PDA

View Full Version : Israel-Palestine / religious terrorism (was non-islamic religious terrorism)



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Capablanca-Fan
14-03-2009, 04:49 PM
Hamas is obviously not a Hebrew word. Hamas is an acronym of the Arabic phrase حركة المقاومة الاسلامية, or Harakat al-Muqāwama al-Islāmiyya or "Islamic Resistance Movement".
That doesn't mean they are not violent, just like to stick to the facts.
I know what its derivation is, but it doesn't change the fact that it IS the Hebrew word for violence, whichc is probably part of the reason they love it.

Capablanca-Fan
14-03-2009, 04:53 PM
The Obama administration intends to provide some $900 million to help rebuild Gaza after the Israeli incursion that ended last month, administration officials said Monday.
What about the damage caused by the Palestinian Arabs themselves?


In an early sign of how the administration plans to deal with Hamas, the militant Islamist group that controls Gaza, an official said that the aid would not go to Hamas but that it would be funneled through nongovernmental organizations.
Yeah, I bet. More money to be funnelled into Swiss bank accounts of their corrupt leaders, as always.


By seeking to aid Gazans but not Hamas, the administration is following the lead of the Bush administration, which sent money to Gaza through nongovernmental organizations. In December, it said it would give $85 million to the United Nations agency that provides aid to Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
The Bush administration was also moronic.

Jason Koutsoukis reports on the murder of Hamza al-Shoubaki in Hamas torture brings Gaza reign of fear (http://www.theage.com.au/world/hamas-torture-brings-gaza-reign-of-fear-20090313-8xzs.html?page=-1):


His fate is a chilling example of the terror inflicted on dissenters who have lived under the Hamas regime in Gaza since June 2007.

“In 2007, the death toll of Palestinians killed by Fatah or Hamas exceeded for the first time the number of Palestinians killed in clashes with the Israeli occupation forces,” said Hamdi Shaqqura from the Gaza-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights.

According to figures cited by Mr Shaqqura, 394 Palestinians were killed in clashes with the Israeli military and security forces in 2007, but at least 500 were killed by forces aligned with either Fatah or Hamas.

Mokum
14-03-2009, 05:21 PM
Yeah, I bet. More money to be funnelled into Swiss bank accounts of their corrupt leaders, as always.

Sad if true, although some evidence would help. However, this was a response to this:


And Commissar Obamov wants to give Hamas (Hebrew for "violence") 900 million more in aid. Not surprising, since the "church" he attended for 20 years regularly printed propaganda for this terrorist Jew-hating group.

which is a wilfully wrong and propagandistic statement to make.

Capablanca-Fan
14-03-2009, 06:31 PM
Sad if true, although some evidence would help.
Arafat was almost a billionaire from "aid" money (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/07/60minutes/main582487.shtml), and other aid money was used to support terrorism (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961361493&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull).


However, this was a response to this:

which is a wilfully wrong and propagandistic statement to make.
Except that it's true (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/03/obamas-church-j.html).

Mokum
14-03-2009, 07:03 PM
Arafat was almost a billionaire from "aid" money (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/07/60minutes/main582487.shtml), and other aid money was used to support terrorism (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961361493&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull).
I doubt somehow that the money will be going to Arafat, so I am not sure what you are trying to prove here.



Except that it's true (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/03/obamas-church-j.html).
It's not. You stated that Obama is giving money to Hamas. He isn't. Your link to a blog by one Pamela Geller is about his church. I am not interested at all in that church, and even less in blogs and opinions by people like Pamela Geller.
Just try to stick to the facts, if the truth is on your side that's all you need. I am trying to keep you honest, but I don't know where to start.

MichaelBaron
14-03-2009, 07:31 PM
They can keep giving more and more money to Hamas....not sure its going to make things any better though.

Capablanca-Fan
14-03-2009, 09:42 PM
I doubt somehow that the money will be going to Arafat, so I am not sure what you are trying to prove here.
That there is a precedent for "aid" to the Palestinians to enrich their "leaders" and not reach the people.


It's not. You stated that Obama is giving money to Hamas. He isn't.
It may as well be.


Just try to stick to the facts, if the truth is on your side that's all you need. I am trying to keep you honest, but I don't know where to start.
Commissar "it's good if you spread the wealth around" Obamov is incredibly dishonest, and this seems to have rubbed off on some of his thralls. It's a fact that his Jeremiah Wright cult church published Hamas propaganda.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-03-2009, 10:21 AM
The Obama administration intends to provide some $900 million to help rebuild Gaza after the Israeli incursion that ended last month, administration officials said Monday.

It's a typical good intention that paves the road to hell.
The reality of Middle East means that it will help to line up pockets of HAMAS leaders.
It is also a disincentive for HAMAS to refrain from violence and confrontation.

antichrist
15-03-2009, 10:31 AM
I am even past laughing stage as it gets pretty boring. Unfortunately it distracts from could be a serious discussion.

Whatever serious arguments A/C can put on were addressed many times (three years ago at considerable length).
If you find any serious arguments in his posting, bring it on under your name, they'll be addressed. I can't be bothered going through the lengthy crap he spills out.

And it just so happens that this Israeli Professor Harper also is against the existence of the Jewish state. Strictly speaking I am not against such state, only that not where it displaces other people.

Must repeat - the best anti-Zionists are Jews

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2009, 10:42 AM
What happens when a fly falls into a coffee cup?

The Italian — throws the cup, breaks it, and walks away in a fit of rage.

The German — carefully washes the cup, sterilizes it and makes a new cup of coffee.

The Frenchman — takes out the fly, and drinks the coffee.

The Chinese — eats the fly and throws away the coffee.

The Russian — Drinks the coffee with the fly, since it was extra with no charge.

The Englishman — a fly would never fall into an Englishman's coffee, since the English drink tea.

The American — sues the person who sold him the coffee, resulting in warnings on coffee packages for perpetuity that flies may fall into the coffee, and a legal disclaimer should that happen.

The Israeli — sells the coffee to the Frenchman, the fly to the Chinese, drinks tea and uses the extra money to invent a device that prevents flies from falling into coffee.

The Palestinian — blames the Israeli for the fly falling in his coffee, protests against the act of aggression to the UN, takes a loan from the European Union to buy a new cup of coffee, uses the money to purchase explosives and then blows up the coffee house where the Italian, the Frenchman, the Chinese, the German and the Russian are all trying to explain to the Israeli that he should give away his cup of tea to the Palestinian.

Basil
15-03-2009, 10:45 AM
Not bad at all! ;)

eclectic
15-03-2009, 02:44 PM
i notice that not one of them hears the fly screaming in a high pitched voice: "heeeeeeelllllllppppp mmmmeeeeee"

ER
15-03-2009, 03:29 PM
also no reference to the nationality of the fly!

antichrist
15-03-2009, 05:54 PM
Click for a full size map

THE KEY TO PEACE: DISMANTLING THE MATRIX OF CONTROL
By Jeff Halper
http://www.icahd.org/eng/articles.asp?menu=6&submenu=3

In the complex situation in which Palestinians and Israelis currently find themselves, two things seems equally evident: First, a viable and truly sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel is an absolute prerequisite for a just and lasting peace; and second, Israel needs a Palestinian state. Without a Palestine state Israel faces what it considers as two unacceptable options. If it annexes the Occupied Territories and grants citizenship to their three million Palestinian inhabitants, it creates de facto a bi-national state of 5 million Jews and 4 million Palestinians (not counting the refugees), an option that would end the Zionist enterprise. If it continues its Occupation, it inevitably creates a system of outright apartheid, an untenable option in the long run.

A Palestinian state thus appears to be indispensable for both Israel and the Palestinians. So what's the problem? Why did a decade of negotiations from Madrid and Oslo to Camp David and Taba end in such dismal failure, indeed, in an Intifada? What, indeed, must be done, not only to "restart the peace process," but to ensure that it concludes with a just peace offering not simply security for Israel but also a truly sovereign and viable state for the Palestinians?

Putting the issue of the refugees aside for the moment, the answer to these questions depends on whether the Palestinians succeed in dismantling the Matrix of Control Israel has laid over the Occupied Territories since 1967. The issue before us, the issue separating a just peace from an imposed one, a sovereign Palestinian state from a bantustan, has to do not only with territory but with control. One indisputable fact that has accompanied the entire "peace process" is that Israel will simply not relinquish control voluntarily over the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It will not relinquish the core of its settlement system, or control of the West Bank aquifers, or sway over the area's economy or it "security arrangements" extending over the entire Palestinian area.

From Israel's point of view, then, the trick is to find an arrangement that would leave it in control, but "relieve" it of the Palestinian population -- a kind of occupation-by-consent. This was the essence of the "take it or leave it" offer Barak and Clinton made at Camp David (the Palestinians left it), as well as that of the Taba negotiations in January, 2001. The popular impression has it that Barak made a "generous offer" of 95% of the West Bank, plus considerable parts of East Jerusalem and all of Gaza, and that the Palestinians made an "historic mistake" in rejecting it. This has let Israel off the hook in terms of repressing Palestinian resistance. It has become fashionable, even among the moderate Israeli left, to blame the Palestinians for "spoiling" the peace process. They, after all, spurned Barak's "generous offer" of 95% and reacted with "violence." We, the Israelis, did our part. We were forthcoming. They are not ready for peace, do not want peace, are not "partners" for peace. We are OK; they are to blame for everything. They deserve anything they get. We are not responsible.

antichrist
15-03-2009, 05:59 PM
The Matrix of Control: Rendering the Occupation Invisible

Before we begin our analysis of Taba, I must define what I mean by a Matrix of Control? It is a system of control designed

to allow Israel to control every aspect of Palestinian life in the Occupied Territories, while


lowering Israel's military profile in order to give the impression to the outside that what Palestinians refer to as "occupation" is merely proper administration, and that Israel has a "duty" to defend itself and the status quo, yet


creating enough space for a dependent Palestinian mini-state that will relieve Israel of the Palestinian population while


deflecting, through the use of "administrative" image and bureaucratic mechanisms, international opposition and thus to maintain control indefinitely and, in the final analysis,


to force the Palestinians' to despair of ever achieving a viable and truly sovereign state and to accept any settlement offered by Israeli. ("Time is on our side" is, as Sharon has often said, a cornerstone of Israeli policy.)


Because it operates under a Kafkaesque guise of "proper administration," "upholding the law," "keeping the public order" and, of course, "security," the Matrix of Control renders the Occupation virtually invisible. In "normal" times (when active Palestinian resistance can be stifled), its outward appearance is legal and bureaucratic, the most effective means of control over a long period of time. The Israeli military government over the Occupied Territories is called, for example, the "Civil Administration," even though it is headed by a colonel under the strict authority of the Ministry of Defense, and is bound by the orders of the general commanding the "Central Front."

The control mechanisms of the Matrix are varied and diverse. There are, first of all, active measures to ensure acquiescence:

Outright military actions, including attacks on civilian population centers and the Palestinian infrastructure;

A continuation of Pro Halper's excellent article:
http://www.icahd.org/eng/articles.asp?menu=6&submenu=3


Extensive use of collaborators and undercover "mustarabi" army units; administrative detention, arrest, trial and torture; and


"Orders" issued by the Military Commanders of the West Bank and Gaza (some 2000 in number since 1967), supplemented by Civil Administration policies, that replace local civil law with policies and procedures that cynically further Israeli political control.


A second set of controls derives from Israel's policy of "creating facts on the ground" - virtually all of them in violation of international law (including the Fourth Geneva Convention signed by Israel itself). These include:

For the rest of the article please to to the website referred to above

antichrist
17-03-2009, 05:57 PM
This is another portion of Professor Halper's article.

It clearly demonstrates that the so-called peace offer of 95% was a complete public relations charade that no decent Palestinian leader could accept. It is necessary to read these articles to appreciate the intricaties that are most important to understanding the issue.
__________________________________________________ __


A permanent "closure" of the West Bank and Gaza;


A discriminatory and often arbitrary system of work, entrance and travel permits system restricting freedom of movement both within the country and abroad;


The use of diverse methods of active displacement: exile and deportation; the revoking of residency rights; induced emigration through impoverishment; land expropriation, house demolitions and other means of making life in the Occupied Territories unbearable. Schemes of "transfer" have also been suggested (in fact, two parties in Sharon's government -- the National Union Party of the assassinated Tourism Minister Ze'evi and Minister of Infrastructure Lieberman's "Israel Is Our Home" -- have "transfer" as their main political program). Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have "departed" since 1967, but a core of three million sumud ("steadfast") Palestinians still remains.


Zoning policies which, under the guise of planning and the law, serves to freeze the natural development of Palestinian towns and villages. Part of this system involves the restrictive use building permits, enforced by house demolitions, arrests, fines and daily harassment, all designed to confine the population to small enclaves;


Expansive "master plans" being drawn around the settlements which allow for massive building while contending that settlement building has been "frozen."


Restrictions on the planting of crops and their sale, together with the wholesale uprooting of hundreds of thousands of olive and fruit trees since 1967; and


Employing licensing and inspection of Palestinian businesses as a means of political control.


To all of this must be added, of course, the debilitating psychological costs of life under occupation: loss of life, imprisonment, torture, harassment, humiliation, anger and frustration, as well as traumas suffered by tens of thousands of Palestinians (especially children) who witnessed their homes being demolished, saw their loved ones beaten and humiliated, suffered from inadequate housing, and who lost opportunities to actualize their life potentials. These are wounds that will take generations to heal.

Barak's "Generous Offer" and the Matrix of Control

This popular view is based on both false information and false assumptions. First of all, there never was an Israeli "offer," and Israel never proposed to relinquish 95% of the West Bank. At a desperate time when Barak knew he would lose the election, the Israeli delegation came to Taba prepared to talk about conceding 93% of the West Bank - with the Palestinians counter-proposing 97%. But they were not talking about the same land. Because Israel does not consider East Jerusalem and "No Man's Land" around Latrun as part of the West Bank, but does include the part of the Dead Sea falling within the Palestinian territory, Barak's 93% was actually more like 88% of the actual Palestinian territory.

The major fallacy in this view is to equate territory with sovereignty. Although gaining control of 95% or 88% of the territory is important - especially if the territory is contiguous -- it does not necessarily equate with sovereignty. This is where the crucial issue of control enters the picture. The Palestinians could well receive 95% of the West Bank, Gaza and pieces of East Jerusalem and still not have the prerequisites of national self-determination: coherent territory, economic viability and genuine sovereignty. Since 1967 - and increasingly since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993 -- Israel has laid a "Matrix of Control" over the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. The Matrix, an intricate and an interlocking series of control mechanisms, resembles the Japanese game of "Go." Instead of defeating your opponent as in chess, in "Go" you win by immobilizing the other side, by gaining control of key points of a matrix, so that every time your opponent moves he or she encounters another obstacle. This strategy was used effectively in Vietnam, where small forces of Viet Cong were able to pin down and virtually paralyze some half-million American soldiers possessing overwhelming fire-power.

In effect Israel has done the same thing to the Palestinians. Laid out strategically, the Matrix of Control paralyzes the Palestinian population even if Israel does not actually occupy large swathes of land. All the settlements and by-pass roads take up less than 5% of the land; "settlement blocs," "security zones" and other forms of control can be expanded to include 12% of the land as in Barak's conception or 56% as in Sharon's. But these 5-12% are what makes the difference between a bantustan and a sovereign, viable state. From the point of view of control, 88% of the West Bank that the Palestinians might receive indeed, sounds "generous," but it must be evaluated in light of the impact the other 5-12% have on Palestinian viability and sovereignty.

Barak's "offer" at Taba deserves to be looked at carefully, not because it was truly an "offer" or because it truly represented the Israeli position or a genuine possibility, but because, as Barak never tired of saying, it is by far the best "deal" the Palestinians will ever be offered, the most "generous," a one-time "take-it-or-leave-it" that would be a "historical mistake" for the Palestinians to reject. If all this is true, would the so-called "95% offer" at Taba have led to a sovereign and viable Palestinian state? Would it have in fact dismantled Israel's Matrix of Control? The answer to this "best case" scenario is "no."

It is true that some significant gains were made at Taba. Israel relinquished claim to the Jordan Valley, much territory was conceded (though not 95%), the settlement blocs were reduced in size, and Israel gave up its extra-territorial control over its by-pass road system. The Palestinians gained a greater degree of territorial contiguity and control of their borders, though not of their water resources. But Taba did not break Israel's hold on the Occupied Territories. On the contrary, it revealed how much Israel could relinquish and still retain control. Taba revealed the essential elements of the Matrix of Control, the minimum "red lines" of any foreseeable Israeli government. Looked at closely, this is what the "generous offer" in fact offered:

Consolidation of Strategic Settlement Blocs. In the mid-1990s Israel began a major strengthening and consolidation of its settlement presence. In order to avoid international opposition to the establishment of new settlements, the government shifted to building new settlements within the expansive master plans around each settlement. In that way it was able to argue that it was simply "thickening" existing settlements to meet natural population growth (an outright falsification), not establishing new ones. It also began to merge discrete settlements into large settlement blocs. Although the fate of some of these blocs remains uncertain (the Jordan Valley settlements, for example, as well as the Kiryat Arba bloc near Hebron and settlements in heavily populated Palestinian areas), Israel is unmoving in this insistance on retaining three large blocs comprising today some 150,000 Israeli settlers:


The city of Ariel and its surrounding "Western Samaria" bloc control a strategic area on the western side of the West Bank, seriously compromising territorial contiguity and the coherent flow of people and goods between the major Palestinian towns of Kalkilya, Nablus and Ramallah. It would also severely restrict the urban development of the Kalkilya area. No less important than its strategic location on the ground is Ariel's location vis-a-vis Palestinian resources under the ground: the Ariel bloc sits atop the major aquifer of the West Bank and would control the flow and distribution of water.


The central Givat Ze'ev-Pisgat Ze'ev-Ma'alei Adumim (and perhaps Beit El) bloc stretches across much of the central West Bank from the Modi'in area to within 20 kilometers of the Jordan River. It effectively divides the West Bank in two, compelling north-south Palestinian traffic (especially from Ramallah to Bethlehem and Hebron areas) to pass through Israeli territory - the funnel-like Eastern Ring Road. It also keeps the Palestinians of the West Bank far from Jerusalem, isolating the 200,000 Palestinians of East Jerusalem from their wider state and society, and cutting the natural urban link between Jerusalem and Ramallah. In terms of viability, this bloc, a main component of Israeli "Greater Jerusalem," constitutes the greatest threat to a coherent Palestinian state.


The Efrat-Gush Etzion-Beitar Illit bloc to the southwest of Jerusalem (yet connected through Gilo, Har Homa and the Eastern Ring Road/Road #7 complex to the Ma'aleh Adumim bloc) is the other key component of "Greater Jerusalem." It also impacts seriously on the viability and sovereignty of any Palestinian state. The bloc severs any coherent connection between the major cities of Bethlehem and Hebron, as well as traffic using the "safe passage" from Gaza. It forces Palestinians moving between these areas to use Israeli-controlled "security" roads passing through dense areas of settlement, continually exposed to disruption and closure. It locks in Bethlehem to the extent of preventing its normal urban development. And, like the Ariel bloc, it sits astride and brings into Israeli control a major West Bank aquifer.

Capablanca-Fan
27-04-2009, 04:35 PM
Obama's Anti-American Foreign Policy (http://townhall.com/Columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2009/04/27/obamas_anti-american_foreign_policy)
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
27 April 2009

Oblivious to the record of terror attacks thwarted by enhanced interrogation techniques, Obama opens the door to prosecuting — criminally — those who authorized them.

Does he not realize that there would be no Brooklyn Bridge — and ten thousand people would have died in the waters of the East River — if we had not waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? After the National Security Administration picked up mentions of the "Brooklyn Bridge" in its warrantless wiretaps, it alerted New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to the possibility of a terror attack against the bridge. Kelly flooded the bridge with cops and commissioned an engineering study to determine how one could bring down the bridge, plunging ten thousand people into the East River during rush hour.

The study said it was impossible to blow the bridge up — one would have been discovered — but that a terrorist could sever the cable holding it aloft with a torch. It would take weeks, but the terrorists could work, undetected, in a vacant building that housed the cables under the bridge. The traffic noises would mask their efforts, and the building was not patrolled or even visited by anyone.

The terrorist noted the cops on the bridge and sent a message, intercepted by the NSA, that it was "too hot on the Brooklyn Bridge." But it was not until we waterboarded Mohammed that we learned the identity of the al-Qaida operative — Lyman Farris. On learning his name, the New York Police raided his Brooklyn apartment. Chillingly, they found the equipment he would need to bring down the bridge and an engineering diagram (akin to that which Kelly had ordered) identifying where they would have to stand to cut the cables.

Does Obama really want to prosecute the anti-terror investigators who saved thousands by waterboarding Mohammed and learning this information?

Yes, he damn well does!

antichrist
27-04-2009, 07:05 PM
please can we have a split between Gaza and religious terrorism, coz they are purely separate areas.

I suggest a Palestine/Israel thread (include Gaza) and religious terrorism somewhere else, where I am also happy to debate it.

eclectic
27-04-2009, 08:07 PM
please can we have a split between Gaza and religious terrorism, coz they are purely separate areas.

I suggest a Palestine/Israel thread (include Gaza) and religious terrorism somewhere else, where I am also happy to debate it.

i suggest israel and palestine be in separate threads and jerusalem be in a separate holy thread

the gaza and west bank threads need to be merged into the palestine thread so as to make it contiguous and viable

;) ;) @ a/c

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2009, 12:59 AM
I'm not mad keen on a separate thread on anything to do with I/P after the previous attempts here which have tended to require heavy moderation.

I might be willing to try to split this one up but it's actually rather difficult to pick where the line should be drawn in some cases.

ER
28-04-2009, 01:27 AM
... but it's actually rather difficult to pick where the line should be drawn in some cases.

