# Arafats mysterious ailment



## habilis (Nov 3, 2004)

The reports are still coming in that no one knows what is ailing Yasser Arafat, or what is making him violently ill. Some have even speculated that it may been deliberate poisoning (soon to become a bizarre assasination conspiracy theory in the loony Arab streets), but one thing is certain, for years, it has been making _me_ violently ill to look at him. Lets not mince words, Arafat has amphibian genetics and clearly is not human. He is a precious gleaming example of the revolting face of true ugliness. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm sure it has had absolutely no effect on his august leadership. I mean, some of my best friends are genetic mutations. 

Anyway, I just wanted everyone to now that I'm not gonna hold the fact that Arafat looks like a gasping sick fish out of water that got stepped on until its eyes popped out, against him. It's all the other sh!t that really bothers me.

I hope that didn't come across as sarcastic.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 3, 2004)

hey - as long as it kills him, why worry?


----------



## Satcomer (Nov 4, 2004)

Maybe it is just old age.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 4, 2004)

g/re/p said:
			
		

> hey - as long as it kills him, why worry?


Beside the loss of a big man, he is the reason why things did not yet explode in a very rough war. It would be a very dangerous situation for Israel if Arafat would die and Israel knows this. I would rather like to see other so called peacemakers to find their end but him..


----------



## bbloke (Nov 4, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Beside the loss of a big man, he is the reason why things did not yet explode in a very rough war.



Agreed...




> I would rather like to see other so called peacemakers to find their end but him..


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 4, 2004)

Many in Europe and the United States assume that all Arab governments support Yasser Arafat, or assume the Arab nations have united policies and views. In contrast, Arafat has had a mixed relationship at best with the leaders of other Arab nations. At various times he has come under withering criticism from Arab leaders and press. In the last few years growing disenchantment with Arafat and his peers has surfaced within the general Arab press. However, he remains by far the most popular Arab leader amoung the general populace.

Arab Times (Kuwait): 'Mr Arafat should quit his position because he is the head of a corrupt authority. There is no point for him to remain in politics... He has destroyed Palestine. He has led it to terrorism, death and a hopeless situation... All Arab leaders know this fact. It won't be possible for us to gain from the Middle East road map for peace if this man remains in power.'

BBC quoted a Jenin Martyrs' Brigade spokesman: 'With all due respect to President Arafat, the Palestinian Authority cannot continue being monopolised by [Arafat] and his relatives...we have our own ways to show our rejection.'

Al-Quds Al-Araby (London): 'What is happening in Gaza is a healthy phenomenon because it is a revolution against corruption and the corrupt... This is a warning not only to Mr Arafat... but to all Arab regimes which subjugate their people by turning a deaf ear to their calls for comprehensive change.'




			
				Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Beside the loss of a big man, he is the reason why things did not yet explode in a very rough war. It would be a very dangerous situation for Israel if Arafat would die and Israel knows this. I would rather like to see other so called peacemakers to find their end but him..


----------



## habilis (Nov 4, 2004)

Update 11.04

The aquatic fishman slipped into a coma this morning and the Palestinian cabinet slipped into total chaos, fumbling over who should be the next "peacemaker" and king of the infernal sandtrap./. 

Hopefully they will get a cool US-friendly interim thug in there so we can work that account. The fishman is impotent on all fronts. 

Ding dong, the wicked old grandfather of terrorism is a vegtable.


----------



## habilis (Nov 4, 2004)

This just in from the AP wire:

 Wildlife biologists tagged Arafat's ear and attached a radiotransmitter collar to his neck and released him into the Fjords of Norway this afternoon. Scientists hope to track Arafat's movements and study his habits. "We've never seen anything like him" said one of the senior biologists, "so far we've detected more then 16 different types of primative amphibian DNA in his genes, that we strongly believe to be left over from the Paleozoic Era."

 Originally, Arafat was thought by many as a simple frog/human DNA splice. But upon further research into the abberation, the biologists discovered a multilateral comingling of many primitive homonid and reptilian genomes. Earlier this afternoon when Arafat went into a deep sleep, top doctors in Paris were confounded and assumed it was a coma. It turns out that since cold-blooded reptiles and amphibians can not warm their own blood, they go into a lethargic state when not directly in sunlight. "We really thought we lost him" said one of the frazzled MD's. "His pulse was 1 over 2 and we were seriously concerned about brain damage, well, um, kinda concerned, this is _the_ Arafat after all." 

 While moving Arafat from the emergency room to the morgue down a sunny hallway, Arafat sprang back to life with renewed radical furver. passersby were horrified at the sight of him and most lost their lunches and had to be hospitalized. Arafat escaped and instinctually headed south toward warmer climates. This is where he came upon the team of marine biologists doing research on the shores of the Mediterranean sea and was shot with a tranquilizer gun and captured. "We really thought we'd discovered a whole new species of sea creature" said one of the biologists, "turns out this beast is just Arafat, what a bummer". 

 Arafat was then handed over to a team of wildlife biologists for scrutinization and binomial classification - which turned out to be an impossibly confounding task - so  in a gesture of compassion the biologists decided to let Arafat go free in the Fjords of Norway where we can keep an eye on his behavior.

 habilis reporting, AP News.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 4, 2004)

lol - dude, you so crazy!


----------



## beorning (Nov 5, 2004)

g/re/p,

hmm
since when are the arab times or the al quds al araby arab governments? Since the time that the New York Times endorsed Bush?  (ie never) (why do you think al quds publishes in England?) Arab governments support the Palestinian Authority (as well as the fractious groups that make it up like Hamas). As such they support Arafat.

And don't you see that the Jenin Martyrs brigade quote supports what Zammy said? They are chaffing against his attempts to control their violent revenge. 

Camel face or no, corruption or no, he was / is the elected PRESIDENT of the Palestinian Authority. The chaos that may (or may not) follow his death (God Bless His Soul) is part an parcel of the whole mess in the region and every single player from Lord Balfour to the kids throwing rocks has enough blood on their hands to not be able to fully blame the other.


----------



## pds (Nov 5, 2004)

Habilis, you call me from retirement.

You had been rather quite for some time, and then burst onto the scene with this kind of stuff? Is this what we can expect from ideologues and Re-Education Ministries in the wake of a slim victory by Mssrs Bush and Cheney? Your rant is full of bile and spite to make me think that mean-spirited is an adequate term to define the conservative voice. A shame since I consider myself conservative.

Vitriolic aspursion and character assasination, a personal attack on a man you never met, and who you dismiss without understanding. He is the leader of a people with a hope for a sovereign nation. He has changed through his many years, but you won't let him be any different than your pre-conceived notions of him based on (slanted) news reports and your revulsion at his admittedly unusual countenance. 

Maybe you should take a moment to consider the words of the Indian sage "before you judge a man, walk a mile in his moccasins."

Or perhaps an non-infidel's take on the subject "...remove the log-jam from your own eye."

As an American (living in the Middle East) I am affronted by your post. You confirm the worst suspicions of rest of the world, not that America is an arrogant bastion of unilateral self-righteousness, but that Americans are.


----------



## bbloke (Nov 5, 2004)

Well said, pds.


----------



## habilis (Nov 5, 2004)

pds, relax. This thread was started as satirical dark humor. I guessed it might evolve into something ugly but you just walked on to the stage of Saturday Night Live and angrily cursed the people for laughing. And as for considering yourself a conservative, maybe you should reconsider. You're a perfect echo of Michael Moore.


----------



## moav (Nov 5, 2004)

Probably just a bad case of IBD


When you can't get enough nourishment to stay in longer than 5 minutes and your hugging or squating around the porcelain thrown(or bed pan) all day long for weeks on end your gonna drop dead one day.


Castro + Cuba  and "death" = good times for everyone, next Hawaiian paradise and real estate boom.

Arafat + Palestine and "death" = sorry state where no one really wants to step up and lead their people.  

Everyone at one time would like to grow up and become president of the U.S. hell, probably half the world leaders would like to take control, because you have some damn fine people to govern and create some money.  

"only 6.8 percent of members of the NRA would give up their guns forever for the guarantee of world peace"


----------



## pds (Nov 5, 2004)

habilis said:
			
		

> pds, relax. etc.


As to humor, no - It's not funny. Speak not ill of the dying.

As to reconsideration - I try to do it on a daily basis.

As to Michael Moore - I don't think so, the man's work revolts me in much the same way as other categorical proclamations, right and left. The world is a complex place, not easily reduced to formulas and stereotypes. 

I must say though, I do have a slightly different perspective than the typical American from Hamilton, Ohio. I live here and see the situation on the ground that should make all conservatives stand up and champion the cause of justice and peace in the Middle East. The Palestinians are a wrongfully oppressed people. I think you would do well to let me out of the box you have put me in and reconsider things along with me.

True conservative may debate the facts, but the baseline is that the Palestinian people have a legal and moral right to an unfettered state as per Olso and other agreements and resolutions. For whatever it is worth, Yasser Arafat, with his boogers and warts, was/is the embodiment of that right. 

As to the ugly American crack - I don't imagine the animosity, I live with it daily.


----------



## habilis (Nov 5, 2004)

pds, it _is_ funny, maybe just not to you - maybe if I inserted Bush's name in place of Arafat's you'd be loving it. The election is over, why are you guys still spinning? If I didn't know any better I'd swear you were Noam Chomsky. You might be fooling some of the folks here into thinking you're a centrist but you're clearly a left winger trying to run a seminar.


----------



## pds (Nov 5, 2004)

Wrong again Hubert.

I would not find it funny if it were about the person that I (not without some serious reservations) voted for for President. I don't like ethic jokes much either, though I guess some do. I take life and variety as too precious to joke about that way. Call me old fashioned.

Noam Chomsky is also on my D list. Don't believe in the International Court, don't believe that there is such a thing as "International Law" any further than the specific treaties that sovereign states negotiate and implement. Sovereignty is my password.

Your box is a little out of square.

But you are right about the seminar - figure that as long as I'm right, I might as well say it.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 5, 2004)

Actually, i don't really know enough about the subject to make an informed decision - or to accept someone elses opinion as being all-knowing or even correct.

In truth, i was just spouting off - lol

But as with any subject, for every opinion there is a difference
of opinion just waiting somewhere to prove it as wrong.

Do i want to get into a pissing match over it? no, i do not.

/me runs away (lmao) 



			
				beorning said:
			
		

> g/re/p,
> 
> hmm
> since when are the arab times or the al quds al araby arab governments? Since the time that the New York Times endorsed Bush?  (ie never) (why do you think al quds publishes in England?) Arab governments support the Palestinian Authority (as well as the fractious groups that make it up like Hamas). As such they support Arafat.
> ...


----------



## habilis (Nov 5, 2004)

Ok pds, maybe you're on the level, but even if I were serious, it's strange that you defend this guy like he's Mother Theresa.

 Strange because it was Arafat's hand that signed the checks to fund Palestinian terror attacks against Israel. It was Arafat's voice that gave the green light to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and his own Fatah movement to launch suicide-bombing attacks against innocent men, women and children. And it is Arafat's mind that plotted and oversaw the present wave of Palestinian terror. This is what you defend? This is the man who's shoes I need to walk in??

 Even Israel's head of military Intelliegence, Zeevi-Farkash, said early last year "orders for terrorist attacks were and still are actually coming directly from Arafat's headquarters." In fact, as early as 97, Arafat was authorizing Hamas and Islamic Jihad attacks; he formed an umbrella group together with the Islamofasciasts organizations called the "Nationalist and Islamic Forces" that coordinated attacks against Israel, during the recent intifada, under the leadership of Fatah.

 But it's not that he just finances these mass murders and serial killings, Arafat himself actually takes part in the command and detailed planning of suicide attacks by the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which we've heard so much good news about. As the mastermind of the second Palestinian intifada of September 2000, according to many recorded Palestinian sources, his influence over the scope and timing of the violence is extensive and even decisive. There's nothing slanted about that pds.

 As a result, over 700 innocent Israelis have been murdered in the past four years by Palestinian terrorists. Which is not to mention the Munich Olympics massacre, the Achille Lauro hijacking or other various atrocities perpetrated over the years by the PLO. How in the world can you defend this creep?

 It'll be a bright day that he's gone and we get a serious shot at working that account.


----------



## Cat (Nov 6, 2004)

Arafat is evenly matched on the other side by Sharon.


			
				BBC said:
			
		

> Mr Sharon masterminded Israel's disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
> 
> As defence minister, and without explicitly telling Prime Minister Menachem Begin, he sent the Israeli army all the way to Beirut, a strike which ended in the expulsion of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) from Lebanon.
> 
> ...



