posted on October 2, 2001 10:25:10 AMdeliteful: It is NOT my theory that our bombings in WW II against Japan were acts of terrorism. It is my theory that they probably would have been SEEN as such had we lost the war. Personally, I think we were fully justified in our actions, and that those bombings probably ended up saving many more lives by shortening the conflict. My point, though, is that there are people in other countries who feel that the terrorists' actions of September 11th were just as justified and necessary. WE may be appalled and think that they were the acts of madmen, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. After all, I'm sure the Japanese didn't think too highly of our state of mind after we dropped the bombs.
If we treat the enemy as insane, unreasonable madmen, we have no chance of winning this conflict. The only option available would be to essentially nuke the entire Arabic world until it glows, and then shoot the survivors in the dark, and that just isn't going to happen. Instead, we have to understand the reasons for what happened and take action to prevent it from happening again. What that "action" ends up being I don't know. A combination of targeted military strikes, economic sanctions, coalition bulding with other governments, and yes, changing some aspects of our foreign policy, perhaps. But none of that stands a chance of suceeding if we continue to paint the enemy as irrational, unreasonable madmen.
I'm sorry if your misinterpretation of my words has made you ill. Again, though, if you would like to ask questions as to certain aspects of what I think about things, feel free to do so. But please do not presume to think you know me or how I feel about anything. Thank you for, hopefully in the future, allowing me to have my own thoughts and my own opinions and the opportunity to speak those thoughts and opinions for myself.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Oct 2, 2001 10:30 AM ]
posted on October 2, 2001 10:38:38 AM
Donny, feel free to prattle all you want about your "poor terrorized palestinians". I'm not interested in your links. It's pretty clear that we don't see eye to eye about Israel. Unfortunately, you don't seem to be able to see beyond your bias in trying to rationalize the deaths of 7000 of your fellow Americans as simply "tit for tat". Continue wearing your hair shirt and beating your chest about the "injustices" that were the "root" of this calamity brought down upon our heads.
posted on October 2, 2001 10:40:59 AM
Since September 11 I've seen and heard many people comparing the attacks to some previous event. I remember listening to a sports talk radio host talking about when baseball and football would resume. He was saying that it would be soon because "things like this tend to fade."
What stuck me the most about that comment (and similar comments I've heard) were the words "things like this." Things like what? I wanted to say. In my opinion, the attacks aren't easily lumped into phrasing like "terrosit acts" or similar labels. These terrorists (or whatever they are or were) not only used airplanes and jet fuel but also innocent citizens as their instrument of death. Thats the part that stays with me. Please don't misunderstand, my deepest sympathies go out to all victims of this attack but I keep thinking about the people on the planes, forced to deliver the death blows to other innocent civilians.
So I guess I brislte when I hear people refer the attacks as "these type of things." This kind of attack, while boiled down to its bare roots can be called terrorist, seem to me to be unprecedented.
Lastly, I don't agree with any of the wartime comparisions that have been made. I thought the Pearl Harbor analogies were weak and I don't see any relevent corrolation to these events and Hiroshima. Innocent people dying is nothing new to world history, even innocent americans.
posted on October 2, 2001 10:45:52 AM
Your understanding of history and foreign affairs seems to be limited to little more than a "No it isn't!" (with attendant bolding and caps) response, KatyD. Does that make me feel better? No, I just shrug.
posted on October 2, 2001 10:47:08 AMfiset: I don't see any relevent corrolation to these events and Hiroshima. Innocent people dying is nothing new to world history, even innocent americans
Your second sentence answers your first one. The correlation between the two events is the fact that innocent people died in both.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 2, 2001 10:51:36 AM
Well of course it's our fault - If we hadn't built skyscrapers they couldn't have attacked any; If we didn't have 757's they couldn't have hijacked any.
How dare we live as we do when some think that we should live as their holy men did over a millenium ago? How dare we have a free, open, and rich society instead of rule by self appointed clergy who'll reserve wealth for themselves and tell us what god wants?
posted on October 2, 2001 10:56:02 AMYour understanding of history and foreign affairs seems to be limited to little more than a "No it isn't!" (with attendant bolding and caps
No, Donny. It's just that I have little use for links that show a biased view of the opinion disguised as fact.(Bolding for your benefit, Donny.)
And when the next attack comes, I have no doubt that you will just shrug again. How nice for you.