I think that you might consider that in this...


...jerusalem be in a separate holy thread :doh:

there is a suble hint for a bit of divine intervention???:hmm:

antichrist
28-04-2009, 03:53 PM
I'm not mad keen on a separate thread on anything to do with I/P after the previous attempts here which have tended to require heavy moderation.

I might be willing to try to split this one up but it's actually rather difficult to pick where the line should be drawn in some cases.

they have been trying to work out where the line should be drawn for 60 years - so we will give you a bit more time

Capablanca-Fan
04-05-2009, 12:55 AM
Condi Rice sticks it to the Stanford bleeding hearts (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_delingpole/blog/2009/05/02/condi_rice_sticks_it_to_the_stanford_bleeding_hear ts)
James Delingpole, 2 May 2009


If ever you needed further proof of the “person of color” America really needs in charge right now, I urge you to watch this fabulous YouTube footage of the magnificent Condoleezza Rice being ambushed by left-liberal students at Stanford University with a series of “difficult” questions about torture, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and US foreign policy under George W Bush....

Her coolness under fire is magnificent, but more impressive still is her refusal to duck the issues…

“Let me tell you something: unless you were there in a position of responsibility after September 11 you cannot possibly imagine the dilemmas that we faced in trying to protect Americans,” she says.

“A lot of people are second guessing now but let me tell you the second guessing that would have hurt me more is if there had been 3,000 more Americans dying because we didn’t do everything we could to protect them."…

And she is quite withering when the pallid leftie student tries having a go at her about supposed torture at Guantanamo. "Did you know that Guantanamo was called a 'model medium security prison' by representatives of the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe?" The student reluctantly concedes he hasn't.

"Maybe before you make allegations about Guantanamo, you should READ," says Condi, with exquisitely measured scorn.


ijEED_iviTA

antichrist
05-05-2009, 12:10 PM
[QUOTE=Jono...[/QUOTE]

surely this is contaminating the thread, later I will make a new thread of purely Israel/Palestine and drag a few posts over

Capablanca-Fan
08-11-2009, 04:42 PM
Political correctness enabled the Fort Hood terrorist attack

1. Ignoring the rabidly Islamofascist and anti-American rants of the terrorist (http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/US/Politics/Political_Correctness_Led_To_Fort_Hood_Massacre__9 764.asp), and even now the reluctance to admit that he was a Muslim extremist.
2. Gun control laws on the military base left the other soldiers defenceless (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmUxZjljMzcxZWU1YWY4MmM1YzVjYWUxOWYyYTZmOTM=).

Ian Murray
09-11-2009, 05:41 AM
Rattling the Cage: Some victims we are
Larry Derfner
The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256740787801&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull)
28.10.09


The kill ratio was 100-to-1 in our favor. The destruction ratio was much, much greater than that. To this day, thousands of Gazans are living in tents because we won't let them import cement to rebuild the homes we destroyed. We turned the Gaza Strip into a disaster area, a humanitarian case, and we're keeping it that way with our blockade.

Meanwhile, here on the Israeli side of the border, it's hard to remember when life was so safe and secure.

So let's decide: Who was the victim of Operation Cast Lead, them or us?

No question - us. We Israelis were the victims and we still are. In fact, our victimhood is getting worse by the day. The Goldstone report was the real war crime. The Goldstone report, the UN debates, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross, B'Tselem, the traitorous soldiers of Breaking the Silence and the Rabin Academy - those were the true crimes against humanity. This is what's meant by "war is hell."

It is we who've been going through hell from the war in Gaza. It is we who've been suffering.

Gazans? Suffering? What's everybody talking about?

We let them eat, don't we?

This imaginary monologue is how we actually see ourselves today. We initiated the war in Gaza, we waged one of the most one-sided military campaigns anyone's ever seen - and we're the victims.

We're fighting off the world with the Holocaust; witness Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the UN with his Auschwitz props. "We won't go like lambs to the slaughter again," vowed his protégé, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, in a cabinet discussion of the Goldstone report.

Auschwitz, lambs to the slaughter, Operation Cast Lead. To Israelis today, it's all of a piece, it's one story, one unbroken legacy of righteous victimhood.

The truth is that the State of Israel has never been a victim, and our likening of ourselves to the 6 million has been embarrassing from the beginning - but now? After what we did in Gaza? With the stranglehold we have on that society, while we over here live free and easy?

Victims? Lambs to the slaughter? Us?

No, this has gone beyond embarrassing; this is out-and-out shameful.

....

On the facts, it's very hard to convince ourselves, let alone the world, that Gaza and its Kassams have pushed Fortress Israel's back to the wall, that we're desperate, that we're struggling to survive. So, to convince ourselves and the world that this really is so, we do two things.

One, we refuse to acknowledge any facts that mar this image of ourselves as victims, and instead go over and over and over only the facts that fit the picture.

We talk only about the thousands of Kassams fired at Sderot; we never mention the thousands of Gazans we killed at the same time.

We talk only about Gilad Schalit; we never mention the 8,000 Palestinian prisoners we're holding.

And we never mention our ongoing blockade of Gaza or the devastation it does to those people.

The second thing we do to convince ourselves and the world that we're still victims is to never, ever, ever let go of the Holocaust - because that's when we really were victims. Victims like nobody's ever known, victims a million times worse than the Gazans.

....

So you can't blame us. We're immune from your criticism. We're the biggest victims the world has ever known. We're desperate, so don't tell us about kill ratios and disproportionate use of force and collective punishment. We're fighting for our survival.

This is what we tell ourselves and the world, and, in the face of what we did and are still doing in Gaza, it has become intolerable. We are not the 6 million. The 6 million were powerless Jews three generations ago; we cannot wrap our abuses of power in their tragedy.

Instead, let's take a good, hard look at what we did and what we're doing in Gaza. Then let's take a good, hard look in the mirror. And then let's admit who's the true victim here and now, and, more importantly, who isn't.

Capablanca-Fan
09-11-2009, 11:49 AM
Rattling the Cage: Some victims we are
Larry Derfner
The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256740787801&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull)
28.10.09
Proves my earlier point: Israel allows freedom to criticise government policies; any criticism of Hamas in its territories would result in being killed or crippled.


The kill ratio was 100-to-1 in our favor.
So what? Far more Japanese were killed than Americans in WW2, but they were still the bad guys.


The destruction ratio was much, much greater than that. To this day, thousands of Gazans are living in tents because we won't let them import cement to rebuild the homes we destroyed. We turned the Gaza Strip into a disaster area, a humanitarian case, and we're keeping it that way with our blockade.
When Israel left, they had build fully functioning infrastructure and greenhouses, which the new occupiers destroyed. The leaders clearly want to keep the masses in poverty, and always have. That's why the huge Arab countries with their oil wealth never resettled the "Palestinians". Good grief, the money and property that Arab countries confiscated from 800,000 Jews they expelled would pay for resettlement or improved standards of living. But no, they are kept in squalor to be used as political pawns against Israel, and to stoke resentment. Note that Israel settled those expelled Jewish refugees in their tiny strip of land, 1/4 the size of Tasmania.


No question - us. We Israelis were the victims and we still are.
Of course: no other country has been earmarked for annihilation by another country, as Israel has been by Iran's mad mullah, and earlier by Egypt's Nasser.


In fact, our victimhood is getting worse by the day. The Goldstone report was the real war crime. The Goldstone report, the UN debates, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross, B'Tselem, the traitorous soldiers of Breaking the Silence and the Rabin Academy - those were the true crimes against humanity. This is what's meant by "war is hell."
Of course; even Goldstone is trying to weasel his way out of what his biased report said (http://frontpagemag.com/2009/10/26/goldstones-crocodile-tears-by-alan-m-dershowitz/). And the UN is majority run by thuggish leaders.


This imaginary monologue is how we actually see ourselves today. We initiated the war in Gaza, we waged one of the most one-sided military campaigns anyone's ever seen - and we're the victims.
Means nothing. Hamas started it by firing rockets at Israeli civilians. A country is entitled to defend itself.


The truth is that the State of Israel has never been a victim, and our likening of ourselves to the 6 million has been embarrassing from the beginning - but now? After what we did in Gaza? With the stranglehold we have on that society, while we over here live free and easy?
What a moron: Right from its inception, Israel has faced attacks from Arab armies dedicated to its annihilation.


We talk only about the thousands of Kassams fired at Sderot; we never mention the thousands of Gazans we killed at the same time.
As we should: those firing those rockets while hiding among civilians are responsible for their deaths under international law.


We talk only about Gilad Schalit; we never mention the 8,000 Palestinian prisoners we're holding.
The Palestinian prisoners are terrorists, and allowed access to the Red Cross. Shalit is a soldier, and his captors refuse to allow Red Cross access.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-11-2009, 01:09 PM
Rattling the Cage: Some victims we are
Larry Derfner
The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256740787801&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull)
28.10.09


To put things into perspective - it's an opinion of lefty columnist. JPost is known for allowing different opinions (like "The Australian" and unlike "Haaretz");

The aithor advocates the policies that lead to current crisis. Israel lived in a relative peace and calm before Oslo accord. Even the first Arab riots in 1987 started after Peres started talking about possibility of two states (not before!).

Igor_Goldenberg
09-11-2009, 01:12 PM
We talk only about Gilad Schalit; we never mention the 8,000 Palestinian prisoners we're holding.
The Palestinian prisoners are terrorists, and allowed access to the Red Cross. Shalit is a soldier, and his captors refuse to allow Red Cross access.
I should add that their are convicted terrorist.
Current reality is such that to be convicted of terrorism by Israeli court requires committing heinous crimes.

Ian Murray
10-11-2009, 10:57 AM
I should add that their are convicted terrorist.
Current reality is such that to be convicted of terrorism by Israeli court requires committing heinous crimes.
Some of them certainly are, but by no means all. Under the Military Orders governing Gaza and the West Bank arrests can be made for such heinous crimes as stone-throwing and holding or placing a Palestinian flag. Hundreds are held under administrative orders, allowing detention for up to six months and further extensions without any charges being laid and without informing the detainee of his alleged offence.

Capablanca-Fan
10-11-2009, 11:24 AM
Some of them certainly are, but by no means all. Under the Military Orders governing Gaza and the West Bank arrests can be made for such heinous crimes as stone-throwing and holding or placing a Palestinian flag. Hundreds are held under administrative orders, allowing detention for up to six months and further extensions without any charges being laid and without informing the detainee of his alleged offence.
What is your source for this? More Hamas propaganda or from their useful idiots in Israel? Note that they throw rocks, and they are bloody dangerous.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-11-2009, 03:38 PM
Some of them certainly are, but by no means all. Under the Military Orders governing Gaza and the West Bank arrests can be made for such heinous crimes as stone-throwing and holding or placing a Palestinian flag. Hundreds are held under administrative orders, allowing detention for up to six months and further extensions without any charges being laid and without informing the detainee of his alleged offence.
The reality is such that groups like "Peace now" bleat every time arrest is made.
High court is also quite left leaning.
While some arrests might definitely be unjust, majority are not.

And why stone-throwing is not a crime?
If you go out in the street and start throwing stones at people, how long will it take to have arrested by police? And how much time would you have to serve in jail?

Capablanca-Fan
10-11-2009, 04:15 PM
It was fascinating to see Barack Obama warning us not to leap to conclusions about the killings at Fort Hood, Texas — after the way he leaped to conclusions over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, when he knew less about the facts than we already know about the massacre at Fort Hood. …

I doubt whether the man responsible for the massacre at Fort Hood will pay with his life for the lives that he took. He may well be free again someday. We can only hope that he does not get a hero's welcome when he arrives in some terror-sponsoring country, the way the Lockerbie bomber did. …

Even if this country can survive intact and unharmed after the Obama administration — or, heaven help us, two terms of Obama — the gullibility that led to his being elected in the first place will still be there for some other slick demagogue to come along and get the power to put the American way of life, and even our physical safety, at risk again.
—Thomas Sowell (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/thomas-sowell/2009/11/10/random-thoughts/)

Ian Murray
10-11-2009, 06:52 PM
What is your source for this? More Hamas propaganda or from their useful idiots in Israel? Note that they throw rocks, and they are bloody dangerous.

The reality is such that groups like "Peace now" bleat every time arrest is made.
High court is also quite left leaning.
While some arrests might definitely be unjust, majority are not.

And why stone-throwing is not a crime?
If you go out in the street and start throwing stones at people, how long will it take to have arrested by police? And how much time would you have to serve in jail?
The reality is that when Israeli infantry, supported by armour and artillery, enter the Occupied Territories and damage or demolish homes then the braver/more foolhardy locals retaliate by throwing rocks. One can understand them seeing Israel as the aggressor. And who is more dangerous, a protester with a rock or a soldier with an assault rifle?

The numbers are rubbery, but there are claims that the Hamas militant wing numbers some 5000 while 650,000 - 700,000 Palestinians (mostly men but including women and children) from the OPT have been detained since 1967. Even halving the numbers, it is obvious that claiming they are all terrorists defies reason. As some 8200 Palestinian prisoners (http://www.nodo50.org/csca/agenda09/palestina/pdf/PrisonersandDetainees.pdf) are held today for 'security' or 'public safety' reasons, it follows that maybe 320,000-odd have been released - the charges (if any) dropped or unproven or after completing a lesser sentence (i.e. not a terrorism conviction). By the same measure it follows that a significant proportion of those 8200 are not terrorists.

I agree with the sentiments expressed in The Jerusalem Post. You don't of course, but that doesn't make your opinion right and mine wrong.

Capablanca-Fan
10-11-2009, 07:22 PM
The reality is that when Israeli infantry, supported by armour and artillery, enter the Occupied Territories and damage or demolish homes then the braver/more foolhardy locals retaliate by throwing rocks.
Only homes from which rockets have been launched. Israel is stupid not doing what the Allies would have done to Nazi or Japanese rocket launchers in WW2: bomb the whole building the rockets came from.


One can understand them seeing Israel as the aggressor.
I can't: Israel has no aim of genocide against Arabs, doesn't aim rockets at civilian areas, blow up schoolbuses with Arab children.


And who is more dangerous, a protester with a rock or a soldier with an assault rifle?
Rocks are bloody dangerous.


The numbers are rubbery, but there are claims that the Hamas militant wing numbers some 5000 while 650,000 – 700,000 Palestinians (mostly men but including women and children) from the OPT have been detained since 1967.
Most unlikely numbers considering the whole population of Israel is 7.5 million.


I agree with the sentiments expressed in The Jerusalem Post. You don't of course, but that doesn't make your opinion right and mine wrong.
No, your opinion is wrong because it's contrary to the facts.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-11-2009, 11:01 AM
The reality is that when Israeli infantry, supported by armour and artillery, enter the Occupied Territories

You can't have it both way. If "Occupied Territory" is occupied by Israel, how come it has to enter? If it has to enter, maybe it's not occupied before it enters?


And who is more dangerous, a protester with a rock or a soldier with an assault rifle?

Have you ever been hit by a rock in a forehead?
Are you saying that throwing rocks at unarmed civilians is also not a crime?


You forget the main point:
Gaza has been left by Israel years ago. If Arabs did not fire rockets in Israel, there would be no excursion in Gaza.
If Arabs want to be left alone, all they have to do is stop firing rockets.

Ian Murray
11-11-2009, 11:20 AM
You can't have it both way. If "Occupied Territory" is occupied by Israel, how come it has to enter? If it has to enter, maybe it's not occupied before it enters?
OK, Gaza Strip and the West Bank, commonly referred to as the OPT, were occupied by Israel but are now blockaded by Israel


Are you saying that throwing rocks at unarmed civilians is also not a crime?
I haven't said anything of the sort. I was contesting your claim that all Palestinian prisoners have been convicted by Israeli courts of terrorism


You forget the main point:
Gaza has been left by Israel years ago. If Arabs did not fire rockets in Israel, there would be no excursion in Gaza.
If Arabs want to be left alone, all they have to do is stop firing rockets.
There's the problem. You're tarring all Arabs with the same brush. My concern is for the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2009, 11:26 AM
There's the problem. You're tarring all Arabs with the same brush. My concern is for the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.
Good: so why are they caught? Because Israel's enemies use them as human shields. Under the rules of war, it is those who use human shields, or deploy weapons in civilian areas, who are responsible for their deaths, not those who respond to the weapons. And IG is right: if the Arab rockets stopped firing on Israel, Israel would leave them alone.

antichrist
11-11-2009, 03:56 PM
I heard recently that Albert Einstein was against the idea of a Jewish State. I am not against such at all only that it should not be stolen (or receiving stolen property) from other people.

MIddleEastNews.com - United Nations Resolutions Against Israel "1955-1992"

A List of UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS against Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel"

1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for their immediate return.

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2009, 05:05 PM
MIddleEastNews.com - United Nations Resolutions Against Israel "1955–1992"
See my sig. Who cares what a lot of brutal despots vote for?

antichrist
12-11-2009, 08:03 PM
See my sig. Who cares what a lot of brutal despots vote for?

Well it was the same UN who created the immoral state of Israel (stolen property) in the first place. If their resolutions mean nothing then also the creation of the state of Israel (stolen property) also means nothing. Kick all of the squatters out.

Ian Murray
12-11-2009, 08:04 PM
...Under the rules of war, it is those who use human shields, or deploy weapons in civilian areas, who are responsible for their deaths, not those who respond to the weapons.
Like the French Resistance in WWII?

antichrist
12-11-2009, 08:16 PM
Originally Posted by Jono
...Under the rules of war, it is those who use human shields, or deploy weapons in civilian areas, who are responsible for their deaths, not those who respond to the weapons.

A/C I think the committee investigating war crimes found that Israel used Palestinian children as human shields when entering Palestinian areas.

Ian Murray
12-11-2009, 08:52 PM
Actually the rules of engagement (http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/13D135C3-2119-42BA-94B8-5C2746A48D52/0/%D7%93%D7%95%D7%97%D7%91%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%9C%D 7%99%D7%AA290409PDF.pdf) for Operation Cast Lead, the incursion into Gaza last year, were exemplary. Not always observed by the rank and file on the ground however.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2009, 10:46 PM
Like the French Resistance in WWII?
How do you mean? They, like the Israelis, were fighting against an evil Jew-hating enemy.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2009, 10:48 PM
Actually the rules of engagement (http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/13D135C3-2119-42BA-94B8-5C2746A48D52/0/%D7%93%D7%95%D7%97%D7%91%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%9C%D 7%99%D7%AA290409PDF.pdf) for Operation Cast Lead, the incursion into Gaza last year, were exemplary. Not always observed by the rank and file on the ground however.
And of course, Israel gets no credit for doing more than any other country to avoid civilian casualties while defending against genocidal attacks.

Ian Murray
13-11-2009, 06:25 AM
How do you mean? They, like the Israelis, were fighting against an evil Jew-hating enemy.
The French Resistance were insurgents hiding within the civilian population while employing armed resistance against a superior foreign military force. The Gestapo and Wehrmacht took punitive repressive measures against the civilian population in an attempt to suppress resistance, for which the Maquis must be held responsible under your standards (Originally Posted by Jono
...Under the rules of war, it is those who use human shields, or deploy weapons in civilian areas, who are responsible for their deaths, not those who respond to the weapons).

Of course their enemy was our enemy, so they are regarded as heroes. Other insurgents (e.g. IRA, Viet Cong, Irgun, Tamil Tigers) used similar tactics - how they are regarded depends on which side you're on.

Basil
13-11-2009, 09:22 AM
Ian, you can't be serious. Your line is a fudge of enormous proportions which even even Andrew can see through.

The ideas of lesser forces (collaborations) not wearing uniforms and moving about within society is one thing - this idea captures all the various insurgent groups under discussion. However launching an overt weapon attack from within the confines of non-willing, non-combatants (a family, a unit block) is entirely another.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-11-2009, 02:11 PM
Completely off-topic remark:

I don't have very high opinion of French resistance during WWII. It was mostly non-existent and later hyped up to cover their disgraceful collaboration.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-11-2009, 02:13 PM
The ideas of lesser forces (collaborations) not wearing uniforms and moving about within society is one thing - this idea captures all the various insurgent groups under discussion. However launching an overt weapon attack from within the confines of non-willing, non-combatants (a family, a unit block) is entirely another.
You nailed it on the head!

Ian Murray
14-11-2009, 10:09 AM
Ian, you can't be serious. Your line is a fudge of enormous proportions which even even Andrew can see through.

The ideas of lesser forces (collaborations) not wearing uniforms and moving about within society is one thing - this idea captures all the various insurgent groups under discussion.
An outrageous comparison of course - I don't really believe it myself. However I thought it might make an interesting debating point.

There is an underlying moral issue. Was the Resistance justified in strikes of little-to-negligible military effectiveness while knowing that retaliation would lead to the execution of innocent civilians? I ask the question with no preconception of the right answer.

Their major contribution to the war effort was intelligence supplied to the Allies prior to the Normandy landings.

The important difference between the French and other insurgency groups is that they did not use terrorism against civilian targets as a political weapon.


However launching an overt weapon attack from within the confines of non-willing, non-combatants (a family, a unit block) is entirely another.
Emotive, but unclear. Do you mean launching rockets? Can't be done out the bedroom window because of the back-blast - has to be in the open

If you mean small arms fire, then we're talking urban warfare raher than overt attacks, where both sides use buildings/homes as fire positions and cover from fire, and the civilians on site take their chances. To give Israel its due, the population is warned in advance (e.g. by leaflet drops) of pending military operations and advised to leave. That begs the question perhaps - where are they supposed to go?

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2009, 02:45 PM
To give Israel its due, the population is warned in advance (e.g. by leaflet drops) of pending military operations and advised to leave.
What other country does that? Certainly Israel's enemies over the decades have never warned Israeli civilians, since their goal is annihilation. But Israel is the subject of more condemnation than any of these brutal thugocracies.