Sharon has always been against any sort of peace deal, unless  on terms entirely impossible for Palestinians to accept. In 1979, as a member of Begin's cabinet, he voted against a peace treaty with Egypt. In 1985 he voted against the withdrawal of  Israeli troops to the so-called security zone in Southern Lebanon. In 1991 he opposed  Israel's participation in the Madrid peace conference. In 1993  he voted No in the Knesset on the Oslo agreement. The following  year he abstained in the Knesset on a vote over a peace treaty  with Jordan. He voted against the Hebron agreement in 1997 and objected to the way in which the withdrawal from southern Lebanon was conducted.

Some links:
*UN condems massacre of Palestinians in Beirut
*
The Kahan Report (section on Sharon)
*Full report at Min. Foreign Aff. of Israel


> Mr. Sharon was found responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge when he approved the entry of the Phalangists into the camps as well as not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed.


*UN Report: Grave and massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel

Arafat is not the only terrorist.

Eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.


----------



## drunkmac (Nov 6, 2004)

I agree that when Arafat dies it will put a great deal of pressure on the middle east. But being a recent CONVERT to judaism...I cant wait till he dies already. Thank god for comas and McDonalds.


----------



## pds (Nov 6, 2004)

Thank you Cat

Not spin - Just facts - there's more than one rat in the cupboard.

This is a very different world from Kansas City. No one here is innocent, not even the children. It is not a Christian world where the highest virtue is forgiveness and love. It is a violent, hard scrabble world where honor is the highest virtue. Cat can see that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, but here it is better to be blind and honorable than seeing but perceived as weak.

Arafat has blood on his hands. But who was it that brought the Palestinian movement to Oslo? He tried to change. He failed in his attempt to create a viable government out of the hopes that were born in Oslo. His failure should be seen in the light of the difficulties he faced. One of the biggest ones has been the double speak and the dirty dealings of the Israeli government that has always harbored the intention that Sharon imposes and declares - The West Bank is Israeli territory.

Take a look at the map of the "barrier wall." I'll post one for you. Granted there are reasonable arguments for the thing. I would be in favor if it it were along recognized boundaries. But it is not. Look, the red line runs along the right side of the uppermost yellow block. It is a fence, a cage. The green color does not mean it is unoccupied or only belonging to Israelis. The wall separates children from their schools, farmers from their markets and families from each other. 

When they speak of giving back 98% of the West Bank to the Palestinians, they are speaking of 98% of the yellow space, not the green space.

It is not surprising to me that this offends the honor of the Palestinian.

(end of seminar - anyone for a cuppa joe?  )


----------



## habilis (Nov 6, 2004)

The death of Arafat(The worlds best known terrorist, second only to bin Lauden and Saddam) is just another nail in the coffin of oppression and a great chance for real change in that troubled part of the world. Naysayers on the left will try their best to spin it negatively, after all, another one of their terrorist hero's, is going to die, and Bush will get a chance to further his succes at spreading freedom in the ME.

 Luckily the new media is here to break through the years of backward fringe leftist rhetoric and outright lies, and the sea change has only begun. The shift to the right is really just shift to the truth. Post 9/11 people want the truth, not rhetoric - something the left can't seem to understand. The left can't win this argument because they stand with the terrorists, and the new media is exposing you guys every day, they stood with Hitler just before WWII and protested our involvement. They stood with Saddam and his mass graves and protested our liberation of the oppressed people. They stood with Al Qaeda and protested our invasion of Afghanistan - they stood against the freedom that the people now have, electing their own officials. They don't understand that to treat the symptoms of oppression, is to cure the disease of terrorism. As always, the left is for the short term - don't see the big picture. They get upset when you talk the truth because it's "not fair". they get upset and call it "character assasination" when I insult a terrorist - but just look at how they insult their OWN president Bush.They just want to keep their heads in the sand where it's nice and cozy.

 The truth is getting out, the people are changed, the monopoly the left once had on mass media is crumbling very fast.

 Arafat is almost dead, and a bright new era of peace awaits, don't be tricked into getting lost in the small picture. The small picture is where the left has been doing nothing but going in circles, worshiping the endless bureaucratic control loop, worshiping good intentions - but not results, worshiping and clinging to the old systems and institutions in a new world, still trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

 The coming world war can be avoided, the nuclear buildup can be reversed, stay the course America.


----------



## mrfluffy (Nov 6, 2004)

> they stood with Hitler just before WWII


that's a fucking lie, the french locked up a huge number of socialist, communist and a lot of non-left anti-fascists before WWII

In America it was people making weapons and ammo who opposed the war, why cut off half of your customer base?



> They stood with Saddam and his mass graves and protested our liberation of the oppressed people.


they were against a war to save US from those evil and non-existent WMDs, which Bush and Blair said was the reason to go to war.



> The truth is getting out, the people are changed, the monopoly the left once had on mass media is crumbling very fast.


hahahahaha Fox are very left wing, americans are morons your politics is all right by European standards, I'd rather vote Tory than Democrat



> Arafat is almost dead, and a bright new era of peace awaits


'cause Ariel Sharon is going to kill every single Palestinian?



> worshiping good intentions - but not results


so you support bad intentions? and have Bush's (bad I assume...) intentions had results? World Peace? Democracy and non-violence in Iraq?



> The coming world war can be avoided, the nuclear buildup can be reversed, stay the course America.


maybe America could help this by destroying their nukes until there's only enough to destroy the world once, or learning how to pronounce the word.


----------



## Cat (Nov 6, 2004)

> *Athenian envoys*
> 
> For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences--either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us--and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.


Thucydides, "Peloponnesian War" Book V, LXXXIX, 1



> auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant


Tacitus, The Life of Cnæus Julius Agricola, 30


----------



## habilis (Nov 6, 2004)

mrfluffy said:
			
		

> americans are morons


 This view is so typical from the Europeans and the Kerry-left, it's really just sad that they think so poorly of humanity.


----------



## markceltic (Nov 6, 2004)

Hold on there mrfluffy you're talking like Cheney now with those F bombs! Will the mods do something about this or will you be responsible for inflicting this kind of language on innocent eyes.


----------



## pds (Nov 6, 2004)

What a shame, just as we were about to start a conversation in which we could all learn something from each other...

What happened? Habilis, did something you ate go down wrong? Why have you coughed up the ideologue stuff again with all the name-calling and labeling? It only gets people all riled up.

Did you look at the map? Tell me, what do _you_ think about it? Does it look equitable to you - does it look like the mental map you have (and I had before I got here) of two separate entities, Israel and the West Bank? I don't know exactly where the map comes from - just did a quick google of israel barrier wall and picked the first one. The reality of the situation is worse than the solid colors show. There are tanks and soldiers on every hill in the yellow areas. There are highways that connect the settlements to one another and Palestinians are not allowed to use them. The impediments to free movement are manifold.

How do you think a true leader of the Palestinian people should react to the reality of their occupation? Please - not how they shouldn't - how should they?

P


----------



## pds (Nov 6, 2004)

What a shame, just as we were about to start a conversation in which we could all learn something from each other...

What happened? Habilis, did something you ate go down wrong? Why have you coughed up the ideologue stuff again with all the name-calling and labeling? It only gets people all riled up.

Did you look at the map? Tell me, what do _you_ think about it? Does it look equitable to you - does it look like the mental map you have (and I had before I got here) of two separate entities, Israel and the West Bank? I don't know exactly where the map comes from - just did a quick google of israel barrier wall and picked the first one. The reality of the situation is worse than the solid colors show. There are tanks and soldiers on every hill in the yellow areas. There are highways that connect the settlements to one another and Palestinians are not allowed to use them. The impediments to free movement are manifold.

How do you think a true leader of the Palestinian people should react to the reality of their occupation? Please - not how they shouldn't - how should they?


----------



## habilis (Nov 6, 2004)

pds said:
			
		

> How do you think a true leader of the Palestinian people should react to the reality of their occupation? Please - not how they shouldn't - how should they?


C'mon pds, that's like asking me what would I do if I was Hitler. I can't answer that. I can't pretend to come from a mind full of hate. I would say let's call it quits TODAY, lets call a truce and work towards a permanent peace so both sides can prosper. I would dismantle all the hate groups and stop writing checks to finance C4 explosives, shoulder fired rockets, and other weapons from Iran. Of course this would be an incredibly difficult task, but if I was the leader, they would follow.

What you're not taking into account about that map is that the Palestinian Islamo groups often fire rockets into Israel from within the Palestinian territories - these rockets have a range of between 3 to 5 miles. Now, if the Israeli's put a border with populated zones inside this range, the Palestinians could fire rockets over the wall and they would hit targets every day, Sharon isn't allowing that to happen, would you? I've also read that the Israeli's had to take terrain into account and that effected some of the so-called land grabs.

The Israeli's need a defensable border or their children keep getting murdered. It's that simple.


----------



## pds (Nov 7, 2004)

Thank you.

I don't think it's asking you to be Hitler, perhaps that's the aftertaste of "my mile in his moccasins" post. I wasn't asking you to be Arafat, but to look at the situation from the other side of the wall that is unilaterally defining the borders that you have been negotiating for several years. (note - true leader).

I completely agree that Israel should have a defensible boundary. I have said many many times that a wall with a 500 foot no-man's land would be fine - on the green line.

You say "it's that simple," but in my experience not much in life is "as simple as that." The bottom line may be simple, the factors of the equation that produces it are often complex and convoluted. The solution has to take all parts into account.

What drives a man to terrorism? Dissatisfaction and frustration. Disenfranchisement. Evil in his heart. Fanaticism. Hopelessness and ideological confusion (the two are often related). Poverty and Economics (the checks Arafat signed were not for small amounts of money). There are lots of factors. All of them are present in Palestine. Most of them will be better served by investment and development rather than bombardment, bulldozers and missle attacks.

Concerning the 3-5 mile buffer-zone - a good idea perhaps, but is there a possibility of that in real terms given the intermingling of "settlements" in the yellow and the green zones on the map? Don't forget there are more than 120 of them and many of them are agressively armed camps. Most of the katushkas are fired at settlements (though some are at Israel proper).

It's a mess, no doubt about it. Separation may be the only way to advance at the moment, but not the kind that pushes all Palestinians into the Gaza Strip and takes over the choicest parts of the West Bank.


----------



## moav (Nov 7, 2004)

Destroy all humanity and let's start all over again. 

Are humans savages or a peace loving race? If someone from far away saw our world they would think the Huns had risen again. It is not only human nature to hate, but to be jealous and kill the weaker it is our animal instinct. You want something I have or don't believe I should have? Is jealousy a protective mechanism?  Why were we born with these instincts that if switched on and trully let out we would try our best to mame every living soul. We were born as beasts. Religion nor any law will ever stop the rage the we keep locked up inside. If every day a man would come over to your house tell you to stand in the middle of the road for everyone to watch and slap you in the face and everyone were then to laugh you would not die that day or in a thousand years of being naked in front of a crowd and being slapped... but day after day and year after year the hatred would grow until you had to kill...  Human kind must be reclassified like dogs, apes or any other beast. There are probably 100 sub groups of human looking creatures... we are not all alike, each has a different characteristic each his own animal. We were not meant to live and coexist peacefully with each other. A mouse and cat could be taught and disciplined to live together... but when the lights go out and there minds wander they may not wish their foe dead but gone far from them. 

Why do we kill bugs... to eat them?  Why do we hunt deer and raccoon....becuase we fear for our lives they will hunt down our children?  If everyman but one were to turn in  every item in the world that could cause pain or death that man would be king but only for a day or maybe less.


----------



## markceltic (Nov 7, 2004)

If anyone gets the chance to see the music video of pearl jams" do the evolution" I think that would speak to moav's point of view quite nicely.Really in the end it comes down to conditioning,how else can you fool someone into thinking that by blowing oneself to bits they're going to heaven to be with a harem of virgins.


----------



## mrfluffy (Nov 7, 2004)

habilis said:
			
		

> This view is so typical from the Europeans and the Kerry-left, it's really just sad that they think so poorly of humanity.


I didn't say anything about humanity, I said Americans (and it should've been right-wing Americans), humanity includes the other 5.5+billion people.

and to ask again

"so you support bad intentions?"


