing casualties? Go figure.

If you had actually READ something about this strike, AUP, you'd have know that, at least as all the papers say, the strike was done at that time--when the camp was known to be empty--in order to send a message to Syria while minimzing casualties. Unlike the arabs, the point of most israeli actions is not to kill as many people as possible, but to achieve certain goals with MINIMAL casualties.

Incidentally, let's suppose you're correct and the timing of the attack had been a screw-up by the israeli intelligence. Now, could it be that israel screwed up elsewhere in its intelligence--for example, when it attacked the USS "Liberty" on the mistaken intelligence that it is an Egyptian ship? No, of course not.

Your version of how competent israeli intelligence is changes depending on what you want to blame israel for: in the case of the USS "Liberty", you preten that the israeli intelligence was superhumanly mistake-free, so you could blame israel for the "deliberate" attack. In the case of this strike in Syria, however, you pretend israeli intellience was totally incompetent, because you don't want to admit the "inhuman extremists" in israel actually try to minimize unncessary casualties.

You? Biased against israel? Naaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh........... whatever gave us THAT idea.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Chaos
Peaceful protests "Gandhi-style" won´t work for Palestinians.

The British held on to their colonies because of prestige and
profit.
A colony filled with protest (peaceful or otherwise) gave no prestige, and a colony whose population was determined not to work for the British gave no profit. So the British left India.

(I know that is simplified, but it shows the essential points)

The hardliners in the Israeli government and in the Israeli society want to hold on to the Palestinian´s land because they want to build settlements there. If Palestinians choose not to cooperate, that´s fine for them; they want no cooperation, they want land. Add to this that their faith says this land is theirs (which was also not the case in India), and you see why peaceful protests won´t work.

I believe the same methods will work, but for different reasons than it worked on the British.

It is true that hardliners in Israel do not want peace. But they are not alone in Israel. This sort of nonviolent activism from Palestinians could seriously threaten hardliner's political control over Israel. Things are so much on the edge there--you see how often their governmental coalition fragments and reforms.

[Skeptic]

Again, you claim psychic powers. How do you have such special knowlege of what she was thinking?

Becuase he is an apologist for mass murder--as long as it is that of jews. It couldn't be that she HATED jews, god forbid; she decided to butcher them only after she discovered "there is no way to peacefully coexist" due to the jews' evil actions... in other words, you guessed it, it's all the jews' fault.

Of course, AUP, who here is engaging in amazing mindreading techniques based on no information at all--and the twisted mind of a suicide bomber, at that--flies totally off the handle when I claimed, based on numerous posts by him, that he hates jews. "Are you psychic?" he sneered. "Are you a mindreader"?

I keep forgetting that "mind reading" is only something HE is allowed to do.

[Cleopatra]

Palestinians and peaceful protestations?

Don't make me laugh.

Why Palestinians don't they burn themselves in front of the offices of UN or EE as Cypriots did in the 70ies?

If those people had some dignity I would fight for them out of respect and not out of pity as I do now. It's the mentality of the Miserable I cannot stand...

Anyway. Palestinians are miserable so we must help them.

Also, given the opportunity, let me remind to the gang here that I care for the Palestinians primarily because I care for Israel and the future of Israel passes through a Palestinian State.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by gnome


I believe the same methods will work, but for different reasons than it worked on the British.

It is true that hardliners in Israel do not want peace. But they are not alone in Israel. This sort of nonviolent activism from Palestinians could seriously threaten hardliner's political control over Israel. Things are so much on the edge there--you see how often their governmental coalition fragments and reforms.

I think this is a good point.

If one thinks Sharon is the bad guy in all this, the suicide bombers have brought his government into a huge majority it never had before.

The Labor Party has been discredited with many secular Jews because the Oslo process was such a failure. I think many Israelis thought that Barak was offering a good deal, and when that deal was spurned, I think it was reasonable to conclude as many of them did that the Palistinian leadership was not interested in peace.

Whatever faults Barak's final offer may have had, it was the most (and might have went too far) that Israel could offer and still have a chance at survival.
Had Israel accepted the Palestinians' "right of return" they might have well as signed their death warrent.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.


I think this is a good point.

If one thinks Sharon is the bad guy in all this, the suicide bombers have brought his government into a huge majority it never had before.

The Labor Party has been discredited with many secular Jews because the Oslo process was such a failure. I think many Israelis thought that Barak was offering a good deal, and when that deal was spurned, I think it was reasonable to conclude as many of them did that the Palistinian leadership was not interested in peace.

Whatever faults Barak's final offer may have had, it was the most (and might have went too far) that Israel could offer and still have a chance at survival.
Had Israel accepted the Palestinians' "right of return" they might have well as signed their death warrent.

Sharon benefits from the violence, he sees it as a means of legitimising his approach. When he made that tour of the temple mount, he knew exactly which buttons he was pushing.

Oslo was a failure for two reasons.

1) The settlements never stopped growing. Sharon has been one the driving forces behind the settlement movement.
2) Arafat was a hopeless administrator.

During the time after Oslo, there was in fact a lot of mutual benefit to both sides. Palestinians got work in Israel, Israel got a source of cheap and willing labor.

[a_unique_person]

A peaceful protest.

http://www.radioproject.org/images/sobhia.jpg

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
A peaceful protest.

http://www.radioproject.org/images/sobhia.jpg

A stupid, ineffective peaceful protest which = no protest at all.

They don't want that they want blood

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Israel controls the borders and does not permit weapons smuggling. Especially not tanks and fighter planes. They are a no-no. The days of the colonists fighting the army are long gone, it is no longer a case of shooting guns at each other. Israel just flies an attack helicopter up to a convenient stand off distance to line things up, then fires a missile.

Israel controls the borders? They are not doing a very good job with all the suicide bombers getting through. So it is not so far fetched for weapons to get through (which they do). Where do you get the idea that it is no longer a case of shooting guns at each other? Every army that I know of still has soldiers with guns. It may be less effective than a missle from a plane but you can still kill the enemy soldiers. But what about peaceful protests on a massive scale? This has never been attempted.



No, I didn't say it was the only alternative. I just can't think of another one. I was hoping you could come up with one.

How about the one you came up with, peaceful protests and I do not mean isolated incidents of a handful of people protesting. And you ignored my question, do you agree with what they are doing?

The question is, how do we get the sadness to end? For the Palestinians to unilaterally run up the white flag and just take whatever is handed to them would be good for many Israeli's. They may not feel so magnanimous, however.

Nobody is saying that the Palestinians should give up, we would just like them to act in a civilized manner (i.e. stop targeting innocent people).



You can't leave the land theft out of it.

I am not leaving anything out, assume Israel is out to steal all of the land (maybe you already do). Given this, are the Palestinians justified in their actions?

I have said before, I would try for different targets, eg, power stations, water supplies, etc. However, the bombs to attack these have to be huge, much bigger than one person can smuggle in, since they are 'hard' targets.

So, given that they do not have these bombs is their current course of action justified?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Again, you claim psychic powers. How do you have such special knowlege of what she was thinking?

Becuase he is an apologist for mass murder--as long as it is that of jews. It couldn't be that she HATED jews, god forbid; she decided to butcher them only after she discovered "there is no way to peacefully coexist" due to the jews' evil actions... in other words, you guessed it, it's all the jews' fault.

Of course, AUP, who here is engaging in amazing mindreading techniques based on no information at all--and the twisted mind of a suicide bomber, at that--flies totally off the handle when I claimed, based on numerous posts by him, that he hates jews. "Are you psychic?" he sneered. "Are you a mindreader"?

I keep forgetting that "mind reading" is only something HE is allowed to do.

Is Israel to blame for anything? I have stated many times that there is fault on both sides. I have yet to see you say that Israel has ever done one thing wrong.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk


Good answer; I'd dodge too.

If you are aboriginal, *you* could plan (or lead) the wave of abo suicide bombers attacking the white man. Use the Palestinian methods that work so well. Even if you are just fellow-traveler, you maybe still could, huh? :rub:

BTW, why would you consider Dream Time to be slanderous? Only materialists/atheists would be 100% certain it was bunkum. Perhaps you could try it ... calm down some. Keep that blood pressure at lower levels. Think of the children.

Why is it so important to you what race I am? ooops, silly question to ask a racist eh?

I'm truly sorry you got thrown out of Africa, time to get over it and move on?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


A stupid, ineffective peaceful protest which = no protest at all.

They don't want that they want blood

She is stupid. It is her fault. She also looks like a vicious, bloodthirsty person. That is why she is standing there with her palms turned up and open, begging.

[Ed]

These dumb, bloodthirsty bastards see nothing wrong with encouraging children to murder other children, right?

How about getting 1000 children to sit in front of that machine, pay off the nets to be there. Embaress the hell out of the jews. Simple. They don't do it. Why? They are bloodthirsty bastards, that's why. They have an alternative, whether you lack the creativity to figure out how to make it work or not. What we are coming up against here is your, AUP, lack of imagination, not the lack of an alternative way of protesting. I think you like the blood too.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed
These dumb, bloodthirsty bastards see nothing wrong with encouraging children to murder other children, right?

How about getting 1000 children to sit in front of that machine, pay off the nets to be there. Embaress the hell out of the jews. Simple. They don't do it. Why? They are bloodthirsty bastards, that's why. They have an alternative, whether you lack the creativity to figure out how to make it work or not. What we are coming up against here is your, AUP, lack of imagination, not the lack of an alternative way of protesting. I think you like the blood too.

And all Jews are violent, stupid, religious extremists who wear funny hats.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


And all Jews are violent, stupid, religious extremists who wear funny hats.

We can get to those land grabbing bastards presently. We are on the ones who encourage suicide and murder amoung children now.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


We can get to those land grabbing bastards presently. We are on the ones who encourage suicide and murder amoung children now.

They need no encouragement from me. And the 'land grabbing bastards' have never been, nor never will be, stopped, by Israel.

[DanishDynamite]

Ed:These dumb, bloodthirsty bastards see nothing wrong with encouraging children to murder other children, right?

How about getting 1000 children to sit in front of that machine, pay off the nets to be there. Embaress the hell out of the jews. Simple. They don't do it. Why? They are bloodthirsty bastards, that's why. They have an alternative, whether you lack the creativity to figure out how to make it work or not. What we are coming up against here is your, AUP, lack of imagination, not the lack of an alternative way of protesting. I think you like the blood too.Ed, we've already got Skeptic here to fulfill the job of ranting about "bloodthirsty" this and "children" that. One is enough.

In regard to your opinion, I'm not quite sure of your stance. On the one hand you implictly agree that the Palestinians have legitimate grievences but you just feel they should use a different method of protesting. On the other hand they are all bloodthirsty bastards. Which is it? Or is it somehow both?

[Ed]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Ed:Ed, we've already got Skeptic here to fulfill the job of ranting about "bloodthirsty" this and "children" that. One is enough.

Clearly I do not think that he his doing an adequite job.

In regard to your opinion, I'm not quite sure of your stance.

That is probably good. Anyone who can reduce this mess to black and white is, I submit, wrong on the face of it

On the one hand you implictly agree that the Palestinians have legitimate grievences but you just feel they should use a different method of protesting.

Yes, they certainly do. Not the least of which is their own leadership

On the other hand they are all bloodthirsty bastards.

They are

Which is it? Or is it somehow both?


One does not preclude the other. I cannot understand a culture that places value, and encourages, the brutalization of children, their own and others. And it is not limited to the Palistinians. Broadly, it appears, in the muslim world the actions of child murderers are viewed as worthy of veneration. As I have pointed out, they do have alternatives, well organized non-violent protest could be a winner. They don't do that. Why, one asks onesself. I suspect because their ultimate goal is the destruction of Isreal and that can not be accomplished non-violently. Unfortunately well meaning progressives in the west see the palistinians as something less than civilized and tend to put the burden on the more "western" Isrealis.

[a_unique_person]

How do you view the child killers in Vietnam that were in the US armed forces?

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
How do you view the child killers in Vietnam that were in the US armed forces?

Irrelevant and misdirection.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


Irrelevant and misdirection.

No, you are using special pleading. Only Palestinan child killers are evil, not US ones.

[Skeptic]

Is Israel to blame for anything?

All right, AUP, since you pretend not to understand, let's take it from the top.

YOUR CLAIM: israel is "really" to blame for the suicide bombing.

YOUR EVIDENCE: the bomber only became one after she "despaired of peaceful coexistence".

GROUNDS FOR THIS EVIDENCE: none whatsoever. You just made it up. If anything, those who sent her claim the exact opposite.

Since your "evidence" for the israeli "blame" here is simply nonexistent--it is merely an excuse you invented out of thin air on the spur of the moment--just what, exactly, is israel to "blame" for?

Why should I, or anybody, admit any "blame" that is based on nothing except your desire to find some reason, ANY reason, to "prove" israel is at fault?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Is Israel to blame for anything?

All right, AUP, since you pretend not to understand, let's take it from the top.

YOUR CLAIM: israel is "really" to blame for the suicide bombing.

YOUR EVIDENCE: the bomber only became one after she "despaired of peaceful coexistence".