That begs the question perhaps - where are they supposed to go?
As far away as possible from the rocket launchers.

BTW, that is not a correct use of the phrase to beg the question (http://begthequestion.info/), which means to assume the conclusion in a premise, i.e. circular reasoning (Latin petitio principii).

antichrist
20-11-2009, 08:51 PM
What other country does that? Certainly Israel's enemies over the decades have never warned Israeli civilians, since their goal is annihilation. But Israel is the subject of more condemnation than any of these brutal thugocracies.


As far away as possible from the rocket launchers.

BTW, that is not a correct use of the phrase to beg the question (http://begthequestion.info/), which means to assume the conclusion in a premise, i.e. circular reasoning (Latin petitio principii).

During their last few incursions they bombed even UN schools that they had previously been given the co-ordinates of, this is why they are up for war crimes. In Lebanon they clustered bombed civilian areas, and even disguised the bombs as colourful tops so that children would pick up unexploded ones and be blown up - all your crap about the morality of the IDF - if they had any morality they would all committ suicide.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-11-2009, 10:18 PM
During their last few incursions they bombed even UN schools that they had previously been given the co-ordinates of, this is why they are up for war crimes. In Lebanon they clustered bombed civilian areas, and even disguised the bombs as colourful tops so that children would pick up unexploded ones and be blown up - all your crap about the morality of the IDF - if they had any morality they would all committ suicide.
Which hole did you dig this crap from?

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2009, 08:41 AM
Many of Israel's detractors claim that Israel is an “Apartheid” state. But anyone who has been there (I have many relatives) couldn’t have failed to observe a flourishing multi-ethnic state, in which all citizens (including close to 1.5 million Arabs — over 20 percent of the population) enjoy virtually equal rights. Find a single one of Israel’s neighbours where that is the case.

Or is it that Israel, while a secular state, has a uniquely Jewish identity? So why don't its detractors whinge about the “Arab Republic of Egypt”, “ Syrian Arab Republic ”, or “Islamic Republic of Iran”. In all those countries, as throughout the Middle East , substantial Jewish communities existed alongside Muslims for millennia — until the twentieth century, that is, when those countries largely cleansed themselves of their Jewish peoples, i.e. made themselves judenrein as Nazi Germany did. Granted, many if not most of these willingly migrated to Israel , where, finally, they could live as equals. Israel could always have sought to politicise these diverse migrants — declare them refugees, as has been the fate of the Palestinians refugees — but instead focused on their integration.

(Rhetorical question: if the “Palestinians” deserve compensation from Israel, would that not be true for the roughly similar number of Jews deprived of citizenship and property throughout the Arab world last century?)

Listening to Obamov, one would think that Jewish settlements that are the main impediment to peace. Not decades of Palestinian intransigence, violence and terrorism, all underscored by withering and hateful rhetoric against Jews. Nor the series of disastrous wars initiated against Israel from the day of its inception, wars that have conditioned Israel to aggressive self-defence. Some terrorism justifiers act as if the Palestinian struggle has to date exemplified peaceful resistance. What about the Second Intifada, as well as the unremitting violence that preceded it? Such memories are all too fresh in Israeli minds.

Palestinians’ apologist in the West excuse their hatred of Israel as the direct result of Israeli actions. Of course, they hated Israel and its people long before they became “occupiers”. Note that the PLO was founded when the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively? What a tragedy that those countries didn’t use that period of relative peace between Israelis and Palestinians to forge a Palestinian state instead of plotting Israel’s destruction. How tragic that Israel’s neighbours could not abide a sovereign Jewish entity covering less that half a percent of the Middle East (with a land area of about a quarter of Tasmania's).

Yes, the settlements are politically provocative, and the settlers themselves can come across as dogmatic and arrogant. But looking back over the 61 years since Israel was founded, would the Palestinians jump at the chance of peace if only the settlements didn’t exist?

And if you want a real example of Apartheid, look no further than the apparent attitude of Palestinians that no Jews should live among them. Just as Arabs have lived for centuries in what is now Israel, so too have Jews in what is now the West Bank. And Gaza for that matter — unilateral Israeli withdrawal from that territory didn’t seem to bring peace any closer; they should have learned from Chamberlain that appeasement of despots never works. Israel is the only country in the region to have given up land for peace, and I’ve no doubt it will do so again, although peace never follows.

Then of course, the wall as a land grab, as the UN bleats about. Yet the wall has been very effective: suicide bombers are no longer at liberty to terrorise Israeli citizens. That’s why it exists. Such walls, as unfortunate as they are, are not in fact such a rarity in the Middle East: try Googling the one that Saudi Arabia has built to separate it from Yemen, or that on Egypt ’s border with Gaza .

Yet despite being the country with the clearest security imperative for having such a wall, it is only Israel that is condemned by Western handwringers. Of course they looked the other way while Hamas fired some 8,000 rockets into Israel over the course of four years, then hotly condemned Israel for acting to prevent these outrages against its people. We should not be surprised that Israelis have long-since stopped holding out for the West’s approval. Even the Israeli leftards have come to resent the moral relativism, appeasement and hypocrisy they hear at every turn.

antichrist
03-12-2009, 06:09 PM
I immediately thought of IRA terrorist acts in Nth Ireland and England. They are a prime example of Christian terrorists if ever there was one. Not to mention their protestant counterparts.

But it is not as simple as that - it is nationalism and land what it is really about. I can understand them - and there is a chance that they taught another group how to make bombs.

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2009, 12:33 PM
What if We Fought the Nazis Like We're Fighting the Taliban (http://townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2009/12/04/what_if_we_fought_the_nazis_like_were_fighting_the _taliban)
[or like Israel is fighting against the Hamas terrorists—Jono]
by Diana West, 4 Dec 2009

... what if World War II had been fought as a counterinsurgency?

What if, instead of waging total war on the Axis powers — firebombing and nuking German and Japanese cities and, in the process, killing tens of thousands of Germans and Japanese — the Allies had tried something a little more postmodern? What if they had tried instead to win "Kraut" hearts and "Jap" minds?

What if Gen. Eisenhower, like Gen. McChrystal today in Afghanistan, had wandered through German towns, asking das volk, "What do you need?" What if Gen. MacArthur, like Gen. McChrystal today, had emphasized Japanese population protection over U.S. force protection, ordering troops to guard "the people" from everything that could hurt them? What if U.S. forces had bought and paid for a Sunni-style "Nazi awakening"? What if Gens. Patton and MacArthur had rewritten constitutions to enshrine Nazism in Germany and Shintoism in Japan? What if the United States remained to protect the new governments from "extremists" who, as President Obama said this week, "distorted and defiled," respectively, their ideology and religion?

The East Coast would be speaking German, and the West Coast would be speaking Japanese.

Luckily, we didn't have proponents of "armed social work" pulling the levers back then, commanders who today see in every Taliban redoubt lollipop-ready customers for micro-loans — if, that is, the troops can only survive the booby-trapped house-to-house searches to complete the necessary paperwork.

...

Spiny Norman
05-12-2009, 01:32 PM
In reply to Diana (author of the above article), I might ask her:

-- what if the Germans and Japanese, instead of fighting a conventional war, had adopted terrorist/insurgency tactics?

The answer is probably that we would still be at war ...

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2009, 02:54 PM
In reply to Diana (author of the above article), I might ask her:

— what if the Germans and Japanese, instead of fighting a conventional war, had adopted terrorist/insurgency tactics?

The answer is probably that we would still be at war ...
I doubt it. Throughout most of the war, the Japanese were prepared to defend the main islands down to the last man, woman and child. But the Allies showed that they would wipe out whole cities if they didn't surrender unconditionally. All the same, even after Nagasaki, Tojo wanted to fight on, as recently revealed documents show. Similarly with the Nazis; the Allies would have bombed any house harbouring terrorists/insurgents.

The Allies won the hearts and minds of the Germans and Japanese by pasting them into submission first, then taking over their radio stations and newspapers and broadcasting Allied propaganda on them.

But to answer your own question: if the Allies had fought like in Iraq or Afghanistan, or Israel against Hamas, then that would have been an encouragement for terrorist/insugency, and indeed we would still be at war. But in WW2, the Allies wanted to win, and also prevent a recurrence.

antichrist
10-12-2009, 08:19 PM
Originally Posted by antichrist
What I have noticed sticking up through the cracks that the basis of terrorism recruiting is poverty, inequality and lack of opportunity - I don't doubt this at all.

Igor
No, the only basis of terrorism is it's effectiveness as weapon.

A/C
I would agree with your conclusion when referring to those Zionist terrorists pre and post 1948

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2009, 10:48 PM
Building Peace Without Obama's Interference (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574571491401847518.html)
A promising, independent Palestine is quietly being developed, with Israeli assistance.
Tom Gross
Wall St Journal, 2 Dec 09

It is difficult to turn on a TV or radio or pick up a newspaper these days, without finding some pundit or other deploring the dismal prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace or the dreadful living conditions of the Palestinians. Even supposedly neutral news reporters regularly repeat this sad tale. "Very little is changing for the Palestinian people on the ground," I heard BBC World Service Cairo correspondent Christian Fraser tell listeners three times in a 45 minute period the other evening.

In fact nothing could be further from the truth. I had spent that day in the West Bank's largest city, Nablus. The city is bursting with energy, life and signs of prosperity, in a way I have not previously seen in many years of covering the region.

...

In June, the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl related how Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had told him why he had turned down Ehud Olmert's offer last year to create a Palestinian state on 97% of the West Bank (with 3% of pre-1967 Israeli land being added to make up the shortfall). "In the West Bank we have a good reality," Abbas told Diehl. "The people are living a normal life," he added in a rare moment of candor to a Western journalist.

Nablus stock exchange head Ahmad Aweidah went further in explaining to me why there is no rush to declare statehood, saying ordinary Palestinians need the IDF to help protect them from Hamas, as their own security forces aren't ready to do so by themselves yet.

The truth is that an independent Palestine is now quietly being built, with Israeli assistance. So long as the Obama administration and European politicians don't clumsily meddle as they have in the past and make unrealistic demands for the process to be completed more quickly than it can be, I am confident the outcome will be a positive one. (The last time an American president—Bill Clinton in 2000—tried to hurry things along unrealistically, it merely resulted in blowing up in everybody's faces—literally—and set back hopes for peace by some years.)

...

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2009, 08:04 AM
Do the Arab states really care about the Palestinians? (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/3947)
Michael Freund
Israel National News, 30 Nov 2009

For all their talk of standing by the Palestinians, the Arab regimes sure have a strange way of showing it. Despite reaping an oil-driven windfall last year of unprecedented proportions, few Arab states seem willing to dig very deep into their own pockets to back up their concern with cash.

Indeed, the hollowness of their pro-Palestinian pronouncements was unambiguously on display last week in Amman, at a meeting of the Advisory Commission of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, better known by its acronym of UNRWA.

...

In fact, over the past two decades, Arab regimes have been providing a steadily decreasing percentage of UNRWA's funding. In the 1980s, their contributions amounted to 8% of the group's annual budget, whereas now they comprise barely 3%.

As a result, Western states are currently providing more than 95% of the funds behind UNRWA's ongoing programs.

Now don't get me wrong - I am not shedding any tears over UNRWA's difficulties. The organization has long been a vehicle for perpetuating the Palestinian refugee problem as a lever for pressuring Israel, and it has not shied away from working closely with Hamas in Gaza, or serving as a vehicle for anti-Israel and anti-Western indoctrination.

But UNRWA's woes lay bare the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Arab states. They lambaste Israel at every opportunity over the condition of the Palestinians, even as they themselves do very little to alleviate the problem.

Sure, some Arab countries have kicked in funds to various UNRWA emergency appeals, while others provide aid to Palestinians via other channels.

But the numbers above lead one to wonder: do the Arab states really care about the Palestinians?

If UNRWA's ledger is any guide, the answer is a clear and resounding "no."

Capablanca-Fan
29-12-2009, 01:15 PM
Do you feel safe now? (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120226)
Joseph Farah
28 Dec 2008

A current article after the latest terrorist attack, and by an Arab-American who refuses to fall for the imbecilic political correctness. Note that this terrorist was foiled by a passenger not by the ludicrously named "security". It was passengers who foiled the last 11-9 attack, after the previous planes followed government protocols for dealing with hijackers.


...

Ordinary people who pose no possible threat to life and limb are forced to take off their shoes, their belts, walk through metal detectors, get their bags X-rayed and stand on long security lines.

Meanwhile, as we saw last weekend, a man with "significant terrorist connections" boards a plan in Nigeria with the components of a bomb and nearly succeeds in detonating it as it approached Detroit.

In other words, all the best efforts of government's politically correct, non-profiling of airline passengers proves worthless once again.

In fact, if it hadn't been for the alert passengers on Flight 253, all 278 of them might have perished in the latest act of Islamic terrorism. Passengers, not crew members, jumped over one another to subdue the fiend. There was not a TSA agent or a sky marshal in sight.

The government's response to the latest incident is to increase its meaningless security charade in which all passengers – elderly grandmas and newborns – are scrutinized with the same level of enthusiasm as those with "significant terrorism connections."

Maybe you're asking yourself why someone with "significant terrorism connections" is permitted on a commercial airliner headed for the U.S.

What is the purpose of the "no-fly list" if not to keep those with "significant terrorism connections" from getting on board?

Don't expect to get an answer to that question. Just expect your own personal airline hassles to increase.

...

Compare an article from a year ago, The Things He Carried (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security) by Jeffrey Goldberg, Atlantic Monthly, Nov 2008:


Airport security in America is a sham—“security theater” designed to make travelers feel better and catch stupid terrorists. Smart ones can get through security with fake boarding passes and all manner of prohibited items—as our correspondent did with ease.

antichrist
29-12-2009, 01:25 PM
terrorism is only a syntom of things wrong underneath - if it is also other things such as religious fanatacism then all religions have their cases.

The biggest gripe of terrorists is generational inequality, poverty, humilation and injustice. Even if individual terrorists may come from comfy backgrounds they fall prey to religious leaders who talk on behalf of the sufferers.

John Lennon said it all in Imagine but Christians only wanted to stone him for saying he was more popular than so and so.

Colonial (western & Christian) exploitation has happened for centuries and some people fight back. I don't condone their actions but just explaining.

Capablanca-Fan
29-12-2009, 01:35 PM
terrorism is only a syntom of things wrong underneath - if it is also other things such as religious fanatacism then all religions have their cases.
Yet the first suicide bombers were the secular Tamil Tigers.


The biggest gripe of terrorists is generational inequality, poverty, humilation and injustice. Even if individual terrorists may come from comfy backgrounds they fall prey to religious leaders who talk on behalf of the sufferers.
Yet the poverty is nothing to do with the people they attack, and everything to do with the despots who rule their countries. However, terrorists are like the Left, a bunch of envy mongers.


John Lennon said it all in Imagine but Christians only wanted to stone him for saying he was more popular than so and so.
He also said “Imagine no possessions”—this didn't stop his ditzy widow from suing the producers of Expelled (http://creation.com/expelled-new-movie-exposes-persecution-of-anti-darwinists) for using a brief clip of this song—for violating copyright aka intellectual property rights.


Colonial (western & Christian) exploitation has happened for centuries and some people fight back. I don't condone their actions but just explaining.
More "root causes" crap. Yet there was no Tibetan terrorism against their far worse Communist Chinese oppressors, or Jewish terrorism against Tsarist or German schoolkids. Also, by far the worst oppression in Africa happened long after colonialism, as Marxist despots took over and impoverished their countries and brutally murdered their opponents.

Forget all this leftard "root causes" nonsense and concentrate on the most effective means of stopping the scumbags. Unfortunately, the government "security" bureaucrats are leftards, who want to equalize misery in the tried and tested manner of socialists everywhere. Hence the hassling of all passengers.

antichrist
29-12-2009, 02:00 PM
Yet the first suicide bombers were the secular Tamil Tigers.


Yet the poverty is nothing to do with the people they attack, and everything to do with the despots who rule their countries. However, terrorists are like the Left, a bunch of envy mongers.


(a) exactly they thought they had right to a homeland because they considered they were discriminated against by the majority. Injustice. Often they cant attack the leaders (often military dictatorships) because of their inferior military strength. In Philippines Christians are occupying Muslim lands that were robbed with help of military and police - it is much easier for the Muslims to attack Christian civilians than the military so they do. Just like the Palestinians in Middle East. What are they supposedly envy of - Western wealth - well a lot of it was built on a colonialist divided middle-east that got the oil dirt cheap - and they set up puppet regimes to guarantee their future wealth. All this is history that you already know.


He also said “Imagine no possessions”—this didn't stop his ditzy widow from suing the producers of Expelled for using a brief clip of this song—for violating copyright aka intellectual property rights.

The principles of Imagine must be adopted widespread - and that would need a complete change of thinking from right-wing and religious fanatics. Lennon true to form attempted to mediate peace during 1967 M/E war - at least he tried.


More "root causes" crap. Yet there was no Tibetan terrorism against their far worse Communist Chinese oppressors, or Jewish terrorism against Tsarist or German schoolkids. Also, by far the worst oppression in Africa happened long after colonialism, as Marxist despots took over and impoverished their countries and brutally murdered their opponents.

The young Tibets are starting to learn from Mao that power comes out of the barrel of a gun. I prefer to die on my legs than living on my knees.

I consider that extremist Jews have their priorities wrong - they take no action against Germany that wiped them out by the millions, but bomb the Christ and Mohammed out of Gaza whose bombs had killed 13 Jewish people maybe in eight years.


Concerning South Africa, that brutality is more brought on by tribalism, in many African countries that is the background to brutality. I think Imagine song could be stretch to include that.



Forget all this leftard "root causes" nonsense and concentrate on the most effective means of stopping the scumbags. Unfortunately, the government "security" bureaucrats are leftards, who want to equalize misery in the tried and tested manner of socialists everywhere. Hence the hassling of all passengers

If some Jews could not forget Palestine after 2000 years (and they were only agressive genocidal occupiers then -not referring to current Jews, not sure if even related) they why should current sufferers not run their cause as well.

Note I said some Jews, coz many Jews are the best and fairest people in the world, they even stick their neck out to support the Palestinians.

The Kibbutz founders were left wingers if I remember correctly - communes thery were. That was why the Nazis had it in for the Jews -they blamed them for communism. But the nazis had their minds twisted in many ways and had many other excuses against all sorts of perceived enemies.

Kevin Bonham
29-12-2009, 06:24 PM
Yet the first suicide bombers were the secular Tamil Tigers.

Actually suicide bombing in some form or another has existed for much longer than that and there was even an attempt to assassinate Hitler via said method.

antichrist
29-12-2009, 06:30 PM
weren't kami karzi pilots suicide bomber in a way?

One of my wives was a suicide bomber - well she left that impression on me

Ian Murray
29-12-2009, 09:16 PM
From a military viewpoint, the basic difference between aerial/artillery etc bombardment and the suicide bomber is the delivery method. The greater quantity of the former offsets the greater accuracy of the latter.

There is a significant psychological difference however - the possibility of close proximity to a man-pack bomb is a lot scarier than the possibility of something falling from the sky.

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2009, 09:13 AM
From a military viewpoint, the basic difference between aerial/artillery etc bombardment and the suicide bomber is the delivery method. The greater quantity of the former offsets the greater accuracy of the latter.
Wrong. The artillery bombardment is directed at military targets, while the Islamofascist suicide bombers deliberately target civilians.

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2009, 09:16 AM
weren't kami karzi pilots suicide bomber in a way?
One could say that; but at least they aimed at military targets. They were also secular, so that supports my point.

Desmond
30-12-2009, 09:32 AM
One could say that; but at least they aimed at military targets. They were also secular, so that supports my point.
Which is what? That religious groups are poor at innovation?

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2009, 10:29 AM
Which is what? That religious groups are poor at innovation?
That is was crass of AC to blame suicide bombing on religious fanaticism. Do you count suicide bombing as a worthy innovation?

Desmond
30-12-2009, 10:35 AM
That is was crass of AC to blame suicide bombing on religious fanaticism. Do you count suicide bombing as a worthy innovation?
Don't know what you mean by "worthy" but it would appear to be an innovation.

Ian Murray
30-12-2009, 10:55 AM
Wrong. The artillery bombardment is directed at military targets, while the Islamofascist suicide bombers deliberately target civilians.
The military/civilian distinction has been nebulous since WW2 (e.g. London, Dresden, Frankfurt were civilian not military targets).

Suicide bombers attack civilian targets - the aim of terrorism is to terrorise, not to achieve military victory.

Basil
30-12-2009, 11:14 AM
The military/civilian distinction has been nebulous since WW2 (e.g. London, Dresden, Frankfurt were civilian not military targets).

Suicide bombers attack civilian targets - the aim of terrorism is to terrorise, not to achieve military victory.
Ian, I am seriously bewildered that you are perpetuating this line which we discussed a month or two back, where you all but conceded the distinction.

This present twist of yours re: the bombing of Dresden etc is yet another backend run whereby you try and justify the unjustifiable. What the allies did with the bombing of Dresden, while arguable morally, was not a systematic and unilateral method of 'chicken' warfare where one side dares the other side (leaving it no option but) to attack it while it hides under civilian cover.

Ian Murray
30-12-2009, 05:14 PM
Ian, I am seriously bewildered that you are perpetuating this line which we discussed a month or two back, where you all but conceded the distinction.

This present twist of yours re: the bombing of Dresden etc is yet another backend run whereby you try and justify the unjustifiable. What the allies did with the bombing of Dresden, while arguable morally, was not a systematic and unilateral method of 'chicken' warfare where one side dares the other side (leaving it no option but) to attack it while it hides under civilian cover.
You misunderstand me. Far from trying to justify terrorism, I find it abhorrent. Unfortunately it's a facet of modern armed conflict we have to live with and try to deal with. I was comparing high-tech and low-tech explosive delivery systems from a military viewpoint only - the moral issues are separate.