As Toke said yesterday, I am SO out of here. Have fun.
posted on October 2, 2001 11:36:55 AM
But you didn't read the links I'd posted, KatyD, so how can you proclaim they show a biased view? One link was from MSNBC, and the other from "The Ethical Spectacle." "The Ethical Spectacle" is not an Anti-Israel site, but the guy who puts it together does have some essays there concerning Israel that would probably incense you.
I didn't shrug about the attacks. I shrugged because of your posts.
posted on October 2, 2001 12:44:06 PMDonny: I've read the links you posted concerning the history of Israel, but I'm really not sure how to respond to them.
In the first article, entitled "Two Snippets of Israeli History," many of the so-called facts are undocumented, and even the author admits that few people seem to know the whole story:
Certain names should be on everyone's lips, but are on no-one's. Most of the people I ask about Deir Yassin, people who profess to understand the politics of Israel, to be intimately involved with them, have never heard of it.
Either that's evidence of a successful coverup, or evidence that the events never occurred (or, at least, not as portrayed in the article). Unfortunately, I have no way of telling which it is.
His source for those statements which he DOES document are books by various authors on the subject, most of fairly recent vintage. Are those accurate accounts? Are the authors of those books biased? Why aren't there references to contemporary news reports? Oh, right -- I forgot about the coverup. Again, I have no way of telling whether the information presented is the truth or not.
I also find it's interesting how the authors of the various articles can draw completely one-sided conclusions while ignoring the facts they themselves stated. For example, in the article entitled, "How the Israelis Make Palestinians Into Terrorists" the author states:
An article in the August 16, 1997 Times contains an overview of Israel's economic stifling of the Palestinians. In response to yet another horrifying suicide bombing, this time in the Jerusalem market, the Israelis sealed off the Gaza Strip
The author then concludes that "[t]he moral of the story is that holding the entire Palestinian population responsible for acts of terrorism is ... criminal," without bothering to go into details regarding the "horrifying suicide bombing" that precipitated the Israeli action. Was the "horrifying suicide bombing" an isolated event? Was the peretrator a wacko acting on his own? Or was he acting with the full support of his friends, neighbors and leaders? It's hard to tell from this article, because no additional details are provided.
Finally, lots of "facts" are presented out of context with nbo way of telling the whole story behind the events. In the article from MSNBC entitled "Letter From Nablus", the following "fact" is reported:
Israel launched its second incursion into the nearby West Bank town of Jenin in two months, killing at least seven people, including an 11-year-old boy.
Yes, killing an 11-year-old boy is a tragic, horrible thing. But why did it happen? Was the 11-year-old boy among a group of people attacking the soldiers? Was he actually fired upon directly, or did he get caught in the cross-fire? Was he even killed on purpose? And what was the reason for Israel's "incursion" in the first place? Again, I just can't tell from the article.
Is it possible that Israel has waged a war of terror against innocent civilians over the years, under the guise of "self defense"? I suppose. But I don't find the links you provided particularly convincing in and of themselves.
Again, you talk of Israeli "terrorists" in the same breath as Palestinian terrorists, but I have yet to see any examples where Israelis have specifically targeted civilians the way (or to the extent) the Palestinians have.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 2, 2001 01:50:39 PM
"I have yet to see any examples where Israelis have specifically targeted civilians the way (or to the extent) the Palestinians have."
You seem to be saying, Barry, that a lesser amount of killing of innocents is okay, as long as there's a larger amount of killing of innocents on the other side that we can abhor. So it's not that we condone Israeli terrorism and oppose Palestinian terrorism, but that we accept a smaller amount of terrorism and won't accept a larger amount of terrorism. That will gel with Condoleezza Rice's statement that there are no "good terrorists and bad terrorists." We'll just say there's some terrorists (okay) and some more terrorists (not okay).
But we couldn't even put it that way, not in the context of plain violence, anyway, because more Palestinians get killed than Israelis.
Deir Yassin - I happen to trust Jonathan Wallace's account, but only because I've been reading him for quite a while and find him knowledgeable and credible on a wide range of subjects. You could do a web search and find differing views of what happened at Deir Yassin. Predictably, the Arab-oriented sites view it as a massacre... but that view isn't limited to Arabs alone. You'll find Jews too, like Jonathan Wallace, who see it that way. Here's a link with more background -
What is the justification for shooting in the head, and killing, a 16 year old who throws a rock at you? When you reference the 11 year old boy being shot, and you ask:
"But why did it happen? Was the 11-year-old boy among a group of people attacking the soldiers? Was he actually fired upon directly, or did he get caught in the cross-fire?"