GROUNDS FOR THIS EVIDENCE: none whatsoever. You just made it up. If anything, those who sent her claim the exact opposite.

Since your "evidence" for the israeli "blame" here is simply nonexistent--it is merely an excuse you invented out of thin air on the spur of the moment--just what, exactly, is israel to "blame" for?

Why should I, or anybody, admit any "blame" that is based on nothing except your desire to find some reason, ANY reason, to "prove" israel is at fault?

No, I was just asking you exactly that. Is Israel to blame for anything?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Is Israel to blame for anything?

All right, AUP, since you pretend not to understand, let's take it from the top.

YOUR CLAIM: israel is "really" to blame for the suicide bombing.



Hold it right there with your strawmen. All I claim is that there is a process happening, and offer what I believe to be the explanation for it. Shoot the messenger if you want, but from where I sit, it looks like people are going to be dying and suffering for a while longer. Now, if you want to, you can blame it all on the Palestinians. However, that doesn't really solve your problem if it isn't the correct diagnoses of the problem, does it.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Skeptic:

All right, AUP, since you pretend not to understand, let's take it from the top.

YOUR CLAIM: israel is "really" to blame for the suicide bombing.

YOUR EVIDENCE: the bomber only became one after she "despaired of peaceful coexistence".

GROUNDS FOR THIS EVIDENCE: none whatsoever. You just made it up. If anything, those who sent her claim the exact opposite.

Since your "evidence" for the israeli "blame" here is simply nonexistent--it is merely an excuse you invented out of thin air on the spur of the moment--just what, exactly, is israel to "blame" for?

Why should I, or anybody, admit any "blame" that is based on nothing except your desire to find some reason, ANY reason, to "prove" israel is at fault?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AUP's REPLY:

No, I was just asking you exactly that. Is Israel to blame for anything?

TRASLATION: "You caught me making up 'evidence' out of thin air to smear israel (e.g., the claim that the suicide bomber only did it because she 'despaired of peaceful coexistence'), so I'll try and change the subject".

But--ignoring the pathetic attempt to change the subject--let me answer your "innocent" question, AUP. Yes, Israel is, indeed, to blame for many things. It's just not to blame for made-up "evidence" you invent out of thin air, or for the "awful truths" (e.g., more made-up lies) that conspiracy theorists invent about it on the internet.

The problem is, just about EVERYTHING you post about israel's "awful crimes" is either a). your own made-up "evidence" you picked out of thin air just to smear israel (as in the "she just despaired of peaceful coexsitence" lie) or b). claims made up by others on some conspiracy-theory web site (e.g., the USS "Liberty" nonsense).

It is hardly surprising, then, that I almost never blame israel for any of the "awful truths" YOU post about it, now is it?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]Originally posted by Skeptic:

Yes, Israel is, indeed, to blame for many things.

Good Stuff Skeptic, the first step in the road back to Skepticism. Much blame lies on all sides of this ongoing atrocity.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic

TRASLATION: "You caught me making up 'evidence' out of thin air to smear israel (e.g., the claim that the suicide bomber only did it because she 'despaired of peaceful coexistence'), so I'll try and change the subject".



Translation? Strawman more like it.



But--ignoring the pathetic attempt to change the subject--let me answer your "innocent" question, AUP. Yes, Israel is, indeed, to blame for many things.



That's funny, because I can't recall you ever giving an instance of one.



It's just not to blame for made-up "evidence" you invent out of thin air, or for the "awful truths" (e.g., more made-up lies) that conspiracy theorists invent about it on the internet.

The problem is, just about EVERYTHING you post about israel's "awful crimes" is either a). your own made-up "evidence" you picked out of thin air just to smear israel (as in the "she just despaired of peaceful coexsitence" lie) or b). claims made up by others on some conspiracy-theory web site (e.g., the USS "Liberty" nonsense).



I have already said that I believe the "Liberty" to be a contentious issue, that is, one that will never be agreed upon. That does not make it case of 'nonsense'. I have been able to link everything to non-conspiracy web sites.

I think I made it pretty clear that my opinion of the bombing was just just that. It's my opinion, feel free to disagree with it you want. My reading of the available information was that seeing her brothers killed led her to revenge.



It is hardly surprising, then, that I almost never blame israel for any of the "awful truths" YOU post about it, now is it?

I try to say it as I see it, based on what I understand about the world and people. Let's put it this way, Sharon has been pulling strings for many years in this conflict, and is now PM. Israel has never felt more insecure. Arafat, meanwhile, is reduced to a token leader hiding in a pile of rubble and under virtual house arrest. He has to beg to be able to leave the country.

What has Israel achieved for this horror? Some exploited people who are paid to live where they are not wanted, some fools who live where they are not wanted in rusty old trailers. The economy stinks, the unemployment rate is rising.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


And all Jews are violent, stupid, religious extremists who wear funny hats.

You forgot the comment about their noses.

Seriously, Unique, Palestinians haven't established so far a serious organization to protest about violations of Human Rights by the Israeli Occupying Forces and the Palestinian Authority.

How can they do that Unique if their lawyers wear jackets with explosives instead of dedicating themselves in the defense of their rights?

Do you consider Amnesty Internation a serious organization or you consider it ineffective because its members don't wear explosives to kill civilians?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
A peaceful protest.

http://www.radioproject.org/images/sobhia.jpg

Cool picture, but there are a few things missing:

1) A driver.

2) Smoke from the exhaust pipe.

3) Dust from the earth being moved.

Could that be a picture of a woman standing in front of an empty bulldozer? What sort of protest is that?

[Cleopatra]

Come-on Mycroft! LOL

Palestinians have a long tradition for posing to reporters... LOL

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, you are using special pleading. Only Palestinan child killers are evil, not US ones.

Irrelevant. One does not need to justify one person’s misdeeds to condemn another's.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


You forgot the comment about their noses.

Seriously, Unique, Palestinians haven't established so far a serious organization to protest about violations of Human Rights by the Israeli Occupying Forces and the Palestinian Authority.

How can they do that Unique if their lawyers wear jackets with explosives instead of dedicating themselves in the defense of their rights?

Do you consider Amnesty Internation a serious organization or you consider it ineffective because its members don't wear explosives to kill civilians?

Lawyer. The actual number of suicide bombers is quite small, in terms of absolute numbers compared the total population, the number of bombers that are lawyers would much smaller again. I would guess that she was the first one.

From what I have read, there are many lawyers working on just what you ask for. How do you think you get the information out of Palestine about the human rights abuses and deaths that are otherwise unreported.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Come-on Mycroft! LOL

Palestinians have a long tradition for posing to reporters... LOL

I've learned to look at pictures really closely. A picture may well tell a thousand words, but those words are not always true. :roll:

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Lawyer. The actual number of suicide bombers is quite small, in terms of absolute numbers compared the total population, the number of bombers that are lawyers would much smaller again. I would guess that she was the first one.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Originally posted by a_unique_person From what I have read, there are many lawyers working on just what you ask for. How do you think you get the information out of Palestine about the human rights abuses and deaths that are otherwise unreported.

Electronicintifada and WRMEA. It's easier to just make the stuff up than it is to get it out of the West Bank.:roll:

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

From what I have read, there are many lawyers working on just what you ask for. How do you think you get the information out of Palestine about the human rights abuses and deaths that are otherwise unreported.

Being a lawyer is not a prerequisite in reporting a violation of human rights but since you asked I will reply: Most information regarding the violations of human rights in Palestine come from Israeli citizens that are members of sych organizations.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Irrelevant. One does not need to justify one person’s misdeeds to condemn another's.

I would be quite happy for Ed to try to look at the overall picture of misery. Palestinian children die too.

All I ever hear from Ed is that Palestinians are evil. There is a war going on, and people are suffering. Arabs also were killed in the last bombing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


:roll: :roll: :roll:



Electronicintifada and WRMEA. It's easier to just make the stuff up than it is to get it out of the West Bank.:roll:

So you are saying there is a special force of suicide lawyers out there? Interesting theory.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Being a lawyer is not a prerequisite in reporting a violation of human rights but since you asked I will reply: Most information regarding the violations of human rights in Palestine come from Israeli citizens that are members of sych organizations.

I would expect that it would be the legal organisations that would be the ones gathering such information. Why do they have to depend on Israeli's to get the information out?

[a_unique_person]

http://www.poica.org/casestudies/Al-Mukabber-7-31-02/index.3-i.jpg

Not enough to stop the clearing, though.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.poica.org/casestudies/Al-Mukabber-7-31-02/index.4-i.jpg

If you look carefully, there is no smoke coming out of the IDF soldiers.

http://www.poica.org/casestudies/Al-Mukabber-7-31-02/index.2-i.jpg

No smoke coming out of this bulldozer, and I cannot see the driver. Yet, the land is being cleared. Amazing.

Many diesle engines only give out smoke when they are being revved, when they are being throttled back, and no fuel being burned, they may not appear to be any smoke. The cabin is hidden from view, and the driver is possibly visible only to one side. Either way, the land has been cleared recently.

[demon]

The suicide bombers are NOT the issue, hence condemnation of them achieves nothing and helps to drag the focus away from the Occupation and the slow-burn GENOCIDE being perpetrated by the Zionists.
The fact that we utter 'Israeli Civilians' without a second thought is an example of the extent to which the logic of Occupation and Ethnic Cleansing has been 'civilised' and accepted by WESTERN people.

The Palestinians fight for the right to freedom, their lives, their land and their dignity.

Israeli has as much legitimacy as apartheid South Africa.

As far as the fate of Zionists (and anybody who chooses to live in and occupy Palestinian lands whilst remaining oblivious to the suffering THEY ARE CAUSING is ZIONIST) is concerned, the west is in no position to condemn Palestinian actions. Had it not been for the monumental racist attitudes of successive Western Empires, and the 'International Community' that they control, there would not be a RACIST/FASCIST cancer situated in the Middle East.

You want to give your 'moral muscles' a work out? Take a good hard look at yourself and the West which you support.

For the Zionists, I just wonder how they continue to live with themselves.

I suppose the subject line says it all for me.
You wish to moralise and make a show of how 'apalling' and 'wretched' the suicide bombings are, I don't feel the imperative.
I lay the blame for such actions at the feet of the West, of the Zionists and their supporters and sympathisers.

Everytime you let imperialism/colonialism slide, you damn a hundred thousand foreign lives. For that is the ultimate consequence of such prattle about 'right and wrong resistance'.

This is a world scarred by Imperialism, a world teetering on the brink thanks to the RAMPANT IMMORALITY of EMPIRE, and you, high and lofty you, you would condemn the reactions of those who suffer the most directly from it's depraved actions?

Just as America descends upon Iraq, so Zionism descended upon Palestine... to ravage and take.

GENOCIDE is what 'ISRAEL' has been committing, with the aid of EUROPE AND AMERICA, with the silence of the 'International Community' and most of all with the sympathy of WESTERN CITIZENS. Do you see a moral parity here? Do you think that suicide bombing is a bit excessive as response to genocide??

If so pick up a gun and fight for Palestine, go on, go see how far you would get, see how easy it is to make a difference, to shoot at the IDF who have every weapon at their disposal. Try and ignore the fact that rabid Zionist 'civilians' are killing women and children daily, or that Palestinian lives are being ground to nothing by the 'civilian' economy and population that takes the PALESTINIAN resources for it's own.

I do not hold such notions as 'Israeli civilians' I do not understand how taking another man's land and living, still leaves one 'innocent'?

Zionists live on palestinian land. Land that supported the life and wellbeing of the Palestinians.

Unless you are so kind as to give up your home and living so that my great uncle can come over and make a fresh new start, I suggest you keep your moralising in perspective to your actions.

All we can do is condemn Palestinian suicide bombers for their actions? Let`s also condemn the tyranny that drives them to it. I pity them for their terrible suffering and desperation.

A question.

If, supposing, the 150 - 200,000 troops currently based in Iraq, were to be trippled tomorrow, and the duration of their stay made indefinite. If 'civilians' like Brown & Root workers, like CNN staff, like Oil executives, who aren't directly killing Iraqis (well not that we hear of), went over and built 'residences', then brought their families over... if at the end of this process, say in twenty years time, there were 2 million Americans, situated in Iraq, would you say that they are no longer occupiers?

At what point would the Iraqi people loose your 'moral' support?

When the first American baby is born in Iraq?

When the first American creche is opened?

Oh, maybe you need a little more time to pass so as to obscure your - ever so selective - eyes from the horror of 'civilisation'.

Perhaps 40years needs to pass? No, 50 years then?
Yes, when the Iraqis are tired and listless, when the 'International Community' has soundly judged the matter settled... ?

Because that's what all your moralising amounts to. The 'morality' with which you chide the Palestinians is dreadfully absent in judging the root cause.

All resistance to Imperialism is valued, I know it's loathed in the West but frankly I couldn't give a f*ck.

The Palestinians have every right to get their land back however they can. Just because the Zionist cancer 'settled' on the land (which is a fiction, since they've ALWAYS had to use FORCE to subdue the Palestinians) for the last 50 odd years doesn't change that.