Dresden et al were political rather than military or strategic targets, with the intention of sapping the German will to continue fighting as well as diverting enemy resources from the Eastern front to assist the Soviets in the only way possible prior to Normandy. The destruction of residential housing was planned, with loss of civilian lives acceptable collateral damage.

Focussing on Gaza, it is naive of Jono to believe that Israeli artillery bombardment is directed at military targets only (newsreel footage shows street after street of apartment buildings reduced to rubble). Israel obviously has the same objective, to break Palestinian morale - a time-honoured strategy which has never worked. No rebuilding is possible while the import of cement and building materials is blocked.

Basil
30-12-2009, 07:19 PM
Dresden et al were political rather than military or strategic targets, with the intention of sapping the German will to continue fighting...
Sure. But as a considered means of shortening a war.


Focussing on Gaza, it is naive of Jono to believe that Israeli artillery bombardment is directed at military targets only (newsreel footage shows street after street of apartment buildings reduced to rubble). Israel obviously has the same objective, to break Palestinian morale - a time-honoured strategy which has never worked. No rebuilding is possible while the import of cement and building materials is blocked.
This is not my understanding. My understanding is that the Israelis are targeting the source of attacks which happen to be interred deep in civilian territory.

Ian Murray
30-12-2009, 10:02 PM
Sure. But as a considered means of shortening a war.
Perhaps more ill-considered, with the benefit of hindsight. Daylight bombing proved too costly for the RAF, and night raids were largely ineffective as the designated targets were too hard to find in the dark with the navigation equipment then available. In fact less than 10% of bombs landed within five miles of target (inside the five-mile radius was recorded as a 'hit' when assessing effectiveness).

Some of the war effort directed to bomber production could have been better spent elsewhere, like developing a tank to match the German Tiger. However there were also political considerations, not least of which was being seen to carry the fight to Germany to satisfy popular demand in Britain.


This is not my understanding. My understanding is that the Israelis are targeting the source of attacks which happen to be interred deep in civilian territory.
Which was also my understanding at first. However the camera tells a different story. It stretches the bounds of credibility that such extensive damage was the result of surgical strikes only against enemy positions:
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-39247.html

http://www.doktertomi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/city-suffered.jpg

Basil
30-12-2009, 10:16 PM
I'm not sure what I'm looking at. It appears to be 1/2 dozen buildings destroyed by shells. I'm not sure what point this image illustrates.

Capablanca-Fan
31-12-2009, 09:28 AM
Perhaps more ill-considered, with the benefit of hindsight. Daylight bombing proved too costly for the RAF, and night raids were largely ineffective as the designated targets were too hard to find in the dark with the navigation equipment then available. In fact less than 10% of bombs landed within five miles of target (inside the five-mile radius was recorded as a 'hit' when assessing effectiveness).
It was a hard thing to do in those days.


Some of the war effort directed to bomber production could have been better spent elsewhere, like developing a tank to match the German Tiger.
The Soviet T34 was already that, in that it was not only a very good tank, but was able to be produced in overwhelming numbers.

But earlier on (up to Dunkirk), it wasn't the British and French tanks that were inferior; the Germans just made much better use of theirs.


However there were also political considerations, not least of which was being seen to carry the fight to Germany to satisfy popular demand in Britain.
As they had to. No woolly-woofter crap that you like, and which Israel and America practices against Islamofascist enemies. Instead, the Allies pummelled the Nazis and Japanese warlords into submission, and left the people in no doubt that they were well and truly beaten. That's why we have had no more trouble from those countries.


Which was also my understanding at first. However the camera tells a different story. It stretches the bounds of credibility that such extensive damage was the result of surgical strikes only against enemy positions:

Even if so, they could still be targeting the source of the rockets which are launched, and the damage seen was the result of the Palestinians launching from such areas. But the rockets are deliberately aimed at Israeli civilians.

“The modern-day Democratic Party does not believe in the Bush Doctrine. They believe in allowing us to get hit, then reading the people who hit us their rights, and giving them the full protection of the US Constitution.”—Rush Limbaugh

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2010, 07:51 PM
How Israel Screens for Terrorists—video (http://www.onejerusalem.org/2010/01/how-israel-screens-for-terrori.php)

Well worth watching. Israel has a 100% security record, so maybe the proud TSA Gestapo should try to *learn* from them. Yet Israeli security doesn't force passengers to take off shoes or confiscate their water bottles, or the various other fascist treatments of obviously innocent passengers in American airports. Instead, among other things, they use, horrors, ethnic profiling, so hated by PC Leftards (both Shrubby and Obamov appointed Leftard dimwits as TSA chiefs). Yet the few extra questions are far less intrusive than the indignities to which passengers in American airports are subjected. They also have armed sky marshals aboard flights.

And Thomas Sowell writes (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/thomas-sowell/2010/01/12/notional-security/) about how he has gone through Israel security with loads of baggage many times without hassle. And he reports how an Israeli security expert offered advice, and the American bureaucrats told him basically to go jump. They would rather be PC and treat old grandmothers like dirt and have a few terrorist attacks than learn from proven experts.

Desmond
09-04-2010, 08:36 AM
Kind of cool animated map of empires in and around the middle east (http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf).

TheJoker
09-04-2010, 11:58 AM
'chicken' warfare where one side dares the other side (leaving it no option but) to attack it while it hides under civilian cover.

Commonly called unconventional warfare, and pretty much an imperative if you have an inferior force. Only a fool is going to fight a conventional war that will result in certain defeat. I think you'll find it's very common practice in almost all conflicts and is not restricted to the middle-east. As is the practice of targeting civilian populations in an attempt to exert political pressure on the adversary. It's just not always called terrorism.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-04-2010, 01:35 PM
As is the practice of targeting civilian populations in an attempt to exert political pressure on the adversary. It's just not always called terrorism.
What about targeting it's own population? How should it be called?

TheJoker
09-04-2010, 04:32 PM
What about targeting it's own population? How should it be called?

Dunno what it should be called, but again I suspect it is common practice. Given that the public is aware of Operation Northwoods, in which the US proposed to terrorise its own population in order to gain support for a war against Cuba. I can only imagine that such activities have actually been carried out, especially in less democratic countries.

Off course we as society should take every action to avoid such hienous crimes.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-04-2010, 05:05 PM
Off course we as society should take every action to avoid such hienous crimes.
But what we do if the opposing side does?

Capablanca-Fan
10-04-2010, 02:42 PM
Commonly called unconventional warfare, and pretty much an imperative if you have an inferior force. Only a fool is going to fight a conventional war that will result in certain defeat. I think you'll find it's very common practice in almost all conflicts and is not restricted to the middle-east. As is the practice of targeting civilian populations in an attempt to exert political pressure on the adversary. It's just not always called terrorism.
Yeah, not when against Jews. Israel is the only country which "world opinion" demands should not fight back against murderous attacks against its people.

Ian Murray
01-06-2010, 07:53 PM
Jono excepted, does anyone condone the Israeli commando raid on a merchant ship in international waters carrying aid to Gaza, resulting in the deaths of at least 16 civilians?

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2010, 01:54 AM
Jono excepted, does anyone condone the Israeli commando raid on a merchant ship in international waters carrying aid to Gaza, resulting in the deaths of at least 16 civilians?
A merchant ship carrying weapons, where the "peaceful" crew fired on the Israelis first, as shown in the video Weapons Found on the Flotilla Ship Mavi Marmara Used by Activists Against IDF Soldiers:

JvS9PXZ3RWM&feature=player_embedded


On the day before the Gaza flotilla confronted the Israeli navy, Al-Jazeera TV documented the pre-battle atmosphere created by men on board the flotilla, who chanted a well-known Islamic battle cry invoking the killing and defeat of Jews in battle:

This (http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=2323)shows how "peaceful" they were:
“[Remember] Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!”

Khaibar is the name of the last Jewish village defeated by Muhammad’s army in 628. Many Jews were killed in that battle, which marked the end of Jewish presence in Arabia. There are Muslims who see that as a precursor to future wars against Jews. At gatherings and rallies of extremists, this chant is often heard as a threat to Jews to expect to be defeated and killed again by Muslims.

Al-Jazeera also interviewed a woman who said that the flotilla participants’ goal was “one of two happy endings: either Martyrdom or reaching Gaza.”

Furthermore:


Video images released by the Israel Defense Forces (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Israel--Commandos-Acted-in-Self-Defense-95266994.html)show activists on board the deck of the largest ship in the flotilla, a Turkish vessel, using metal bars to beat Israeli commandos who had boarded the ship on a rope from a helicopter overhead.

Israeli military officials said the soldiers were carrying paint-ball guns and had orders to use their pistols only to defend themselves. They said the activists took the guns from two of the soldiers and used them to fire at the commandos, who then returned fire.

See this video Close-Up Footage of Mavi Marmara Passengers Attacking IDF Soldiers (With Sound):
0LulDJh4fWI&feature=player_embedded

See also "Peace activists" stabbing IDF soldier:
buzOWKxN2co&feature=player_embedded

Ian Murray
02-06-2010, 05:17 AM
That's quite a spin. The activists used makeshift weapons against an airborne incursion by armed Israeli special forces, and it's the Israelis who were acting in self-defence!

Igor_Goldenberg
02-06-2010, 10:26 AM
The activists used makeshift weapons against an airborne incursion by armed Israeli special forces, and it's the Israelis who were acting in self-defence!
No, that is a spin. "Peace activist with metal bars and knives" attacked soldiers who boarded the ship.
Soldiers boarded the ship because repeated warning of not entering blockade zone were ignored.
Did you actually watch the videos? They are quite telling.
Couple more:
The "passengers" fire live ammunition at IDF soldiers (http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk)
Israeli Navy Addresses a Ship in the Flotilla and Offers it to Dock in the Ashdod Port (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKOmLP4yHb4)

Spiny Norman
02-06-2010, 01:14 PM
Jono excepted, does anyone condone the Israeli commando raid on a merchant ship in international waters carrying aid to Gaza, resulting in the deaths of at least 16 civilians?
Yes.

Pretty clear now that the violence was a setup initiated by those on that particular ship. The Israelis managed to board five other ships without any violence. If they had gone there looking for a fight one would expect to see it on the other ships. One would also expect them to be equipped with assult rifles and SMGs, not with paint ball guns and side-arms.

I used to think that our media were just stupid and unable to see how they were being manipulated. Now I'm not so sure. At least some of them seem to be wilfully complicit in misreporting events.

Racism, pure and simple.

antichrist
02-06-2010, 06:40 PM
Isreal did manage to sabotage a few of the boats/ships before they left port so the "A" list stayed back in Turkey or wherever. Isn't some sort of crime in itself - malicious damage or something

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 09:52 AM
HZlSSaPT_OU&feature=player_embedded#!
"Peaceful humanitarian" activist at work

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 09:54 AM
B6sAEYpHF24&feature=player_embedded#!
Mavi Marmara Passengers Attack IDF Before Soldiers Board Ship.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 09:57 AM
Hamas stops flotilla aid delivered by Israel (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/02/israel.palestinians.aid/)

Israel has attempted to deliver humanitarian aid from an international flotilla to Gaza, but Hamas -- which controls the territory -- has refused to accept the cargo, the Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday.

Palestinian sources confirmed that trucks that arrived from Israel at the Rafah terminal at the Israel-Gaza border were barred from delivering the aid.

antichrist
03-06-2010, 05:34 PM
Hamas stops flotilla aid delivered by Israel (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/02/israel.palestinians.aid/)

Israel has attempted to deliver humanitarian aid from an international flotilla to Gaza, but Hamas -- which controls the territory -- has refused to accept the cargo, the Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday.

Palestinian sources confirmed that trucks that arrived from Israel at the Rafah terminal at the Israel-Gaza border were barred from delivering the aid.

Of course why would they accept it after Isreal has put their greasy paws over it - it is a matter of principle, of integrity, of independence, of making a statement.

If some supplies to the Warsaw Ghetto had knowingly come direct from Hitler would have the Jews accepted them - I certainly hope not - they would see them as the insult that they were.

Why accept supplies from your torturer when you are getting murdered, country stolen, etc etc.

Isreal is trying to destroy the only thing they have left - their pride

Kevin Bonham
03-06-2010, 11:27 PM
Jono excepted, does anyone condone the Israeli commando raid on a merchant ship in international waters carrying aid to Gaza, resulting in the deaths of at least 16 civilians?

We have claim and counter-claim - the activists say that the Israelis opened fire without provocation, the Israelis say they were attacked and defending themselves. The Israelis have video evidence that ostensibly shows they were attacked, but we don't know what the evidence from the other side looks like since the Israelis confiscated it.

The "legality" of the blockade itself is also the subject of claim and counter-claim and in any case international law is not enforceable enough to take seriously.

So at this stage I can't see any alternative to just withholding judgement until more damning evidence against one side or the other is available, which I doubt will ever happen. But am I correct that the number of deaths was actually nine not 16?

arosar
03-06-2010, 11:52 PM
It's 9. Last Monday it was as high as 19!

Anyways, the more this kinda shit happens, the more I think the rest of the world just gets angry at Israel. If I were advising Islamic organisations, I'd tell them to focus their activities on Israel instead of widening those activities to include non-Israeli entities. The idea is to polarise the whole world: Israel in one corner and the rest in the other. The PLO actually learnt this lesson well.

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
04-06-2010, 09:18 AM
It's 9. Last Monday it was as high as 19!

Anyways, the more this kinda shit happens, the more I think the rest of the world just gets angry at Israel. If I were advising Islamic organisations, I'd tell them to focus their activities on Israel instead of widening those activities to include non-Israeli entities. The idea is to polarise the whole world: Israel in one corner and the rest in the other. The PLO actually learnt this lesson well.

AR
I'll take as a tacit acknowledgement that you view the Turkish flotilia as nothing but publicity stunt.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-06-2010, 09:21 AM
We have claim and counter-claim - the activists say that the Israelis opened fire without provocation, the Israelis say they were attacked and defending themselves. The Israelis have video evidence that ostensibly shows they were attacked, but we don't know what the evidence from the other side looks like since the Israelis confiscated it.

The "legality" of the blockade itself is also the subject of claim and counter-claim and in any case international law is not enforceable enough to take seriously.

So at this stage I can't see any alternative to just withholding judgement until more damning evidence against one side or the other is available, which I doubt will ever happen. But am I correct that the number of deaths was actually nine not 16?
It's quite common to withhold judgement when Israel presents clear evidence, and condemn Israel when no clear evidences are present.

I wonder how much more stink would Arab lobby release if Israel did not tape the whole encounter on video?

Kevin Bonham
04-06-2010, 11:48 AM
It's quite common to withhold judgement when Israel presents clear evidence

But appropriate in this case because

(a) the "clear evidence" does not show whether or not the Israelis fired from the air before hitting the ground as alleged. It only shows that on landing they were immediately attacked. It is thus incomplete.

(b) Any "clear evidence" the other side might have been able to advance (or fail to advance) is unavailable to the debate because the Israelis confiscated all video footage.

I actually don't think there was anything suspicious in their decision to confiscate the footage, since otherwise there would have doubtless been edited footage of Israeli attacks presented out of context. But it does make it harder for them to prove their case.


I wonder how much more stink would Arab lobby release if Israel did not tape the whole encounter on video?

Actually this is exactly what is effectively being alleged.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-06-2010, 01:49 PM
But appropriate in this case because

(a) the "clear evidence" does not show whether or not the Israelis fired from the air before hitting the ground as alleged. It only shows that on landing they were immediately attacked. It is thus incomplete.

What would be the rationale for them to start firing from the air?
If they did fire from the air, why didn't they fire at other ships?

antichrist
04-06-2010, 03:10 PM
It's quite common to withhold judgement when Israel presents clear evidence, and condemn Israel when no clear evidences are present.

I wonder how much more stink would Arab lobby release if Israel did not tape the whole encounter on video?

The Israel commandos did attempt to sabotage all the ship inhabitants camera memory sticks etc. It is reported in the SMH today how the SMH photographer McGarrity (?) had half of her foto memory cards stolen from her when searched but she managed to smuggle 3 out by taping to her body (or hiding) in consealed areas. So Israel wants to censor the whole event and only portray its side. It is already refusing an independent inquiry - truth and openness don't exist in Israel - just ask Vanunu(?) the nuke scientist locked up for decades for spilling the beans on their 200 nuke weapons. And oh no, the Arabs could not have same - only God's Chosen People!!!

antichrist
04-06-2010, 03:39 PM
Long ago, I was made to understand that Palestine was not Palestine;
I was also informed that Palestinians were not Palestinians;
They also explained to me that ethnic cleansing was not ethnic cleansing.
And when naive old me saw freedom fighters
they patiently showed me that they were not freedom fighters,
and that resistance was not resistance.
And when, stupidly, I noticed arrogance, oppression and humiliation
they benevolently enlightened me so I can see that arrogance was not arrogance,
oppression was not oppression and humiliation was not humiliation.
I saw misery, racism, inhumanity and a concentration camp.
But they told me that they were experts in misery, racism, inhumanity
and concentrations camps
and I have to take their word for it: this was not misery, racism, inhumanity
and a concentrations camp.
Over the years they’ve taught me so many things:
invasion was not invasion, occupation was not occupation,
colonialism was not colonialism and apartheid was not apartheid…
They opened my simple mind to even more complex truths
that my poor brain could not on its own compute like:
‘having nuclear weapons’ was not ‘having nuclear weapons’,
‘not having weapons of mass destruction’ was ‘having weapons of mass destruction’.
And, democracy (in the Gaza strip) was not democracy.
Having second class citizens (in Israel) was democracy.
So you’ll excuse me if I am not surprised to learn today
that there were more things that I thought were evident that are not:
peace activists are not peace activists, piracy is not piracy,
the massacre of unarmed people is not the massacre of unarmed people.
I have such a limited brain and my ignorance is unlimited.
And they’re so &%$##! intelligent. Really.

Ghassan Hage

Everyone think, could your opinion also be blinkered by such propaganda

Igor_Goldenberg
04-06-2010, 04:39 PM
I have such a limited brain and my ignorance is unlimited.
No argument from me.

antichrist
04-06-2010, 06:56 PM
No argument from me.

Well to find that line you probably read everything - I am proud of you and hope it does some good.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2010, 04:49 AM
Flotilla Choir presents: We Con the World
FOGG_osOoVg&feature=player_embedded
“We'll make them all believe that the Hamas is Momma Theresa; We are peaceful travelers with guns and our own knives.”

Ian Murray
05-06-2010, 07:41 AM
There is a balanced evaluation at www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=21659

antichrist
05-06-2010, 04:13 PM
There is a balanced evaluation at www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=21659

May be balanced but inconclusive.

What I preferred was one of the following comments that actually mean something: With 500k settlers and the almost entire appropriation of water resources by Israel in the Palestinian Occupied Territories the two-state solution is no longer viable. The alternative one-state solution is unacceptable to Israel, for it would mean (for simple demographic reasons) the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

The Israeli government is aware of this dilemma, and doesn't have a clue what to do about it - hence the constant recourse to mindless violence to postpone the inevitable day of reckoning.

And there are about another hundred similiar strong reasons why everything that Israel doing is wrong!

antichrist
05-06-2010, 04:49 PM
On behalf of all Palistinian supporters I hereby express appreciation of Israel's home goal in killing those 9 Turkish blockade breakers.

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2010, 01:58 AM
There is a balanced evaluation
Ian's idea of "balanced" is only 90% left instead of 100%. :P


On behalf of all Palistinian supporters I hereby express appreciation of Israel's home goal in killing those 9 Turkish blockade breakers.
It wouldn't have worked if the Western media and so many Westerners were not rabidly antisemitic. My complaint is that they didn't sink the ship as soon as they were fired upon. Israel is far too easy on those sworn to destroy her, and her enemies smell weakness and are emboldened to do more damage.

Note that Egypt also has a blockade on the terrorist territory of Gaza.

arosar
06-06-2010, 09:40 AM
It wouldn't have worked if the Western media and so many Westerners were not rabidly antisemitic.

I wonder what is the cause of this antisemitism.

You're a smart bloke. Tell us!

AR

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2010, 10:23 AM
I wonder what is the cause of this antisemitism.

You're a smart bloke. Tell us!
You're right, but antisemitism has had a long history. The predecessors of the "Palestinians" were staunch allies of the Nazis. Now it's even more bizarre, as British Jewish writer Melanie Phillips says in an interview (http://article.nationalreview.com/434521/melanie-phillips-on-a-world-gone-mad/interview?page=2):


One of the mysteries of the age is the way “progressives” who fetishize sexual freedom, gay rights, female equality, and the like march shoulder to shoulder with Islamists who stone adulterers, kill gays, and subjugate women. They share a common desire to destroy the cultural traditions and normative values of the West — all in the cause of creating the perfect society, which creates in turn a totalitarian mindset, which links religious fanatics and the political tyrannies of both Communism and fascism.

antichrist
06-06-2010, 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
On behalf of all Palistinian supporters I hereby express appreciation of Israel's home goal in killing those 9 Turkish blockade breakers.

JOno
It wouldn't have worked if the Western media and so many Westerners were not rabidly antisemitic. My complaint is that they didn't sink the ship as soon as they were fired upon. Israel is far too easy on those sworn to destroy her, and her enemies smell weakness and are emboldened to do more damage.

Note that Egypt also has a blockade on the terrorist territory of Gaza.
__________________

AC
So they are antisemitic are they? Then why was a Jewish woman in USA protesting so strongly against Israel's actions? Why are their tons of Jewish Palestinian supporters in Israel and Australia and probably everywhere? And what they say: that what Israel is doing in so un-Jewish. They realise that Israel is getting (to an extent) all Jews a bad name.