Does it matter? Since when is an 11 year old child a legitimate target?
This is a link from a Palestinian propoganda site about children being killed. Is it true? I don't know. I do know we hear much more about Israelis being killed than we hear about Palestinians being killed, but I'd have to wonder if that's because Palestinians aren't being killed.
posted on October 2, 2001 01:53:28 PMYour second sentence answers your first one. The correlation between the two events is the fact that innocent people died in both.
I certainly won't argue with that. When talking about innocent people dying we can, unfortunately, compare thousands of events. But I think there are several key distinctions between Hiroshima/Nagasaki(sp?) and the attacks of September 11. One came with a warning, one did not. One used innocent civilians (passengers on the planes) to destroy other innocent civilians. One had a clear military objective one did not. One occurred during a time of global warfare and one did not.
At a basic level I understand the comparisions but IMO the distinctions separate the two significantly.
posted on October 2, 2001 02:49:37 PMDonny: First off, in case you hadn't noticed, I happen to agree with your basic premise that "terrorism can be, and has been, used by sane, reasonable people towards sane, reasonable goals." It may not a means that your or I find palatable or justified, but that doesn't mean that terrorists are, by definition, insane or unreasonable. I disagree, however, with your characterization of Israel as a terrorist nation on par with other countries (or, at least, I don't find your arguments compelling -- I have no "proof" that my point of view is correct).
Having said that....
You seem to be saying, Barry, that a lesser amount of killing of innocents is okay, as long as there's a larger amount of killing of innocents on the other side that we can abhor.
Well, I may "seem" to be saying that, but it's certainly not what I meant. I do think, however, there is a difference between state sponsored terrorism [i.e., where the government officials actively encourage their citizens to go out and kill civilians] and instances where an individual solider shoots a civilian [whether armed or not]. I also think there's a difference between purposely targeting civilians and accidentally killing civilians in the crossfire. I can accept if those differences are meaningless to you, but to me they are crucial.
What is the justification for shooting in the head, and killing, a 16 year old who throws a rock at you?
Did you know that the 5 British soldiers who killed rock throwing civilians prior to the outbreak of the Revolutionary War were actually put on trial and acquitted? Yeah, yeah, I know. "Different situation entirely". Right.
Does it matter? Since when is an 11 year old child a legitimate target?
You neglected to include my third possible rationale, that the shooting was accidental. Again, the article doesn't say why or how it occurred.
Has an Israeli soldier ever killed an innocent, unarmed civilian, simply because that civilian was a Palestinian? Unfortunately, the answer is most likely yes. But has the Israeli govenment encouraged such acts or actively told its troops to target civilians? I don't believe so, and that is the difference between Israel and Palestine in my opinion.
fiset: But I think there are several key distinctions between Hiroshima/Nagasaki(sp?) and the attacks of September 11. One came with a warning, one did not. One used innocent civilians (passengers on the planes) to destroy other innocent civilians. One had a clear military objective one did not. One occurred during a time of global warfare and one did not.
Unfortunately, I can't tell which is which from your statement. Are you saying that because Osama Bin Laden warned us repeatedly that he was going to attack, whereas we didn't warn the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that somehow the terrorist attack was not as bad? Or are you saying that because the terrorists attacked the Pentagon instead of bombing 2 entire cities to rubble, that somehow justifies their actions? And, to be honest, I'm not sure what the significance is of "using innocent civilians to destroy other innocent civilans"; either way, innocent civilians died.
Once again, lest my feelings be misconstrued, I happen to think that the use of the atomic bomb to end WWII was justified and necessary, and that the terrorist attack on September 11th was neither justified nor necessary. But both involved the killing of lots of innocent civilians, and both were carried out by sane, rational men in order to carry out their "cause". And if we hope to prevent more attacks in the future, we need to recognize that our attackers were sane, rational men and not just say they were "madmen" and ignore the rest of the problem.
Not meaning to leave just as things are getting interesting, but I'm outta here for the evening. Catch you all tomorrow.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Oct 2, 2001 02:55 PM ]
posted on October 2, 2001 03:28:41 PM
" 'What is the justification for shooting in the head, and killing, a 16 year old who throws a rock at you?'