----------



## pds (Nov 7, 2004)

moav said:
			
		

> Destroy all humanity and let's start all over again.
> 
> Are humans savages or a peace loving race? If someone from far away saw our world they would think the Huns had risen again. It is not only human nature to hate, but to be jealous and kill the weaker it is our animal instinct. You want something I have or don't believe I should have? Is jealousy a protective mechanism?  Why were we born with these instincts that if switched on and trully let out we would try our best to mame every living soul. We were born as beasts. Religion nor any law will ever stop the rage the we keep locked up inside. If every day a man would come over to your house tell you to stand in the middle of the road for everyone to watch and slap you in the face and everyone were then to laugh you would not die that day or in a thousand years of being naked in front of a crowd and being slapped... but day after day and year after year the hatred would grow until you had to kill...  Human kind must be reclassified like dogs, apes or any other beast. There are probably 100 sub groups of human looking creatures... we are not all alike, each has a different characteristic each his own animal. We were not meant to live and coexist peacefully with each other. A mouse and cat could be taught and disciplined to live together... but when the lights go out and there minds wander they may not wish their foe dead but gone far from them.
> 
> Why do we kill bugs... to eat them?  Why do we hunt deer and raccoon....becuase we fear for our lives they will hunt down our children?  If everyman but one were to turn in  every item in the world that could cause pain or death that man would be king but only for a day or maybe less.



Woah!
There's enough in there for a week of seminars!

But the people that run them usually charge around a hundred bucks for 50 minutes.


----------



## habilis (Nov 7, 2004)

mrfluffy said:
			
		

> "so you support bad intentions?"


 I support realistic gradual advances that end in results. While the left supports crowd-pleasing platitudes that only serve to build bigger and bigger bureaucracies.

 For example:
 The left has been promising a paradise to the inner city blacks for 35 years, promising them a new life and a way out, but the ghettos are getting bigger every year. Good intentions - no results. The left promises more and more social freebies to the blacks to KEEP THEM POOR. Look to the old axiom: "If you give a man a fish, he'll eat once and back asking for more, if you teach a man to fish he'll prosper on his own" - power to the people is the motto of the right. The reason why the democrats want to keep the blacks poor and addicted to social handouts is so they have more voters to keep them in office. It's all about power. 

 On the other hand, the republicans want to give black children the ability to go to a private school, paid for by the government in the form of vouchers. under Bush they also get $1,000 cash per child. Kerry wanted to end the child tax credit. The right sees education as the key for long term transformation. 

 The left created affirmative action as another handout which is government sponsored racism. Affirmative action forces an employer to look at the COLOR OF YOUR SKIN rather then the CONTENT OF YOUR SOUL. This has the log term net effect of dumbing down the black community - since blacks will not be judged by their skill level or education any longer. This also has a net effect of dumbing down America as a whole. But the democrats want you to think the republicans are racists??? by removing government sponsored racism (Affirmative action), we raise the standards for everyone.


----------



## adambyte (Nov 7, 2004)

habilis said:
			
		

> The reason why the democrats want to keep the blacks poor and addicted to social handouts is so they have more voters to keep them in office. It's all about power.



Wow. That's so absurd, my brain just exploded. 

That is definitely not one of the reasons I vote democrat, and I don't think that kind of logic even crosses the minds of any democrats in general. That's seriously perverted thinking right there, and I doubt that's the what democrats are thinking.



			
				habilis said:
			
		

> On the other hand, the republicans want to give black children the ability to go to a private school, paid for by the government in the form of vouchers. under Bush they also get $1,000 cash per child. Kerry wanted to end the child tax credit. The right sees education as the key for long term transformation.



I agree with your whole "teach a man to fish" argument, however, I disagree that vouchers for private schools will improve the situation. By giving out vouchers, you're giving up on the public education system. What we need to do is keep teachers accountable and invest in teachers and schools.

btw, I still don't know how I feel about Affirmative Action. At this point in our history it seems to be some sort of necessary evil to begin to equalize opportunity.


----------



## Satcomer (Nov 7, 2004)

mrfluffy said:
			
		

> I didn't say anything about humanity, I said Americans (and it should've been right-wing Americans), humanity includes the other 5.5+billion people.



So my hunch is right (by your WORDS)! Your hatred of me (because I am an American) will burn you up inside. Let go of your hate! Hate begets more hate.


----------



## bbloke (Nov 7, 2004)

habilis said:
			
		

> The death of Arafat(The worlds best known terrorist, second only to bin Lauden and Saddam)



Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist, he was a dictator.  Just as an aside, no link was ever found between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, although the Bush administration strongly suggested one existed before invading Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html




			
				habilis said:
			
		

> is just another nail in the coffin of oppression and a great chance for real change in that troubled part of the world. Naysayers on the left will try their best to spin it negatively, after all, another one of their terrorist hero's, is going to die, and Bush will get a chance to further his succes at spreading freedom in the ME.



Well, actually, you'll find a lot of the troubles in that region have been, erm, "not exactly helped" by us in the West.  If you want a brief overview of Saddam's rise to power and his actions once there, try this Flash movie:

http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html

Note that the USA under the Reagan administration (yes, the political right of the USA, not the "naysayers" on the political left) supplied Saddam Hussein with chemical and biological warfare agents.




			
				habilis said:
			
		

> Luckily the new media is here to break through the years of backward fringe leftist rhetoric and outright lies, and the sea change has only begun. The shift to the right is really just shift to the truth.



No, I'm afraid we are seeing a large propaganda war and I feel you are being considerably deceived by the Bush administration, or else are turning a blind eye to the truth.  There is a great deal of hypocrisy surrounding the USA's dealings with and attitudes towards Iraq.

With declassified documents, you can see that Rumsfeld was no stranger to Saddam Hussein:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

"There is no mention of Mr Rumsfeld having raised the issue of chemical weapons with Saddam Hussein, though he said he did in an interview with CNN in 2002."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3324053.stm

"The dossier claims that 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons including nuclear and rocket technology and that some "50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US"."   and   "The UK and the USA have been accused of supporting the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons program through the sale of chemicals and technology."
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ttt4-article_7-eng





			
				habilis said:
			
		

> Post 9/11 people want the truth, not rhetoric - something the left can't seem to understand. The left can't win this argument because they stand with the terrorists,



That statement is ridiculous, those on the left are not supporting "the terrorists."  I am not siding with one political camp or another, as I do not agree with tribalism, but I have very strong concerns indeed about the Bush administration's policies and feel we are being lied to on a grand scale.

Rumsfeld on TV, as one example...   

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

Also, how about some of Bush's record, which includes examples of total u-turns to manipulate public opinion:

(Warning: contains language and images of violence/gore that some may find offensive)
http://www.hategun.com/features/mistaken/




			
				habilis said:
			
		

> and the new media is exposing you guys every day, they stood with Hitler just before WWII and protested our involvement.



That statement, too, has no credibility.  It was the right who frequently stood by while Nazi Germany grew.  

"To left-liberals and Popular Front hangers-on such as Geisel, it was no coincidence that America's most impassioned anti-interventionists were also its most outspoken racists and anti-Semites. Intolerance and conservatism seemed of a piece to most liberals in those days. When isolationists such as Senator Gerald Nye called for congressional hearings into Hollywood war-mongering, more than a few critics read it as subtly anti-Jewish. There was no subtlety when Father Charles Coughlin used his weekly newspaper, Social Justice, to lambaste Jews and Communists, nor when Charles Lindbergh told an audience in Iowa that the "greatest danger to this country from the Jews [lies] in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government.""

(Note that the beloved Dr. Seuss was, *shock horror*, aligned with the political left... and he was anti-Nazi.)
http://www.forward.com/issues/2000/00.12.01/arts2.html


After all, why would the left be "purged" in Germany if they were the sympathizers?

http://www.germanculture.com.ua/bl_third_reich.htm


You will also notice the American Nazi Party comes under the banner of the "right wing," not the left.   (Note: I'm in no way labelling all of those on the right Nazis (!), I'm just trying to show it would be improbable that those on the left, as was alleged, would be the most likely to stand still and keep quiet during the rise of Nazism.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing#United_States




			
				habilis said:
			
		

> They stood with Saddam and his mass graves



You mean the ones that the American political right helped to create?  See above.  And here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html




			
				habilis said:
			
		

> and protested our liberation of the oppressed people.



Yes, thank goodness the American military put an end to torture and other abuses.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-torture-eng

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/27/60II/main614063.shtml


Videos: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/view/




			
				habilis said:
			
		

> They don't understand that to treat the symptoms of oppression, is to cure the disease of terrorism.



Have a look at these facts about Palestinian living conditions.  Here you can see the signs of true oppression.

http://www.newint.org/issue348/facts.htm

One can argue that automatic military support of Israel, regardless of its actions, by US administrations has not helped this situation.  Do not interpret this as me saying I'm against the existence of a state of Israel, I'm just saying that Israel too is not without its human rights violations and acts of deplorable violence.  It's a complex situation, and blaming one side for all the misdeeds is simplistic.




			
				habilis said:
			
		

> The truth is getting out, the people are changed, the monopoly the left once had on mass media is crumbling very fast.



Eh?  A lot of the media has an inherent right-wing bias; for instance, Fox News is regarded as a joke in many areas outside of the USA.



			
				habilis said:
			
		

> Arafat is almost dead, and a bright new era of peace awaits



Is this a joke?  (Especially considering the actions of Ariel Sharon!)

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3980903.stm
("The Israeli military has been put on high alert, although no troops have been moved into potential trouble spots.")




			
				habilis said:
			
		

> The coming world war can be avoided, the nuclear buildup can be reversed, stay the course America.



And yet America continued to build its nuclear arsenal for decades... but doesn't want anyone else to have them?

http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/50.HTM

"Jacqueline Cabasso, executive director of the Western States Legal Foundation (a public-interest organization that monitors and analyzes U.S. nuclear-weapons programs) sums it up this way: "The U.S. is spending more money on nuclear-weapons research and development than ever before, giving its nuclear arsenal new military capabilities and elevating the role of nuclear weapons in its aggressive and unilateral 'national security' policy." Cabasso cites ongoing work on such weapons as a "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator" as clear evidence of U.S. intentions to pursue nuclear weaponry, not work toward its elimination."

"...the Bush administration's January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review laid out a nuclear policy that calls for the development of low-yield or so-called "mini-nukes" and integrates nuclear weapons with conventional strike options..."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0213-01.htm


Again, I want to make it clear I do not align myself with one political group or another (as I am against jingoism), but I do have concerns about the Bush administration, which is why I have posted and tried to provide references as evidence.  I also in no way hate America, as I lived there half my life and have a great deal of affection for the country.  However, affection for a country does not equate to supporting the current government, regardless of its actions.  I differentiate between the current administration and the country as a whole.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 8, 2004)

markceltic said:
			
		

> Hold on there mrfluffy you're talking like Cheney now with those F bombs! Will the mods do something about this or will you be responsible for inflicting this kind of language on innocent eyes.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 8, 2004)

> bbloke said:
> Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist, he was a dictator.



Go tell that to the families of all the people he had
tortured and/or killed - they may disagree with you!



>>>>\Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.] One who governs by terrorism or intimidation<<<<


----------



## bbloke (Nov 8, 2004)

g/re/p said:
			
		

> Go tell that to the families of all the people he had
> tortured and/or killed - they may disagree with you!


I don't understand what you meant by this, and wonder if we have a misunderstanding here.  I in no way whatsoever think Saddam Hussein was a nice guy or someone we should have been supporting!

He was of course guilty of a great deal of oppression, he was a ruthless dictator.  But that does not make him a terrorist.  Similarly, the links between him and Osama bin Laden seemed to mysteriously vanish in the eyes of the West after the war.  So, I'd say my two statements still stand.  If you meant something else and I missed the point, let me know.




Ah, you've edited your post.  So you were referring to him being a terrorist?  The Oxford English Dictionary's definition is as follows:

"Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation.

In early use also applied spec. to members of one of the extreme revolutionary societies in Russia. The term now usually refers to a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects. "
http://dictionary.oed.com/

Also:

"adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities"
http://dictionary.reference.com/


OK, I'll take your point that the definition could encompass governments, too, which employ terror tactics.  It's just that the definition we usually think of is that of groups which are not in power.  But I think I understand better what you meant now.


----------



## habilis (Nov 8, 2004)

bloke, the only thing you left out was the entire other side of the story - and the big picture(kinda like mainstream media). You don't have to worry about habilis being misled or tricked. My beliefs are an accumulation of 10 years in politics. I started out as a liberal just like you and one day I found that mainstream media was intentionally telling us a lie. All I had to do was dig deeper and deeper to find the truth down the rabbit hole. The truthfinding mission has never ended.  I just wish the more intelligent people like yourself could join me in seeing the big picture and not get lost in the details. I  and my fellow conservatives  see in the scope of decades, while you and the rest of the left wing are getting hung up on the little picture, getting in the way of real progress. Just like I said about results, you can have all the greatest intentions and feel-goodisms about stopping a bomb in Iraq, going out to become a human shield or whatever, and maybe you get to feel good about yourself, but what did you really do for the long term? Liberals just want to be judged for their feel-good intentions, because they can't come up with results. It is, and always has been the right that has had to face up to reality and transform the Earth into a better place. Might as well sign up now and be on the right side of history with the rest of us.