The blockage by Egypt I have not research much but I could guess. Like Israel, Egypt gets lot of money from USA to "help" Israel. Also Egypt got it's land back from Israel so their govt don't have much of a grudge against Israel. Also Egypt is trying to control the Muslim Brotherhood that is aligned with Hamas. And if tens of thousands of Gaza refugees flee to Egypt and upset the "balance of power" as happened in Lebanon another civil war could break out.

But Egypt's policies don't represent a lot of Egyptians' views towards Palestinians.

Also regional politics come into it - which brand of Islam is this neighbouring country and who is teaming up with who.
There are many other arguments I will bring up later - believe you me.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-06-2010, 10:21 PM
Recently North Korea sunk a ship carrying 46 people.
Where were condemnation?
Where were demonstrations?
Where were calls for UN investigation?

Last, but not least:

Why all Palestinian defenders and Israel bashers on this forum were silent?

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2010, 11:33 PM
So they are antisemitic are they?
Yes, see IG's post about the North Koreans simply sinking a ship, and neither you nor Ian Murray bleated about this, and neither did Hussein Obamov, America's first antisemitic president, nor the UN.


Then why was a Jewish woman in USA protesting so strongly against Israel's actions? Why are their tons of Jewish Palestinian supporters in Israel and Australia and probably everywhere? And what they say: that what Israel is doing in so un-Jewish. They realise that Israel is getting (to an extent) all Jews a bad name.
More likely, there are self-loathing Jews and collaborating Jews. This is hardly unique to today, or to the Jews.


The blockage by Egypt I have not research much but I could guess. Like Israel, Egypt gets lot of money from USA to "help" Israel. Also Egypt got it's land back from Israel so their govt don't have much of a grudge against Israel. Also Egypt is trying to control the Muslim Brotherhood that is aligned with Hamas.
Is this a bad thing, keeping Islamofascists down. The Shah of Iran was doing a good job of that until Jimmy "the weakling" Carter pressured him to desist.

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2010, 04:31 AM
'Peace convoy'? This was an Islamist terror ambush (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6044639/peace-convoy-this-was-an-islamist-terror-ambush.thtml)
Melanie Phillips
Spectator, 31 May 2010

...

Gaza’s markets are full of produce, thousands of tons of supplies are travelling into Gaza every week through the Israeli-controlled border crossings, and there is no starvation or humanitarian crisis. It was always obvious that the flotilla was not the humanitarian exercise it was said to be. Here is footage of the IDF offering to dock the Marmara -- the main flotilla ship -- at Ashdod and transfer its supplies and being told ‘Negative, negative, our destination is Gaza’.

And now we can see that the real purpose of this invasion -- backed by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), a radical Islamic organization outlawed by Israel in 2008 for allegedly serving as a major component in Hamas’s global fund-raising machine -- was to incite a violent uprising in the Middle East and across the Islamic world. As I write, reports are coming in of Arab rioting in Jerusalem.

The notion – uncritically swallowed by the lazy, ignorant and bigoted BBC and other western media – that the flotilla organisers are ‘peace activists’ is simply ludicrous. This research by the Danish Institute for International Studies details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. According to the French magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testifying at the Seattle trial of would-be al Qaeda Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressamin, the IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’ in the al Qaeda Millenium bomb plot targeting Los Angeles airport. It was also involved in weapons trafficking, and played in addition a key role in galvanizing anti-Western sentiment among Turkish Muslims in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. ‘Peace activists’ these people most certainly are not.

And this flotilla was but the latest jihadi attack, deploying the Islamists’ signature strategy of violence and media manipulation. Here (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2489.htm)from MEMRI (via Just Journalism (http://www.justjournalism.com/media-analysis/view/peace-activists-or-violent-attackers-how-the-media-narrative-on-flotilla-incident-is-shaping-up)) is a clip showing the hysteria against Israel being whipped up on board before the ships set sail, with the chanting of intifada songs about ‘Khaybar’ – the iconic slaughter of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century which is used as a rallying cry to kill the Jews today -- and threats of ‘martyrdom’. This was not merely a propaganda stunt, but a terrorist attack.

...

Basil
07-06-2010, 04:31 AM
Recently North Korea sunk a ship carrying 46 people.
Where were condemnation?
Where were demonstrations?
Where were calls for UN investigation?

Last, but not least:

Why all Palestinian defenders and Israel bashers on this forum were silent?
Ummm ... is it because lefty double standards have are not confined to domestic issues? I recommend the formation of an international organisation: Lefties Sans Frontieres :lol:

arosar
07-06-2010, 09:35 AM
Yeah...a bit like that leftard antisemitic Obamov who's hardly said a word about the flotilla incident. No wonder Helen Thomas is all upset (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14)!

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
07-06-2010, 11:30 AM
Yeah...a bit like that leftard antisemitic Obamov who's hardly said a word about the flotilla incident. No wonder Helen Thomas is all upset (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14)!

AR

Despite later apology, the Freudian slip shows that attacks on Israel is just a thinly-veiled anti-Semitism. Like Hamas and antichrist, she does not want any Jews in the Israel.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-06-2010, 12:07 PM
During the radio exchange between Israeli ship and flotilla one of "peace activist" replied:
"shut up, go back to Auschwitz".
It can be heard on the video I posted earlier, as well as on full unedited tape released now: Unedited Radio Transmission Between Gaza Flotilla and Israeli Navy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dE2StbDL_Q&)

My question to media-savvy posters:
Which major media outlet (in Australia and abroad) reported this?

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2010, 03:01 PM
Yeah...a bit like that leftard antisemitic Obamov who's hardly said a word about the flotilla incident.
Your descriptions are apt, but he has certainly joined the braying jackals in condemning Israel's self-defence, as Mona Charen points out:


By 1) declaring through Secretary of State Clinton that the blockade of Gaza is "unsustainable and unacceptable"; 2) joining the United Nations Security Council in "condemn(ing) those acts which resulted in the loss of at least 10 civilians and many wounded"; and 3) having a White House official tell the Washington Post that there is now a "general sense in the administration that it's time to change our Gaza policy," the Obama administration has handed the terrorists a victory.


No wonder Helen Thomas is all upset (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14)!
Obnoxious old bag. Let the other Arabs resettle their fellow Arabs from the area that they pretend to care so much about. After all, Israel managed to resettle the 800,000 Jews that the Arab countries kicked out while stealing their assets, and in a sliver of land 1/4 the size of Tassie.

antichrist
07-06-2010, 03:47 PM
'Peace convoy'? This was an Islamist terror ambush (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6044639/peace-convoy-this-was-an-islamist-terror-ambush.thtml)
Melanie Phillips
Spectator, 31 May 2010

...

Gaza’s markets are full of produce, thousands of tons of supplies are travelling into Gaza every week through the Israeli-controlled border crossings, and there is no starvation or humanitarian crisis. ..............
...
And in spite of UN Humanitarian reports you will still push the Israeli line?? Gaza is receiving only 25% of the supplies it received before the blockage, and considering that before the blockade due to many conditions they were not overindulged then so they are really deprived. Israel bombed all their homes and now refuse them to import the cement to repair such - such a Nazi act.

It is all about trying to make the Gazians suffer so much to dump Hamas - but Hamas was also Israeli sponcered in it's early days - when Israel was trying to sabotage Yasser Arafat. Hamas was voted in so what are you in about.

antichrist
07-06-2010, 03:52 PM
Jono from above:
More likely, there are self-loathing Jews and collaborating Jews. This is hardly unique to today, or to the Jews.

AC
Your disrespect for your fellow Jewish folk is so arrogant and rude - all to justify another genocide in this era that is based on a genocide 3,000 years ago.

Don't you think that Jews can be fair minded people - throughout history many have been the brightest light in human rights movements. But now all is that is going in Israel is pure landgrabbing - and in the surrounding territories. And fair minded Jews see it as such. Don't insult them.

And what do those new settlers do - they illegally inhabit the occupied territories, get paid off a few hundred dollars to POQ, go to the next occupied territory to do exactly the same and pick up the cash again.

What an insult to international Jewry they are.

antichrist
07-06-2010, 03:58 PM
Despite later apology, the Freudian slip shows that attacks on Israel is just a thinly-veiled anti-Semitism. Like Hamas and antichrist, she does not want any Jews in the Israel.

I don't think that I have said no Jews in Israel, what I have said that Israel should not exist as a Jewish Zionist state. There only justifcation for that land is a genocide 3,000 years ago. There has to be one state as Israel has proven that it cannot fairly divide two states, it wants to dominate everything as well as water supplies etc etc.

And one state will make the extremist Zionists behave themselves as they will have no where to hide if they play up again.

And why cant the Palestinians live in all of Israel where their hundreds of villages were before given away by the UN?

antichrist
07-06-2010, 04:05 PM
.........
Obnoxious old bag. Let the other Arabs resettle their fellow Arabs from the area that they pretend to care so much about. After all, Israel managed to resettle the 800,000 Jews that the Arab countries kicked out while stealing their assets, and in a sliver of land 1/4 the size of Tassie.

And why were they kicked out - because Zionists got the state of Israel, completely stolen land. So the Arab countries effectively ended up with 800,000 potential Zionist territorists in their midst.


And in Iraq, as it has reported in England's press, Zionists groups pretending to be Arabs were involved in killing Jews to frighten them to relocate to Israel.

Just as Rabbis during the WW2, refused to accept help from Australian churches to locate Jews here in safety from the Holocaust. Bishop Hollingworth from the Anglicans reported it - how the Anglican church offer was refused. What those Rabbis did was much worse than what the Arabs done - because it was against their own people.

Capablanca-Fan
08-06-2010, 03:48 AM
And why were they kicked out — because Zionists got the state of Israel, completely stolen land.
Not at all; it was acquired legally. In many cases, the Arabs were only too happy to sell malaria-infested swampland, only to whinge after hard-working Jewish settlers turned this into productive malaria-free land.

Then the British partitioned the original Palestinian Mandate giving 1/4 to the Jews, and 3/4 to the Arabs, the new country of Transjordan (across the Jordan River) later shortened to Jordan. More recently, Israel gave the Arabs even more of that 1/4 of Palestine.


So the Arab countries effectively ended up with 800,000 potential Zionist territorists in their midst.
Come off it. They had been law-abiding citizens for generations. The Arab antisemitic bigots just used this as an excuse for neo-Nazi plundering of Jewish property; after all, they had allied with the Nazis in WW2. At least the Israelis stop flotillas with proven actual terrorists and their sympathizers from smuggling weapons into that terrorism den of Hamas-occupied Gaza.


And in Iraq, as it has reported in England's press, Zionists groups pretending to be Arabs were involved in killing Jews to frighten them to relocate to Israel.
Not real evidence, given the well known gutter press in the UK.


Just as Rabbis during the WW2, refused to accept help from Australian churches to locate Jews here in safety from the Holocaust. Bishop Hollingworth from the Anglicans reported it - how the Anglican church offer was refused. What those Rabbis did was much worse than what the Arabs done - because it was against their own people.
Most unlikely. Many countries closed off their borders to Jewish refugees.

Capablanca-Fan
08-06-2010, 04:00 AM
I don't think that I have said no Jews in Israel, what I have said that Israel should not exist as a Jewish Zionist state. There only justifcation for that land is a genocide 3,000 years ago.
There has been a continuous Jewish presence since then. The Jews were in the majority in what is now Israel long before the state was created.


There has to be one state as Israel has proven that it cannot fairly divide two states, it wants to dominate everything as well as water supplies etc etc.
Yeah, it wasn't fairly divided: the Arabs got 3/4 of the original Palestinian Mandate. And of course, the Arabs claim only in English that they want two states; in Arabic, they want no Jewish state at all, much like AC. And we know what happens to Jews in other states, including Arab-controlled ones.


And one state will make the extremist Zionists behave themselves as they will have no where to hide if they play up again.
Oh, so did they play up before the Holocaust as well? Before the Pogroms?


And why cant the Palestinians live in all of Israel where their hundreds of villages were before given away by the UN?
Why don't their Arab brothers take them in, with 600 times more land area? There is no such ethnicity as ‘Palestinian Arab’. When the UN partitioned Palestine, the Arabs in the land wanted to be part of Syria.

Capablanca-Fan
08-06-2010, 04:13 AM
And in spite of UN Humanitarian reports you will still push the Israeli line??
More likely, because of UN ‘Humanitarian’ reports! The UN is a thugocracy that coddles despots and murderers like Mugabe and overtly genocidal African dictators, as well as places like Saudi Arabia that flogs and jails victims of gang rape.

The Convenient Villain (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/jonah-goldberg/2010/06/04/the-convenient-villain/)
Jonah Goldberg, 4 June 2010




Question: If Israel is always hell-bent on murder, massacres and genocide, why is it so bad at it? If its battle plan called for a slaughter, why kill “only” nine people? Why not sink all of the boats?

Meanwhile, is it really the case that Hamas is objectively “good” at public relations? Or Hezbollah? Or Iran? Really? I just don't see it. To me, these PR operations are less “Wag the Dog” and more Baghdad Bob (the Monty Pythonesque spokesman for Saddam Hussein's regime). But instead of everyone laughing at the lies and idiocy, millions of people nod their heads in agreement.

North Korea recently sank a South Korean ship. The international reaction has been muted and sober. Turkey — the Palestinians' new champion — has been treating Kurdish nationalists harshly for generations; no one cares. The Russians crush Chechens, the Chinese trample Uighurs. Real genocides unfold regularly in Africa. Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb. Hamas is openly dedicated to the destruction of Israel. So is Iran.

And yet the only villain as far as much of the world is concerned is Israel. Always Israel.

But none of these facts matter. Indeed, it's tiring even to recount them in an environment where big lies matters more than obvious truths, where self-defense is “aggression”, where restraint is “genocide”, and where the heirs of Gandhi wield steel pipes.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-06-2010, 09:33 AM
Jono, I wouldn't bother with A/C. His posts are combinations of incomprehensible bullshit, fantasy and outright lies. He keeps repeating those lies despite being refuted many times. Went through this four years ago, no need to do it again.

Capablanca-Fan
08-06-2010, 12:56 PM
Jono, I wouldn't bother with A/C. His posts are combinations of incomprehensible bullshit, fantasy and outright lies. He keeps repeating those lies despite being refuted many times. Went through this four years ago, no need to do it again.
Good to know, thanks, Igor. I hadn't realized that he's also done all the same thing four years ago.

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2010, 01:23 PM
Good to know, thanks, Igor. I hadn't realized that he's also done all the same thing four years ago.

There was a previous I/P thread that was firstly moved to the Coffee Lounge and eventually removed entirely, mainly because some sentiments became heated to the point that they were very shaky in terms of anti-vilification laws in some parts of the country. A number of posts crossed the line into outright ethnic slagging. It's important that posters in I/P debates keep the focus on criticising political forces, armies, territorial or confrontational actions (etc) by whichever side they're opposed to, and avoid unfactual denigration of entire races or peoples. So far in this round I haven't seen too much that has raised concerns.

antichrist
08-06-2010, 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
Just as Rabbis during the WW2, refused to accept help from Australian churches to locate Jews here in safety from the Holocaust. Bishop Hollingworth from the Anglicans reported it - how the Anglican church offer was refused. What those Rabbis did was much worse than what the Arabs done - because it was against their own people.
Jono
Most unlikely. Many countries closed off their borders to Jewish refugees.
__________________
Well instead of researching all that Creationist rubbish, research the SMH Good Weekend Magazine in which they interviewed Bishop Hollingworth over about 5 pages. This is a most important because it shows the caliousness of some Zionists even towards their own people. As what occurred in Iraq as well.

antichrist
08-06-2010, 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
I don't think that I have said no Jews in Israel, what I have said that Israel should not exist as a Jewish Zionist state. There only justifcation for that land is a genocide 3,000 years ago.

Jono
There has been a continuous Jewish presence since then. The Jews were in the majority in what is now Israel long before the state was created.

AC
yes but what was that presence based on - (according to the Old Testament [Torah?] a genocide against the Caananites upon which Joshua called upon God to make the sun stand still so that they could kill everyone. This was an invasion of the Caananites and a genocide of their people. And that is, as far as I can see, is the only so-called basis for Zionists today to claim Palestine for their homeland.

Do they think that the world is made up of idiots that they can get away with such bulldust and robbery and genocide. Well it seems that the world is waking up.

Imagine if any people can claim a foreign land based on a 'holy book' they have dug up.

antichrist
08-06-2010, 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
And one state will make the extremist Zionists behave themselves as they will have no where to hide if they play up again.

Jono
Oh, so did they play up before the Holocaust as well? Before the Pogroms?

AC
I did try to find out that question (though I was sure not) from players at the Ukrainian Cultural Chess Club and they told me their gripes. We all know where the hatred come from, I mentioned it just 2 days ago, I was taught in Catholic schools that the Jews killed Jesus and stated: let their blood...

Now you are a Christian, I am no longer, it is your theological mates who throughout history have persecuted Jews, I don't think the atheists are responsible for such Pograms. They always had a religious flavour i am quite sure.

But there the collective action of some Jews that I will get back to later when more time. (I have not done any work today yet) remind me if I forget.

But a quick answer was the Bolshevic(?) revolution that was blamed on Jewish Karl Marx as well as communistic Russian Jews. There was WW1 that left Germany probably starving (war reparations) and they wanted a scapegoat whether deserved or not I reakon. There was the Great Depression that also contributed to Europeans picking on minorities - esp ones displaying wealth like owning shops. I remember now that the between Wars Germans blamed influencial Jews for Germany surrendering the First World War when Germany was still strong or unoccupied.

Unfortunately this exact topic has not been covered that well on SBS - that leftist station.

antichrist
08-06-2010, 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
And in Iraq, as it has reported in England's press, Zionists groups pretending to be Arabs were involved in killing Jews to frighten them to relocate to Israel.

Jono
Not real evidence, given the well known gutter press in the UK.

AC
As stated earlier when mentioning this, there was a court case about this and it was actually proven. One day when not busy I will try and find details. I think was actually reported in parliament as well.
And taking into consideration Bishop Hollingworth's statement it is quite plausible.

antichrist
08-06-2010, 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
And why cant the Palestinians live in all of Israel where their hundreds of villages were before given away by the UN?

Jono
Why don't their Arab brothers take them in, with 600 times more land area? There is no such ethnicity as ‘Palestinian Arab’. When the UN partitioned Palestine, the Arabs in the land wanted to be part of Syria.
__________________


Why do the other Arabs have to take them in when their own land is "just over there" and was stolen from them? Why should they have to give way again to a people that only entered via a genocide as stated in the Old Testament?

Desmond
08-06-2010, 05:01 PM
Jono, I wouldn't bother with A/C. His posts are combinations of incomprehensible bullshit, fantasy and outright lies. He keeps repeating those lies despite being refuted many times.He would have made a great creationist.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-06-2010, 05:25 PM
He would have made a great creationist.
Dunno. So far he is an adept evolutionist.
Oh, and the creationists I encountered on this forum are quite intelligent.

Desmond
08-06-2010, 07:22 PM
Dunno. So far he is an adept evolutionist.
Oh, and the creationists I encountered on this forum are quite intelligent.Yes I agree in many cases it is not intelligence that is the problem.

antichrist
09-06-2010, 12:48 PM
I would have liked to put this in Lo & Behold but maybe off topic so here.

A Jewish friend of mine here is in the front row of photo of a demo against Israel's actions last week. This guy wears a kippa on the Sabbath and attends the synogue.

It was a protest against the embargo of Gaza.

And another friend was in it, a retired ship's captain, who had assured me earlier that Israel's actions were definitely against law of the sea. And this guy is no fan of mine coz I stir him so much.

So there is hope for the world yet.

antichrist
09-06-2010, 01:07 PM
If you refer to post 81 in Joshua's Long Day you may get to appreciate why non-Zionists do not respect the claims of Zionists to Palestine - Zionism can be seen as religious facism - that one's god is superior to other people's rights and customs/culture.

This is exactly what the whole issue is about. There was exactly the same trouble then as there is as now - and seemingly the same main actors involved. But I am led to believe otherwise that they may not be a direct strong connection though it is claimed.

Barbara Thomas state why they don't go back home to Germany and Poland and America and the rest of the world? Was that such an outrageous question when considering the terrible undeserved punishment they have inflicted on Palestinians for 60 years.

antichrist
10-06-2010, 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
And if the question "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable" is meant to be a question about general tendency meaning "Do restrictions on housing development, by and large, make housing less affordable?" then why not ask the question in the latter form?


AC

I assure you KB that Igor may possibly be an expert on Israel's housing scenario.

HOw they bulldoze Palestinian houses (remember Rachel Corrie bulldozed and killed) and rebuild new settler homes on the stolen property and then whinge when the Palistinians bomb the new settler towns - which actually they should be able to do as it is still legally Palestinian land - why do thay have a problem with that?

But then again he may be a completely reasonable person and not agree with it all. Love you Igor

Capablanca-Fan
11-06-2010, 01:05 AM
If you refer to post 81 in Joshua's Long Day you may get to appreciate why non-Zionists do not respect the claims of Zionists to Palestine - Zionism can be seen as religious facism - that one's god is superior to other people's rights and customs/culture.
Much Zionism was secular.


Barbara Thomas state why they don't go back home to Germany and Poland and America and the rest of the world? Was that such an outrageous question
Yes. It continued the usual solution to the "Jewish problem" of uprooting Jews from their homes, most recently practised by the Nazis and their allies, the Arabs/


when considering the terrible undeserved punishment they have inflicted on Palestinians for 60 years.
What undeserved punishment? The so-called Palestinians punish themselves by refusing peace.

antichrist
11-06-2010, 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
If you refer to post 81 in Joshua's Long Day you may get to appreciate why non-Zionists do not respect the claims of Zionists to Palestine - Zionism can be seen as religious facism - that one's god is superior to other people's rights and customs/culture.