Did you know that the 5 British soldiers who killed rock throwing civilians prior to the outbreak of the Revolutionary War were actually put on trial and acquitted? Yeah, yeah, I know. "Different situation entirely". Right."
Well, I'm confused. It doesn't seem to me to be a different situation. The only difference I can see is that the British soldiers were put on trial, and the Israeli soldier wasn't.
Yes, I have realized that you agree with my "terrorism can be, and has been, used by sane, reasonable people towards sane, reasonable goals." And I've also realized that you, as I do, see that one man's terrorist is another man's hero, or freedom fighter, depending on who the man is, and who gets to write the history.
But you balk at my referring to "Israeli terrorism." I didn't invent this description.
Arguments can be made on either side - Does the acknowledged leader of the Palestinians, Arafat, direct or approve of today's Palestinian terrorism? He'd say "no," that today's Palestinian terrorism is carried out by fringe elements or individuals who do not reflect Palestinian policy and are not under his control. From today's NYT online:
"Two Israelis were killed when a militant Palestinian gunman broke into a Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday night and seized a house, the army said."
Once, that guy would have been referred to as a "Palestinian terrorist." Today, that guy was a "militant Palestinian gunman." You can see how things change... descriptions reflect politics.
I don't think that anyone can make a credible argument that, at one time, at least, Palestinian terrorism wasn't "state-sponsored." But I also don't think anyone can make a similar credible argument in regards to Isreael' history either. In today's climate of black/white, all terrorists are evil, we forget that, and not so rarely, the terrorists of the past gained legitimacy over time. Arafat is a prime example. For some, he'll always remain a terrorist, but he's moved to a point of political legitimacy. This has happened with some IRA terrorists also, as well as Nasser, Begin, and others.
"But has the Israeli govenment encouraged such acts or actively told its troops to target civilians? I don't believe so, and that is the difference between Israel and Palestine in my opinion."
Well, I think they have, at least in regards to Deir Yassin, but that was before the formation of Israel.
But it seems to me that today's Palestinian complaints center not so much on that the Israeli government actively tells its troops to target civilians, but that the Israeli government doesn't care much whether Palestinian civilians get killed or not. If the Palestinian act is to actively target civilians, and the Israeli response to that is to go out and shoot up or bomb a general area, without regard to Palestinian civilians, what difference is it if the Israeli government claims that civilians weren't the intended target?
posted on October 2, 2001 05:29:08 PM
Bombing "innocent" people during WWII was necessary due to the advent of total war made necessary by the industrial revolution.
Stopping the means to make war includes the death of "innocent" people that support the overt and covert combatants.
This includes destroying the institutions, political, economic, and cultural, that promote and support the war making activities. We did this after WWII to Germany and Japan.
We did not use nuclear weapons in Japan to "shock" the populace. We targeted industrial centers that supported the war making capabilities of Japan. We fire bombed Tokoyo for the same reasons before we used nuclear weapons. MORE people died in the fire bombing of Tokoyo than died from the nuclear attacks. The population wasn't shocked.
What brought about the surrender was the threat of the total destruction of all cities in Japan BEFORE we sent in any troops. Some Japanese Generals still refused to consider surrender.
But we are dealing with a different situation with terrorism.
Terrorism is a covert operation supported by covert individuals, institutions, and secretly by nation states.
The moral dilemmas we are discussing are EXACTLY what terrorists count on their victims to do.
The terrorists know that they can operate in civilian populations, be actively and passively supported by those populations, and not fear U.S. actions on those communities. They will use our own values against us.
The question becomes how many Americans the terrorists have to kill before we go into the necessay survival mode and go after ALL the elements that seek our demise.
IMHO the terrorists have made that calculation. The next attack will be far worse, but it will be after Americans settle into a peaceful resolution that the capture of bin Laden will bring. The same institutions and people that empower terrorists will still be there and they will be "taking it up a notch" when they want and how they want.
It may be 2 years from now, it may be 10 years from now, but the next attack may be measured in the hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.
After 9-11-01, we all should be somewhat certain that the chant of "death to America" is exactly what they mean, and will go to any lengths to do it.
posted on October 2, 2001 05:33:02 PMUnfortunately, I can't tell which is which from your statement. Are you saying that because Osama Bin Laden warned us repeatedly that he was going to attack, whereas we didn't warn the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that somehow the terrorist attack was not as bad? Or are you saying that because the terrorists attacked the Pentagon instead of bombing 2 entire cities to rubble, that somehow justifies their actions? And, to be honest, I'm not sure what the significance is of "using innocent civilians to destroy other innocent civilans"; either way, innocent civilians died.