You let Palestine slide, you'll let Iraq slide, then Syria, Iran...

You separate out 'state' and 'people' as thoroughly as you like, but the practicalities of life and the facts of 'Israeli' actions will always argue otherwise. What Sharon is doing today, the whole of the 'Israeli' population did yesterday. It is just that they have settled and coalesced into an economy.

The 'Settlers' that go around grabbing land, are armed murderers, they come from all over the West, hearts and minds filled with the dreams of Zion.

The 'Israeli Civilians' that you speak of are in possession of the homes and property of people who are forced to live sub-human lives of poverty and destitution.

It is the significance of the greater crime, the on-going ever increasing, slow burn GENOCIDE, in the face of which miniscule actions of desperation and hopelessness pale.

What morality is there in the newly arrived New Yorker who takes up a Haifa flat?

Or the newly-Jew Paraguayan family who are 'settled' into a condo built on the bones of Palestinians?

What morality is there in a 'civilian legal system' that hands down a 'community service' punishment to a Zionist for the cold-blooded murder of a Palestinian child?

What is the morality of your easy acceptance of "Israel's right to exist"?How many hundreds of thousands of PALESTINIAN lives do you condemn with that piece of 'morality'?

How many millions of Palestinian, ethnically cleansed by Western aid, do you palimpsest over with your moral narrative?

Morality, for it to be worthy of discussion, must be applicable and sensitive to context.
Or else it is merely the whinning of the pro-colonial voice.

[max]

Well Demon you must be of Palestinian descent to speak as you do. But what care I as an infidel? You would sooner kill me than be in my company. One of the gates to Jerusalem is blocked by the graves of thousands of jews the palestinian arabs slaughtered.....go figga

[Ed]

Originally posted by max
Well Demon you must be of Palestinian decent to speak as you do. But what care I as an infidel? You would sooner kill me than be in my company. One of the gates to Jerusalem is blocked by the graves of thousands of jews the palestinian arabs slaughtered.....go figga

Hi Max. Where have you been?

[Cleopatra]

Demon

Of course I intend to reply to your post analytically but are you a Palestinian?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


You forgot the comment about their noses.



Gosh, sorry.
http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_SM/0001-0310-0109-4751_SM.jpg

The caption reads

"Big nosed Jew sniffing out more Marbles to steal"

[Skeptic]

The suicide bombers are NOT the issue,

Yes, it is.

hence condemnation of them achieves nothing and helps to drag the focus away from the Occupation and the slow-burn GENOCIDE being perpetrated by the Zionists.

Actually, the "zionists" offered, quite a few times, to stop this "occupation and slow burn GENOCIDE", as you call it, by negotiating with the PLO, giving the palestinians more and more land, with the implied purpose--realized in 2000--of offering them a state on 98% or so of the west bank, with compensation by areas inside israel in return to the other 2%.

The result? The genocidal suicide bombing war started by the palestinians.

Why? Because the palestinians saw the israeli offer, not as good will, but as a sign that (to paraphrase a mixed metaphor noted by George Orwell) "the zionist octopus had sung its swan song", and israel can now be easily destroyed by the coming war.

It was found out, surprise surprise, from secret documents captured by the PA, that planning for this war was the idea from the start of the so-called Oslo "peace" process, and that Sharon's visit to the temple mount (which, by the way, he had every right to do, of course; he need not obey the racist palestinian "no jews allowed" command) was merely the convenient excuse.

It isn't as if the suicide bombing are "caused" by the "occupation". The "occupation"--which, of course, only exists because of a previous arab attempt to destroy israel in 1967--is the excuse for the current attempt to destroy israel.

The MORE israel offered, the LESS occupation there was, the MORE terror and threats there were from the palestinians side. This is inconcievable if the palestinian desire was peace and the end of the occupation--but quite undestandable, if their goal is israel's destruction.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The suicide bombers are NOT the issue,

Yes, it is.

hence condemnation of them achieves nothing and helps to drag the focus away from the Occupation and the slow-burn GENOCIDE being perpetrated by the Zionists.

Actually, the "zionists" offered, quite a few times, to stop this "occupation and slow burn GENOCIDE", as you call it, by negotiating with the PLO, giving the palestinians more and more land, with the implied purpose--realized in 2000--of offering them a state on 98% or so of the west bank, with compensation by areas inside israel in return to the other 2%.


How can you 'give' something that isn't yours?

[max]

ed
I'm always hovering, I haven't been away:)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by demon
The suicide bombers are NOT the issue, hence condemnation of them achieves nothing and helps to drag the focus away from the Occupation and the slow-burn GENOCIDE being perpetrated by the Zionists.

Then by all means the terrorists must be defeated because their incessant acts of murder are doing nothing more than dragging the focus away from the "evil" acts of the Joooz!!


The fact that we utter 'Israeli Civilians' without a second thought is an example of the extent to which the logic of Occupation and Ethnic Cleansing has been 'civilised' and accepted by WESTERN people.

When terrorists purposely murder Olympic athletes, they are TARGETING CIVILIANS.

When terrorists purposely murder an old wheelchair-bound man on a cruise ship, they are TARGETING CIVILIANS.

When terrorists purposely murder 3,000 people in aircraft and buildings, they are TARGETING CIVILIANS.

When terrorists purposely murder bus riders, they are TARGETING CIVILIANS.

When terrorists purposely murder restraunt patrons, they are TARGETING CIVILIANS.

When Iraqi's purposely murder American troops in Iraq, they are guerilla fighters opposing THE OCCUPATION. Why? Because they are TARGETING ENEMY TROOPS.

are you beginning to see the difference moron??

Recently a roadside bomb in Baghdad missed the Humvee and blew up an Iraqi bus killing some civilians. This still does not make Iraqi guerillas terrorists....it makes the Iraqi civilians "collateral damage".

The operative evil here is not the tactic of conducting guerilla operations. No. The evil is in the target selection. Terrorists WANT to blow up innocent people. Soldiers want to blow up ENEMY SOLDIERS.

The Palestinians fight for the right to freedom, their lives, their land and their dignity.

No. They lost their dignity long ago...IF they ever had it in the first place. They are barbarians, on about the same social evolutionary scale as the ancient Saxons.


Israeli has as much legitimacy as apartheid South Africa.


Bahhhh....apples and oranges.


As far as the fate of Zionists (and anybody who chooses to live in and occupy Palestinian lands whilst remaining oblivious to the suffering THEY ARE CAUSING is ZIONIST) is concerned, the west is in no position to condemn Palestinian actions. Had it not been for the monumental racist attitudes of successive Western Empires, and the 'International Community' that they control, there would not be a RACIST/FASCIST cancer situated in the Middle East.

HAHAHAH! You tilt against the windmill of history! You may as well hate the lion for eating the gazelle. Get a life.

You want to give your 'moral muscles' a work out? Take a good hard look at yourself and the West which you support.

You out yourself as an irrational hater of western civilization. Why should anyone pay attention to your biased ramblings? The irrational cannot be reasoned with. You should move to Gaza, and be comfortable living in a cradle of the irrational.

For the Zionists, I just wonder how they continue to live with themselves.

Well, since they are not sending young people out to die, and murder the children of others I imagine they live quite easily with themselves. Unless you mean the sleepless nights that some of the less fortunate, bus-riding zionists may have.


I suppose the subject line says it all for me.
You wish to moralise and make a show of how 'apalling' and 'wretched' the suicide bombings are, I don't feel the imperative.
I lay the blame for such actions at the feet of the West, of the Zionists and their supporters and sympathisers.

The old; "We blow you up because you make us blow you up, so it's your fault!" --defense. Can you say CROCK OF SH*T?? I can.


Everytime you let imperialism/colonialism slide, you damn a hundred thousand foreign lives. For that is the ultimate consequence of such prattle about 'right and wrong resistance'.

Well, there would be a Palestinian state next to Israel RIGHT NOW if only the PA would stand by it's past agreements. If colonialism were truly at issue here we'd be debating whether or not the UK should leave Palestine. They did. So, which "Imperial Power" are you speaking of?


This is a world scarred by Imperialism, a world teetering on the brink thanks to the RAMPANT IMMORALITY of EMPIRE, and you, high and lofty you, you would condemn the reactions of those who suffer the most directly from it's depraved actions?

Someone's teetering here all right... some free advice Demon, go back on your meds.

Just as America descends upon Iraq, so Zionism descended upon Palestine... to ravage and take.

That's why the US treasury is about to be 87 Billion dollars lighter eh? Because we're "ravaging and taking"...well, I sure hope we at least ravage and take enough to make it a decent investment! :D

GENOCIDE is what 'ISRAEL' has been committing, with the aid of EUROPE AND AMERICA, with the silence of the 'International Community' and most of all with the sympathy of WESTERN CITIZENS. Do you see a moral parity here? Do you think that suicide bombing is a bit excessive as response to genocide??

The big G-word...and all in SCREAMING CAPS! :rolleyes: Do you really wish to be taken seriously?


If so pick up a gun and fight for Palestine, go on, go see how far you would get, see how easy it is to make a difference, to shoot at the IDF who have every weapon at their disposal. Try and ignore the fact that rabid Zionist 'civilians' are killing women and children daily, or that Palestinian lives are being ground to nothing by the 'civilian' economy and population that takes the PALESTINIAN resources for it's own.

Can't pick up a gun and win?? That means you have lost Demon. Don't like losing? No one does. Ask the redneck in Alabama with the southern battle flag on his pick-em-up truck. When you've lost you can;
1. Become a guerilla and attack enemy soldiers. (An honorable if dangerous task)
2. Become a terrorist and attack civilians. (a repugnant and cowardly task)
3. Take up non-violent protest as a means to petition the Israeli's and the world for redress of grievances. Carve out an autonimous zone or state. Work to educate your people, and increase prosperity and peace. (An honorable and less dangerous task)
4. Unconditional surrender.

Those are your real options. No one is suggesting #4. Hell, even if #1 was going on tooth and nail, the Israeli's couldn't bitch because they are occupiers. But no, the worst possible choice, #2 is what the Pal's have chosen. Their poverty and hopeless situation is a direct consequence of this decision to support murder of civilians.

What's so hard about #3 Demon?? It worked in India...it worked in S. Africa, it worked in the American south. Please give your reasons why the tactical successes of Ghandi, Dr. ML King, and Mandela would not work in Palestine.


I do not hold such notions as 'Israeli civilians' I do not understand how taking another man's land and living, still leaves one 'innocent'?

You don't? Then look at it this way,...what made the children, and 5 Arabs killed in the Haifa bombing "guilty"??


Zionists live on palestinian land. Land that supported the life and wellbeing of the Palestinians.

So what? Why can't they live TOGETHER??? Side by side. The Israelis want this...the PA does not.

Unless you are so kind as to give up your home and living so that my great uncle can come over and make a fresh new start, I suggest you keep your moralising in perspective to your actions.

False dichotomy...I don't need to give up my home and living. Your great uncle can come live next door, and make his own living. I don't have to give him mine.


All we can do is condemn Palestinian suicide bombers for their actions? Let`s also condemn the tyranny that drives them to it. I pity them for their terrible suffering and desperation.

They need not suffer. The suffering is a direct consequence of their desire to comit murderous acts.

A question.

If, supposing, the 150 - 200,000 troops currently based in Iraq, were to be trippled tomorrow, and the duration of their stay made indefinite. If 'civilians' like Brown & Root workers, like CNN staff, like Oil executives, who aren't directly killing Iraqis (well not that we hear of), went over and built 'residences', then brought their families over... if at the end of this process, say in twenty years time, there were 2 million Americans, situated in Iraq, would you say that they are no longer occupiers?

That would be up to them. In 20 years they would have sons and daughters who knew Iraq as "home". There is still a rather large contingent of English people living in Hong Kong...are they "occupiers"?? No, they're citizens.


At what point would the Iraqi people loose your 'moral' support?

No one has to loose my moral support. They lose moral support merely by doing immoral deeds. All can live together in peace. In my own country, the USA, I can go to downtown Miami and be overwhelmingly outnumbered by Cubans. I used to live there, and the Cubans are happy and thankful to call Miami home. They are wonderful, caring, interesting, and useful citizens. They are not occupiers.

Likewise in Dearborn, MI...I have heard that I could go there and be outnumbered by Arab-Americans. Likewise, I do not consider them to be "occupiers".


When the first American baby is born in Iraq?

When the first American creche is opened?

Oh, maybe you need a little more time to pass so as to obscure your - ever so selective - eyes from the horror of 'civilisation'.

Perhaps 40years needs to pass? No, 50 years then?
Yes, when the Iraqis are tired and listless, when the 'International Community' has soundly judged the matter settled... ?

Because that's what all your moralising amounts to. The 'morality' with which you chide the Palestinians is dreadfully absent in judging the root cause.

:hit:
hmmm...a particulary troubling case of ignorance!!


All resistance to Imperialism is valued, I know it's loathed in the West but frankly I couldn't give a f*ck.

You hate. You irrationally hate. You need help.