Jono
Much Zionism was secular.
AC
I am not sure what part of Zionism are you referring to. The only relevant part to this discussion is the part where they claim that God gave them a Promised Land that just happen to be someone elses and that God sanctified their genocide and even made the sun stand still for it to be completed. One would either have to be a liar and manipulative or a religious fanatic to believe this. And a HItler to enforce it like did happen.
.................................................. .............................


Originally Posted by antichrist
Helen Thomas state why they don't go back home to Germany and Poland and America and the rest of the world? Was that such an outrageous question

Jono
Yes. It continued the usual solution to the "Jewish problem" of uprooting Jews from their homes, most recently practised by the Nazis and their allies, the Arabs/

AC
No it all began by the ancient Hebrews claiming to be God's Chosen People and they could act like HItler 3,000 years ago. They were not invited to Palestine yet they killed man, woman and child. We could even say that Hitler imitated them in 1933-1945. He also had a "holy book". So they uprooted themselves from back of Iraq somewhere I am told. The Ancient Hewbrews carried out the first case of recorded genocide that we are aware of.

Why do Zionists from USA need to go to Israel, where there are already massive problems, and arrogantly make the situation worse. Again, there only so-called "right" is a ridiculous "holy book". What a con job!
--------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by antichrist
when considering the terrible undeserved punishment they have inflicted on Palestinians for 60 years.

Jono
What undeserved punishment? The so-called Palestinians punish themselves by refusing peace.

AC
There can't be peace justice, that is all the land was stolen including parts of Israel to be returned plus paying 60 years rent in arrears. Plus reparations for all the murderous actions by Israel ever since. Germany had to pay reparations to the Jews it persecuted so should Israel pay reparations to Palestinians they have persecuted for 60 years. Germany only did for about 12 years. Israel for 5 times longer.

Why should the Palestinians who have suffered for so long have to accept anything on Israel's terms. Every so called agreement or offer has been extremely injust, no Palestinian leader could accept if they did not want to be rightly executed.

If Indonesia came up tomorrow with their own "holy book" saying that God has given them Australia and for us to piss off or be wiped out would you stand for it? Give us and the Palestinians a break

antichrist
11-06-2010, 11:55 PM
Originally Posted by Jono
Not that AC is reliable. Nigeria must surely rank higher.


Of course, AC could do his homework for once and see if there is a correlation, or whether a perverse ethic of corruption follows from the doctrines of Christianity (like don't bear false witness, don't steal, don't covet ...).


AC

Leave Christianity alone for a sec I don't this ethic has been followed by Israel

antichrist
13-06-2010, 04:20 AM
A letter I sent to the Hobart Mercury yesterday. I have an excellent publication record in said paper but expect that this one will probably not make the cut, somehow:

Prime Minister Howard has recently called on Muslim communities to expose those supposedly within their ranks who preach what he calls a perverted and fanatical version of Islam. Islam, however, is certainly not the only religion invoked by terrorists. The USA has a long and bloody history of
Christian terrorism, from the once massive Ku Klux Klan to modern nutcases who have killed abortion workers and made death threats against the judge
and family involved in the Terri Schiavo case. In Uganda, Christian and
Islamic terrorism exist side by side in the Lord's Resistance Army, which
has kidnapped tens of thousands of children for use as soldiers and sex
slaves. Is it Howard's own bias as a Christian that makes him single out
Islam in such a simplistic fashion? Are there no votes in exposing
Christian terrorism because its sympathisers in the moral far right direct
their preferences to the Liberals? Or would any mention of "perverted and
fanatical" variants of Christianity invite too close an examination of the
illiberal, kooky and regressive versions of the faith espoused by some of
his own MPs?


No wonder they did not print your letter because you did not punctuate properly - that should be Far-Right or something similar - you were lazy!

Capablanca-Fan
13-06-2010, 03:38 PM
No wonder they did not print your letter because you did not punctuate properly - that should be Far-Right or something similar - you were lazy!
Didn't deserve to be published for the nonsense of linking the KKK (which bombed a Baptist church in Birmingham) with Christianity when in reality they were progressive Democrats, or the paranoia about pro-life violence when the incidence is low enough to count on your fingers and is opposed by pro-life groups, and alleged "death threats" which mean very little as opposed to the overt murders by Islamofascists such as the modern van Gogh. The Lord's Resistance Army is hardly Christian but a weird syncretistic group using terrorism in a continent riven by terrorist governments, and carried out massacres in churches.

About half-way through the following clip, Col. West doesn't mince words about the source of Islamofascist terrorism:
TkGQmCZjJ0k

Kevin Bonham
15-06-2010, 09:36 PM
No wonder they did not print your letter because you did not punctuate properly - that should be Far-Right or something similar - you were lazy!

Actually AC was the lazy one here, as always.

Had he bothered to check his facts in quoting #1 of this thread, he would have found that the letter in question was published (to my surprise) and that this was stated in #33.

Also his attempt at pedantic nitpicking (hardly his strong suit) fails; "Far Right" and "Far-Right" are both commonly used and there is no need for the hyphen. [EDIT: And it also doesn't matter if capitals are used or small letters.]


Didn't deserve to be published for the nonsense of linking the KKK (which bombed a Baptist church in Birmingham) with Christianity when in reality they were progressive Democrats,

I'll take the "progressive" with a large grain of salt but in any case the Klan had its roots in Protestant anti-Catholicism and it is just as reasonable to consider it to be a religious terrorist organisation as it is to consider various "Islamic" splinter groups that blow things up for primarily political reasons to be such. Referring to the Klan as "Democrats" has nothing to do with the matter since an affectation of Christianity is more or less compulsory on both sides of American politics.


or the paranoia about pro-life violence when the incidence is low enough to count on your fingers and is opposed by pro-life groups, and alleged "death threats" which mean very little as opposed to the overt murders by Islamofascists such as the modern van Gogh.

It is hardly paranoia when it is a fact that anti-abortion terrorists associated with or linking themselves to the "Army of God" exist (or in Paul Hill's case, existed), have killed several people, and have made numerous threats against others (including the mailing of fake anthrax envelopes) and involved themselves in various acts of violence that have formed the basis of several convictions. While it's true that death threats mean little as opposed to actual killing, their impact still shouldn't be trivialised.

The point about scale is irrelevant. Just because terrorism is much less prevalent among those who self-identify as Christian compared to those who self-identify as Islamic does not mean that Christianity is off the hook when it comes to the need for its mainstream adherents to expose and denounce those who, in the name of their faith, encourage violence. Islam should not be singled out as if this is a purely Islamic problem.


The Lord's Resistance Army is hardly Christian but a weird syncretistic group using terrorism in a continent riven by terrorist governments, and carried out massacres in churches.

I alluded to its syncretistic nature by pointing out that elements of both Christian and Islamic terrorism exist within it (though given that it pulls bits and pieces from everywhere, that description was not exhaustive). The fact is that it uses dogma plucked from various religious faiths and that a mishmashed version of Christianity is a key part of the mix. The frequency of terrorism on said continent does not excuse any of it.

Having thus addressed your reasons for arguing that my letter shouldn't be published, I note additionally that matters you seem to consider worthy of publication include both the peculiar dabblings of various CMI authors in matters of science and the frequently ludicrous political diatribes of Andrew Bolt. As such any "Didn't deserve to be published" call coming from you, whatever the evidence advanced for it, is a big one. :)

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2010, 01:05 AM
Actually AC was the lazy one here, as always.
My apologies for trusting him, at your expense.


I'll take the "progressive" with a large grain of salt but in any case the Klan had its roots in Protestant anti-Catholicism and it is just as reasonable to consider it to be a religious terrorist organisation as it is to consider various "Islamic" splinter groups that blow things up for primarily political reasons to be such.
If indeed it is political, then it is fair to say so. E.g. the IRA was not fighting for Transubstantiation or veneration of Mary, and was instead basically atheistic and marxist. Yet the Islamofascists explicitly declare religious reasons, while the KKK hated blacks, Jews and Catholics, and was happy to blow up Protestant churches to kill blacks.


Referring to the Klan as "Democrats" has nothing to do with the matter since an affectation of Christianity is more or less compulsory on both sides of American politics.
Yet this is exactly what they were. Democrat President Woodrow Wilson was a great fan—he loved the film Birth of a Nation that glorified the first KKK and led to a revival of a sort of neo-KKK. They all tended to be disgruntled Democrats who lamented the passing of slavery (the Republican Party was formed to abolish it), and later on those who imposed Jim Crow laws.


It is hardly paranoia when it is a fact that anti-abortion terrorists associated with or linking themselves to the "Army of God" exist (or in Paul Hill's case, existed), have killed several people, and have made numerous threats against others (including the mailing of fake anthrax envelopes) and involved themselves in various acts of violence that have formed the basis of several convictions.
It is paranoia. The likes of Paul Hill are few and far between, and are condemned by pro-life groups and by people like Reconstructionist Gary North (http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/let_2_paul_hill.html).


While it's true that death threats mean little as opposed to actual killing, their impact still shouldn't be trivialised.
Sure, they are not to be condoned, but they are also not usually carried out. We should be more concerned about people who murder thousands without previous threats. You trivialize the danger from Islamofascists by your atheopathic "moral equivalence".


The point about scale is irrelevant. Just because terrorism is much less prevalent among those who self-identify as Christian compared to those who self-identify as Islamic
The scale is very relevant to assess the major threats. It is hardly an accident that the terrorist attacks in the West have been perpetrated by Islamofascists, not Christians. Airline, Israeli schoolbus and subway passengers are not at any risk from pro-lifers or other Christian groups.


does not mean that Christianity is off the hook when it comes to the need for its mainstream adherents to expose and denounce those who, in the name of their faith, encourage violence.
Yet as documented, this is done. But the alleged peaceful Muslim majority is almost silent.


Islam should not be singled out as if this is a purely Islamic problem.
It is. There are no Christian organizations flying jet planes into buildings, blowing up school buses, or imposing laws that whip victims of gang rape. There are no Tibetan suicide bombers.


I alluded to its syncretistic nature by pointing out that elements of both Christian and Islamic terrorism exist within it (though given that it pulls bits and pieces from everywhere, that description was not exhaustive). The fact is that it uses dogma plucked from various religious faiths and that a mishmashed version of Christianity is a key part of the mix. The frequency of terrorism on said continent does not excuse any of it.
It is hardly Christian, yet Islamofascist terrorism is consistent with Islam, as Colonel West points out.


Having thus addressed your reasons for arguing that my letter shouldn't be published,
I don't think it deserved to be, but there are places for publishing even undeserving letters, as long as they can be answered. I.e. that moral equivalence arguments trivialize the clear and present danger from Islamofascist terrorists.


I note additionally that matters you seem to consider worthy of publication include both the peculiar dabblings of various CMI authors in matters of science
Well of course; many of us have earned advanced degrees in science.


and the frequently ludicrous political diatribes of Andrew Bolt. As such any "Didn't deserve to be published" call coming from you, whatever the evidence advanced for it, is a big one. :)
Andrew Bolt is published, and makes far more sense than the usual Leftard suspects.

Kevin Bonham
16-06-2010, 05:22 AM
If indeed it is political, then it is fair to say so.

But this also applies to Islamic terrorism. Many Islamic terrorists would quite happily stop blowing themselves and others up in the supposed name of religion if only the US would get its bases out of Islamic nations and stop assisting Israel. Whatever one thinks of that political dimension, it exists - and I suspect the same is true of nearly all "religious terrorism".


They all tended to be disgruntled Democrats who lamented the passing of slavery (the Republican Party was formed to abolish it), and later on those who imposed Jim Crow laws.

Yet you said they were progressive Democrats. What is progressive about reactionary support for slavery?


It is paranoia. The likes of Paul Hill are few and far between, and are condemned by pro-life groups and by people like Reconstructionist Gary North (http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/let_2_paul_hill.html).

So? Islamic terrorists are condemned by mainstream Muslims too, and only a miniscule proportion of all Muslims are terrorists.

What view do you ascribe to me that is supposedly paranoid? If I said that anti-abortion terrorists posed a major threat to western civilisation it would be fair to describe that as paranoid. But if you construe my letter in anything like that way then you are misunderstanding it (and making a fairly silly and unworthy accusation as a result.) The point of my letter concerns consistency - and the lack of it displayed by John Howard in singling out Islam when Islam is not the only religion invoked by terrorists.


We should be more concerned about people who murder thousands without previous threats.

I don't think whether there were previous threats or not has much to do about how concerned we should be about people who murder thousands. But if you did think there were no previous threats, that's exactly part of the problem that led to the complacency that assisted the attacks to occur in the first place. Osama and co had been blowing stuff up and ranting threateningly for years.


You trivialize the danger from Islamofascists by your atheopathic "moral equivalence".

Not at all. The only equivalence I've asserted here is that if one religion has a duty to discourage the use of its name by terrorists, then so do all religions to which that problem applies.


It is hardly an accident that the terrorist attacks in the West have been perpetrated by Islamofascists, not Christians.

Given that Christians (as considered broadly) already get a somewhat favourable ride in the political culture of the West it is indeed hardly an accident.


But the alleged peaceful Muslim majority is almost silent.

How would you know that? I just wonder what media sources you would draw such a conclusion from.


It is. There are no Christian organizations flying jet planes into buildings, blowing up school buses, or imposing laws that whip victims of gang rape.

Indeed not, but there are still Christian terrorists. That their terrorism tends to be more specifically focussed in nature does not make them any less terrorist.


I don't think it deserved to be, but there are places for publishing even undeserving letters, as long as they can be answered. I.e. that moral equivalence arguments trivialize the clear and present danger from Islamofascist terrorists.

If anyone wanted a stab at that sort of rejoinder and could express it semi-coherently I'm sure their letter would have been published too. Even if such a letter was a completely ambit hostile claim bereft of any supporting evidence it would be no worse than many others that were printed and might well make it. But no response to my letter was published. I suggest that's because no one out there in Hobart Mercury reader land who might be inclined to write in agrees with your trivialisation claim.


Well of course; many of us have earned advanced degrees in science.

But often not in whatever science you are writing about. Anyway, you have now twice asserted that my letter was undeserving of publication even in the letters column of a local paper (and I don't think you even have sufficient knowledge of that paper to know what standard of drivel it is competing with.) Yet even if you don't agree with my emphasis and conclusions, my view is nonetheless a valid one.

After all the basic facts I asserted (that there are terrorist organisations claiming to be Christian in nature and invoking religion in defence of terrorism) are true. Whether someone agrees with me that Islam should not be singled out, or thinks that the difference in scale and nature means that it should, is just a matter of advocative opinion and not one of fact.

If newspaper letters columns are not for arguing advocative opinions that have some kind of stated basis in fact, then what in your view are they for?


Andrew Bolt is published, and makes far more sense than the usual Leftard suspects.

He makes more sense to you because he comes from a similar viewpoint. From my viewpoint Bolt is a predictable right-wing culture warrior who would generally rather argue an unsound position than abandon his mob's side of the debate. The leftist opposite number might be someone like Phillip Adams. To those who are experts in whatever they are talking about, such writers are right only by chance and their work is more characterised by its ideology than by a consistent emphasis on fact. If I was looking to understand an issue, an opinionative piece by a predictable culture warrior (of either left or right) is not where I would be looking.

Capablanca-Fan
18-06-2010, 04:27 AM
But this also applies to Islamic terrorism. Many Islamic terrorists would quite happily stop blowing themselves and others up in the supposed name of religion if only the US would get its bases out of Islamic nations and stop assisting Israel. Whatever one thinks of that political dimension, it exists — and I suspect the same is true of nearly all "religious terrorism".
They hate everyone who is non-Islamic. And Islam is so bound up with politics in the Arab world that there is little difference. This is hardly the case with Christianity.


Yet you said they were progressive Democrats. What is progressive about reactionary support for slavery?
What is progressive about American Progressivism? (For that matter, what is liberal about American Liberalism with its love of big government and loads of red tape?) The soi-disant progressives in the time of Wilson loved racial segregation.


So? Islamic terrorists are condemned by mainstream Muslims too,
Where? Mainstream Muslim leaders often love the terrorism. This, as Col. West recognizes, is because the Koran commands it. It is not a "perversion" of Islam as the politically correct claim. Muslims have a doctrine called Naskh (نسخ) or ‘abrogation’ (http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/abrogation.htm), where if there is a conflict, passages written later supersede earlier ones. The problem in our society is explained by John Burton in Encyclopedia of Islam:


‘Many verses counsel patience in the face of the mockery of the unbelievers, while other verses incite to warfare against the unbelievers. The former are linked to the [chronologically anterior] Meccan phase of the mission when the Muslims were too few and weak to do other than endure insult; the latter are linked to Medina where the Prophet had acquired the numbers and the strength to hit back at his enemies. The discrepancy between the two sets of verses indicates that different situations call for different regulations.’
Answering-Islam.org explains in Jihad in Islam: Is Islam Peaceful or Militant? (http://answering-islam.org/Hahn/jihad.htm)

The well known Egyptian scholar, Sayyid Qutb, notes four stages in the development of jihad: 1. While the earliest Muslims remained in Mecca before fleeing to Medina, God did not allow them to fight; 2. Permission is given to Muslims to fight against their oppressors; 3. God commands Muslims to fight those fighting them; 4. God commands the Muslims to fight against all polytheists. He views each stage to be replaced by the next stage in this order, the fourth stage to remain permanent.


and only a miniscule proportion of all Muslims are terrorists.
This miniscule proportion amounts to millions.


What view do you ascribe to me that is supposedly paranoid? If I said that anti-abortion terrorists posed a major threat to western civilisation it would be fair to describe that as paranoid. But if you construe my letter in anything like that way then you are misunderstanding it (and making a fairly silly and unworthy accusation as a result.) The point of my letter concerns consistency — and the lack of it displayed by John Howard in singling out Islam when Islam is not the only religion invoked by terrorists.
In the West, which is relevant here, not some loopy syncretists in Africa. Spouting about a literal handful of murders of abortionist doctors is deflecting from the hard fact that all the terrorist attacks on the West have been by Muslims. It's the same sort of political correctness that allowed a Muslim to be promoted to Major despite his Islamofascist statements, then shoot a lot of people (more than all the abortionists killed put together).


I don't think whether there were previous threats or not has much to do about how concerned we should be about people who murder thousands. But if you did think there were no previous threats, that's exactly part of the problem that led to the complacency that assisted the attacks to occur in the first place. Osama and co had been blowing stuff up and ranting threateningly for years.
No argument there. But how many death threats in the West are carried out? There is little point to them, if the aim really was to kill rather than frighten, because the quarry will take measures to defend himself.


Not at all. The only equivalence I've asserted here is that if one religion has a duty to discourage the use of its name by terrorists, then so do all religions to which that problem applies.
Yet there are no Christian suicide bombers or airline hijackers.


Given that Christians (as considered broadly) already get a somewhat favourable ride in the political culture of the West it is indeed hardly an accident.
Come off it. At a 2006 “impartiality” summit called by its chairman, Michael Grade, “Senior figures admitted that the BBC is guilty of promoting Left-wing views and an anti-Christian sentiment. … executives admitted they would happily broadcast the image of a Bible being thrown away—but would not do the same for the Koran.” [Paul Revoir, Yes, we are biased on religion and politics, admit BBC executives (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411977/Yes-biased-religion-politics-admit-BBC-executives.html), Daily Mail, 22 October 2006.] Then we have media showing "sensitivity" toward Muslims by not publishing the Danish Muhammad cartoons, but happy to publish "Piss Christ" and other christophobic junk.


How would you know that? I just wonder what media sources you would draw such a conclusion from.
Well, where are these peaceful Muslims who condemn terrorists? Most who do will give provisos about how it is understandable because of America and Israel.


Indeed not, but there are still Christian terrorists. That their terrorism tends to be more specifically focussed in nature does not make them any less terrorist.
Where are they then? A syncretistic group in Africa is no threat to the west, and nor is it Christian.


But often not in whatever science you are writing about.
Given that a lot of it is uncontroversial and up-to-date, this is just wrong.


Anyway, you have now twice asserted that my letter was undeserving of publication even in the letters column of a local paper (and I don't think you even have sufficient knowledge of that paper to know what standard of drivel it is competing with.) Yet even if you don't agree with my emphasis and conclusions, my view is nonetheless a valid one.
Yet your view has basically been tried, and yet we see more Islamofascist aggression.


He makes more sense to you because he comes from a similar viewpoint. From my viewpoint Bolt is a predictable right-wing culture warrior who would generally rather argue an unsound position than abandon his mob's side of the debate. The leftist opposite number might be someone like Phillip Adams.
Hard to believe. Bolt is not even a Christian, and is not as much a free marketeer as Friedman, say. Philip Adams is a village atheopath and Communist sympathizer, and not that out of step with lots of other media pundits who share his christophobia and leftopathy. Bolt only seems right wing because he is a change from the ardent leftism of the media.


To those who are experts in whatever they are talking about, such writers are right only by chance and their work is more characterised by its ideology than by a consistent emphasis on fact. If I was looking to understand an issue, an opinionative piece by a predictable culture warrior (of either left or right) is not where I would be looking.
Same here. But if I want an already written and mostly accurate summary, I like Bolt on many issues.

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2010, 02:44 AM
What is progressive about American Progressivism? (For that matter, what is liberal about American Liberalism with its love of big government and loads of red tape?)

Well, American "liberals" still make some kind of stab at one half of the libertarian equation, unlike Australian "Liberals" who (with rare exceptions) have no interest in freedom except where its alternative favours the Left. As for your question "what is progressive about American Progressivism", that seems to be a fair enough question. I am used to the term in the milder context that became attached to it in recent decades (the "progressive left") but doing more reading it does seem that originally the term was attached to movements favouring change to "improve" or modernise society, even those wanting to do so by methods we now consider repulsive.


Where?