Well, it looks like you and I see the two events in a much different light. I don't consider Bin Laden's "warning" that he was going to attack as even close to the warning given to Hiroshima/Nagasaki but thats me. I also can't get on board with the notion that terrorists are all "sane" and "rationale" simply because they do what they think they have to do to further their cause. I find it quite irrationale to intentionally kill innocent people in such a way as to promote fear and instability in the world but again, thats me. While the significance of using innocent civilians as the instrument of death is something you don't see, comparing Hiroshima and the recent attacks is something I don't see.
So we have a difference of opinion probably brought about by a difference of philosophy, different upbringing, etc. But here's the thing - at what point during this discussion have you felt that killing me or anyone else might further your beliefs? I'm guessing it didn't even cross your mind. Rationale discussion or debate to explain a position or an idea. If, on the other hand, you decided that my opinions and beliefs on this matter were so disgusting that I and everyone around me deserved to die, should I consider that a rationale thought and a rationale course of action?
posted on October 2, 2001 06:28:30 PM
I don't want to debate whether we're blaming the victim,but I do want to pose a question or two. If you were a small country or any country perhaps that isn't a super power, how do you get the US to consider seriously your grievances? We haven't even supported many of our allies on issues such as global warming. As an example from an environmental angle, we have a lot of money, we use a lot of the world's resources, and we return a lot of pollution. We have the ability to conserve more than we actually do. Should we continue to consume as much as we do? Do we have an obligation to other nations to make the planet more pollution free? How do other nations get our attention without resorting to terrorist tactics? I realize that religious zealots and terrorists may act without regard to our lives or those of their countrymen. How do we make their countrymen feel that their problems are being addressed and thereby diminish, if even by a small amount, the power of the terrorists.
posted on October 2, 2001 06:46:53 PM
If the issue were about the environment or other civil matters, there are rational avenues for debate and change.
bin Laden and crew don't care about the environment or our consumption. They wish us non-believers wiped off the face of the earth.
Small countries have many different ways to voice their concerns. The problem is when they don't like or agree with the answers they receive, they resort to terrorism to get their way.
posted on October 2, 2001 06:47:20 PMWhat I think we need to re-examine is our support, tacit or explicit, of Israel's "right" to continue to subjugate, in many cases, brutally, and practice terrorism against, Palestinians.
Wow. How to respond within AW guidelines? Tough one.
Israel is neither subjugating nor practicing terrorism against Palestinians. That is a complete distortion of truth. Israel may retailiate following a terrorist attack. Remember the Gulf War? Israel twiddled its thumbs while Saddam sent scud missiles into Tel Aviv. I'd say they've been remarkably restrained.
Don't get me wrong -- I certainly don't SUPPORT the recent attack against us in any way. But history has shown again and again that the ends always justify the means, and it's only because we have the luxury of being on the winning side that allows us to justify our actions while at the same time condemning the actions of others.
Barry, there's more to it than "the ends justify the means." If Hitler had won WWII, it still wouldn't have made his actions right. And history does have a way of setting the record straight. As Americans, we do look back at our history and see the mistakes we've made.
Trying to boil this question down to "we killed some, and they killed some" just doesn't work. We stand for freedom and democracy. They stand for hatred and murder. Sounds trite, but that is really the way it is. When we take a shot at Saddam (remember him, the guy who gassed his own subjects with nerve gas?) we are promoting freedom in the world. When they take a shot at us, they are promoting a twisted version of religion which calls for the extermination of infidels.
... you can bet that the acts of September 11th would go down in history as the courageous actions of brave men instead of the cowardly actions of insane madmen.
I doubt ANYONE here would claim that the bombing of Hiroshima was a "courageous act of brave men." Any more than putting down a rabid dog could be called "courageous."
posted on October 2, 2001 07:08:03 PMSmall countries have many different ways to voice their concerns. The problem is when they don't like or agree with the answers they receive, they resort to terrorism to get their way.
Reamond, if they're angry enough to go to war, how else would it be fought? They can't go head to head because they're outnumbered or outgunned. If peaceful means don't address the problems, what's left? (I used the environment as an example. Religion may be the dominant factor this time.)
posted on October 2, 2001 07:11:48 PMYou seem to be saying, Barry, that a lesser amount of killing of innocents is okay, as long as there's a larger amount of killing of innocents on the other side that we can abhor.