----------



## Satcomer (Nov 9, 2004)

moav said:
			
		

> Why do we kill bugs... to eat them?  Why do we hunt deer and raccoon....becuase we fear for our lives they will hunt down our children?



Obviously you don't or ever have lived in a rural area. I have seen deer starve to their bones because hunting was banned. I have seen children almost die because lime disease was born from the multitude of deer (and the ticks they carry) making their was into the edge of town (which has stood for over 200 years). Man has over the years destroyed the natural predators of deer (wolves, bears, native people) and deer seem to reproduce almost as fast as rabbits. I am not saying hunting for sport is right because it is not. I do believe limited hunting makes the natural world stronger. Lastly, a hunter should not kill anything unless he/she is ready to eat it!


----------



## pds (Nov 9, 2004)

habilis said:
			
		

> ... My beliefs are an accumulation of 10 years in politics. I started out as a liberal just like you and one day I found that mainstream media was intentionally telling us a lie. All I had to do was dig deeper and deeper to find the truth down the rabbit hole. The truthfinding mission has never ended...


Truth is neither left nor right. It is truth. 

To talk of it in the breath of politics, liberals, conservatives and the like is a mistake in my view. The left, the right (and the center) have theories about what to do with the truth, not the truth itself. 



> I just wish the more intelligent people like yourself could join me in seeing the big picture and not get lost in the details. I  and my fellow conservatives  see in the scope of decades, while you and the rest of the left wing are getting hung up on the little picture, getting in the way of real progress.


Can you be sure that it is not the conservative attitudes that lie at the root of the problems in the Middle East? (it is where the thread began)

Because "conservative values" often tend to identify "us and them" which is a problem when it comes to the world situation we see around us today, where the frontiers between us-ness and them-ness have become very accessible and visible.

Can the Twin Towers be - in an odd way - connected to the inability to find progressive (i.e. not conservative) solutions to the plight of a dispossed people that happened to be "them." This is what the bombers say, why not take them at their word?



> Just like I said about results, you can have all the greatest intentions and feel-goodisms about stopping a bomb in Iraq, going out to become a human shield or whatever, and maybe you get to feel good about yourself, but what did you really do for the long term?


I am willing to accept that many of the liberties that we cherish as conservatives were forged by liberal, progressive politics of the past. Jefferson was a progressive, even Adams was, or we'd still be celebrating the Queen Mum's birthday. Add to that women's vote, a social security system, labor laws, public schooling and many more. They may be under pressure at the moment, but they have served society well till now. Results.



> Liberals just want to be judged for their feel-good intentions, because they can't come up with results. It is, and always has been the right that has had to face up to reality and transform the Earth into a better place. Might as well sign up now and be on the right side of history with the rest of us.


As with the beginning of this post, and in light of history, it is hard to determine if your characterization is fact or theory. I suspect the right path may be a bit more complicated than that.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 9, 2004)

http://www.airbagindustries.com/archives/003760.php


Ariel Sharon: Bring out your dead! [clang] Bring out your dead! [clang]


Nabil Shaath: Here's one.


Ariel Sharon: Ninepence.


Yasser Arafat: I'm not dead!


Ariel Sharon: What?


Nabil Shaath: Nothing. Here's your ninepence.


Yasser Arafat: I'm not dead!


Ariel Sharon: 'Ere. He says he's not dead!


Nabil Shaath: Yes, he is.


Yasser Arafat: I'm not!


Ariel Sharon: He isn't?


Nabil Shaath: Well, he will be soon. He's very ill.


Yasser Arafat: I'm getting better!


Nabil Shaath: No, you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment.


Ariel Sharon: Oh, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.


Yasser Arafat: I don't want to go on the cart!


Nabil Shaath: Oh, don't be such a baby.


Ariel Sharon: I can't take him.


Yasser Arafat: I feel fine!


Nabil Shaath: Well, do us a favour.


Ariel Sharon: I can't.


Nabil Shaath: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long.


Ariel Sharon: No, I've got to go to the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today.


Nabil Shaath: Well, when's your next round?


Ariel Sharon: Thursday.


Yasser Arafat: I think I'll go for a walk.


Nabil Shaath: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Look. Isn't there something you can do?


Yasser Arafat: [singing] I feel happy. I feel happy.


[Sharon hits Yasser Arafat on the head - whop]


Nabil Shaath: Ah, thanks very much.


Ariel Sharon: Not at all. See you on Thursday.


----------



## habilis (Nov 10, 2004)

Egypt has offered him a final resting place, Israel says you can't bury the guy in Jurusalem, the funeral is already being planned but Arafat's wife says he's not dead yet. wtf. I don't care how bad off I am, it ain't over till it's over - don't bury me till I'm dead.

On my way to work this morning I was thinking about how Arafat's dying. As far as he knows, or knew, all he did was get sick, and the next thing he knows  or doesn't know  is that he's in a coma. Totally unconscious of what is transpiring, and that he's dying. The case is erily closed, he probably didn't get to say goodbye to anyone and his soul will probably wander the cold lonely dessert for eternity(Kinda like "The Other's" if you've seen that movie) and never go to heaven  if you believe in that kind of thing.

but then again, if you believe the soul escapes out of the body and hovers above the room, he would see himself and know it, negating the lost soul thing.

Of course if you're one of these strange creatures that believes in heaven and hell, Arafat's gonna have trouble weaseling his way out of this one. but then again, in Arafat's mind he was bombing children to save the lives of his own oppressed children, so he might actually be some sort of hero in heaven, or at least in Allah's heaven, where, I guess you're rewarded with a harem of virgins for killing kids. So if Jesus and Allah are coexsisting, could Arafat be sent to both heaven and hell at the same time interdimensionally? 

It's all just too complex. All the schisms are colliding and cancelling each other out in the white noise of the real world. When somebody figures out what god I should be praying to, please email it to me. Until then I'm still a devout Woody Allenist. He said it best when he said "We don't know if God exsists, but we _do_ know women exist."


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 10, 2004)

Just heard on the news...it's official.  Arafat has died.

http://www.local10.com/news/3905996/detail.html


----------



## baggss (Nov 10, 2004)

Yep, he's dead......

and good riddance too.....


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 11, 2004)

Let's hope things won't escalate into blind terror..


----------



## bbloke (Nov 11, 2004)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> Just heard on the news...it's official.  Arafat has died.
> 
> http://www.local10.com/news/3905996/detail.html



Indeed.  I just noticed this too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3984841.stm


And public reaction on the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3962343.stm


And, yes, let's hope *both* sides avoid escalation of the situation.


----------



## bbloke (Nov 11, 2004)

I think pds has stated things very eloquently already, so I'll only add a few notes of my own.





			
				habilis said:
			
		

> bloke, the only thing you left out was the entire other side of the story



I was, of course, putting forward an alternative angle to counter what you had posted.





			
				habilis said:
			
		

> You don't have to worry about habilis being misled or tricked. My beliefs are an accumulation of 10 years in politics.



Like pds said, doing one's best to determine the truth of the situation is one thing (and will take a lifetime), but politics is not about one side having the truth and the other side being deceived.  Politics is about people hopefully being in possession of the facts and then deciding what they think is the best way for their government to conduct themselves, and for whatever reasons.

My own views have developed from what I have read and my discussions with others from various countries around the world, over the years.





			
				habilis said:
			
		

> I started out as a liberal just like you



Just to make sure we're clear, I'd like to reiterate what I said previously: I try to avoid aligning myself with any one group, as I stand against tribalism/jingoism.  This is one reason I do not affiliate myself with any political party.





			
				habilis said:
			
		

> and one day I found that mainstream media was intentionally telling us a lie.



Out of interest, if you feel mainstream media is feeding us with lies, what sources of information *do* you trust or listen to?

Additionally, what evidence do you have about the news (and which media organizations in particular) being based on lies?






			
				habilis said:
			
		

> The truthfinding mission has never ended.



Agreed; I do not claim to have all the answers, and would be wary of anyone who did/does make such claims!






			
				habilis said:
			
		

> I just wish the more intelligent people like yourself could join me in seeing the big picture and not get lost in the details.



Well, the reason I cited so many references was to show you the evidence against what you said.  Saying I get lost in the details and not demonstrating why what I wrote was wrong (in your view) can come across a little like you can't or won't address the evidence.  So, if you allege that we are being deceived, then I would appreciate you pointing out the errors of our ways.

But I would say that I am indeed addressing the big picture.  I can see warning signs regarding a number of problems, and feel we need to be aware of these issues and speak up.  When I lived in America, I had a sense of a country which stood for freedom, rights, and accountability.  When I left, I became concerned by things I was finding out about America's policies over the years.  Things which I just was not hearing when in America.  The fact that things appeared hidden (intentionally or unintentionally) bothered me, to say the least.  I work with people from all over the globe and know people who have travelled extensively too, and some of the stories any of these people can tell are worrying.  

When some Americans (not all; I have no wish to tar everyone with the same brush) wrote some vitriolic comments on the BBC website when some UK residents despaired at the US election result, I found it odd.  The reason I found it odd was that, judging by what was written, I could well imagine that these same Americans who wanted the rest of the world to keep their noses out of internal, American affairs would probably be the same people who would advocate American intervention around the world.  This seems hypocritical to me.  It is not balanced to say that nobody can express their views on a nation, but that this same nation should be allowed to actively intervene in other countries affairs.

It is no wonder, *unfortunately*, that there are those who bear a grudge against America and  I wish it were otherwise.  (I do not bear a grudge, but I have become less jingoistic over the years, with regards to the nations I live in or have lived in).  After 9/11, those in Europe heard that Americans were often asking, in bewilderment, the question about why some people hated their nation.  It is sad that anyone should have to be faced with such a question at all, but it was also sad that there were some in the US were seemingly unaware of their own country's, erm, less-than-praise-worthy actions and did not question their leaders enough over the decades.  There are stories of dictatorships being propped up.  Democratically elected governments overthrown.    Palestinians feel aggrieved that the US has supported the Israeli government which has oppressed them for so long (see earlier link in this thread about their living conditions; also note that Israel until only a few years ago sanctioned the use of torture).  And so on.  Now we are faced with allegations of US involvement in the detention of thousands without trial, the use of torture, and more.  The "good guy" has increasingly become seen as the "bad guy" and it saddens me to say this.  To me, this is not what the USA should stand for and I expect some of the founding fathers would be very concerned if they could see the way things turned out.

Note the interesting comments by Benjamin Franklin, however, around the time of the signing of the Constitution:

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."




Back to today, the big picture is that the leaders are lying to the public, that America's name is being tarnished, and that people are suffering.  That, for me, is something worth addressing and is not a case of getting lost in details.  I cited some details to you in order to support my understanding of the big picture.  When the leaders themselves are inconsistent look set to deceive, it needs to be addressed.



"After September the 11th, America had to assess every potential threat in a new light. Our nation awakened to an even greater danger, the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder. We had to take a hard look at every place where terrorists might get those weapons. And one regime stood out, the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein."

-George W. Bush on the very day that a CIA report came out stating that Iraq had absolutely no stockpiles of WMD at the start of the war in Iraq, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Oct. 6, 2004




"Because we acted, torture chambers are closed."

-George W. Bush, Prairie Du Chien, Wisconsin, May 7, 2004


And yet:
"The latest official reports on the prisoner abuse scandal contain a classic Washington contradiction. Their headlines proclaim that no official policy mandated or allowed the torture of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that no officials above the rank of colonel deserve prosecution or formal punishment. But buried in their hundreds of pages of detail, for anyone who cares to read them, is a clear and meticulous account of how decisions made by President Bush, his top political aides and senior military commanders led directly to those searing images of naked prisoners being menaced with guard dogs."

"Sanchez's policy was revised a month later, but interrogators at Abu Ghraib, Fay reports, had begun using it immediately. Consequently, some guards and interrogators who used dogs to frighten prisoners, deprived them of clothing or subjected them to extreme isolation had every reason to believe their acts were authorized. As Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones delicately put it in his report, "Some of these incidents involved conduct which, in retrospect, violated international law. However, at the time some of the soldiers or contractors committed the acts, they may have honestly believed the techniques were condoned." 