Pretty much all over the place apparently (http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php). (That was just one example of a set of links on the issue; typing "islamic leaders condemn terrorism" into Google will get you plenty more.)


Mainstream Muslim leaders often love the terrorism.

Do they? Which ones? Evidence?


This miniscule proportion amounts to millions.

Millions of sympathisers, possibly. If there are millions of actual terrorists we may as well give up Afghanistan as a bad joke now.


Spouting about a literal handful of murders of abortionist doctors is deflecting from the hard fact that all the terrorist attacks on the West have been by Muslims.

Leaving aside the debatable assumption that attacks by wacky syncretists in Africa are unworthy of prime ministerial condemnation because only Africans are raped and brutally maimed in them, let's consider the "hard fact".

An attack on individual westerners should be of just as much concern to a western prime minister (per casualty) as an attack "on the West" (leaving aside whether attacks like S11 are aimed at "the West" per se or specific policies emenating from parts of "the West"). Furthermore, attacks on government-sanctioned abortion providers constitute express defiance and rejection of the Western rule of law and Western liberal democracy anyway. Finally, one of the most successful terrorist attacks directed towards "western values" in general was the Oklahoma City bombing by a small number of home-grown political nutters, and with nothing (directly) to do with religion. So the "fact" you claim me to be deflecting from is simply not at all true.


It's the same sort of political correctness that allowed a Muslim to be promoted to Major despite his Islamofascist statements, then shoot a lot of people (more than all the abortionists killed put together).

No; I would exclude people with a history of statements indicating potential instability from armed service whether those statements were Muslim or Christian-based in nature, or based on any other ideology.


No argument there. But how many death threats in the West are carried out? There is little point to them, if the aim really was to kill rather than frighten, because the quarry will take measures to defend himself.

Actually the quarry having to defend itself is a part of the point, since this provides an increased cost and inconvenience to the quarry. Furthermore in the case of employees in a threatened agency, there is always the possibility that the stress created by the threat will cause them to leave, thus further hampering that agency. Death threats may not be the same as actual violence, but all the same, they're not exactly nice. I have had to deal with a few of them myself, albeit at the less serious end of the scale.


Yet there are no Christian suicide bombers or airline hijackers.

It doesn't matter. There are "Christian" terrorists and anyone proposing solutions to, or duties attached to, the general question of "terrorism" should realise this, just as they should consider other forms of terrorism that are not religious in any way, such as eco-terrorism. If what John Howard really wanted to do was just speak out against that mode of terrorism that involved killing random civilians then it was open to him to explicitly do so and explain why this is more of a problem than terrorism that is targeted at specific civilian targets. He didn't. The whole thing was an exercise in cultural supremacy along the lines of "You Islamics are the bad boys who haven't been keeping your pals in line on this one, clean up your act." But the same could be said about many religions and doctrines, to the extent that it has any validity at all.


Come off it. At a 2006 “impartiality” summit called by its chairman, Michael Grade, “Senior figures admitted that the BBC is guilty of promoting Left-wing views and an anti-Christian sentiment. … executives admitted they would happily broadcast the image of a Bible being thrown away—but would not do the same for the Koran.”

I said "political culture". I agree that government broadcasters are an exception to the rule (where they exist) but they have limited political influence anyway. I am talking about things like the entrenched voter preference for Christians in the USA especially, the nods to Christianity in western parliaments, tax-exempt status for religions, acceptance of morality and censorship laws often closely linked to religion and so on. The hardliners may grizzle about stuff like anti-discrimination laws and the willingness of media to publish stirs at Christians but be more cautious about stirs at Islam, but really what is there in the West that provokes Christians enough for them to blow up airliners over it assuming they were in theory so inclined?


Well, where are these peaceful Muslims who condemn terrorists?

As I indicated above, there are plenty. Whether that message gets out into the media, and in particular whatever portion of the media you don't avoid, is another question.


Where are they then?

Bear in mind that my letter was written and published five years ago; that said, unfortunately the anti-abortion nutter brigade were at it again last year with another killing in the US.


Given that a lot of it is uncontroversial and up-to-date, this is just wrong.

Non sequitur. You wanted to advance an argument from authority as a defence and I have pointed out why it is invalid.


Yet your view has basically been tried, and yet we see more Islamofascist aggression.

How has my view "been tried"? And what view of mine (supposedly) is that?


Hard to believe. Bolt is not even a Christian,

So says he. I will believe him in this instance but it is worth noting he also attempted to deny being right-wing. :lol:


and is not as much a free marketeer as Friedman, say.

Free-marketeering is another optional extra on that side. So long as you oppose leftist economics you are still one of the team whether you are a free marketeer, a protectionist or a big government corporatist.


Philip Adams is a village atheopath and Communist sympathizer

Adams joined the Communist Party in his teens and left it in his teens and now criticises it and dogmatic followers of said movement. In my view he's a screaming leftie of a rather tedious sort but I do not know whether "Communist sympathizer" is really accurate so much as being a pejorative based on his past.


Bolt only seems right wing because he is a change from the ardent leftism of the media.

I don't think the media as a whole are ardently left. In Australia, the ABC and Age are leftist, but the News Ltd papers are generally right-leaning, especially The Australian in recent years, and the talkback market is very right-dominated. Bolt would show up as well right on any objective test of political leaning.

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2010, 04:57 AM
Well, American "liberals" still make some kind of stab at one half of the libertarian equation, unlike Australian "Liberals" who (with rare exceptions) have no interest in freedom except where its alternative favours the Left.
Remind me, which party wants to censor the Internet?


Millions of sympathisers, possibly. If there are millions of actual terrorists we may as well give up Afghanistan as a bad joke now.
wGlMt1zychU&feature=player_embedded#!
No parallels in Christendom.


Leaving aside the debatable assumption that attacks by wacky syncretists in Africa are unworthy of prime ministerial condemnation because only Africans are raped and brutally maimed in them, let's consider the "hard fact".
Maybe most haven't heard of this army, since they are lower profile than say the genocide in Rwanda, let alone their claim to be Christian (and whatever else floats their boat).


Finally, one of the most successful terrorist attacks directed towards "western values" in general was the Oklahoma City bombing by a small number of home-grown political nutters, and with nothing (directly) to do with religion.
Interesting that you should mention that, since that was carried out by fanatical christophobe and agnostic Timothy McVeigh (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200205/ai_n9113667/) (at least you didn't follow many christophobes in calling him a Christian Terrorist). So your next letter should warn about these dangerous christophobes :P


And we have Obama-loving leftard extremist biology professor Amy Bishop murdering three people at her university (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=5557) (a gun free zone of course). So you'd better warn about Obamov-obsession and left-wing extremism—and maybe about Ph.D. biologists too :P

[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]Actually the quarry having to defend itself is a part of the point, since this provides an increased cost and inconvenience to the quarry. Furthermore in the case of employees in a threatened agency, there is always the possibility that the stress created by the threat will cause them to leave, thus further hampering that agency. Death threats may not be the same as actual violence, but all the same, they're not exactly nice. I have had to deal with a few of them myself, albeit at the less serious end of the scale.
No doubt, "the threat is stronger than its execution", which is why it is right that death threats are punishable by law.


I said "political culture". I agree that government broadcasters are an exception to the rule (where they exist) but they have limited political influence anyway.
<Cough> John Howard, "Swing to the ABC".


I am talking about things like the entrenched voter preference for Christians in the USA especially,
If there was, the Dems wouldn't have a chance, and neither would many Republicans.


the nods to Christianity in western parliaments,
Come off it. In the UK, Christians have been arrested for proclaiming biblical teaching.


tax-exempt status for religions,
Which is different from forcing taxpayers to fund them, which is iniquitous.


acceptance of morality and censorship laws often closely linked to religion and so on. The hardliners may grizzle about stuff like anti-discrimination laws and the willingness of media to publish stirs at Christians but be more cautious about stirs at Islam, but really what is there in the West that provokes Christians enough for them to blow up airliners over it assuming they were in theory so inclined?
Actually, despite these christophobes' self-serving claim of great courage, they attack the Christians precisely because we don't resort to violence. They are too cowardly to attack Islam that way. This in itself should be enough to refute the moral relativism in your letter.


Bear in mind that my letter was written and published five years ago; that said, unfortunately the anti-abortion nutter brigade were at it again last year with another killing in the US.
Wow, one killing in five years out of how many hundreds of millions of Christians? Yeah, I see why we need to worry about Christian terrorists.


How has my view "been tried"? And what view of mine (supposedly) is that?
The moral relativist political correctness. It has been applied in that authorities have been too wimpy to block promotion of the murderous Major Nidal, or even admit that Islam was a factor. Airlines now search 90yo great-grandmothers, force them to take their shoes off even when they have arthritis, and confiscate their water bottles and knitting needles, because it is verboten to use profiling—you know, what Israel uses and avoids hijacking without harrassing passengers that way.


So says he. I will believe him in this instance
There is good evidence. For one thing, I doubt that any true Christian would risk denying Christ.


but it is worth noting he also attempted to deny being right-wing. :lol:
He is more centre-right.


Free-marketeering is another optional extra on that side. So long as you oppose leftist economics you are still one of the team whether you are a free marketeer, a protectionist or a big government corporatist.
Protectionism and big government corporatism aka crony capitalism are leftist in my book, since they invoke the power of government to over-ride personal choices.


Adams joined the Communist Party in his teens and left it in his teens and now criticises it and dogmatic followers of said movement.
Indeed, he criticises some dogmatic atheopaths too.


In my view he's a screaming leftie of a rather tedious sort but I do not know whether "Communist sympathizer" is really accurate so much as being a pejorative based on his past.
He sympathizes with their economics.


I don't think the media as a whole are ardently left.
I know they are.


In Australia, the ABC and Age are leftist,
The ABC is the worst of the lot, since taxpayers are forced to fund it.

Ian Murray
19-06-2010, 10:54 AM
Muslims against Terrorism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NYzs8IjxhY&feature=related

Igor_Goldenberg
19-06-2010, 01:23 PM
Muslims against Terrorism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NYzs8IjxhY&feature=related
I wish there were more of them, and I wish they condemn all terrorist attacks, not only a select few.
It's a welcoming step towards a very long journey.

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2010, 10:39 PM
Remind me, which party wants to censor the Internet?

That's irrelevant since you wanted to talk about whether American self-described "liberals" are liberal, and I pointed out that self-described "liberals" both left and right tend not to fit the bill. The Australian Labor Party does not carry the word "liberal" in its name so has nothing to do with that point.

But in any case the answer is bound to be "both", or at least most members of both. The Liberals were extremely slow off the mark in opposing the filter policy on even pragmatic grounds, with Hockey's cautious entrance to the debate a few months ago being one of the first signs of any Liberal action on the matter (and even then it seems he's expressing a personal view). It's very clear that Abbott supports "filtering" provided it is workable (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/web-filter-splits-opposition-20100406-rpf7.html) and that others are of like mind, and this is no surprise coming from the remnants of a Government that considerably tightened film censorship in Australia very early in its reign.


wGlMt1zychU&feature=player_embedded#!
No parallels in Christendom.

Whoopy do. Apart from the Iranian rally at the start there's no evidence any of those rallies were all that large. And some of them (exempting the obvious pro bin Laden nutcase instances) weren't even all that radical either. You'd hear more vehement denunciations of Israel than some of those in rallies by westerners. Even some left-leaning Christians would agree with those Muslims who consider Israel to be terrorist. As for showing one rally at the end and claiming it's evidence of lack of support, how do we even know that the footage represented the peak time frame of the rally, and what evidence is there concerning the size of comparable Islamic rallies in the same city and with similar levels of organisation?


Maybe most haven't heard of this army, since they are lower profile than say the genocide in Rwanda, let alone their claim to be Christian (and whatever else floats their boat).

That may well be the case. I do not know whether Howard himself knew that much about the LRA at that stage of his prime ministership, but if so, ignorance isn't much of an excuse. Anyway, if ignorance of the LRA is indeed rife then I am glad my letter made it a teensy bit less so. :lol:


Interesting that you should mention that, since that was carried out by fanatical christophobe and agnostic Timothy McVeigh (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200205/ai_n9113667/) (at least you didn't follow many christophobes in calling him a Christian Terrorist). So your next letter should warn about these dangerous christophobes :P

The function of my letter wasn't to warn about anything. It was to make the point that if you want to tell one religion to clean up its act on the question of terrorism committed in its name, then the same instruction should be issued to all religious movements. If there is anti-religious terrorism going on, it could be extended to anti-religious movements too, though the thought of John Howard asking peace-loving Satanists to tell certain of their Norwegian brethren to cease torching churches* does have a slightly amusing ring to it.

[* NB On my understanding the church-burning vandalism practiced by certain Satanists is not actually "terrorism", since the intent is not to use terror to coerce changes in policy, but merely to destroy. However, I could be wrong about that.]

I did not call McVeigh a Christian Terrorist because I am well aware that his religious views are unclear at best. While you refer to him as an agnostic based on one source, considering all available sources (including the TIME interview before his trial) it's more likely he was a sort of lapsed Catholic who sometimes believed and sometimes wasn't sure. As for your term "christophobe", there is no evidence that this is applicable, except from a cardboard cutout with-us-or-against-us standpoint.

I do think it is interesting that McVeigh acted in solidarity with Koresh and Weaver, both of whom were idiosyncratic religious nutters. But I accept that his solidarity was political not religious.


And we have Obama-loving leftard extremist biology professor Amy Bishop murdering three people at her university (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=5557) (a gun free zone of course). So you'd better warn about Obamov-obsession and left-wing extremism—and maybe about Ph.D. biologists too :P

Thankfully I'm just a PhD biogeographer/taxonomist, so the world can feel safe from me on that score. Her example is irrelevant since there's no evidence given of any terrorist dimension or even any political motive for her behaviour. Most likely just straight-out mentally ill.


<Cough> John Howard, "Swing to the ABC".

That was a Kerry O'Brien Freudian slip and a funny one. If you're suggesting Howard lost Bennelong because his opponent was an ABC journo, then that's just incorrect. The swing in Bennelong from the 2004 result was 5.53%, almost identical to the national average, and of the six seats surrounding it, all swung to Labor by at least 4.10% and two swung by 7.71% and 9.09%. Additionally, the swing against Howard was really only 5.23% (slightly below national average) if the effects of redistribution are considered.

There is a widespread myth that the defeat of Howard in his own seat was some kind of Herculean feat by McKew but actually any semi-respectable Labor candidate would have defeated him. He was simply in a seat too marginal to defend against such a large general swing. Any idea that he should have been able to save it because of his high profile is rubbish because that high profile was already factored into his 2004 result. Fellow psephologist Charles Richardson used the assumption that Howard would get no special protection from defeat on account of his profile to correctly project Bennelong as a definite Labor win before the election.


If there was, the Dems wouldn't have a chance, and neither would many Republicans.

You must be using a narrow-base definition of "Christian" again. The fact is that some kind of at least professed Christianity is essential to election to the presidency in particular in the USA, and a big advantage for other high offices, though it doesn't necessarily matter what branch of Christianity it is or whether the believer is all that devout or literalist. Poll results indicate that atheists simply cannot be elected President unless they do a very good job of faking being Christian.


Come off it. In the UK, Christians have been arrested for proclaiming biblical teaching.

A tiny number of extremists have recently been arrested for quoting portions of scripture in public to preach or emphasise anti-gay views. The great majority of Christians don't behave in such a silly manner so it is hardly as if this is likely to be a burning concern to the faith as a whole; indeed some may approve of crackdowns on such behaviour.


Actually, despite these christophobes' self-serving claim of great courage, they attack the Christians precisely because we don't resort to violence. They are too cowardly to attack Islam that way. This in itself should be enough to refute the moral relativism in your letter.

What christophobes are you talking about here? And in any case, you are reading things into my letter (so-called "moral relativism") that are simply not there. Once again, all my letter seeks to argue is that if Islam has an obligation to discourage terrorism conducted in its name, then the same applies to other religions regarding which the same occurs. I do not need to argue that Christianity has the same proportion of violent nutcases as Islam in making that point. Indeed, I have been arguing that because the political circumstances affecting the two faiths are vastly different, the comparison you draw about Christians responding more peacefully isn't even necessarily useful.


Wow, one killing in five years out of how many hundreds of millions of Christians? Yeah, I see why we need to worry about Christian terrorists.

(2000) "Wow, those guys tried to blow up the World Trade Centre and only managed to kill six people and that's their only significant attack on US soil in the past ten years. Yeah, I see why we need to worry about al-Qaeda attacking on US soil.

Now, I do not think we are likely to see "Christian" terrorists claiming scores of lives in mass attacks in the west any time soon. But the idea that you write off a terrorist movement based on its low past body count should by now be well and truly debunked by example. You never know, and in any case, terrorist tendencies should be curbed in any movement that contains them even if their impact will always be relatively minor.


The moral relativist political correctness.

You provide no evidence that I support either MR or PC on account of my comments - just blatant strawmanning. This is a not uncommon argumentative tactic of yours, in which when confronted with a view you disagree with but which doesn't fit into a recognisable culture-warrior box, you just act as if it fits in one anyway.


It has been applied in that authorities have been too wimpy to block promotion of the murderous Major Nidal, or even admit that Islam was a factor.

Complete strawmanning since my letter points towards a need for caution towards terrorism emenating from any religious movement, rather than implying a lack of caution on account of a PC fear of singling out Islamics. I have already said I wouldn't have let someone like Nidal anywhere near an army unit, but I wouldn't have let a "Christian" who got very emotional and unstable about the legality of abortion near one either.


Airlines now search 90yo great-grandmothers, force them to take their shoes off even when they have arthritis, and confiscate their water bottles and knitting needles, because it is verboten to use profiling—you know, what Israel uses and avoids hijacking without harrassing passengers that way.

Many of these security measures are just plain silly, eg the liquid explosives thing is a beat-up; it wouldn't actually work. But to the extent that scanning is justified, I support applying it to everyone, because while you can generalise racially and ethnically about who is most likely to be a terrorist if there is one aboard, you really never know.

[Bolt]

He is more centre-right.

He is not "far right" in the lunatic/zealot sense. But I am not aware of any views he has expressed that justify considering him to be a moderate compared to, say, the currently dominant ideologies within the Coalition.


Protectionism and big government corporatism aka crony capitalism are leftist in my book, since they invoke the power of government to over-ride personal choices.

I think that for an economic policy to be considered leftist on that basis, the motive for overriding choice must be considered too. If the motive for overriding choice is to protect workers or improve their conditions, then that is clearly leftist. If it is simply to prop up or favour a small number of business cronies without serving the population generally, then I do not see that as recognisably leftist. I think there is more than one kind of right-wing economics.


He sympathizes with their economics.

Many lefties do, "in principle". I think you need to go further than saying "gee it would be nice if it could work, but ..." to count as a "communist sympathizer" with all the taints that that entails.


I know they are.

No, because coming from a position that is strongly right-wing, you are very broad in your classification of views anywhere to the left of yours as "left". If your way of classifying is to be believed, way over half of politics is "left" - Labor are left, many Liberals are left, Democrats are left and so are many Republicans, the Nationals are left on economics, etc.


The ABC is the worst of the lot, since taxpayers are forced to fund it.

The ABC needs cleaning up; a taxpayer funded broadcaster indeed needs to try very hard to avoid any level of bias, systemic or accidental. That said, ABC radio in my state is actually very well balanced and cops a lot of abuse from hardline Greens supporters in particular for being so.

Capablanca-Fan
20-06-2010, 07:16 AM
The "Mandate for Palestine" is the Best Reply to "Occupation" (http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=162&order_id=1)
Eli E. Hertz, 23 December 2009

Have you ever asked yourself why during the period between 1917 and 1947 hundreds of thousands of Jews throughout the world woke up one morning and decided to leave their homes and go to Palestine? The majority did this because they heard that a future National Home for the Jewish people was being established in Palestine, on the basis of the League of Nations' obligation under the "Mandate for Palestine." This historical document laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law.

The "Mandate for Palestine" was not a naïve vision briefly embraced by the international community. Fifty-one member countries - the entire League of Nations - unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:


"Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

...

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine - Eretz-Israel - and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

We collectively and individually must do all we can to support the Jewish people and the state of Israel. There is no more crucial time than today, and I believe that this body has the capacity to help defeat the "Occupation" mantra by insisting that the land of Israel has been given to the Jewish people as of right, and in accordance with existing international law.

Ian Murray
20-06-2010, 07:18 PM
Israel loosens chokehold on Gaza (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gaza_blockade)

By STEVEN GUTKIN, Associated Press Writer Steven Gutkin, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jun 17

JERUSALEM – An Israeli decision Thursday to ease its blockade of Gaza under intense international pressure could spell the beginning of the end of the chokehold that has hurt ordinary Gazans far more than their militant Hamas rulers.

The order to allow in all foods and some desperately needed construction materials brought calls for Israel to go much further and did little to quell the global outcry over the deadly flotilla raid that tried to bust the embargo.

With a naval blockade in place and Israel giving no indication it will lift a ban on Gaza exports, Palestinians dismissed the move as cosmetic.

Yet the announcement was an unmistakable sign of Israeli leaders' extreme discomfort with the damage the bloody May 31 flotilla raid has done to their country's international standing — and an indication the blockade's days may be numbered....

Igor_Goldenberg
20-06-2010, 11:19 PM
The "Mandate for Palestine" was not a naïve vision briefly embraced by the international community. Fifty-one member countries - the entire League of Nations - unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:


"Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."



The same League of Nations (at the same conference, IIRC) laid the foundation for creation of all modern Arab states.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-06-2010, 11:21 PM
With a naval blockade in place and Israel giving no indication it will lift a ban on Gaza exports, Palestinians dismissed the move as cosmetic.


If Hamas wanted to lift the blockade and really cared about the plight of Gazans, all it has to do is release Gilad Shalit.