The Palestinians have every right to get their land back however they can. Just because the Zionist cancer 'settled' on the land (which is a fiction, since they've ALWAYS had to use FORCE to subdue the Palestinians) for the last 50 odd years doesn't change that.

However they can? So, you feel the murder of innocent people is justified because of a loss of personal property then? So loss of life, any life, even innocent life is excusable if one gets one's property back?? So, you're in favor of the death penalty then? Or is the death penalty only for Joooz??

You let Palestine slide, you'll let Iraq slide, then Syria, Iran...

You separate out 'state' and 'people' as thoroughly as you like, but the practicalities of life and the facts of 'Israeli' actions will always argue otherwise. What Sharon is doing today, the whole of the 'Israeli' population did yesterday. It is just that they have settled and coalesced into an economy.

The 'Settlers' that go around grabbing land, are armed murderers, they come from all over the West, hearts and minds filled with the dreams of Zion.

The 'Israeli Civilians' that you speak of are in possession of the homes and property of people who are forced to live sub-human lives of poverty and destitution.

It is the significance of the greater crime, the on-going ever increasing, slow burn GENOCIDE, in the face of which miniscule actions of desperation and hopelessness pale.

What morality is there in the newly arrived New Yorker who takes up a Haifa flat?

Or the newly-Jew Paraguayan family who are 'settled' into a condo built on the bones of Palestinians?

What morality is there in a 'civilian legal system' that hands down a 'community service' punishment to a Zionist for the cold-blooded murder of a Palestinian child?

What is the morality of your easy acceptance of "Israel's right to exist"?How many hundreds of thousands of PALESTINIAN lives do you condemn with that piece of 'morality'?

How many millions of Palestinian, ethnically cleansed by Western aid, do you palimpsest over with your moral narrative?

Morality, for it to be worthy of discussion, must be applicable and sensitive to context.
Or else it is merely the whinning of the pro-colonial voice.

Hmmm you repeat yourself with rabid pro-terrorism rhetoric. Blah, blah, blah. I doubt you even believe that morality exists at all!

-z

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


How can you 'give' something that isn't yours?
Unique

I must ask you to behave yourself. Do you understand now why sometimes I end the discussions?

This argument can be refuted by a 15 years old child and yet a grown-up like you who follows politics and claims that he is interested in seeing the problem resolved, uses it...

Jesus Unique!

[Skeptic]

How can you 'give' something that isn't yours?

The same way the palestinians were asked to "give", in return, something that isn't theirs--e.g., to denounce their "right" to destroy israel.

Even if you are correct about israel "not having a right" to the west bank, which you are not, at most its peace offer was an exchange of one thing israel doesn't really own (the west bank) for something the palestinians don't really own (the "right" to destroy israel).

Of course, what you really want is israel to give up everything in return for, literally, nothing--not even a promise by the palestinians not to try and destroy it.

Your position is equivalent to asking the would be rape victim to give the knife back to the would-be rapist, unconditionally. Of course, he might try to rape her again with it, but how DARE she hold on to a knife that ISN'T HERS?

[max]

Unique
Is that Father Ted on your avatar?
How did you get the icons to appear on the photos in your post?

[max]

Unique
Is that Father Ted on your avatar?
How did you get the icons to appear on the photos in your post?

[Tmy]

This thread is an example of what happens over in the mid east. Everyone gets bogged down on the past. That gets you nowhere to discuss Isreal taking X 30 years ago, or Arabs threat to drive then into the sea (again this was years ago), or failed peace plans or who owns what.

The past can be usedto justify any present action but it aint gonna help with future peace. Both sides need to get overthemselves and realize that Isreal is not gonna disappear and neither is Palistine. So yall better figur out some sort of comprimise.



As for this lawyer bomber. Is it true that some of her family was killed by Isreali soilders?

[max]

TMY
Yea supposedly her brother and cousin were killed by israeli guns. her mother is said to be so proud that her daughter blew herself up. The mind boggles about the mentallity of these poor backward people

[Tmy]

Originally posted by max
TMY
Yea supposedly her brother and cousin were killed by israeli guns. her mother is said to be so proud that her daughter blew herself up. The mind boggles about the mentallity of these poor backward people

I dont know. Big bad oppressive govt kills family members so vigilante goes on vengence killing spree. Sounds like the plot of a dozen Hollywood action flicks.

I picture Sly Stallone yelling somthing like "Im a monster, but you created me!"

[Cleopatra]

Israeli has as much legitimacy as apartheid South Africa.

Demon and Unique

The issue of the legitimacy of Israel has been resolved decades ago by UN. Later-on, the Arab world in general and the Palestinians in particular recognized Israel as a country with a right to exist; Arab countries have signed treaties with Israel and Palestinians participate in negotiations with Israel for years now.

So, both of you gentlemen, unless you are members of Hamas you can't claim that Israel doesn't belong to the Israelis.

The Palestinians fight for the right to freedom, their lives, their land and their dignity.

I agree.

As far as the fate of Zionists (and anybody who chooses to live in and occupy Palestinian lands whilst remaining oblivious to the suffering THEY ARE CAUSING is ZIONIST) is concerned, the west is in no position to condemn Palestinian actions. Had it not been for the monumental racist attitudes of successive Western Empires, and the 'International Community' that they control, there would not be a RACIST/FASCIST cancer situated in the Middle East.

First of all, let me remind you that it's comical for an Arab to accuse the West for fascist practices. When did you say that it was the last time that Arab citizens voted for their government?

If Palestinians wish to join the International Community ( if we believe their leaders they do) they must accept to receive criticism for the attrocities that they commit.

You want to give your 'moral muscles' a work out? Take a good hard look at yourself and the West which you support.

Every country has its dark pages in History. Be certain that when Palestine will be established its black pages will be enough to publish a book.

I suppose the subject line says it all for me.
You wish to moralise and make a show of how 'apalling' and 'wretched' the suicide bombings are, I don't feel the imperative.
I lay the blame for such actions at the feet of the West, of the Zionists and their supporters and sympathisers.

Putting your feelings aside you have to consider how efficient those methods are. Be practical for a change.

Everytime you let imperialism/colonialism slide, you damn a hundred thousand foreign lives. For that is the ultimate consequence of such prattle about 'right and wrong resistance'.

Only a couple of lines above you wondered " How can Zionists live with themselves" You ask for a morality in International Affairs. I am with you on that. I demand for a Morality in Resistance too.

GENOCIDE is what 'ISRAEL' has been committing, with the aid of EUROPE AND AMERICA, with the silence of the 'International Community' and most of all with the sympathy of WESTERN CITIZENS. Do you see a moral parity here? Do you think that suicide bombing is a bit excessive as response to genocide??

You see this is why you haven't found your right yet because you rather scream than discuss. Genocides? Please.

If so pick up a gun and fight for Palestine, go on, go see how far you would get, see how easy it is to make a difference, to shoot at the IDF who have every weapon at their disposal. Try and ignore the fact that rabid Zionist 'civilians' are killing women and children daily, or that Palestinian lives are being ground to nothing by the 'civilian' economy and population that takes the PALESTINIAN resources for it's own.

First of all, Palestinians are not unarmed but the IDF is an opponent that is almost impossible to fight I agree that's why you must focus on diplomacy.

I do not hold such notions as 'Israeli civilians' I do not understand how taking another man's land and living, still leaves one 'innocent'?

I have to respect your tantrum I just note that I am grateful that Arafat at least aknowledges the term " civilians" for Israeli unarmed people...

If, supposing, the 150 - 200,000 troops currently based in Iraq, were to be trippled tomorrow, and the duration of their stay made indefinite. If 'civilians' like Brown & Root workers, like CNN staff, like Oil executives, who aren't directly killing Iraqis (well not that we hear of), went over and built 'residences', then brought their families over... if at the end of this process, say in twenty years time, there were 2 million Americans, situated in Iraq, would you say that they are no longer occupiers?

" A life in Iraq" is not a part of the American dream as far as I know.
The 'Settlers' that go around grabbing land, are armed murderers, they come from all over the West, hearts and minds filled with the dreams of Zion.

You are right about the settlements, I am pro-dismantling the settlements.

Do you want a bet on that? The settlements will be dismantled, listen to Cleopatra she has psychic powers.

What morality is there in the newly arrived New Yorker who takes up a Haifa flat?

Forget about Haifa my dear.Don't be absurd

Or the newly-Jew Paraguayan family who are 'settled' into a condo built on the bones of Palestinians?

You are right about that. Israel will pay for this mistakes, if this makes you feel better.

First of all, I wonder what happened to your English suddenly but leaving that aside, learn to debate demon instead of typing slogans that belong to previous decades...

[DanishDynamite]

Ed:Clearly I do not think that he his doing an adequite job.Sad to hear it.

That is probably good. Anyone who can reduce this mess to black and white is, I submit, wrong on the face of itBut that is what you are doing. Declaring one part in a conflict, an entire people, as bloodthirsty bastards is very black and white.
Yes, they certainly do. Not the least of which is their own leadershipI agree they need better leadership. I'm still unclear as to why the suicide bombings of a few Palestinians means all Palestinians are bloodythirsty bastards.
One does not preclude the other. I cannot understand a culture that places value, and encourages, the brutalization of children, their own and others. Neither do I.
And it is not limited to the Palistinians. Broadly, it appears, in the muslim world the actions of child murderers are viewed as worthy of veneration. Really? If so, how do Muslims perpetuate? If murdering children was generally viewed as a good thing, why are there any children left in the "Muslim world"?
As I have pointed out, they do have alternatives, well organized non-violent protest could be a winner. That would be a good idea. But hasn't that been tried before?
They don't do that. Why, one asks onesself. I suspect because their ultimate goal is the destruction of Isreal and that can not be accomplished non-violently. Who is "they"? The entire Palestinian people? Did all Catholic Northern Irish want the destruction of England? Do all Basques want the destruction of Spain?
Unfortunately well meaning progressives in the west see the palistinians as something less than civilized and tend to put the burden on the more "western" Isrealis. Some idiots do, yes.

[Ed]

Response to original posted by my old Tundra Mammoth hiding buddy Danish

Ed:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly I do not think that he his doing an adequite job.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sad to hear it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is probably good. Anyone who can reduce this mess to black and white is, I submit, wrong on the face of it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But that is what you are doing. Declaring one part in a conflict, an entire people, as bloodthirsty bastards is very black and white.

The reasons and the animosities and the greivences are anything but. Using child murder as a tool of policy supports my contention, I think


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, they certainly do. Not the least of which is their own leadership
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree they need better leadership. I'm still unclear as to why the suicide bombings of a few Palestinians means all Palestinians are bloodythirsty bastards.

It appears to be policy. I sense no outrage from their side, do you? Correct me if I am wrong but the accepted term is "Martyr" is it not? The lack of outrage suggests acceptance, providing a venerable title suggests support, again, to me at least. So, how would you characterize a society that condones, supports and acceptance of willful planned child murder? I think my appelation is kind

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One does not preclude the other. I cannot understand a culture that places value, and encourages, the brutalization of children, their own and others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither do I.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it is not limited to the Palistinians. Broadly, it appears, in the muslim world the actions of child murderers are viewed as worthy of veneration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? If so, how do Muslims perpetuate? If murdering children was generally viewed as a good thing, why are there any children left in the "Muslim world"?

Jew children.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I have pointed out, they do have alternatives, well organized non-violent protest could be a winner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be a good idea. But hasn't that been tried before?

Try? Try? No, you DO it. Some loon in front of a tractor is not a program of non-violent protest.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't do that. Why, one asks onesself. I suspect because their ultimate goal is the destruction of Isreal and that can not be accomplished non-violently.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is "they"? The entire Palestinian people? Did all Catholic Northern Irish want the destruction of England? Do all Basques want the destruction of Spain?

DD, old bean, there is some tedious latin phrase for what you just did, Basques indeed. They be the A-rabs, boy. Do you doubt that? What did that minister from Iran say about dropping the big one on Tel Aviv?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately well meaning progressives in the west see the palistinians as something less than civilized and tend to put the burden on the more "western" Isrealis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some idiots do, yes.

Not always idiots. Some well meaning folks do. AUP for one, I think.

[Skeptic]

I dont know. Big bad oppressive govt kills family members so vigilante goes on vengence killing spree. Sounds like the plot of a dozen Hollywood action flicks.

Indeed so--when the hero cares not the least about how many innocents he kills, or why, as long as he gets his "revenge". The reason the hero doesn't care in the Hollywood movie, of course, has something to do with the fact that the movie is FICTION, the people "killed" are actually actors who do not REALLY die, and the whole moral question about killing all these innocents is irrelevant since it is merely a PLOT DEVICE to show "action" that sells popcorn in the movies. Schwarzenneger or Stallone themselves, once the director yells "cut!", are hardly likely to go on "killing" people even with fake bullets, let alone real ones.

The suicide bombers, on the other hand, DO have IN REAL LIFE the mentality that action film "heroes" have IN FICTION--namely, that of deranged psychopaths who care nothing for innocent lives. You would NOT, believe me, want to meet someone like Rambo, James Bond, or any of the "lone wolf heroes" of action movies in real life.