Donny, your posts have gone beyond absurd. Does the killing of one civilian make Israelis terrorists? It is well-known that terrorists hide and operate from within civilian centers. They can't gain militarily; their sole purpose is to demoralize. And if there are 50 terrorists holed up in Jenin (which I have had the pleasure to visit) and some 11-year old kid gets in the way, that's just too damned bad. Israel has played patty-cake with the PLO for too long.
You freely quote some nazi rag, but you have avoided the simple question: Does Israel target civilians as the PLO does? No it does not. Understand that the PLO isn't about gaining land. They've already got land. It's about driving Israel into the sea. No amount of political charades can change that.
P.S. As an Israeli, I can tell you that it ain't gonna happen. And as a veteran of the IDF, I can tell you that Israel has no interest in quarreling with Arabs.
posted on October 2, 2001 07:22:16 PM
Saab sister - I don't understand why you - and some others keep bringing up other things like
consumption of resources as an example of things the US COULD be attacked for. It
seems irrelevant. Excuse me if it almost seems you are disappointed the terrorists went
to all that trouble and did not address your pet complaints instead of their own.
They have a very specific religious complaint that the US should have no influence at
all or presence on the holy soil of Saudi Arabia.
Of course if that complaint were satisfied I believe they would find other reasons why
the Americans have no right to blemish the face of the planet even without embracing
your areas of concern about the defects of western culture.
Most of the middle eastern people do NOT have a deep desire to stop selling oil to the
rest of the world. They are happy to have the money.
As far as the Israelis and the Palestinians isn't there anybody at all that feels like I do that they BOTH have acted very badly many times? Everyone seems compelled to
take sides and assign all blame to one side. I don't think it is anywhere near that simple.
Although I agree with twinsoft that the Israelis are much more restrained about initiating attacks on civilian targets. They will target something and risk bystanders - but I have never seen them go shoot up a bus of school kids as their primary target.
I think the kind of restraint the US used to practice say in Iraq trying to avoid civilian casualties is about to end. If the people in Afgganistan put an antiaircraft gun in the middle of a neighborhood I don't think that is going to keep them from laying a row of cluster bombs across it like it once did.
posted on October 2, 2001 07:24:45 PM
"Israel may retailiate following a terrorist attack."
That's the problem with retaliation. Each side sees what it does as retaliation for a previous act. At this point, who can untangle the skein of what's retaliation and what's an unprovoked attack? How far back would you go to sort it all out? The 40's? the 60's? Last year? Last month? This week? In the last 8 days, 2 Israelis were killed, and 18 Palestinians were killed. Are the Palestinians due 16 retaliations to even it all up? When does it get even? You can't keep on keeping track of retaliations and attacks. That's been going on for nearly 60 years, and it's a big, bloody mess. On both sides. There comes a point where, if anyone ever was right in the beginning, no one is right anymore.
As to Israel not subjugating the Palestinians... For regular, civilian Palestinians it often takes hours to go a short distance. On a good day. On a bad day, three times out of the week sometimes, they can't get to their jobs. Palestinian refugee camps have been in place for 50 years. This isn't a problem? 50 years?
posted on October 2, 2001 07:39:26 PM
There is a good reason Palestinians must go through check points.
The reason Palestinians are still in camps is because the surrounding Muslim countries do not want them to settle in their country. The Palestinians are being pushed from both sides, but one side has offered peaceful coexistence, another offers murder and terrorism. Palestinians are treated better in Israel than in Syria, Lebanon, or Jordan.
When all these countries attacked Israel and crated the refugee problem, many refused to help in any way with the Palastinian refugees that they themselves created.
One fact that Islam fails to accept is that the state of Israel exists and will continue to exist. Until this fact is peacefully accepted by all the actors, the killing will continue.
There is no "zionist" conspiracy in the support of Israel by the U.S.. Israel is supported because it is the only democracy in the region that the West can count on.
posted on October 2, 2001 07:44:37 PM
gravid, I said that I used the environment as an example. In this case it's religion. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on Islam or its factions. Afghanistan ,or perhaps more precisely bin Laden and his followers is the aggressor in this instance. Do you think they'll be the last or that religion will be the only issue?