The causal chain is all there: from Bush's February 2002 decision to Rumsfeld's December 2002 authorization of nudity, stress positions and dogs; to the adoption of those methods in Afghanistan and their sanction in Iraq by a commander looking back to Bush's decision; and finally, to their use on detainees by soldiers who reasonably believed they were executing official policy."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37221-2004Aug26?language=printer







			
				habilis said:
			
		

> I  and my fellow conservatives  see in the scope of decades, while you and the rest of the left wing



Again, I have never made claims to be part of the left wing.  One does not have to be left wing, liberal, or right wing to see glaring inconsistencies in what we are being told.  It is possible for one, for instance, to support the right wingers in principle and yet protest when those currently representing the right wing show themselves to be irresponsible.  To align one's self with a political party does not mean one has to become blinkered, I would hope youd agree.





			
				habilis said:
			
		

> are getting hung up on the little picture, getting in the way of real progress. Just like I said about results, you can have all the greatest intentions and feel-goodisms



I would allege that the right are talking lots on morality, but not necessarily practicing what they preach.  I do not find torture, "disappearances," breaking international law, and the like to be standing up for the principles upon which the USA was based.  Never forget Jefferson's famous quotation: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Let me summarize much of what Im saying by stating that I am *not* anti-American, as I do have a great affection for the country that I used to live in, but that I am against jinogism and nationalism.  When I see such traits rear their ugly head, I contest them where I can.  And that has included having similar conversations with people from other nations around the world, including European countries, trying to show that no one nation has the moral highground.  The sooner that people accept no one race or nation is superior, the better off the world will be and the sooner the us and them attitudes will be dropped.




			
				habilis said:
			
		

> about stopping a bomb in Iraq, going out to become a human shield or whatever, and maybe you get to feel good about yourself, but what did you really do for the long term?



So you support feel-bad-politics?   

OK, more seriously, I disagree here.  If you too feel that your political beliefs are for the benefit of mankind somehow (eg. overthrowing oppressors), then I could equally level that charge at you, that you just want to feel better about yourself.  I don't think that sort of allegation is constructive, and we could go round in circles.  We both feel/hope that our beliefs could make a difference.  If we both have our own views on matters of principles, then that is fine, but I would like to illustrate why I feel the current Bush administration is actually *not* making the world a better place, and I can use their very own words against them because they have not remained consistent.



Examples... 

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- George W. Bush, September 13th, 2001

"I don't know where he [bin Laden] is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- George W. Bush, March 13th, 2002




"Power appears to keep Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condolezza Rice help play out the drama of lies for corporate profits.  John Pilger notes, "Both Colin Powell, and Condolezza Rice made it clear before September 11, 2000, that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to America, Europe and the Middle East."(7)  On February 20, 2001, Powell repeated in Cairo that Iraq had no significant capability with respect to building weapons of mass destruction.  Yet, when Powell went to the United Nations in October 2003, he completely contradicted all of his earlier statements.  Greg Thielmann, a former expert on Iraqi weapons, stated in an interview on CBS News that Powell has misrepresented the truth and deceived the American people.(8)"
(7) Pilger, John. "The Big Lie," The Mirror in London, September 22, 2003.
(8) Pelley, Scott. Sixty Minutes, October 15, 2003.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOE402A.html




"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

-Bush's answer when asked why he insists there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda when the September 11th Commission says that there wasn't one, Washington, D.C., Jun. 17, 2004

(And again compare with http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html)



As you have complained about "lies" in the media, how about I also put forward evidence from the government's own transcripts, plus a Congressional report (which can be downloaded)?

"Question:  But doesnt the report indicate that there are military intelligence officers, 27 of them involved here and civilian contractors and of course, some of these abuses happened under interrogation circumstances?

SECRETARY RUMSFELD:  Thats not the report of the Schlesinger Panel.  In fact, its exactly the opposite of what the Schlesinger Panel says."

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040826-secdef1229.html

Compare this with "However, we do know that some of the egregious abuses at Abu Ghraib which were not photographed did occur during interrogation sessions and that abuses during interrogation sessions occurred elsewhere" from the report itself (sentence five, paragraph one, on page "5"... *the very first page* of the body of the report, no less!).




Remember Bush harping on about winning the war on terror?  How about his own admission, then?

"Question: Can we win [the war on terrorism]? 
Bush: I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are -- less acceptable in parts of the world."
Interview aired on NBC's "Today Show", Aug. 30, 2004

Also: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49035-2004Aug31.html








			
				habilis said:
			
		

> Liberals just want to be judged for their feel-good intentions, because they can't come up with results.



As pds has already highlighted, that statement is very much incorrect.  Liberals have included those who have campaigned for education, against slavery, in favor of the vote for women, in favor of civil rights, and many other topics.  Very real results that we value today and take for granted.  But at the time, these people were rocking the boat.





			
				habilis said:
			
		

> It is, and always has been the right that has had to face up to reality and transform the Earth into a better place.



Well, I'm not so convinced that everything is going as well as you say it is.  There are those who allege that Iraq is in an even worse state than it was before.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3125iraq_firsthand.html



Also, take news within the last couple of days, alone...

"Iraq's largest Sunni-led political party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, pulls out of the interim government in protest at the Falluja assault"

	"The main association of Sunni clerics calls for a boycott of elections due in January"

	"The United Nations refugee agency and the International Committee of the Red Cross express concern about the civilians in Falluja"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3994605.stm


"Three relatives of the Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi are abducted in Baghdad"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3998049.stm


These incidents could well have far reaching implications for stability.





			
				habilis said:
			
		

> Might as well sign up now and be on the right side of history with the rest of us.



I'm sure history will indeed judge the current administration.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 11, 2004)

*hands the trophy for the longest post to bbloke*


----------



## bbloke (Nov 11, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> *hands the trophy for the longest post to bbloke*



lol, sorry about that

*blush*


----------



## habilis (Nov 11, 2004)

I think avoiding escalation is all up to Hamas and Hezbollah at this point since these groups refuse to acknowledge Israel's existance, refuse to cooperate with the peace process, constantly try to derail any progress in the 'Roadmap' to peace by homicide bombing, and they teach this hateful philosophy to their children. There are actually schools full of children being taugh that Israel doesn't exist, it's not even on their map, and that Jews are subhuman. Say what you want about Sharon, but you don't see the Israeli's doing anything that evil.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 11, 2004)

thought something was wrong with my scrolling wheel..
did anyone read it yet? I am very sure bbloke posted something very smart and convincing.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 11, 2004)

habilis said:
			
		

> I think avoiding escalation is all up to Hamas and Hezbollah at this point since these groups refuse to acknowledge Israel's existance, refuse to cooperate with the peace process, constantly try to derail any progress in the 'Roadmap' to peace by homicide bombing, and they teach this hateful philosophy to their children. There are actually schools full of children being taugh that Israel doesn't exist, it's not even on their map, and that Jews are subhuman. Say what you want about Sharon, but you don't see the Israeli's doing anything that evil.


Let me use my fav metaphor:
A person in a headlock that is trying to beat himself free to catch some air is not the aggressor. I admit, on the first see it seems so. 
My point: one should consider the headlock as well..


----------



## pds (Nov 11, 2004)

Depends on your definition of evil.

Please remember your admonition to look at the whole picture. That includes the dimension of time.


----------



## pds (Nov 11, 2004)

wanted to get the other one in quick.

I consider the targeted murder of a blind cleric using tomahawk missles as pretty evil.


----------



## Cat (Nov 11, 2004)

> I think avoiding escalation is all up to Hamas and Hezbollah at this point since these groups refuse to acknowledge Israel's existance, refuse to cooperate with the peace process, constantly try to derail any progress in the 'Roadmap' to peace by homicide bombing, and they teach this hateful philosophy to their children. There are actually schools full of children being taugh that Israel doesn't exist, it's not even on their map, and that Jews are subhuman. Say what you want about Sharon, but you don't see the Israeli's doing anything that evil.


Isreal de facto does not acknowledge the existence of Palestine or even the right of palestinians to a palestinian state. They build sttlements on territory they do not own, they grab lands with the construction of the wall, they oppose the creatin of a palestinian state in every way. This is against multiple UN directives, the Oslo peace accords and the Roadmap.They destroy Palestinian homes and when the Palestinians have fled to a refugee camp, they destroy the refugee camp too ... Israeli soldiers have killed indisciminately: children, women, elderly, people in wheelchairs ... Fundamentalist orthodix jews raise their children in the firm belief that they are entitled to own and rule on half the middle east. On the basis of these teachings Israeli settlers feel entitled to practically invade Palestine. 

Habilis: you are the one not considering the big picture. yo uonly look at one side of the story. Try to walk even a hundred paces in the shoes of a Palestinian. The terrorist attcks coming from the Palestinian side are evenly matched by the state terrorism of Israel.

Palestine is asking for nothing more than that the already existing accords and rights be honored by Israel. Israel is the one who broke international law and it is Israel in the first place who should do something: retreat the army from the occupied territories, dismantle the illegal settlements and somehow compensate the Palestinians for all the destruction. Once Israel has fullfilled its obligations, I am reasonably convinced that most of the terrorism from the Palestinian side will spontaneously cease, the rest of it will then lack popular support and could quite easily be stopped by joint Israeli/Palestine actions.

Give a man a future (food, housing, job) and he will be very disinclined to join terroristic groups. Take them away by violence and he will ahv enothing to lose by blowing himself up. 

P.S. If you insist on definig them a "homicide bombers", you shoul dbe well aware that this applies also to American soldiers that bomb civilians against the Geneva conventions.


----------



## Tetano (Nov 11, 2004)

habilis said:
			
		

> I think avoiding escalation is all up to Hamas and Hezbollah at this point since these groups refuse to acknowledge Israel's existance, refuse to cooperate with the peace process, constantly try to derail any progress in the 'Roadmap' to peace by homicide bombing, and they teach this hateful philosophy to their children. There are actually schools full of children being taugh that Israel doesn't exist, it's not even on their map, and that Jews are subhuman. Say what you want about Sharon, but you don't see the Israeli's doing anything that evil.



well, Israeli's army is killing also many innocent people with their bomb, and i don't see a real difference between dropping the bomb from a plane or a tank and taking it by foot... and making a people die of hunger building a wall that prevent that people going to work is even worse that saying that a country doesn't exist, is making it disappear...


----------



## habilis (Nov 11, 2004)

I'm an atheist, so I don't get hung up on the word 'evil' but there's a manifestation of extreme cruelty in all of us that can be germinated in children with a gentle sprinkling of hate. This equates the word, no religious connection.

The level of evil is not equal on both sides here. This is the same thing Osama and the left wing is trying to make us believe, that Americans are evil, as evil as terrorists. And just as hate didn't win the election, evil will not win this argument.


----------



## pds (Nov 11, 2004)

Um - you just conceded the point.

You equated America with Israel. The points brought up by Cat and others were concerning the actions of Israel, not the US. Cat did not call the US evil, but Israel; and you felt it was directed at you (or at America). The same way the "baddies" equate the two.

Neither America nor Americans are evil, only selfish and self absorbed. It's kind of the plight of all people on earth.


----------



## bbloke (Nov 11, 2004)

habilis, one more time, I would point you to the living conditions of the Palestinians.

I have also heard from a friend who visited Palestine and was shocked by what he saw.  His assessment was that the Palestinians were pushed too far for too long and have reached *such* a desperate point where they have nothing left to lose, hence the more desperate attacks on Israel.  I think Zammy-Sam's metaphor is a good one...

I would also strongly contest this idea that the Israelis have not behaved in a reprehensible way.  I know of Israeli soldiers once being told to break literally every bone in the body of suspects in Lebanon, starting with the lower body, and then leaving them to die in wastelands.  I know of the usage of torture within Israel.  I have seen Israeli settlers teach their children that all Palestinians are "dogs" and that they are subhuman, and also teach their children to use guns from an early age, complete with the kids pretending to shoot at Palestinians nearby.  Tell me that all this is entirely innocent and that this situation is entirely the fault of "the Palestinians" (all of them).

habilis, you also get far too hung up on using political groupings and ignore the situation.  You like referring to what you think "the left" want everyone to believe, but you seem unable to address actual facts.  As a result, it feels to me like you're not really debating with us.  You also say you are not hung up on the word evil, but then used the word five times in your last post.  

I want to stress that I never once said (or even believed!) that America or Americans are evil, nor that I think things are one-sided.  My previous posts were not intended to be anti-American; I think that the ability to protest is one of our important freedoms, and that protesting is actually patriotic because it shows one cares about the state of a nation!  So, I wanted to show you that things are not perfect in America and that American foreign policy has not always been particularly "good," but this is the same world-wide and so does not apply to just America.  That is, I wanted to redress a balance, *not* slander the USA.  I think the world is a very complex place and problems are not solved by making one set of people "the bad guys" and the other set "the good guys."


----------



## Satcomer (Nov 11, 2004)

pds said:
			
		

> Um - you just conceded the point.
> 
> You equated America with Israel. The points brought up by Cat and others were concerning the actions of Israel, not the US. Cat did not call the US evil, but Israel; and you felt it was directed at you (or at America). The same way the "baddies" equate the two.
> 
> Neither America nor Americans are evil, only selfish and self absorbed. It's kind of the plight of all people on earth.