Not to point out the obvious, but many jews--and Americans--have had their own family murdered since the terror war started. How many of THEM went on a killing rampage of innocents, "just like" the heroes in Hollywood movies? How many americans butchered the babies of arab immigrants in "revenge" for 9/11? None. On the other hand, such "revenge" is the modus operandi for the palestinians. Hell, forget the "war on terror". How many jews, after the holocaust, went on a killing rampage to avenge themselves on as many ordinary Germans as they could? If ANYBODY ever had a really good reason to do just that that, it was them--yet, they didn't do it; and most certainly, even if such isolated revenge killings occured here and there, there was not an entire jewish culture dedicated to, and promoting, such "acts of heroism". If anything, the jews were far less violent than they should have been: even most concentration camps' staff--the SS soldiers and officers who killed and tortured them for years with sadistic glee--were turned over to the authorities for trial, and not (as one would have expected) lynched to the last man.

Why is this? Is the discrepancy because what the nazis did to the jews, or what Al Queida did to the twin towers, less horrible than what israelies have done to (some) palestinians? Of course not. It is because the culture of America and the jews is not a psychotic one where death is glorified and nothing but killing the "evil enemy" matters, like the palestinian culture is. Imagine a nation of REAL LIFE wannabe "terminators", and you get an idea what palestinian culture is like.

[Ed]

One more point.

During the pedophile priest thing that went on (and is going on) here not one person in authority in the RC church damned those behaviors in no uncertain terms. Not one. I, and many others, took that as an indication of complicity. So it is with the Palistinians. Who do you, DD, look to there as a person who will state unequivically what is right and wrong? Has moral relativism gone so far that thinking people would actually hesitate to condemn child murder?

[Skeptic]

Has moral relativism gone so far that thinking people would actually hesitate to condemn child murder?

That depends if the child is jewish or not.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ed
One more point.

During the pedophile priest thing that went on (and is going on) here not one person in authority in the RC church damned those behaviors in no uncertain terms. Not one. I, and many others, took that as an indication of complicity. So it is with the Palistinians. Who do you, DD, look to there as a person who will state unequivically what is right and wrong? Has moral relativism gone so far that thinking people would actually hesitate to condemn child murder?

With SA people looked to Mandels, in India; Ghandi, in the US King. Who is it there? BTW, the world looked to those people, not just local residents. The fact that there is not one is sort of telling, too.

[DanishDynamite]

Ed:Response to original posted by my old Tundra Mammoth hiding buddy DanishResponse to my old humorous divine buddy:
The reasons and the animosities and the greivences are anything but. Using child murder as a tool of policy supports my contention, I thinkEd, you cannot pretend to take an impartial role in a conflict when you declare one part to be bloodthirsty bastards.
It appears to be policy. I sense no outrage from their side, do you? Correct me if I am wrong but the accepted term is "Martyr" is it not? The lack of outrage suggests acceptance, providing a venerable title suggests support, again, to me at least.And how exactly are those few refugee-camp Palestinians not brainwashed sufficiently by the PA news media supposed to make a statement of any kind?
So, how would you characterize a society that condones, supports and acceptance of willful planned child murder?"US-like"? "In favor of capital punishment for non-adults"?
I think my appelation is kind.Which is scary.
Jew children.Ahh. So if I understand you correctly, murdering children who are Jewish is generally viewed by the Muslim world as a good thing. Would you have a link to back up this assertion?
Try? Try? No, you DO it. Some loon in front of a tractor is not a program of non-violent protest. Again, hasn't it been tried before?
DD, old bean, there is some tedious latin phrase for what you just did, Basques indeed. They be the A-rabs, boy. Do you doubt that? What did that minister from Iran say about dropping the big one on Tel Aviv? And what, my dear god, might that latin phrase be?
Not always idiots. Some well meaning folks do. AUP for one, I think.If AUP places the majority of blame for the current Paletine-Israel situation on the Israelies, I disagree. However, I don't think that is what he is doing. He is simply providing a counterpoint to the massive knee-jerk support of Israeli actions which is prevalent here.

[DanishDynamite]

Ed:During the pedophile priest thing that went on (and is going on) here not one person in authority in the RC church damned those behaviors in no uncertain terms. Not one. I, and many others, took that as an indication of complicity. So it is with the Palistinians. Who do you, DD, look to there as a person who will state unequivically what is right and wrong? Has moral relativism gone so far that thinking people would actually hesitate to condemn child murder? There was no official outrage from the Catholic hierachy. Many Catholics however, did voice their outrage.

Same presumably goes for the Palestinians except they have no independent media to transmit such concerns.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Same presumably goes for the Palestinians except they have no independent media to transmit such concerns.

Edward Said was one of those. Sari Nussheibeh is a voice of reason as well as Marwan Barghoudi who is imprisoned with no particular reason.

The problem is that the Palestinian Authority boycotts those people.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by max
Unique
Is that Father Ted on your avatar?
How did you get the icons to appear on the photos in your post?

Norman Gunstone, the Little Aussie Bleeder. Played by Garry McDonald, who was also in the brilliant "Mother and Son", which would have been on TV in the UK.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Norman Gunstone, the Little Aussie Bleeder. Played by Garry McDonald, who was also in the brilliant "Mother and Son", which would have been on TV in the UK.

Christ. I thought that it was a young Bill Buckley and I was wondering why you had him:eek:

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
So, if peaceful protest does not work, and they don't
have an army to take on the IDF, what else is there?

Assimulation (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec03/friedman_09-25.html)

Oh, yeah, we talked to Palestinians, intellectuals, and Halil Shakaki,
a Palestinian pollster, has done a poll that found that 28 percent of
Palestinians today are calling for a one-state solution. Now, think
about that, Margaret. That is an idea that no Israeli party and no
Palestinian party is even advocating, but 28 percent of the people
are for it. So they can see what's happened.

Essentially correct.

It would be a nightmare because if you take all the West Bank,
all of Gaza and all of Israel together it's about 55 percent Jewish,
45 percent Palestinian. In ten years, given the different growth rates,
it's going to be about 51 percent Palestinian, 49 percent Jewish and so,
when they demand one man, one vote, if you think it's hard for people
like my kids to defend Israel on a college campus today, imagine what
they have to argue against the principle of one man, one vote. So this
is a real problem for Israel.

No decent CA Programmer (http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/articles/ca/) worth his salt would make such a silly
predicition. One thrid becomes citizens, one third in walled camps,
and one third expulsed would be more like it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Has moral relativism gone so far that thinking people would actually hesitate to condemn child murder?

That depends if the child is jewish or not.

From Amnesty International



Most of the victims were civilians and included more than 380 Palestinian children and some 100 Israeli children.



It looks to me like Israel is clearly ahead in the child killing race.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/isr-index-eng

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


From Amnesty International:

Most of the victims were civilians and included more than 380 Palestinian children and some 100 Israeli children.




That's truly shocking. Those Palestinian-Arab terrorists really should stop hiding behind children.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


That's truly shocking. Those Palestinian-Arab terrorists really should stop hiding behind children.

And so should Sharon. There, now we're even. Happy?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


And so should Sharon. There, now we're even. Happy?

A report published by the Hizbollah's weekly journal has uncovered new evidence of Palestinian children's active involvement in terrorist activity earlier this year in the Jenin refugee camp.
The children were questioned by a reporter from the Hizbollah's journal and confessed to him that they had been involved in the manufacturing of weapons and ammunition, and that they had actively participated in the fighting alongside armed terrorists.

"We traded rocks and stones for hand grenades"

http://www.likud.nl/extr247.html

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft




http://www.likud.nl/extr247.html


I'll take that as a 'yes'.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person



I'll take that as a 'yes'.

The reality is indeed unthinkable, but not in the way so neatly portrayed by sound-bite media accounts of Palestinian children being shot by Israeli soldiers. Indeed, powerful and secret forces are at work in Palestinian nurseries, preschools, entertainment venues, classrooms and summer camps - forces that shape the current and future battles between Palestinians and Israelis, indeed, make them all but inevitable. However, up until recently, this amazing story has for the most part been hidden from Western eyes.

Palestinian children are taught to hate Jews, to glorify "jihad" (holy war), violence, death and child martyrdom almost from birth, as an essential part of their culture and destiny.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17707

[Mycroft]

During the October-November 2000 conflict, the Palestinians made much political capital of the number of children killed by the security forces. These deaths are much regretted by the I.D.F., but it must be remembered that these youngsters were in the middle of rioting mobs, often with snipers firing from behind them. The I.D.F. had to keep these mobs from marching on Jewish areas. The children were there, in many cases, because the Palestine Authority had closed the schools so the children could join the mob. Although the Palestinian media agents know how to touch western sensibilities, their own attitude to the loss of these young lives is not one that we understand.

The mother of 13 year old Mohammed al-Durra who was seen around the world, dead in his father's arms said, "I am happy that he has been martyred."

http://fp.thebeers.f9.co.uk/indoctrination.htm

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


From Amnesty International

It looks to me like Israel is clearly ahead in the child killing race.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/isr-index-eng

How can you suggest such things,Unique?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


How can you suggest such things,Unique?

I am just arguing the debate in their terms. That fact that Israeli children are dying is terrible. I agree. The fact that more Palestinian children are dying is even worse.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft




http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17707

I hear many Jews are trained from birth to use blood from children as part of their rituals. There are plenty of links on the internet to prove this.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I hear many Jews are trained from birth to use blood from children as part of their rituals. There are plenty of links on the internet to prove this.

*Bells are ringing*

Time to end-up the discussion with you Unique.

For one more time you use the Protocols as a source to debate facts.

It's a fact that Aranb train their children in War , they don't deny it and you compare this with antisemitic rubbish.

These kind of arguments you had in mind when you were lecturing me on the nature of intellectual debates yesterday?

[a_unique_person]

I am not going to let the bald assertion that all Palestinians are blood thirsty savages be used. It is a ridiculous idea. Just as ridiculous as the Protocols. You get upset at what you say are libels against the Jewish people, but do not object to libels against the Palestinians.

I have no doubt that that there are savages in all societies. I have also read of people being saddened when they have found out their child has been a suicide bomber.

[Cleopatra]

What is libel to you Unique?

Do you know that last year Hamas had to ask for children stop participating in terrorist acts???

Why do you think that they had to ask for such a thing?

We all know that the Arab world has a long tradition in training child-soldiers. Do you deny that?

What the hell this has to do with the Protocols ?

[a_unique_person]

Making blanket assertions that Arabs do this or that is just a simple libel. Arabs are people, people are all different. I have always tried to make it clear that I do not hold Jews in general to be responsible for much of what is going wrong in the Middle East.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I hear many Jews are trained from birth to use blood from children as part of their rituals. There are plenty of links on the internet to prove this.

Of course this is merely a libelous myth. Ludicrous and without merit.

But if one points out that the Arabs in general, and the Palestinians in particular, are a tribal culture led by warlords and motivated by superstition and a thirst for vengence...it's not a myth. It's a fact.

These people are as bloodthirsty as any iron-age barbarians in recorded history. It's not a myth. Now, you are right...there are many enlightened and educated Arabs...but the culture is still entrenched in their own dark ages.

Israel will only continue to exist by being vigilant and heavily armed. They will either fight a low intensity terrorist war forever.. or a larger war...perhaps even a pan-Arab war of Israel/America and allies vs the Arab/Moslem world will erupt. I guess we'll see eh?

-z

[Cleopatra]

by Unique
Making blanket assertions that Arabs do this or that is just a simple libel. Arabs are people, people are all different. I have always tried to make it clear that I do not hold Jews in general to be responsible for much of what is going wrong in the Middle East.


PALESTINE: HAMAS BANS CHILDREN'S 'SACRIFICES' (http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/9f2929b28b0f458ac1256bf40036b346?OpenDocument)

ISREAL/PALESTINE: PALESTINIAN CHILDREN SHOT ON SUICIDE MISSION (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=child+soldiers+%2BPalestine&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-top)

PMWatch ( see the last paragraph) (http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/manager/features/display_message.asp?mid=383)

Statistics about Palestine-covers both sides (http://http://www.globalmarch.org/worstformsreport/world/palestine.html)

[rikzilla]

Why do some Palestinian children do this?:
ISREAL/PALESTINE: PALESTINIAN CHILDREN SHOT ON SUICIDE MISSION

Three 14-year old Palestinian boys from Gaza were shot dead by Israeli soldiers after they tried to mount a "futile attack" on an isolated Jewish settlement. Leaving their parents suicide notes expressing a desire for 'martyrdom', they set off with knives, an axe and crude, homemade explosives. They were shot as they crawled toward the Netzsrim settlement.

Perhaps they just want their parents to be

proud of them (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/05/1065292478048.html?from=storyrhs)

-say it with me...SICK CULTURE OF DEATH.....

[rikzilla]

(From Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space by Carl Sagan, Random House, 1994)


Earth (the dot in the middle) as seen from 3.7 billion miles away by the Voyager 1 spacecraft, on 6/6/1990.


... Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.

Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.