Why do you think our consumption of resources is irrelevant when we're talking about the Mideast? It's not like Joe Blow on the street is raking in the bucks over there.
posted on October 2, 2001 08:01:58 PM
Just a few "quickies" before I toddle off to bed....
donny: Well, I'm confused. It doesn't seem to me to be a different situation. The only difference I can see is that the British soldiers were put on trial, and the Israeli soldier wasn't.
I agree, it wasn't a different situation. I was being saracastic. You asked "what is the justification for shooting in the head, and killing, a 16 year old who throws a rock at you?" and I gave an example where people in a similar situation were found to have been justified in their actions. I assumed from your comment that you felt that such actions couldn't be justified, otherwise why bring up the point in the first place?
But you balk at my referring to "Israeli terrorism." I didn't invent this description.
I never said you did. I simply said I disagree with it and think you are wrong in saying it.
Well, I think they have, at least in regards to Deir Yassin, but that was before the formation of Israel.
Even assuming the Deir Yassin event actually happened [and I still am not convinced of that], it "happened" as you say before the actual formation of Israel. So it really doesn't answer my question about whether the Israeli govenment has encouraged such acts or actively told its troops to target civilians.
it seems to me that today's Palestinian complaints center not so much on that the Israeli government actively tells its troops to target civilians, but that the Israeli government doesn't care much whether Palestinian civilians get killed or not.
I'm not asking about what the Palestinians think -- I was asking you to justify your statement that the Israelis "practice terrorism" against the Palestinians. Maybe you just have a different definition of "terrorism" than most people, which is fine, but it makes it hard to discuss things if we are using different definitions for the same terms. Am I saying that the Israeli government is blameless in its relations with the Palestinians? Not at all. But I have always heard "terrorism" defined as acts of violence specficially targeted toward civilians instead of military targets, and unless you can prove that the Israeli government has encouraged, supported or condoned such actions I cannot accept your premise that Israelis "practice terrorism" against the Palestinians.
fiset: I don't consider Bin Laden's "warning" that he was going to attack as even close to the warning given to Hiroshima/Nagasaki but thats me
I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that we provided any warning to Japan whatsoever about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, I always thought that the entire attack was conducted as a top secret mission. The fact that a single airplane was able to fly unimpeded over Japanese territory to drop the bomb was specifically because no warning was given to alert them to the danger.
twinsoft: Barry, there's more to it than "the ends justify the means." If Hitler had won WWII, it still wouldn't have made his actions right. And history does have a way of setting the record straight. As Americans, we do look back at our history and see the mistakes we've made.
Well, I admit I'm being a wee bit cynical [the victors write the history books and all that]. But, then again, had Hitler won the war I doubt very much that you and I would be here to give our opinion of his actions.
Bedtime for Barry....
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Oct 2, 2001 08:04 PM ]
posted on October 2, 2001 08:05:36 PM
As far as I know, Twinsoft, I haven't quoted any "Nazi rag." MSNBC.com isn't one. I don't belive the Ethical Spectacle is one. The only other place I posted a link to was some guy's webpage at amherst. Is that the "Nazi rag?"
Palestinians don't have anything to do with Nazis. These are separate things. It doesn't work to pull out Nazis as being behind any viewpoint or as a justification for anything and everything. Yes, Nazis were terrible... but, to paraphrase Jonathan Wallace, the Holocaust isn't a credit card with a balance that can be drawn on. At some point, not everything is about Nazis.
"One fact that Islam fails to accept is that the state of Israel exists and will continue to exist. Until this fact is peacefully accepted by all the actors, the killing will continue."
That's one fact. Another fact is that Israel has refused to allow the creation of a Palestinian state. Sharon has said, over and over - Yes, but not now. I suspect he's still saying it, right up until today. You could see the efforts of Peres to get Sharon to agree to having peace talks with Arafat in these last few weeks, and Sharon's resistance to Peres' efforts. It was on, it was off, it was on again. It wasn't any secret where the resistance was between these three people. And Colin Powell was fixing to announce progress towards the creation of a Palestinian state, and now his announcement's off... Who thinks it was Peres, Arafat, or Powell who blocked it?
Things change over time. Yes, at one time the existance of Israel was the problem. But Israel has been in existance now for nearly 60 years. It's there, it's there to stay.
Things shift, and now the bigger tension has become the non-existance of Palestine. After 60 years, it gets tough to keep on saying that you're fighting for your existance and pretend that there's no other issue. After that long, you exist.