I take issue with this statement! So you hate me because I am American? Your stereotype is way off base! When you walk in my shoes or live for a while in America then you will see we are no different than you are. Your reasoning would lead Americans to think all Europeans anti-Semitic (which I do not think) or all Canadians are pot-smoking alcoholics (which they are not). That kind of thinking will lead to hatred and hatred leads to the slippery slope of terrible wars.


----------



## habilis (Nov 11, 2004)

bbloke said:
			
		

> (...)habilis, you get far too hung up on using political groupings(...)


 That's a typical defense mechanism of the left when they start losing an argument, an act of desperation I've heard many times. It's simple bloke, when you can't win idealogically, ATTACK the opponents character. It was the basis for the ENTIRE Kerry campaign and here it is in a microcosm. You're damn right, I don't debate the rationale of a terrorist, I don't accept their premise like you do. Terrorists need to be KILLED, not debated! You don't want me to point you out for what you really are and I understand that, I don't blame you. You guys get LOST in THE MIDDLE - still trying to please consensus(Remember the FEELING you got when Kerry said "I'll hunt down and KILL the terrorists wherever I find them."). Strap those Ullyssean binds tighter to the mast of the ship of academic mainstream my man. Don't let the cries of the creative get to you, your a man of the people, after all. 

 While the left gets lost in the negativity feedback loop, Neoconservatism makes reality simple so we can transform what you can't. Interested readers can look back in this thread to see plain evidence that the modern left is a bankrupt and impotent institution. An Orwellian vestigal organ.

   Let me break it down and reiterate; You're biggest HERO'S are terrorists. Just go with it and be *real*. You stand for the terrorists and embrace their ideology, plain and fucking simple. It's high time you were called on the carpet for it. That's what I do, I don't "debate" it.

 Ladies and gentlemen, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for the long term positive transformation of the ME. Not to be confused with something that is easy or without great peril, suffering, and death.

   It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it.


----------



## Satcomer (Nov 11, 2004)

Tetano said:
			
		

> well, Israeli's army is killing also many innocent people with their bomb, and i don't see a real difference between dropping the bomb from a plane or a tank and taking it by foot... and making a people die of hunger building a wall that prevent that people going to work is even worse that saying that a country doesn't exist, is making it disappear...


I will take your statement and then ask a question. Why didn't Arafat or other Arab leaders form a way for Palestinians to make a living other that working for Israelis? I thought most Palestinians wanted nothing to do with anything from Israel or a Jew. So why were they working for them? Was it because Arafat could not because he was an ineffective leader?


----------



## pds (Nov 12, 2004)

Satcomer said:
			
		

> I take issue with this statement! So you hate me because I am American? Your stereotype is way off base! When you walk in my shoes or live for a while in America then you will see we are no different than you are. Your reasoning would lead Americans to think all Europeans anti-Semitic (which I do not think) or all Canadians are pot-smoking alcoholics (which they are not). That kind of thinking will lead to hatred and hatred leads to the slippery slope of terrible wars.



Satcomer, it is not my stereotype. It is the one that people here use and habiis stepped into the same trap. To hate you because you are American would be to hate myself as I am too. And I kinda dig myself.  

Sorry if the post was unclear. Even Cat didn't call Israel evil, but highlighted that some of her actions are less than peaceful, less than magnanimous. And as to self-centered, I stand by it with the accent on the fact that all people are, that's mankind's problem.

You are 100% right - it leads to the precipitous slippery slope, stereotypes on all sides. It is what has lead us to the situation we are in now.


----------



## pds (Nov 12, 2004)

Satcomer said:
			
		

> I will take your statement and then ask a question. Why didn't Arafat or other Arab leaders form a way for Palestinians to make a living other that working for Israelis? I thought most Palestinians wanted nothing to do with anything from Israel or a Jew. So why were they working for them? Was it because Arafat could not because he was an ineffective leader?



Yup.

And because the United States poured more money per week into Israel than the Soviet Union poured into Cuba. 

And because most Palestinians are not the rabid terrorists that they are made out to be. (97% literacy ain't to shabby)

Many Palestinians (well some) are Israeli citizens btw. The polarization is a tragic result of failed leadership on both sides.


----------



## Tetano (Nov 12, 2004)

Satcomer said:
			
		

> I will take your statement and then ask a question. Why didn't Arafat or other Arab leaders form a way for Palestinians to make a living other that working for Israelis? I thought most Palestinians wanted nothing to do with anything from Israel or a Jew. So why were they working for them? Was it because Arafat could not because he was an ineffective leader?



I think that Arafat was like Che Guevara, a great leader when the need is to fight, but not a great leader when you ahave to do the next step and rule a country... too many errors in his decision, when the situation was good for his people, since in Israel there were 'better' (please note the '' !!!) government...
By the way, i think both the majority Palestinians and Israelis want peace, want to live without the fear of a bomb exploding at the bus stop or fired against them by a tank... they want a job to take some money home for their children, they want just to have a normal life, like everyone of us....

and habilis, i'm Communist, but my hero is not someone who kills innocent people, but someone fight for a improvement in their living conditions... Bin Laden is a murderer, but what about someone who fires an intelligent bomb directly in a car with a 12 years old and 14 years old students?


----------



## bbloke (Nov 12, 2004)

habilis said:
			
		

> That's a typical defense mechanism of the left when they start losing an argument,



Eh?  How many times do you have to be told I'm not aligning myself with one group and how many times do I have to point out you are not addressing any facts?

To win an argument, it's not enough to put your fingers in your ears, pretend you can't hear anyone, and say everyone else is just plain wrong.




			
				habilis said:
			
		

> when you can't win idealogically, ATTACK the opponents character.



Again, I genuinely wish you'd address the facts, as I honestly would like to better understand your position and how you justify what has been going on.  But if you simply keep saying "you're wrong" and do not explain why, with facts, then nobody benefits.  I did not attack your character, I commented on what you were doing after trying (unsuccessfully, thus far) to debate the facts with you.



			
				habilis said:
			
		

> You're damn right, I don't debate the rationale of a terrorist, I don't accept their premise like you do.



Eh?



			
				habilis said:
			
		

> Terrorists need to be KILLED, not debated!  You don't want me to point you out for what you really are and I understand that, I don't blame you.



Eh?  And what, pray tell, am I then?




			
				habilis said:
			
		

> Neoconservatism makes reality simple so we can transform what you can't.



Makes reality simple?  As in forces square pegs into round holes?




			
				habilis said:
			
		

> Interested readers can look back in this thread to see plain evidence that the modern left is a bankrupt and impotent institution.



What are you talking about?  Who was claiming to represent the left here?  And what evidence are you referring to?  Either back up such statements or accept they will be discredited.




			
				habilis said:
			
		

> Let me break it down and reiterate; You're biggest HERO'S are terrorists. Just go with it and be *real*. You stand for the terrorists and embrace their ideology, plain and fucking simple.



Errr, no I don't.  Where did that come from?!



			
				habilis said:
			
		

> It's high time you were called on the carpet for it. That's what I do, I don't "debate" it.



Indeed.  You don't debate because you are unable to counter the evidence, so you resort to slandering people and going off on a tangent.

So, Bush makes Osama bin Laden his priority, then a few months later says bin Laden is not his priority anymore and he doesn't care where bin Laden is.  Bush then talks about winning the war on terror and later says the war on terror can never be won.  When are you going to look at events more honestly?




			
				habilis said:
			
		

> Ladies and gentlemen, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for the long term positive transformation of the ME. Not to be confused with something that is easy or without great peril, suffering, and death.



So, will you advocate killing everyone who disagrees with you?  If so, we have a name for that: tyranny.  If you wouldn't do this, then will you accept that people have to live together and that involves communication, even if you disagree with what they say or believe?

The point of much of what I have posted has been to illustrate the hypocrisy and inconsistency of the administration that you so strongly support.  Furthermore, I find it ironic that you complained that some Palestinians see Jews as being subhuman, and yet you opened this thread by joking that the Palestinian leader was subhuman.


----------



## habilis (Nov 12, 2004)

bloke I've already addressed your accusations that the Israeli's are worse then the Palestinians. You cite anecdotal evidence from supposed friends who saw things in supposed places. I challenge you to show me statistics of the percentage of schools in Israel that actively teach state sponsored hate, advocate violence, racism, and rewrite maps to show Israel doesn't exist versus those in the palestinian territories. You'll find the number to be around 0% Israel / 100% Palestinian.

I've already stated in this thread what I would do if I was a Palestinian; dismantle the hate groups and start asking Israel's forgiveness and beg for peace. The sickest thing a parent can do is make their personal pride more important then their children's life. The palestinians are actually proud to send their children to their death over this zealous pride - you don't see the Israeli's doing that. The dirty little truth here is that the Palestinians are happy pawns for all the other ME Islamofacists and the only reason they care so much about having all the Israeli land is because they hate Jews. If you don't believe this then you haven't been paying attention. Or maybe you choose to deny the existence of these facts because they don't fit your template.

In a recent report from David Kallaman:
"According to 58 new textbooks and two teachers' guides for grades 1, 2, 6, 7 and 11 published in the past two years by the Palestinian Authority, Israel does not exist -- nor does the concept of peace Children are encouraged from the earliest school age to hate Israelis, glorify 'martyrs' and seek the 'liberation' of all of Palestine, including Israel.
 Jews are openly refered to as "Donkeys" by Allah himself, which instills the idea that God himself hates Jews."

The sad truth about the Palestinian Authority and its schoolbooks is that they both embrace anti-Semitism, de-legitimize Israels existence and incite to hatred and violence as everyday normal stuff for kids to do. Children are taught that hating Jews is *Gods choice*, all the while Islam itself is not being critiqued. Instead of taking the chance to educate the children that peace is possible, and tolrance is a good thing  as the Israeli's have  the PA has brainwashed a whole generation into thinking violence and death is rewarded by their god. This is what you defend and I'm making sure everybody knows it. You can run, but you can't hide from the truth.

Kallaman also writes:
In the new PA 6th grade book Reading the Koran, anti-Semitism is presented openly, as children read about Allahs warning to the Jews that because of their evil Allah will kill them: ...Oh you who are Jews ...long for death if you are truthful... for the death from which you flee, that will surely overtake you ...In other sections they learn of Jews being expelled from their homes by Allah, and in another Jews are said to be like donkeys: Those [Jews] who were charged with the Torah, but did not observe it, are like a donkey carrying books...  

What I'm addressing is this fact; I'm taking sides with Israel. I'm taking sides with America. I'm taking sides with tolerance and peace.

Now, answer this straight up bloke and the rest of the leftist club members  and don't cloud your answer:
1. Who's side are you taking? Israel or Palestine?


----------



## pds (Nov 13, 2004)

habilis said:
			
		

> Now, answer this straight up bloke and the rest of the leftist club members  and don't cloud your answer:
> 1. Who's side are you taking? Israel or Palestine?



With the obvious forestated caveat that I am not in the box you want me to stay in;

Will you call it clouding if I try to enumerate the various parts of the situation that I am casting an opinion for?

Rechtstadt? - Israel

Settlements? - Palestinians 
(note that I won't take the bait, there is no Palestine and that's the problem)

Right of return? - Israel 
(ie sorry- no return for the dispossessed)

Ownership of Jerusalem? - neither - make it a new country. Tourism will more than support the population.

Right to exist in a contiguous state with defensible borders? - both. 
(there is of course a problem here as it is difficult to make Gaza and the West Bank contiguous while keeping Israel contiguous.)

Historical right to the land? .... (gee, look, that another problem with the "us or them" paradigm)
Short term? - Israel 
(might does in fact make right - not in a moral sense as in right and wrong but in a political sense as is right to be)
Long term? - Palestinians. 
These people lived there in the own culture for at least 1876 years (1948-72 when the temple was destroyed and the Jews expelled). (that is: I reject the idea that somehow the promise of a land in perpetuity written in a highly politicized text as the word of God has any bearing on the legitimacy of the state of Israel.)

Which side has the buried more of their loved ones?  Palestinians (fact not opinion)

Over abuse of power (ie - who abuses it more)? -Israel

Greater number of illegal search and seizures? Israel

As inspiration to thousands of terrorists? - Israel 
(ok - getting to the edge of the clouds here.)

shall I go on - or do you get the point? It is a complex situation and needs a subtle solution that IMO does not involve the army breaking things and killing people. It needs an honest broker as America has been in the past, but at present she has given herself over wholly to a government that is at least part of the problem.

For the distantly involved, they are details; for the people directly affected, they are the crucial questions of their existence, which is why I prefer popular government structures and support them. I'm sure you saw (and may have been revolted by) the President's funeral. He was their leader. He was their voice. He was their hero (not mine btw - you have no idea who my heros are). They are emotional, spontaneous people. They are an intelligent, patient people. Treat them with respect and they will bless you for it.