Sorry...but after reading the Hamas website I felt the need to bathe myself in the clean water of Carl Sagan's humanism.

Posted here in the off chance that someone else needs it as well?

-z

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla



Sorry...but after reading the Hamas website I felt the need to bathe myself in the clean water of Carl Sagan's humanism.

Posted here in the off chance that someone else needs it as well?

-z

You haven't been visiting the Zionist extremist websites, have you Rick?

[Ed]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Why do some Palestinian children do this?:


Perhaps they just want their parents to be

proud of them (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/05/1065292478048.html?from=storyrhs)

-say it with me...SICK CULTURE OF DEATH.....


Murderous bastards does it for me.

[ssibal]

I am still wondering a_unique, do you think the Palestinians are justified in their suicide attacks on Israelis?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal
I am still wondering a_unique, do you think the Palestinians are justified in their suicide attacks on Israelis?

They are just as justified in committing atrocities as the Israelis. In a conflict like this, everyone is a loser.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed



Murderous bastards does it for me.

But you will never condemn Israeli atrocities. Why are they beyond criticism?

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Posted here in the off chance that someone else needs it as well?

Yes, especially afer reading this headline: Arafat Has Cancer! (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,516827,00.html)
Well, its over. Time to move on to better things.

[a_unique_person]

Those Israelis are just sick murderous bastards. No question.

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/settlements/settler_violence_cover.htm



A Palestinian home in Sheikh Jarrah attacked by settlers. A two-year-old child was thrown from the window.



Happy now?

[a_unique_person]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rikzilla
Why do some Palestinian children do this?:


Perhaps they just want their parents to be

proud of them

-say it with me...SICK CULTURE OF DEATH.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's see, who was it funding Hamas and helping get it started? Oh, that's right, it was Israel.

[a_unique_person]

The first Hamas suicide bombing occurred in April 1994 in response to the massacre of 29 Muslims months earlier who were praying at the Hebron Mosque. The number of Hamas suicide bombings only steadily increased since, bringing the Middle East today to its worst crisis in decades



Who was that sick murderous bastard who killed those Muslims praying? That's right, it was a JEW.

[a_unique_person]

Who started the whole lets just post abuse about races and religions? That's right, it was Rick and Ed.

Is there a point to all this? Not that I can see. It gets us nowhere.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


That's truly shocking. Those Palestinian-Arab terrorists really should stop hiding behind children.

That's right, all the children killed had a terrorist hiding behind them when. Somehow, I don't believe it. Sarcasm noticed. It was only death of some Arabs after all.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


But you will never condemn Israeli atrocities. Why are they beyond criticism?

I am an Israeli and I condemn them energetically.I found you sources that proved that I wasn't libelling anybody and you didn't admit that you were wrong, why?

What do I win Unique. I can't even earn some people's respect here and you know why?

Because most of you despise the race and you can't get over these sentiments. Of course you don't want Jews dead but you wish there was a way.

I have been experiencing it since the day we moved in this country and of course all around Europe.

"That matter" is always there and you can't get over it. It bothers you and it always will.

I am sorry! I can't help those that they prefer to live with their prejudices and to tell you the truth I am not interested.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am sorry! I can't help those that they prefer to live with their <strike>prejudices</strike> snobbery and to tell you the truth I am not interested.


edited to comply my vocabulary with the vocabulary of the skeptical historical revisionism...

[a_unique_person]

I view Jews no differently to any other race. That is, I just take them as they come. The fact that people do not have the normal 'tribal' markings that I can easily identify with, does not mean that simple human contact cannot ease instinctive fears.

If your family had decided to come to Australia when you were young, you would have found that there was significant suspicion of Greeks and Jews and Italians and anyone else with a tinted complexion. This was because there was the infamous 'White Australia' policy in effect for many years.

As an Australian politician famously observed once, "two Wongs don't make a White".

We Australians were equally prejudiced against everyone. Before that, the Catholics and Prodestants were at it.

I found the sight of women now walking around the shopping centre in Burkas disconcerting, (fortunately, they did not have their eyes covered), about as disconcerting as fundamentalist Jews with the mandatory thick glasses and locks of hair hanging down, or punks with pierced everything. (I think they must have misunderstood the bible. When it says "Don't cut the hair above the temple", it really meant "Don't cut the hair higher than the temple", rather than, don't walk around with a strange hair cut.

That is, I do feel wary of human culture when it appears to produce behaviour that I think just doesn't make sense. As an ex Catholic, I know what it means to be subject to a religion that trys to control your life, not just guide it. While I am willing to tolerate religion, I do not approve of it, or condone the extremes.

However, personal contact usually sorts things out pretty quickly. Someone is either a decent human being or they aren't, and most people are. If there is one article of faith I try to hang on to, it is that. I don't believe it is affected by race or nationality.

[a_unique_person]

Cleopatra

If you look further down on the list of your Yahoo search you find.

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20021227202712388



Occupation Soldiers Force Child to Act Like Suicide Bomber for the Camera

Friday, December 27 2002 @ 08:27 PM EST

"They started beating him up brutally, despite his pleas and attempts to explain to them that he has an American passport with the number '701372809' .."

By Romal al-Sweiti

NABLUS, West Bank - Occupation soldiers in Nablus City yesterday committed a racist crime against a child, who carries US nationality, forcing him to sit on the floor and to tie a head band that carries the sign of 'Al-Aqsa Brigades' (Fateh militant faction) and then taking pictures of him.

The mother of the child Ahmad Abdel Haq (14 years old) from the Al-Jabal Al-Shamali area in Nablus said that occupation soldiers raided their home after blowing up the front door when her son was alone at home.

She said that the occupiers started destroying the house and all their belongings before discovering the child Ahmad. They then started beating him up brutally, despite his pleas and attempts to explain to them that he has an American passport with the number '701372809' and that he was born in California, USA.

She said that one of the occupation captains forced her son to sit down and placed behind him a Palestinian flag and 2 M-16 machineguns as well as a number of hand grenades and a gun on the table in front of him and then gave him a piece of paper and another M-16 machinegun and forced him to read a suicide bomber's will. After this was finished, he was forced to act as if he was praying on the floor.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I am an Israeli and I condemn them energetically.I found you sources that proved that I wasn't libelling anybody and you didn't admit that you were wrong, why?

What do I win Unique. I can't even earn some people's respect here and you know why?


I think you win your self respect.

[Cleopatra]

Unique I think that you misunderstood me. You didn't need to apologize, you have the right to be prejudiced.

This feeling you have that prevents you from admitting your mistakes is called <strike>racism</strike> snobbery. And if you don't want to call it <strike>racism</strike> snobbery, you can call it Maria if you wish.

If you really are interested in getting over it you have to call it something because this is the only way to admit its existence.

You will never respect my intelligence Unique because I am an Israeli, that's why you never apologize for the false accusation you attribute to me when you are proven wrong and that's why you never admit your mistakes.

This is not the end of the world of course.

[a_unique_person]

I don't underestimate your intelligence or disrepect it at all. If you want to see an example of my doing so, read my replies to Rick. He would be a white male, at a guess, but I have almost no respect for him at all, certainly much less than for you.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
How can you suggest such things,Unique?

Let me tell you a story that may answer this for you:

A long time ago I worked the night shift as a security guard at a factory. One night I was working with a new guy I'd never met before.

Everything is quiet until this Asian guy comes to work, and this new guy starts saying some really hateful things. "That gook! That f**king gook! If it were just me and him right now, I'd kill him. I'd put my hands around his neck and I'd kill him."

I was pretty shocked. I asked him, "What do you hate him for?"

I forget exactly what he said. Something about his Dad and Vietnam.

Hours later I see the Asian guy in the parking lot and the new guy walking over to him. I rush over thinking I'll have to prevent a murder, but when I get close I find the two talking in a friendly way, smiling. The new guy asked the Asian about his motorcycle, and they're talking about it.

When the Asian goes back to work, I ask the new guy, "What was that about? I thought you hated him."

He said, "I do, but I'm not going to let him know that."

What’s my point?

Racists don’t act racist. They’re not stupid, they know what is and isn’t acceptable. They don’t walk around saying words like gook, kike or ni**er. They speak those words at home, or in “safe” company.

They talk to the people they hate and act friendly. They know their hate is unacceptable so they hide it. Later on they can even claim they have “friends” among the people they hate, but they’re not friends.

Then you have some racists who speak their hatred, but they’re very careful about it. They make up euphemisms such as, “I’m not anti-Semitic, I’m anti-Zionist.” They talk about their racist feelings, but they hide it as “political discussion” or “social concern” and hope that nobody notices that the only political or social issues they want to discuss revolve around the race that they hate. They buy polemic books that support their racism and discuss them under the guise of “free expression.” If the book doesn’t support their racism, then they only read the reviews and memorize the ones that are critical.

If you ask them, they will explain that they are not racist. They will probably have a very long explanation of why they are not racist.

[a_unique_person]

Interesting story. Now what has it got to do with me?

[Cleopatra]

You either respect somebody or you don't , you cannot compare the respect for people. Respect is like love. You either feel it or you don't. Simple things.

You accused me for something serious, when I replied using Hamas as an example you didn't believe me. I provided you a couple of sources avoiding Israeli ones.

I wasn't posting libels, you didn't take it back so I presume that you still think that I resort to false accusations.

Some kind of respect!

But I repeat, it's not the end of the world.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Interesting story. Now what has it got to do with me?

There are a lot of things you don't get on purpose. This is just one more.

Don't worry about it.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I hear many Jews are trained from birth to use blood from children as part of their rituals. There are plenty of links on the internet to prove this.

You have those sites bookmarked?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I am not going to let the bald assertion that all Palestinians are blood thirsty savages be used. It is a ridiculous idea. Just as ridiculous as the Protocols. You get upset at what you say are libels against the Jewish people, but do not object to libels against the Palestinians.

No, just the murderers. It just happens that there are a lot of them, and they happen to be the leaders.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have no doubt that that there are savages in all societies. I have also read of people being saddened when they have found out their child has been a suicide bomber.

No! You havn't been reading! They're happy! It's like their wedding day!

[Cleopatra]

Mycroft

I was urging Renata one day in private to think at least 10 times before getting married to a non-Jew. Who? Me that I am an offspring of families that did nothing but mixed marriages.

My parents created us problems. This is the reason why I mentioned once that I would never, ever get married to an Arab.

I have made the mistake to underestimate <strike>racism</strike> snobbery and I have paid a very high price for that.

People can't get over it. However mild you might be (for example as an Israeli I cannot be totally unbiased of course), however hard you try to see both sides of the issue people don't care. They can't get over the fact that you are an Israeli. They rather make fool of themselves than admitting to an Israeli that they have been wrong regarding this issue.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You either respect somebody or you don't , you cannot compare the respect for people. Respect is like love. You either feel it or you don't. Simple things.

You accused me for something serious, when I replied using Hamas as an example you didn't believe me. I provided you a couple of sources avoiding Israeli ones.

I wasn't posting libels, you didn't take it back so I presume that you still think that I resort to false accusations.

Some kind of respect!

But I repeat, it's not the end of the world.

OK, I respect you, and I don't respect Rik. Rik is a WAS, you are not.

From what I have read, many children attack the IDF with no prompting at all from their parents. They have grown up under an army of occupation, and like all young boys, when they start to mature, believe they are invincible and can kill the enemy, even when they do not have a chance. For example, the many examples of children throwing rocks at tanks.

You have made the assumption that because there are children throwing rocks at tanks, that they are encouraged to do so by their parents. I do not think that has been demonstrated.

As I showed in the Yahoo search, further down the page, a parent is claiming her child was set up to demonstrate the use of child warriors.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


You have those sites bookmarked?

I read them to my children at night time for bed time stories.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


There are a lot of things you don't get on purpose. This is just one more.

Don't worry about it.

It would only have something to do with me if I was like that person in the story. But I am not like that person in the story. So, once again, I have to ask, what does it have to do with me?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

My parents created us problems. This is the reason why I mentioned once that I would never, ever get married to an Arab.

I have made the mistake to underestimate <strike>racism</strike> snobbery and I have paid a very high price for that.


Can you clarify this? Because it looks like on the one hand that you are saying, that by possibly loving an Arab, you are 'underestimating <strike>racism</strike> snobbery', while being a racist yourself. I assume I've misunderstood.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Mycroft

I was urging Renata one day in private to think at least 10 times before getting married to a non-Jew. Who? Me that I am an offspring of families that did nothing but mixed marriages.

My parents created us problems. This is the reason why I mentioned once that I would never, ever get married to an Arab.

I have made the mistake to underestimate <strike>racism</strike> snobbery and I have paid a very high price for that.

People can't get over it. However mild you might be (for example as an Israeli I cannot be totally unbiased of course), however hard you try to see both sides of the issue people don't care. They can't get over the fact that you are an Israeli. They rather make fool of themselves than admitting to an Israeli that they have been wrong regarding this issue.

Inter racial marriages are always a problem. I worked with a woman who's parents were a Croatian and a Serb. They ended up moving to Australia. It was a smart move, I think. When the war came, they were safe.

As to the wisdom of mixed marriages, they do often produce trouble, but also children that are more worldly wise than most. I think of yourself and Edward Said for two quick examples.

[Cleopatra]

Unique do you intend to apologize for calling me a liar?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Can you clarify this? Because it looks like on the one hand that you are saying, that by possibly loving an Arab, you are 'underestimating <strike>racism</strike> snobbery', while being a racist yourself. I assume I've misunderstood.

You have misunderstood. Read again what I wrote.

[Cleopatra]

What really bothers me when it comes to discussing this issue is that there are very few times, the fingers of my hand are enough to count them, that I don't feel that I am participating in a ridiculous situation.


Is there a way to debate prejudice without feeling an idiot apart from not discussing this matter, I mean.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Unique do you intend to apologize for calling me a liar?

I aplogize if you had that impression, or if I gave that impression. I debate you because we have our differences of opinion, but not because I do not believe you are sincere in your view. In scanning back throught the posts, I think that some confusion has arisen from the many cross conversation posts that have bene made.

[Cleopatra]

Calling somebody a liar is not a debating method, I don't post libels and I don't post lies.

The issue is closed because I never really expect you to admit that you have been wrong in anything.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

They are just as justified in committing atrocities as the Israelis. In a conflict like this, everyone is a loser.

So...by that logic, if the Israelis were to go all out and kill several million Palestinian-Arabs, it's all the same? Moral equivelancy on both sides?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
But you will never condemn Israeli atrocities. Why are they beyond criticism?

For starters, it’s not so easy to find an actual Israeli atrocity that isn’t exaggerated or a natural result of self-defense or just flat out made up. The ones that are left pale in comparison to the actions of the Palestinian-terrorists or just the routine day to day business of the neighboring Arabic states. Check out this site for illustration:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/996355/posts

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Let's see, who was it funding Hamas and helping get it started? Oh, that's right, it was Israel.

Dumb thing to do, wasn’t it?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That's right, all the children killed had a terrorist hiding behind them when. Somehow, I don't believe it. Sarcasm noticed. It was only death of some Arabs after all.

Did you know that 95% of all Palestinian-Arabs killed in the past three years have been boys between the ages of 14 and 24? Do you know why? That’s the demographic of a suicide-terrorist. You want us to think that Israeli military action is arbitrary and random, but it’s not.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am an Israeli and I condemn them energetically.I found you sources that proved that I wasn't libelling anybody and you didn't admit that you were wrong, why?

Why should you condemn them to him? He doesn’t love Israel. Save it for people who care.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
What do I win Unique. I can't even earn some people's respect here and you know why?
Because most of you despise the race and you can't get over these sentiments. Of course you don't want Jews dead but you wish there was a way.
You’re very generous, but I wouldn’t be so sure about that. He doesn’t say he wants Jews dead, but he sure does support the ones who kill Jews.

Sometimes when you spend a lot of time talking to racists, you start to think that everybody is a racist, that their views represent normal thought. It’s good to take a break sometimes and remind yourself that most people are rational.

Originally posted by a_unique_person

You have made the assumption that because there are children throwing rocks at tanks, that they are encouraged to do so by their parents. I do not think that has been demonstrated.



How about when the Palestinian Authority lets school out early so the kids can join in demonstrations?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I read them to my children at night time for bed time stories.

Family tradition? Just like Pop did for you?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It would only have something to do with me if I was like that person in the story. But I am not like that person in the story. So, once again, I have to ask, what does it have to do with me?

It was commentary addressed to Cleopatra. Its meaning should have been clear, but if it’s not, don’t worry about it.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I was urging Renata one day in private to think at least 10 times before getting married to a non-Jew. Who? Me that I am an offspring of families that did nothing but mixed marriages.

Great advice, I hope she listened.

When we’re young, we assume marriage is just about being with the person you love. That’s just not true, it’s much more than that. It’s making a decision that will control the rest of your life. Everything should be considered. Personal habits, financial goals, religion, attitudes on child rearing…the list is endless.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
My parents created us problems. This is the reason why I mentioned once that I would never, ever get married to an Arab.

If you ever change your mind on that, come to the United States. I have some Arabic cousins I could introduce you to, they’re really nice. ;)

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I have made the mistake to underestimate <strike>racism</strike> snobbery and I have paid a very high price for that.

I’m sorry to hear that. It sounds like a hurtful experience for you.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
People can't get over it. However mild you might be (for example as an Israeli I cannot be totally unbiased of course), however hard you try to see both sides of the issue people don't care. They can't get over the fact that you are an Israeli. They rather make fool of themselves than admitting to an Israeli that they have been wrong regarding this issue.

Why should you be unbiased? Bias is a natural result of education. You learn stuff, you form opinions about it. I worked really hard to form my biases. Trying to be unbiased is like denying what you know and pretending there is something you don’t know that would negate what you do know.

Try instead to be open-minded. You know what you know, your opinions and biases are based on what you’ve learned and experienced, yet at the same time you’re still open to learn more and understand the other person’s point of view.

But be biased. And be proud of your bias.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Its meaning should have been clear, but if it’s not, don’t worry about it. The meaning I got from it was that you will feel perfectly happy to imply that anyone you disagree with on the subject of Israel is an anti-semite. If they say anti-semitic things, they're an anti-semite, obviously. But, and here's the clever part, if they don't say anything about Jews, they're also an anti-semite!

If you want to accuse AUP of being an anti-semite, come out and say it and present your evidence. Put up or shut up. You aren't Rabbi Lionel Blue, such that we need to hear homilies and fables on the subject.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Mycroft
I was urging Renata one day in private to think at least 10 times before getting married to a non-Jew.
On the other hand, my mum married a non-Jew, and both my parents seem to still be getting on A-OK. Does my anti-anecdote collide with yours and annihilate it in a burst of energy?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by JamesM
The meaning I got from it was that you will feel perfectly happy to imply that anyone you disagree with on the subject of Israel is an anti-semite.

That's not at all what I said, but it's interesting that that's what you got from it.

Originally posted by JamesM
If they say anti-semitic things, they're an anti-semite, obviously. But, and here's the clever part, if they don't say anything about Jews, they're also an anti-semite!

If you want to accuse AUP of being an anti-semite, come out and say it and present your evidence. Put up or shut up. You aren't Rabbi Lionel Blue, such that we need to hear homilies and fables on the subject.

I don't know who Rabbi Lionel Blue is, but homilies and fables are a great way to get a point across and encourage thinking. That's why Rabbis use them.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Mycroft
That's not at all what I said, but it's interesting that that's what you got from it.
What did you mean, then?

I don't know who Rabbi Lionel Blue is, but homilies and fables are a great way to get a point across and encourage thinking. That's why Rabbis use them.
We're not at yeshivah or cheder. Why not just come out and say what you mean?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by JamesM

On the other hand, my mum married a non-Jew, and both my parents seem to still be getting on A-OK. Does my anti-anecdote collide with yours and annihilate it in a burst of energy?

I don't understand what you mean could you please explain it?

BTW In my family James each one kept his religion none converted.What about yours?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JamesM

On the other hand, my mum married a non-Jew, and both my parents seem to still be getting on A-OK. Does my anti-anecdote collide with yours and annihilate it in a burst of energy?

[Cleopatra]

As for AUP I have said many times that his bias should amaze even himself!!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Great advice, I hope she listened.

Renata has given me some pretty good advices herself, like avoiding these discussion. Unfortunately I don't listen to her.

But be biased. And be proud of your bias.

I disagree because bias lead us nowhere. I try not to be but I think that at the end it's impossible, at least if you try you have the opportunity to come closer to the other side something that is important in a War.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I don't understand what you mean could you please explain it?
I mean it's all very well advising someone to think very carefully about marrying a non-Jew, because in your experience it causes problems, but in my parents' experience, it hasn't.

Also, there is an implication that mixed marriages are always going to cause trouble. And why? Because goyim are intrinsically <strike>anti-semitic</strike> snobbish. Given the thread that this observation was made in, how is any non-Jew supposed to be able to take part in a rational debate on this subject if you've already implied that their views are tainted by anti-semitism?

BTW In my family James each one kept his religion none converted.What about yours?
My dad converted, but they're Reform, so not to a sufficiently frum standard. I'm sure that's considered to be heathen by many.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Renata has given me some pretty good advices herself, like avoiding these discussion. Unfortunately I don't listen to her.



Renata was quite happy to have these discussions when no-one challenged her. One of the things I do admire about you is that you do have these discussions.



I disagree because bias lead us nowhere. I try not to be but I think that at the end it's impossible, at least if you try you have the opportunity to come closer to the other side something that is important in a War.

Everyone has their own bias. It is unavoidable. We just have to work from that assumption.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Calling somebody a liar is not a debating method, I don't post libels and I don't post lies.

The issue is closed because I never really expect you to admit that you have been wrong in anything.

I have never, to my knowledge, called you a liar. Now, if you want me to admit to doing something wrong, you will have to join the queue.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by JamesM

I mean it's all very well advising someone to think very carefully about marrying a non-Jew, because in your experience it causes problems, but in my parents' experience, it hasn't.

My parents have no problem but yes they caused problems to us.If I ever have children I am not going to put them in that crazy position.

You can't compare the cases because your father converted.My mum didn't, of course she has agreed never to talk about her religion and that her children are baptised Christians.

Also, there is an implication that mixed marriages are always going to cause trouble. And why? Because goyim are intrinsically <strike>anti-semitic</strike> snobbish. Given the thread that this observation was made in, how is any non-Jew supposed to be able to take part in a rational debate on this subject if you've already implied that their views are tainted by anti-semitism?

Well, if they didn't cause trouble people wouldn't have to convert, don't you agree?

I think that my hundreds of posts in this forum prove that I do not think that every one is antisemite by default.

Those who have difficulties in accepting their mistakes( Unique) or those that they dare to suggest that antisemitism in the 19th ce was just snobbery( Capel Dodger) although they are not antisemites they are strongly biased if you don't want to call them biased, call them something else but you have to call them something.

There must be a description for what they are doing!!

Unique in this very thread dismissed my arguments just because he thought that if I suggest something against the Palestinians this is automatically a lie although he knows me from my posts.

Of course it's not only Unique that has such an attitude. I see it every day.

You have said it once yourself when Capel Dodger asked you if you think that it's time to let the fear and the past aside: Jew addressing a Goy regarding prejudices: " You first".

But don't expect this to happen, if people that have studied believe such things don't expect anything. Whatever you do, however succesful you might become there will be always "that".


My dad converted, but they're Reform, so not to a sufficiently frum standard. I'm sure that's considered to be heathen by many.

Your dad did well I 'd do the same if I were in his shoes, I hope that my children won't have to do it but I am not very optimistic.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Renata was quite happy to have these discussions when no-one challenged her. One of the things I do admire about you is that you do have these discussions.

No. This is not the reason why Renata stopped posting about this subject it's because you don't make honest discussions and she can't take it. I can discuss with you because I am trained to discuss about anything with anybody.

Everyone has their own bias. It is unavoidable. We just have to work from that assumption.

I agree but I believe that bias can be understood only under certain circumstances. Are you in the same position with me? Why do you have to be biased against Israel? It's stupid. Can you imagine me getting furious against Australia as if this country is my personal enemy?

Sometimes I wonder if you realize how much hatred your posts are dripping ( not all of them of course).

[gnome]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I read them to my children at night time for bed time stories.

How about reading them the truth instead?

http://www.snopes.com/religion/blood.htm

The allegation of blood libel was common in the Middle Ages when Jews were accused of "ritual murder" in their celebration of the Passover. During the feast, which commemorates Israel's escape from Egypt, a family puts the blood of a lamb on the doorpost of its home, but Jews were accused of using the blood of Christian children. The Catholic Church has since condemned the unfounded allegation.


The editor, Turki al Sudairy, said he was upset to discover that while he was in Lebanon, his paper ran a two-part series by a professor that vilified Jews and the holiday of Purim — and embellished a tale dismissed long ago as the product of deeply anti-Semitic thinking.

"I went back to the article and found it unfit for publishing because it is not based on any historical or scientific fact but in fact is against every religious ritual in the world, including Buddhism and Hinduism," Sudairy wrote in a column that appeared Tuesday, adding that the article's "credibility is nil."

Although Sudairy said the article had slipped through the cracks and never should have been published, the fact that it appeared over a two-day period reflects the willingness of governments in this region to use the media as a safety valve for the deep animosity their people feel toward Israel and Jews.

Al Riyadh is a privately owned paper, but there is censorship in Saudi Arabia, and there was no effort to block publication of the article.

Next you'll whip out the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, no doubt.

I try to listen to you, AUP, but I am beginning to believe that you may be as anti-Semitic as others say you are.

This does not help your credibility one bit.

[JamesM]

He was being sarcastic.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JamesM
He was being sarcastic.

Thank you James. All I am trying to do is outdo the absurdities I am hearing in this thread.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I don't underestimate your intelligence or disrepect it at all. If you want to see an example of my doing so, read my replies to Rick. He would be a white male, at a guess, but I have almost no respect for him at all, certainly much less than for you.