----------



## habilis (Nov 13, 2004)

pds said:
			
		

> Short term? - Israel
> (might does in fact make right - not in a moral sense as in right and wrong but in a political sense as is right to be)


 I like it.


			
				pds said:
			
		

> Long term? - Palestinians.
> These people lived there in the own culture for at least 1876 years


 Yes, it's true, but all is fair in love an war. How long were the native American Indians living here before we won the land? Close to 10,000 years or so. And if you believe this sort of thing, then the indians have stolen Neaderthal and Cro-Magnon land(not to mention, hunted them to total extention - AHHEM). I don't accept the premise that I'm living on stolen ground. If the Indians want it back - come and get it. It was conquered and annexed fair and square. For me, there's no good reason  that the Israeli's should give that land back. They won it fair and square. The Arabs can't let go of the hate, that's their reason for wanting it so bad.








 Update: I just learned the reason why Arafat was sent to France to die - in France, no cause of death is required to be released. Therefore the Arabs could hide whatever illness Arafat died from, which is probably something like Parkinsons that would make arafat look weak. Pride will be the death of them.


----------



## bbloke (Nov 15, 2004)

habilis said:
			
		

> bloke I've already addressed your accusations that the Israeli's are worse then the Palestinians.



Nice try...

First of all, you either deliberately or else negligently misquote me.  I have never stated that the Israelis were "worse" than the Palestinians (or vice versa).

Secondly, you have once more completely ignored the facts I have presented and sidestepped the issues I was referring to (eg. hypocrisy in the Bush administration, the invasion of Iraq, and more).  Reference to the situation in Israel and Palestine was a relatively small part of my discussion with you, and in answer to something you later raised when once more avoiding addressing my concerns.

As I have pointed out several times that you have been avoiding addressing the evidence thus far, I can only conclude that you really, truly have no answers and cannot counter what was written.  My replies were written to refute what you said about isolationists during World War II, and to present information concerning the Bush administration, the invasion of Iraq, and "The War Against Terror."  I only mentioned the Israeli/Palestinian question briefly when you raised the subject while trying to dodge what I raised.  But, then, it must be quite hard to, for instance, explain how Bush and his administration could contradict themselves within months, simply depending on what politically suited them at the time.






			
				habilis said:
			
		

> You cite anecdotal evidence from supposed friends



"Anecdotal evidence?"  After the extensive facts and figures I have provided and referred to more than once?  That's *extremely* selective of you...

"Supposed?"  That's rather unnecessary.  Unless you are calling me a liar.  In which case, do it outright, while also somehow *showing* me how my previous posts were filled with lies, and not actually filled with quotations/statistics that are readily available for all to see...

Oh, and by the way, you might be interested to know the friend who visited the area was one of the most conservative people I have ever met in the UK, very much a complete Conservative (with a capital "c") through and through.  





			
				habilis said:
			
		

> who saw things in supposed places. I challenge you to show me statistics



lol

That's a bit rich coming from someone who has utterly sidestepped two posts filled with evidence, complete with references...

But, anyway, read on...   






			
				habilis said:
			
		

> of the percentage of schools in Israel that actively teach state sponsored hate, advocate violence, racism, and rewrite maps to show Israel doesn't exist versus those in the palestinian territories. You'll find the number to be around 0% Israel / 100% Palestinian.



"Do as I say, not as I do?"

Show me the evidence for such an allegation.  And then see below.





			
				habilis said:
			
		

> I've already stated in this thread what I would do if I was a Palestinian; dismantle the hate groups and start asking Israel's forgiveness and beg for peace.



And is it realistic to expect a group that has been oppressed for years to unreservedly apologize and beg for mercy, rather than fighting back when they feel they having nothing left to lose?  Have you not learned from history?  How about the general lessons learned from the harsh treatment of the Weimar republic by the Allies after World War I, which led to the ripe conditions for something much worse to come along later... ?  People need to be treated with respect, not humiliated and treated like caged animals.  Otherwise, they will lash out eventually, it is only a matter of time.

Judging by the way you have reacted so far, I find it hard to believe you would in fact act as you say if you were a Palestinian.  You have not accepted one bit of "the other side of the story" about your own country despite the evidence (once again: no country is perfect, I am not saying America is a terrible place; I am focusing on America because you, habilis, are trying to claim moral high ground which I believe is without strong justification) and have, instead, reacted defensively and effectively said you believe "might makes right."  How is a strong, national feeling based on "might" so very different from what we have been seeing in the Middle East?  Such attitudes only serve to exacerbate the problems, not solve anything.

I cant help wondering how youd react if the UN were to carve up the USA and give a large chunk to a specific group (eg. Native Americans, the Spanish, the French, or whoever), particularly if it was where you lived.  Would you happily accept that the territory was lost fair and square?  Or would you react angrily and fight back?  If you fought back, would you eventually stop and effectively beg for forgiveness for your actions, apologizing and seeking peace, completely accepting the current situation?  I would find it very hard to believe, judging from the way you have reacted in this thread, and, if you wouldnt comply in this way, I think you have no right to demand others to act in such a way that you would not act yourself.





			
				habilis said:
			
		

> Or maybe you choose to deny the existence of these facts because they don't fit your template.



lol

Have you heard of the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black?"

http://www.goenglish.com/ThePotCallingTheKettleBlack.asp






			
				habilis said:
			
		

> In a recent report from David Kallaman:
> "According to 58 new textbooks and two teachers' guides for grades 1, 2, 6, 7 and 11 published in the past two years by the Palestinian Authority, Israel does not exist -- nor does the concept of peace Children are encouraged from the earliest school age to hate Israelis, glorify 'martyrs' and seek the 'liberation' of all of Palestine, including Israel.
> Jews are openly refered to as "Donkeys" by Allah himself, which instills the idea that God himself hates Jews."
> 
> ...



Right, where to start.....

Yet *again* you try to put words in my mouth (saying what I "defend") because you cannot counter what I have *actually* written.  

While you emphasize that Palestinians are told to fight against the Israelis because it is God's Will, how is this very different to Israelis believing they have a divine right to the land around them and that they are God's chosen people?  If you have two groups believing they alone have a divine mandate, things become very tricky indeed and stating one side alone is the source of all the problems is naive in the extreme.   Now, if Palestinian textbooks genuinely have at any stage attempted to indoctrinate Palestinian schoolchildren with thoughts of anti-Semitism and violence, I would not condone that, I would condemn it.  However, before going down that road, I think you should also see the other evidence too:



"Parallel to this process, allegations of anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish bias and incitement contained in Palestinian textbooks were made, directly or indirectly based on documentation prepared by the CMIP (Centre for Monitoring the Impact on Peace).  CMIP based those claims on specific quotations from these books inciting anti-Semitism and urging the destruction of Israel. "

"1.- Quotations attributed by earlier CMIP reports to the Palestinian textbooks are not found in the new Palestinian Authority schoolbooks funded by some EU Member States; some were traced to the old Egyptian and Jordanian text books that they are replacing, some to other books outside the school curriculum, and others not traced at all.  While many of the quotations attributed to the new textbooks by the most recent CMIP report of November 2001 could be confirmed, these have been found to be often badly translated or quoted out of context, thus suggesting an anti-Jewish incitement that the books do not contain. 

2.- New textbooks, though not perfect, are free of inciteful content and improve the previous textbooks, constituting a valuable contribution to the education of young Palestinians. Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education has accepted the need for ongoing review, revision and improvement. "

"EU missions on the ground will keep the issue under review and assist in the task of monitoring the content of Palestinian Authority textbooks as they are published.  In the framework of the UNESCO Executive Board Resolution of June 2001, Israeli and PLO representatives agreed to undertake a joint review of Israeli and Palestinian textbooks. "

http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/mepp/faq/heads_ mission_schoolbooks.pdf



"Dr. Browns report concludes CMIP's accusations are "often wildly exaggerated or inaccurate" and the sources "misleading and tendentious." He does assert, the Palestinian curriculum is not a war time curriculum. While highly nationalist, it does not incite hatred, violence and anti-Semitism.  It cannot be described as a peace curriculum either. Nationalism, whatever its drawbacks, underpins almost every countrys school textbooks, not least in the US and Israel.  Are we to label as racist or inciting when we say God Bless America, instead of saying, perhaps, God Bless the World?"

"ADLs accusations are probably based on an Israeli Army study published in a Haaretz. [3]  Example of PAs hate-teaching  include  the use of maps that do not show Israel's borders, the allegation that  Israeli changed the names of formerly Arab towns, the contention that many  Arabs were forcibly displaced in 1948, and even the suggestion that there  were centers of Palestinian population in Palestine before 1948! All these concrete claims however are widely acknowledged to be true even by Israel historians such as Meron Benvenisti and Ilan Pape."

"Another example is the Palestinians failure to show Israel's borders. This does not really constitute a claim to all of Palestine  (Brown argues that the textbooks are simply evasive to avoid controversy); and where official claims are made, for instance by the PA, they have explicitly recognized Israel for more than a decade. The Israeli government has of course made no such parallel recognition of a Palestinian state nor has it ever defined its borders.  The official map of Israel includes the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan heights-  areas that  Israels sovereignty was never recognized by any country including the United States and the United Nations."

"Since Mr. Goldstein has engaged in an analysis of educational materials, he would do well to examine depictions of Arabs in Israeli textbooks.   According to recent academic study by Professor Daniel Bar-Tal of Tel Aviv University and surveys Israeli school textbooks as well as childrens storybooks, portray Palestinians and Arabs as "murderers," "rioters,"  "suspicious," and generally backward and unproductive. As Maureen Meehan writes, outright delegitimization of Arabs is the rule rather than the exception in Israeli schoolbooks.  Her assessment is based on a report by Dr.  Bar-Tal  of Tel  Aviv University, who  studied 124 elementary, middle- and high school textbooks on grammar and Hebrew literature,  history, geography and citizenship.[4]  He concluded that Israeli textbooks present the view that Jews are  involved in a justified, even humanitarian, war against an Arab enemy  that refuses to accept and acknowledge the existence and rights of Jews in  Israel.  He concluded:"The early textbooks tended to describe acts of Arabs as hostile, deviant, cruel, immoral, and unfair, with the intention to hurt Jews and to annihilate the State of Israel. Within this frame of reference, Arabs were delegitimized by the use of such labels as  'robbers,' 'bloodthirsty,' and 'killers.'"  Professor Bar-Tal also notes that there has been little positive revision in the curriculum over the years.  Bar-Tal pointed out that Israeli textbooks continue to present Jews as industrious, brave and determined to cope with the difficulties of "improving the country in ways they believe the Arabs are incapable of."  Our message to ADL is look at the Israeli textbooks first!"

http://www.adcnj.us/Reply-ADL PR-on-Pale-textbooks-11-15-02.htm



Also see:

"One book does contain a poem praising the children who threw stones in the first intifada, but at the same time praises Gandhi at some length for non-violence."

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/takpoints/report_on_palestinian_textbooks_.htm




"This message, continued Bar-Tal, was further emphasized in textbooks by the use of blatant negative stereotyping which featured Arabs as: unenlightened, inferior, fatalistic, unproductive and apathetic. Further, according to the textbooks, the Arabs were tribal, vengeful, exotic, poor, sick, dirty, noisy, colored and they burn, murder, destroy, and are easily inflamed."

"Our books basically tell us that everything the Jews do is fine and legitimate and Arabs are wrong and violent and are trying to exterminate us, said Daniel Banvolegyi, a 17-year-old high school student in Jerusalem."

"One kid told me he was angry because of something he read or discussed in school and that he felt like punching the first Arab he saw, said Banvolegyi. Instead of teaching tolerance and reconciliation, the books and some teachers attitudes are increasing hatred for Arabs."

"Seventy five percent of the children described the Arab as a murderer, one who kidnaps children, a criminal and a terrorist. Eighty percent said they saw the Arab as someone dirty with a terrifying face. Ninety percent of the students stated they believe that Palestinians have no rights whatsoever to the land in Israel or Palestine"

"Cohen also researched 1,700 Israeli childrens books published after 1967. He found that 520 of the books contained humiliating, negative descriptions of Palestinians. He also took pains to break down the descriptions:

Sixty six percent of the 520 books refer to Arabs as violent; 52 percent as evil; 37 percent as liars; 31 percent as greedy; 28 percent as two-faced; 27 percent as traitors, etc."

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/9909019.html




SO...  A Professor (in Israel, no less) has cited Israeli depictions of Arabs and Palestinians as "robbers," "murderers," "bloodthirsty," "inferior," "dirty," "unenlightened," "noisy," and "colored."  And over 50% of the childrens books referred to Palestinians as actually *evil.*  And an Israeli student has said he wanted to punch the first Arab he saw, after something he heard/read from school.  75% of Israeli children described Arabs as being murderers, kidnappers of children, criminals, and terrorists and 80% saw them as someone who is dirty and with a terrifying face.

You wanted statistics, now you have them.  

You refer to close to 0% (a completely unsubstantiated figure that you created) of Israeli schools teaching such hatred and again the facts simply do not correlate with what you say.  Also, imagine Id that if 75% of Western children felt this way about the Jewish population, we'd be (rightfully!) outraged by such disgusting anti-Semitism!  So why should it be acceptable treatment of Arabs and Palestinians?


Textbooks... Nice example, habilis.  

Still maintain that Israelis would never indoctrinate their youth?





			
				habilis said:
			
		

> What I'm addressing is this fact; I'm taking sides with Israel. I'm taking sides with America. I'm taking sides with tolerance and peace.



"Addressing:" OK, you've skipped over everything else and tried to move on to what you want to discuss, hoping I won't notice you've avoided answering my previous points.  Also, saying you side with tolerance and peace does not necessarily follow on from everything that you wrote thus far...  





			
				habilis said:
			
		

> Now, answer this straight up bloke and the rest of the leftist club members



Oh please.  Stop trying to pigeon hole those who disagree with you, as it is a very immature way of dealing with things, trying to dismiss arguments by forcing people into (often incorrect) categories, because it makes it easier for you to stop thinking about what they have said.  But, then, I guess life is easier for you to deal with when everything is in black and white, "us and them," in every situation.




			
				habilis said:
			
		

>  and don't cloud your answer:



Yes, never let the facts get in the way of your argument.  




			
				habilis said:
			
		

> 1. Who's side are you taking? Israel or Palestine?



In truth: I side with neither outright.  I know you like to think in terms of binaries, but I think both have reasonable claims and both sides are also guilty of atrocities.  In the meantime, we have people suffering on both sides.  Therefore, it is better to try to find a settlement that both can agree to in the long run, and that means concessions from *both* sides.  Trying to batter one side into submission and demanding unreserved grovelling is simply unrealistic and will not solve anything at all in the long run.  I completely agree with pds: it is a complex problem and violence to sort things out (ha!) will just make things worse.  Peace processes are the way forward, and that means communication, education, combatting prejudices, and honest self-appraisal, not violence.  That goes for both sides.

Now, I am not going to let you off the hook.  You continually dodge answering questions about the Bush administration, the invasion of Iraq, and The War Against Terror.  I have promptly and honestly given you my views on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, even though you are trying to pigeon hole me and divert the previous discussion.  I would ask you, in fairness, to address what I had asked of you (and asked you first), in return.


----------



## habilis (Nov 15, 2004)

bbloke said:
			
		

> So, Bush makes Osama bin Laden his priority, then a few months later says bin Laden is not his priority anymore and he doesn't care where bin Laden is. Bush then talks about winning the war on terror and later says the war on terror can never be won. When are you going to look at events more honestly?


 Actually I already did answer this by not answering it.

 The only way forward is forward. In a war this dynamic and everchanging, so too must we change with it. Priorities change in a war. Mistakes are often made and lessons are learned from them. While many want to look back, now with perfect hindsight, Others are looking forward at the end result; freedom in Afghanistan, freedom for millions in Iraq, fall of the Taliban, women and men voting in a democratic society, realistic long term reduction of terrorism and anti-americanism.

  Of course these advances are still in the rough, everybody knows it.

  Before I answer to the Palestinians, I wanted to know if you think America is the worlds biggest terrorist?


----------



## pds (Nov 16, 2004)

wtf!

answered by not answering - means your mind's made up and you don't want to be confused by the facts?

It is hard to talk to you when you keep changing the subject. I have never said that the effort in Afghanistan was in any way flawed - and have objected to the Iraq situation only on the basis of interfering with sovereigty.

But the discussion is about Palestine. It is a different kettle of fish. The problem in Palestine is one of invasion and occupation. Granted, it is in response to criminal acts, but it is still invasion and occupation. The thing is we like the invader and have keyholed the invaded with the worst kind of stereotypes. It is time to take a fresh look.

OK - you want to ignore the past. Let's look at the present. Interestingly - Israel refuses (so far and in principle) to allow residents of Arab East Jerusalem to vote in the upcoming elections. What is going on? They are Palestinians and they voted in the last election. Why exclude them this time?  Simple - it adds to the famous "facts on the ground". You watch. Afterwards Israel will use it to prove that Palestinians have no right to the historical lands of East Jerusalem because the people didn't even vote in the last election! :-\

This is the pattern that Israel has followed for most of its history. It _takes_ land within the Palestinian territory, builds settlements and then says - "Look - this is part of Israel proper." It then claims - "We have to be there to protect our citizens."

Let's put it in terms you may understand. If all of a sudden a group of Mexicans  bought up around 1,000 acres of Texas and built houses and businesses and then declared that the sovereignty they would adhere to was Mexican, not American, what would you do? What if then the Mexican miitary decided to patrol the highway between Matamoros and the "settlement" and wouldn't let people with family on the road travel by it. Then what?

In truth, that is not what happened, the analogy is more like Americans bought up Acapulco and controled the highway from Houston to the Pacific, the strong imposing on the weak. 

It is wrong. Might may make right, but the result is not _right_ and the wrongs must be addressed.

(btw - It was not surprising that you completely misinterpreted the point of my direct answer to your earlier question. Your mind is made up - you refuse to consider facts outside of your paradigm (or worse - assiduously twist them to your own orthodoxy) and so it would seem that this discussion with you is pointless. Still, the situation is vital to the long term prospects of human prosperity and I can only hope that the people who decide policy are more open to revising their strategies than you are. - omg they're probably not!)

Sure we can stick our heads in the sand - not learn from our own history - and stick the ugly Palestinians on the reservation and the problem may even go away. But we will be less for having done so.

Let us rise up to the best that mankind can be - not sink to the savage discredited law of the jungle.


----------



## bbloke (Nov 16, 2004)

habilis said:
			
		

> Actually I already did answer this by not answering it.


 





			
				pds said:
			
		

> answered by not answering - means your mind's made up and you don't want to be confused by the facts?





			
				pds said:
			
		

> It is hard to talk to you when you keep changing the subject.





			
				pds said:
			
		

> (btw - It was not surprising that you completely misinterpreted the point of my direct answer to your earlier question. Your mind is made up - you refuse to consider facts outside of your paradigm (or worse - assiduously twist them to your own orthodoxy) and so it would seem that this discussion with you is pointless.





			
				pds said:
			
		

> Sure we can stick our heads in the sand - not learn from our own history - ... But we will be less for having done so.





			
				pds said:
			
		

> Let us rise up to the best that mankind can be - not sink to the savage discredited law of the jungle.



All very well put, pds.

habilis, there is little point in us "discussing things with you" (in actual fact: a one way process) if you won't be open to accepting new ideas, won't address what has been put to you, and twist what has been posted.  Like pds says, I can only hope that the politicians you support do not have the same mentality, or else the world is really in trouble.


----------



## habilis (Nov 16, 2004)

pds said:
			
		

> answered by not answering - means your mind's made up and you don't want to be confused by the facts?


 Or it means I already answered. The answer should have been self-explanatory if you were paying attention to what I said about getting lost in the details. Bloke you're still lost. The end results are all that matter. Time will pass, and history will show very simply who brought freedom to the ME; A courageous leader who didn't sell out, and didn't back down from hatemongering murderers.

 Bloke if I were you I would be scared shitless that this might actually happen, that the right, might actually be right. It's a strange position you're in to be hoping for America to falter and fail so you can prove your point. Bad news for America and our soldiers = Great news for you doesn't it? and good news for America and it's war on terror = bad news for you. I wouldn't want to be there sitting next to the terrorists even if is just a proxy relationship.

 Are you guys still trying to push the "No blood for Oil" charge? Look at the news today, look at who really sold their souls for oil, look at the crumbling institution of the UN. Kofi Annan is shamelessly covering it all up, sandbagging access to the documents related to the corrupt Oil for Food program. Should we call it Oilgate?

 Give me a credible working concept any day. I love new ideas, they are the lifeblood of capitalism, one of my favorite things.

 As for Israel/Palestine, you guys on the left had your chance. Arafat was the most frequent foreign visitor to the Clinton Whitehouse(besides Monica) and what results do they have to show besides escalating the violence? Zilch. Although they can take credit for cutting and running in Somalia, bombing an asprin factory in Iraq, letting bin Lauden slip right through their hands when Soudan was trying to give him away, getting attacked by terrorists time and time again(Twin Tower bombing, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, etc.) and being derelict in persuing them - in effect emboldening terrorists to attack again which they did on 9/11. Thanks Bill. Anyway I'm sorry to digress but these are all important brush strokes in the big picture that is still being ignored.

 Bloke, I credit you in digging up a great refutation of the Palestinian/Israeli indoctrination argument. On the other hand, they're may indeed be a deluge of indoctrination, but until the Arabs stop murdering children in the name of God to make a point, they're the ones who are actually believing it.

 You can have the last word my friends.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 17, 2004)

> Let's put it in terms you may understand. If all of a sudden a group of Mexicans bought up around 1,000 acres of Texas and built houses and businesses and then declared that the sovereignty they would adhere to was Mexican, not American, what would you do?


Lets just say they would soon be advised of thier options - lol!



> What if then the Mexican miitary decided to patrol the highway between Matamoros and the "settlement" and wouldn't let people with family on the road travel by it. Then what?


If the patrol included the US side of the border, they would be
ordered to stop, return to mexico, and stay there - if they refused, they would be "dealt with."


----------



## monktus (Nov 17, 2004)

g/re/p, don't you see that you've just validated the arguments you quoted? The point was to get habillis and yourself to put party politics aside and think about what life is like for Palistinians. Neither pds, cat or bbloke have been suggesting that Palestine is right and Israel is wrong but rather that you seem to be completely ignoring the hardships that Palestinians face every day i.e. if the situation in Palestine was extrapolated to Texas, what would you do?


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 17, 2004)

monktus said:
			
		

> g/re/p, don't you see that you've just validated the arguments you quoted?


Damn right i validated the arguments i quoted - that was my intention. 


			
				monktus said:
			
		

> The point was to get habillis and yourself to put party politics aside and think about what life is like for Palistinians. Neither pds, cat or bbloke have been suggesting that Palestine is right and Israel is wrong but rather that you seem to be completely ignoring the hardships that Palestinians face every day i.e. if the situation in Palestine was extrapolated to Texas, what would you do?


You can leave me out of the Israel/Palestine part of this thread - I admitted i don't know enough about the subject to debate it, and stopped participating in the discussion days ago. The only reason i posted again was to interject some humor into a thread that appears to have degenerated into a pissing match.


----------



## pds (Nov 17, 2004)

OK - a last word for me.

It is always amazing to me how circular the political spectrum is. The communist and the fascist are not that far apart. Both are racist, nationalist, collectivist (wealth gets collected one way or another) and reactionary.

Left and right meet each other at the bottom of the circle - how else shall  we understand that the right embraces the Leninist ideal - "The ends justify the means."

I reject that ideal. To me, the means produce the ends. If you want good ends, better use good means. And so I stand on the Middle East question.

To my dear friend Habilis - please don't take unnecessary offense. I am not calling you fascist or by any label. You are a fellow citizen in a great experiment in self government. We just don't see certain things eye to eye. 

g/re/p


----------



## Cat (Nov 17, 2004)

In the Palestine/Israel conflict, remember that Ariel Sharon _started_ a war (against Lebanon) while Yasser Arafat _ended_ a war (by pursuing a peaceful road of negotiations and ultimately winning the Nobel Peace Prize).

In the meanwhile Iraq, "terrorists" and "insurgents" torture and kill hostages, and american soldiers torture and kill wounded prisoners. Might makes right? Perhaps from the political-historical perspective, but certainly not from the moral perspective. At the very moment of perpetrating a crime you are guilty. Not in the judgement of posterior generations, but in the eyes of the present one. The winners write history, so it is obvious that later generations will not likley condemn their own ancestors' deeds. But in the here and now the american soldiers in Iraq are hardly better that the Iraqi resistance. The ideals may be all right, but the methods to realise them are reprehensible, and it is my very humble opnion that the methods by which you attain the desired results _do_ in fact matter. That is the only way that democracy and freedom are different from dictatorship and coercion: by the way in which laws and policies are made, namely with the consensus and the authority of the population that undergoes them. In Iraq right now the US Army is the law and order, and they are mostly just causing death and destruction. I fail to see how that wil llead to the desired result of freedom and democracy ...


----------