AUP,

That an apologist for terrorism, and a "one-foot-out-of-the-closet" anti-semite has no respect for me is a validation that I would cherish, if I cared enough about his opinion of me that is.

You, AUP, are a bit like a cartoon character. Colorful, yet one-dimensional, and as such tediously predictable.

I don't hate you AUP...or even disrespect you. I merely feel nothing for you at all.

But, you are a fellow human being, and as such I hope that you will live a happy and peaceful life. I also hope that you will someday find the ability to transcend your own biases, and come to have some respect for the differing perspectives of others.

-z

[a_unique_person]

The only form of racism that exists for you, Rik, is anti-semitism. Arabs and Gypsies are fair game, aand relics from the stone age. Your ignorance is astounding.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The only form of racism that exists for you, Rik, is anti-semitism. Arabs and Gypsies are fair game, aand relics from the stone age. Your ignorance is astounding.

LOL!

AUP,

You have made fun of folks who took your "Jews sacrifice babies" comment seriously...yet you took my obvious joke about "pikeys and gypsies" just as seriously!

What's good for the Goose is.... well, you know the rest AUP!
:D

Your transparent efforts to demonize your opponents whilst never acknowledging your own bias or error is what is truly astounding! Indeed, you are A_UNIQUE_PERSON!!

:i:

-z

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


No. This is not the reason why Renata stopped posting about this subject it's because you don't make honest discussions and she can't take it. I can discuss with you because I am trained to discuss about anything with anybody.



I must apologize to Renata again, but I think I have already said that I was amazed when, after spending hours debating with Ben Shniper on this topic, Renata replied to a question from Rick about Palestine with some simplistic links to some propaganda sites.

Ben, when I was having a disagreement with him about some point, once asked if we could use an independent third party to resolve it. The person he suggested as Rikzilla. Looking back, I find that amazing. Rik thinks nothing of damming all Arabs and Gypsies as all being retarded throwbacks to the stone age.



I agree but I believe that bias can be understood only under certain circumstances. Are you in the same position with me? Why do you have to be biased against Israel? It's stupid. Can you imagine me getting furious against Australia as if this country is my personal enemy?

Sometimes I wonder if you realize how much hatred your posts are dripping ( not all of them of course).

The hatred that is dripping from my posts is not directed at those mentioned in the posts, but at those I am ridiculing. Namely, the extremists on this board. Certainly not you. I apologize if you feel you are getting caught in the crossfire.

As for Israel. There are several reasons why I dwell on it. I will restate them

1) Israel is at the centre of one of the major conflicts of this new century, and it has been going for a half century already. The side effects of this conflict reverberate around the whole world.
2) I do not like to see a whole group of people damned so quickly and easily, which is what happens to Palestinians on this board. I have no doubt I could walk around Israel and find people I would like, trust and respect. Ditto Palestine.
3) I expect more from Israel. It is the power broker in this dispute, and makes claims to being a democracy. Let us see it uphold the principles it claims to hold.
4) My whole interest in this topic on this board was sparked by the open condemnation of Palestinians that was apparent when I first signed up. If it had been the other way, I would have been taking the side of Israel.
5) I am a problem solver by profession. This is one problem that I am still trying to resolve and understand.
6) If I really was such a simple anti-semite, I would not engage you in debate. I do apologize for my often tactless methods of arguing. I was born that way. Perhaps that is why I work in the computing area rather than advertising or events promotion. Usually, all I am trying to do is take the arguments being used to attack Palestinians and use them against Jews to show how absurd they are. The amazing thing is how often people take them as being my beliefs and not reflect on how intentionally absurd they are.

For example, as if I would actually tell my children about the blood libel. One of my sons was at school one day. A student put an elastic band on his head, so that it looked a bit like he a yamulka (sp?) on his head, and proceeded to make fun of Jews who wear these. My son told this boy it is not polite to make fun of people like this. I was very proud of my son. I have not ever tried to make him a self righteous prick like I was brought up to be in the Catholic school system, but he had a sense of what was right and wrong, and that racism was wrong. I felt I must be doing something right.

So now what do I find, Ben has gone, Mycroft has turned up, and he is still locked into that common failing of the religious, that of being the stuck up, pompous prat. At least James has some sense. If I interpret him correctly, his parents are part of a humanist branch of the Jewish faith. He is able to look at things a broadmindedly and openly. He appears to be able to read my intent, rather than just react like an automaton.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Interesting story. Now what has it got to do with me?

Guess.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Renata has given me some pretty good advices herself, like avoiding these discussion. Unfortunately I don't listen to her.

And there is wisdom in that. It's very rare to argue with an anti-Semite and convince them of their error, so in that sense the discussion is pointless. The very discussion itself risks granting the anti-Semitic views a legitimacy they don't deserve.

At the same time, I also think it’s important that certain views don’t go unopposed. If someone speaks a lie, it’s important to correct it with the truth so that the lie does not spread. You still don’t convince the speaker of the lie, but at least you make it less likely that the lie will be believed.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I disagree because bias lead us nowhere. I try not to be but I think that at the end it's impossible, at least if you try you have the opportunity to come closer to the other side something that is important in a War.

There is an important difference between learning about an issue and forming an opinion, and starting with a prejudice and finding information to support it. The end result may look the same, bias, but it’s not the same at all.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Guess.

I don't know, maybe if we play charades. Is it bigger than a bread basket?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by JamesM
I mean it's all very well advising someone to think very carefully about marrying a non-Jew, because in your experience it causes problems, but in my parents' experience, it hasn't.

Inter-faith inter-cultural marriages have issues that other marriages don’t. This isn’t the same as saying they can’t work or that they always have problems, just that it’s common sense to give them extra thought before jumping into them. This isn’t a Jew-gentile issue, it applies to anyone considering a marriage with someone of another faith or culture.

Originally posted by JamesM
Also, there is an implication that mixed marriages are always going to cause trouble. And why? Because goyim are intrinsically <strike>anti-semitic</strike> snobbish. Given the thread that this observation was made in, how is any non-Jew supposed to be able to take part in a rational debate on this subject if you've already implied that their views are tainted by anti-semitism?

Goyim are not intrinsically anti-Semitic, at least in the United States. The true anti-Semite is the exception rather than the rule.

The problems associated with inter-faith marriages have nothing to do with racism (unless one lives in a racist society, in which case it can be a big problem) but with the simple truth that marriage is a bigger decision than many people think, with consequences that effect the rest of your life. Marriage isn’t just making a decision to be with the one you love, it’s making a decision on what kind of life you will lead. Many young people don’t see that.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Thank you James. All I am trying to do is outdo the absurdities I am hearing in this thread.


Is that what you were doing? I thought you were using a diversionary tactic to avoid acknowledging information that doesn’t fit with your prejudices.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have never, to my knowledge, called you a liar. Now, if you want me to admit to doing something wrong, you will have to join the queue.

No, you didn’t come out and say she was a liar, but she got that impression because you refuse to acknowledge information she provided to the discussion.

You point out that more Palestinian-Arab children die than Israeli children. When it’s pointed out to you that the reason for this is that the Palestinian-Arabs involve their children in the fighting, you close your eyes and cover your ears. It’s very well documented, but you don’t want to hear it because it doesn’t place blame on the Israelis.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Is that what you were doing? I thought you were using a diversionary tactic to avoid acknowledging information that doesn’t fit with your prejudices.



you thought wrong



No, you didn’t come out and say she was a liar, but she got that impression because you refuse to acknowledge information she provided to the discussion.



I usually try to provide a quote from a link, it is much easier than having to look at each of them. However, I did get around to reading them later. As I pointed out, one link on the same yahoo search page had a story from a woman claiming her son had been set up as a child warrior. Also, children attacking an occupying military force does not mean the parents condone this act. I am a parent, once your children get to a certain age, you cannot guarantee their behaviour once they go out the front door.



You point out that more Palestinian-Arab children die than Israeli children. When it’s pointed out to you that the reason for this is that the Palestinian-Arabs involve their children in the fighting, you close your eyes and cover your ears. It’s very well documented, but you don’t want to hear it because it doesn’t place blame on the Israelis.

You claim that. I find it just as hard to believe as your claim that the land of Palestine was empty till the Jews turned up. Already you have had to backtrack on your figures.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


If I really was such a simple anti-semite, I would not engage you in debate. I do apologize for my often tactless methods of arguing. I was born that way. Perhaps that is why I work in the computing area rather than advertising or events promotion. Usually, all I am trying to do is take the arguments being used to attack Palestinians and use them against Jews to show how absurd they are. The amazing thing is how often people take them as being my beliefs and not reflect on how intentionally absurd they are.



Okay, so anti-semites don't engage in debate. Interesting, I guess the IHR is just a group of serious scholars after all!?

Anyway, let's use your way of "take(ing) the arguments being used to attack Palestinians and use them against Jews to show how absurd they are. " ...and see how it works.

Sample argument being used to attack Palestinians:

Palestinians should stop teaching their children that blowing up innocent people on Israel's buses will make them a holy martyr.

AUP's counter-argument using his brilliant strategy of debate:

Israelis should stop teaching their children that blowing up innocent people on Palestinian buses will make them a holy martyr.


Eloquent ain't it? AUP proves once again why he is king of "argument from intentional absurdity".

Gee, if Carl was still alive I bet he'd have even named the resultant logical fallacy after you.

CARL SAGAN'S[i] REVISED BALONEY DETECTION KIT


Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argument from intentional absurdity - Also known as being AUP'd. - see also: non sequitur
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"


:usa:

[gnome]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Thank you James. All I am trying to do is outdo the absurdities I am hearing in this thread.

Well, heck. Curse text for not carrying tone... you're off the hook AUP. For now :)

[Chaos]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Okay, so anti-semites don't engage in debate. Interesting, I guess the IHR is just a group of serious scholars after all!?

Anyway, let's use your way of [i]"take(ing) the arguments being used to attack Palestinians and use them against Jews to show how absurd they are. " ...and see how it works.

Sample argument being used to attack Palestinians:

Palestinians should stop teaching their children that blowing up innocent people on Israel's buses will make them a holy martyr.

AUP's counter-argument using his brilliant strategy of debate:

Israelis should stop teaching their children that blowing up innocent people on Palestinian buses will make them a holy martyr.


Eloquent ain't it? AUP proves once again why he is king of "argument from intentional absurdity".

Gee, if Carl was still alive I bet he'd have even named the resultant logical fallacy after you.




:usa:


Going by the list you supplied, your "argument" is a strawman if there has ever been one. Maybe we should call the strawman the "rikzillaman" from now on.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Chaos



Going by the list you supplied, your "argument" is a strawman if there has ever been one. Maybe we should call the strawman the "rikzillaman" from now on.

True....But Not true!

I was just being "intentionally absurd"...per AUP's rule you must now disregard my fallacious argument, and re-examine yourself to figure out where your funny-bone went!!

See how it works!? AUP is a friggin' genious!
:wink8:

[renata]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I must apologize to Renata again, but I think I have already said that I was amazed when, after spending hours debating with Ben Shniper on this topic, Renata replied to a question from Rick about Palestine with some simplistic links to some propaganda sites.


Why, or why did I stop these discussions....This is why, AUP. This is not the first time you bring this sin of mine up. And this is not the first time I have to remind you, by posting the thread
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6459&highlight=Myth%2A what really happened
Rikzilla opened a thread asking for assistance in debunking an anti Israeli propaganda site, I gave him a link to a site that did exactly that. The horror of satisfying a request on a message board! Obviously I am not responsible for every piece of information on that site, but AUP jumped on me for not providing more information. AUP, of course, did not provide any information whatsoever, but did criticize me, and that episode scarred him so that he continues to recount it, erroneously. I continue to correct his recollection, but that does not stop him from bringing it up again.

That is kind of like how our debate about Israel went, for months, AUP. It was pointless to debunk with information, AUP, because you would either google something new and awful, or repeat the same debunked assertions. Or, when new information came through, you just blinked over it. This is why I no longer participate in the threads here about Israel and Anti-Semitism- everything has been said a thousand times, and I got tired of hearing the same old recycled and refuted arguments. But I admit the tactic of trying to draw me in by crying chicken is amusing, AUP.

[rikzilla]

Thanks for the reminder Renata. I had forgotten all about that.

I was only trying to get both sides of a story. AUP, I guess, was upset that I didn't look for confirming webpages??

Sorry man, confirmation bias is something I actively try to avoid.

The PA propaganda was couched in the terms of the rationalist and skeptic...it was no more a de-bunking/skeptical site than creationism is a "science".

-z

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Also, children attacking an occupying military force does not mean the parents condone this act. I am a parent, once your children get to a certain age, you cannot guarantee their behaviour once they go out the front door.

So you’re suggesting it’s youthful rebellion against parental authority?

Maybe some of it is. The question is how much? If we give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that all of it is youthful rebellion against parental authority, then you still have the cultural influences that shape the rebellion in this way. The honoring of martyrs, etc.

And it doesn’t change anything anyway. The point that more Palestinian-Arab children die than Israeli children is still due to the fact that the Palestinian-Arab children are involved in the fighting.