Capablanca-Fan
21-06-2010, 12:35 AM
JERUSALEM – An Israeli decision Thursday to ease its blockade of Gaza under intense international pressure could spell the beginning of the end of the chokehold that has hurt ordinary Gazans far more than their militant Hamas rulers.
The ordinary Gazans voted for their militant Hamas rulers, and have always loved terrorism (http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=78&order_id=4):


“There is, of course, nothing new about Palestinians applauding terror. During the Gulf War in 1991, they danced on rooftops in praise of Iraqi scud missiles raining on Israeli neighborhoods. Again, in the mid-1990s, after bus bombs in Israel killed dozens--one of them was my sister-in-law--an estimated 70,000 Palestinians filled a Gaza stadium to cheer a re-enactment of the massacre. The deaths of over 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11 was another cause for dancing in Palestinian streets, though Arafat's men suppressed foreign coverage of the fete.”

No other country would allow arms to be shipped to an enemy that both attacks them with rockets and shrieks for its annihilation. Yet "world opinion" demands that Israel roll over and die.


Yet the announcement was an unmistakable sign of Israeli leaders' extreme discomfort with the damage the bloody May 31 flotilla raid has done to their country's international standing — and an indication the blockade's days may be numbered....
Yeah, because the antisemitic media and "world opinion" willingly fell for the Islamists' game. Israel should just do what it takes to get rid of the threat, instead of fighting with one hand behind its back, since the antisemites hate Israel regardless.

Capablanca-Fan
21-06-2010, 04:47 AM
That's irrelevant since you wanted to talk about whether American self-described "liberals" are liberal, and I pointed out that self-described "liberals" both left and right tend not to fit the bill. The Australian Labor Party does not carry the word "liberal" in its name so has nothing to do with that point.

But in any case the answer is bound to be "both", or at least most members of both. The Liberals were extremely slow off the mark in opposing the filter policy on even pragmatic grounds, with Hockey's cautious entrance to the debate a few months ago being one of the first signs of any Liberal action on the matter (and even then it seems he's expressing a personal view). It's very clear that Abbott supports "filtering" provided it is workable (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/web-filter-splits-opposition-20100406-rpf7.html) and that others are of like mind, and this is no surprise coming from the remnants of a Government that considerably tightened film censorship in Australia very early in its reign.
Yeah, it would be nice if the Libs just opposed Internet censorship. All the same, the Libs didn't try it in their four terms, but Labor is very eager.


That may well be the case. I do not know whether Howard himself knew that much about the LRA at that stage of his prime ministership, but if so, ignorance isn't much of an excuse. Anyway, if ignorance of the LRA is indeed rife then I am glad my letter made it a teensy bit less so. :lol:
Are they a realistic thread to the West? Most doubtful. They have not hijacked airlines. Sounds like they are evil enough to have something done about them, but what, given that the UN is an incompetent thugocracy.


I did not call McVeigh a Christian Terrorist because I am well aware that his religious views are unclear at best. While you refer to him as an agnostic based on one source, considering all available sources (including the TIME interview before his trial) it's more likely he was a sort of lapsed Catholic who sometimes believed and sometimes wasn't sure. As for your term "christophobe", there is no evidence that this is applicable, except from a cardboard cutout with-us-or-against-us standpoint.
Yet his final pre-execution public statement was a strongly humanist poem about being the master of his fate, spitting in God’s face, as it were.


That was a Kerry O'Brien Freudian slip and a funny one. If you're suggesting Howard lost Bennelong because his opponent was an ABC journo, then that's just incorrect. The swing in Bennelong from the 2004 result was 5.53%, almost identical to the national average, and of the six seats surrounding it, all swung to Labor by at least 4.10% and two swung by 7.71% and 9.09%. Additionally, the swing against Howard was really only 5.23% (slightly below national average) if the effects of redistribution are considered.

There is a widespread myth that the defeat of Howard in his own seat was some kind of Herculean feat by McKew but actually any semi-respectable Labor candidate would have defeated him. He was simply in a seat too marginal to defend against such a large general swing. Any idea that he should have been able to save it because of his high profile is rubbish because that high profile was already factored into his 2004 result. Fellow psephologist Charles Richardson used the assumption that Howard would get no special protection from defeat on account of his profile to correctly project Bennelong as a definite Labor win before the election.
That's good information, thanx.


You must be using a narrow-base definition of "Christian" again.
Only a real one; i.e. one who follows Christ.


The fact is that some kind of at least professed Christianity is essential to election to the presidency in particular in the USA, and a big advantage for other high offices, though it doesn't necessarily matter what branch of Christianity it is or whether the believer is all that devout or literalist. Poll results indicate that atheists simply cannot be elected President unless they do a very good job of faking being Christian.
I don't even think that Obamov did that great a job of faking being Christian. That's why so many atheopaths voted for him.


A tiny number of extremists have recently been arrested for quoting portions of scripture in public to preach or emphasise anti-gay views. The great majority of Christians don't behave in such a silly manner so it is hardly as if this is likely to be a burning concern to the faith as a whole; indeed some may approve of crackdowns on such behaviour.
But this is a blatant attack on religious freedom. No one arrests gays for expressing anti-Christian views.


Many of these security measures are just plain silly, eg the liquid explosives thing is a beat-up; it wouldn't actually work. But to the extent that scanning is justified, I support applying it to everyone, because while you can generalise racially and ethnically about who is most likely to be a terrorist if there is one aboard, you really never know.
I would support doing what Israel does, but the American TSA Gestapo wasn't interested in learning.


I think that for an economic policy to be considered leftist on that basis, the motive for overriding choice must be considered too. If the motive for overriding choice is to protect workers or improve their conditions, then that is clearly leftist. If it is simply to prop up or favour a small number of business cronies without serving the population generally, then I do not see that as recognisably leftist. I think there is more than one kind of right-wing economics.
I would remind supporters of the latter that they are no different in principle from the undisputed left. I.e. they agree that the government has the right to take money from some citizens and give it to special interest groups; they merely disagree about which groups. So they lack any moral or economic high ground.


No, because coming from a position that is strongly right-wing, you are very broad in your classification of views anywhere to the left of yours as "left". If your way of classifying is to be believed, way over half of politics is "left" - Labor are left, many Liberals are left, Democrats are left and so are many Republicans, the Nationals are left on economics, etc.
True.


The ABC needs cleaning up; a taxpayer funded broadcaster indeed needs to try very hard to avoid any level of bias, systemic or accidental. That said, ABC radio in my state is actually very well balanced and cops a lot of abuse from hardline Greens supporters in particular for being so.
I doubt that cleaning up is possible though, as long as they can count on funding coerced from taxpayers.

Kevin Bonham
22-06-2010, 02:50 AM
Yeah, it would be nice if the Libs just opposed Internet censorship. All the same, the Libs didn't try it in their four terms, but Labor is very eager.

I don't know if Labor is all that eager to actually do it, as opposed to being extremely eager to be seen to be trying to do something about all those nasty things the filter is supposed to stop but won't. The whole thing may well end up quietly shelved; I'm hoping so.

Howard did have his own filtering plans and announced them at the same Christian lobby event that Rudd and Abbott are going to nauseate me by attempting to outJesus each other at shortly. Indeed, Rudd's "clean feed" nonsense was intended to counteract Howard's policy of wasting $189 million supplying every home with an internet filter (instead of just letting those who want the silly thing buy it.)


Are they a realistic thread to the West? Most doubtful. They have not hijacked airlines. Sounds like they are evil enough to have something done about them, but what, given that the UN is an incompetent thugocracy.

As I hope the example of S11 demonstrates it is rather difficult to know which terrorists might suddenly amount to far more than most observers previously expected, though there is no reason at this stage to believe the LRA would want to attack the west. But anyway, I don't think whether or not particular terrorists are a threat to the West has much to do with whether or not a Prime Minister condemning terrorism should avoid condemning them.


Yet his final pre-execution public statement was a strongly humanist poem about being the master of his fate, spitting in God’s face, as it were.

Spitting? Not entirely ...

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

I'm not sure whether reading too much into McVeigh's choice of verse is wise since he was kooky enough that it wouldn't be easy to second-guess his reading of the poem and he was probably the sort who could quite easily believe three mutually inconsistent impossible things before breakfast. He may have been simply indicating that he accepted responsibility for his actions and fate and that he had done what he wanted to do.

(Or perhaps he had deist tendencies - believed at times in a creator, but not in any theistic faith.)


Only a real one; i.e. one who follows Christ.

You must then be using a narrow-base definition of following.


I don't even think that Obamov did that great a job of faking being Christian. That's why so many [atheists] voted for him.

Are there actually any stats showing atheists went more strongly for Obama than would be expected even given the overall result? I've seen one pre-election poll that had atheists and agnostics preferring Obama over McCain 50:28 but that does not seem all that exceptional in his favour to me, especially not given the Palin factor. There would be some natural skew to the Democrats even if the Republican was the less theistic candidate.


But this is a blatant attack on religious freedom. No one arrests gays for expressing anti-Christian views.

Hmmm. Several people (several dozen I think) were arrested in Hobart just over 20 years ago after a clash with the Hobart Council over gay rights propaganda in Salamanca Market. (The arrests were all thrown out of court and 20 years on the Council voted 10-2 to apologise.) That is how quickly times have changed - perhaps.

Gays in general do not stand on street corners preaching out loud that Christianity is a sin or an abomination. You might think that freedom of religion extends to the right to vocally promote religion more or less however or wherever you want but whatever might be said about that, it doesn't seem that most Christians see the kerbing of public anti-gay ranting as something worth getting irate about.


I would remind supporters of the latter that they are no different in principle from the undisputed left. I.e. they agree that the government has the right to take money from some citizens and give it to special interest groups; they merely disagree about which groups. So they lack any moral or economic high ground.

And all that may well be true and I never tire of trotting out for average right-wing types the ways in which their own parties have sold the pass. But it remains the case that it is a valid reason for not classifying them as lefties, however much their actions may legitimise left propaganda.


I doubt that cleaning up is possible though, as long as they can count on funding coerced from taxpayers.

Truly, it's not an easy problem to fix without de-funding the whole station (which I expect you'd be rather happy with!) I'd like to see some kind of process in which successful complaints about persistent bias or shoddy reporting by ABC journos can get the journos found guilty of same kicked off air for a while.

Capablanca-Fan
03-07-2010, 02:05 AM
Terror — and Candor (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/charles-krauthammer/2010/07/02/terror-and-candor/)
By Charles Krauthammer, 2 July 2010

Islamist fundamentalism is not only a risk factor. It is the risk factor, the common denominator linking all the great terror attacks of this century — from 9/11 to Mumbai, from Fort Hood to Times Square, from London to Madrid to Bali. The attackers were of various national origin, occupation, age, social class, native tongue and race. The one thing that united them was the jihadist vision in whose name they acted.

Kevin Bonham
03-07-2010, 02:19 AM
Islamist fundamentalism is not only a risk factor. It is the risk factor, the common denominator linking all the great terror attacks of this century

Based on the experience of the previous century, and given that this one is only a decade old, I suspect there will be "great terror attacks" for other reasons before this one is up, and just because there have been none in the last decade (that I can think of) doesn't mean there is no risk of them.

But I thought his article was good; I am not in favour of beating around the bush about the role of Islamist extremism in fuelling these attacks.

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2010, 08:45 AM
If you or anyone you know believes that "Palestine" the country, goes back through most of recorded history, you should be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of "Palestine":
(by Yashiko Sagamori, A Japanese View of the Palestinians)

1. When was it founded and by whom?
2. What were its borders?
3. What was its capital?
4. What were its major cities?
5. What constituted the basis of its economy?
6. What was its form of government?
7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before *Arafat?
(*Arafat himself wasn't even "Palestinian", he was Egyptian)
8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose
existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9. What was the language of the country of Palestine?
10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date?
12. And finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

Capablanca-Fan
06-07-2010, 01:38 PM
zin9RkGsXrY

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2010, 05:24 AM
Muslim Mob Kills Wife, Children of Christian in Pakistan (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100708/muslim-mob-kills-wife-children-of-christian-in-pakistan/index.html)

antichrist
15-07-2010, 12:39 PM
Muslim Mob Kills Wife, Children of Christian in Pakistan (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100708/muslim-mob-kills-wife-children-of-christian-in-pakistan/index.html)

What about the Christian fanatics before who used to lock themselves up in chruches then burn the place down including their children - going straight to heaven they thought whey were just like Islamic suicide bombers.

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2010, 12:45 PM
More fantasizing, AC?

IBFBvceJvIU&feature=related

antichrist
15-07-2010, 10:50 PM
If you or anyone you know believes that "Palestine" the country, goes back through most of recorded history, you should be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of "Palestine":
(by Yashiko Sagamori, A Japanese View of the Palestinians)

1. When was it founded and by whom?
2. What were its borders?
3. What was its capital?
4. What were its major cities?
5. What constituted the basis of its economy?
6. What was its form of government?
7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before *Arafat?
(*Arafat himself wasn't even "Palestinian", he was Egyptian)
8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose
existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9. What was the language of the country of Palestine?
10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date?
12. And finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

Jono, I will gladly look at your questions but am currently extremely busy for a few more days, and can only jump on now and then. Next week I will hope fully look at. But I am making good money.

Ian Murray
16-07-2010, 12:37 AM
Jono, I will gladly look at your questions but am currently extremely busy for a few more days, and can only jump on now and then. Next week I will hope fully look at. But I am making good money.
To kick start, the fact that Palestine is not a nation is undisputed. It's a geographic region - cf Arabia, Iberia, Pilbara. Its existence goes back millennia, since the Philistines invasion. Syria Palaestinia was a Roman province back in their day

The (Japanese-sourced?) map attached to Jono's post looks impressive but tampers with the truth. Half the countries shown as Arab states are not at all.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2010, 06:07 AM
To kick start, the fact that Palestine is not a nation is undisputed. It's a geographic region - cf Arabia, Iberia, Pilbara. Its existence goes back millennia, since the Philistines invasion. Syria Palaestinia was a Roman province back in their day
The "Palestinian nation", if you want to put it that way, was a Jewish one, not an Arabic one. There is no Palestinian Arab nation. When Palestine was partitioned, the Arabs originally wanted to be part of Syria.


The (Japanese-sourced?) map attached to Jono's post looks impressive but tampers with the truth. Half the countries shown as Arab states are not at all.
They were not intended to be, but to show the region, as well as the dominance by the Arabs and their Muslim brothers. Evidently they assumed too much intelligence in the typical antisemite antizionist.

Ian Murray
16-07-2010, 01:06 PM
The "Palestinian nation", if you want to put it that way, was a Jewish one, not an Arabic one. There is no Palestinian Arab nation. When Palestine was partitioned, the Arabs originally wanted to be part of Syria.
So what is the purpose of that list of questions, if not to demonstrate that geopolitically Palestine has never existed


They were not intended to be, but to show the region, as well as the dominance by the Arabs and their Muslim brothers. Evidently they assumed too much intelligence in the typical antisemite antizionist.
Leaving aside the fact that the map is clearly captioned 'Arab land', the likes of Egypt and Turkey are not enemies of Israel, and the 'Stans are hardly part of the region - they're in central/south Asia.

As I see it, the intent is to mislead and so is dishonest. Parroting such material is beneath you.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2010, 01:36 PM
So what is the purpose of that list of questions, if not to demonstrate that geopolitically Palestine has never existed


And they do a pretty damn good job, as you can't answer them.

antichrist
16-07-2010, 02:11 PM
So what is the purpose of that list of questions, if not to demonstrate that geopolitically Palestine has never existed


Leaving aside the fact that the map is clearly captioned 'Arab land', the likes of Egypt and Turkey are not enemies of Israel, and the 'Stans are hardly part of the region - they're in central/south Asia.

As I see it, the intent is to mislead and so is dishonest. Parroting such material is beneath you.

And you are way too generous in your appraisals.

The Zionists are often so arrogant and dishonest I lose my patience with them.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2010, 03:15 PM
So what is the purpose of that list of questions, if not to demonstrate that geopolitically Palestine has never existed
It hasn't in the sense of an Arab Palestinian state.


Leaving aside the fact that the map is clearly captioned 'Arab land', the likes of Egypt and Turkey are not enemies of Israel,
Egypt was the leading enemy for decades, but made peace under former Nazi ally Sadat. And Israel has left them alone, just like Jordan, showing that peace is possible if Arabs would just stop attacking.

Turkey has recently become an enemy of Israel, being part of that flotilla of "peaceful" people who attacked Israelies with bars and knives.


and the 'Stans are hardly part of the region - they're in central/south Asia.
Gives an idea of the scale of Islamic lands. Even just the Arab lands are 600 times larger than Israel.


As I see it, the intent is to mislead and so is dishonest. Parroting such material is beneath you.
Quit bleating.

antichrist
16-07-2010, 07:07 PM
Jono from above:

Gives an idea of the scale of Islamic lands. Even just the Arab lands are 600 times larger than Israel.

---------------------------------------

Now Jono, what relevance does that have to Palestinians who's dozens of towns and villages were taken over and them driven out by the Zionists?

I am not conceding the principles of the wars/battles, but that aside they do not deserve to lose their homeland. Not even the UN has the right to take it away.

Just as if Jews had rightfully brought chattels in German before the war then the Nazis did not have the right to confiscate them. The Jews are still claiming them back, and rightly so, and rightly so the Palestinians are claiming their land back.

Just because other Jews may have plenty of chattels does not mean that the Jews robbed by the Nazis should sacrifice their right of return of such chattel.

And indeed the Germans do not use that as excuse not to compensate and return to Jews their chattels.

So in this manner the Germans are showing more principle then the Zionists.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2010, 03:43 AM
Now Jono, what relevance does that have to Palestinians who's dozens of towns and villages were taken over and them driven out by the Zionists?
Begging the question. Most Jewish land was bought and vastly improved by their hard work, e.g. draining malarial swamps. Others fled because of the war started by the Arabs. Still others left because the Arab leaders told them to get out of the way temporarily until the Jews were pushed into the sea.


I am not conceding the principles of the wars/battles, but that aside they do not deserve to lose their homeland.
Tell that to the Sudeten and Volga Germans, who had lived in those lands for generations, but "sent back to Germany", a land that none of them had seen, at great loss of life.


Not even the UN has the right to take it away.
Yet 800,000 Jews were thrown out of Arab countries with their property stolen. And tiny Israel manage to resettle them. But the huge Arab countries won't resettle the "Palestinians". But all the aid money could have allowed the "Palestinians" to live in opulence had they not squandered it on corruption and weapons.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-07-2010, 09:34 AM
New shopping mall opened last Saturday in Gaza: (http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001127.html)
http://www.paltimes.net/data/news/images/44742a0778f840263f83eef39985b77c.jpg
If there “are no building materials allowed into Gaza” how did they build this shopping centre

Igor_Goldenberg
21-07-2010, 09:37 AM
Restaurant for wealthy Gazans:
https://feed.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID34929/images/resized_Courtyard.jpg

Food market for ordinary Gazans:
http://www.paltoday.com/arabic/uploads/General/0911261326180uWY.jpg
http://www.paltoday.com/arabic/uploads/General/091126132741XnMW.jpg
http://www.paltoday.com/arabic/uploads/General/091126132618iz2x.jpg

antichrist
21-07-2010, 01:13 PM
Yes Igor, but do you notice how few customers there are, whereas if you go to Sydney's western suburbs to simliar shops you will see them full, even though there are less Arabs there and the Sydney Flemington markets are just up the road.


As I have said in a few other instances (illegal abortions & boat people) for the rich there is always a way out.

I read in the SMH just before last barring that Israel would not even allow herbs into GAZA, I will follow up later.

ER
21-07-2010, 01:58 PM
Food market for ordinary Gazans:

http://www.paltoday.com/arabic/uploads/General/091126132741XnMW.jpg



Is that a Maca's sign in the cake /sweets selling post? But isn't it one of he symbols of American imperialism?

antichrist
21-07-2010, 10:11 PM
As well, knowing the pr machine of Israel and all the lies, distortions and murders it commits I am not yet convinced that the market in the pics are even in Gaza. Or the shops were a set up.

Mephistopheles
22-07-2010, 08:07 AM
I read in the SMH just before last barring that Israel would not even allow herbs into GAZA, I will follow up later.
It's largely a security measure - some herbs can mask other odours (e.g. explosives or chemicals used to manufacture explosives).

antichrist
22-07-2010, 03:19 PM
The falsity of the implication of the above pics is that the UN has - ever since the Gaza blockade was applied - came to the conclusion that there is widespread malnutrition plus lack of medicines etc.

So isolated pics are just that - isloated pics.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-07-2010, 10:35 PM
I like cut and paste section in The Australian - they do a very good job!



Britain's The Daily Telegraph on July 5:

NETANYAHU will come under fierce pressure from Obama to extend a 10-month freeze on Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Spot the difference. The Age reprints the story on July 7 with two extra adjectives:

NETANYAHU, , was last night expected to come under pressure from Obama to extend a 10-month freeze on the building of illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Bloomberg reports:

NETANYAHU, whose Likud party supports Jewish settlement in the West Bank . . .

The Age version on July 10:

MR Netanyahu, whose Likud party supports illegal Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank . . .

So much for The Age independent and unbiased reporting on Israel.
PS I took the liberty of italising those two words.
PS2. Some posters on this board take offence when boat arrivals called illegal entrant, but do not object to Jewish town being called illegal settlements.

Basil
29-07-2010, 03:48 AM
I like cut and paste section in The Australian - they do a very good job!



Britain's The Daily Telegraph on July 5:

NETANYAHU will come under fierce pressure from Obama to extend a 10-month freeze on Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Spot the difference. The Age reprints the story on July 7 with two extra adjectives:

NETANYAHU, , was last night expected to come under pressure from Obama to extend a 10-month freeze on the building of illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Bloomberg reports:

NETANYAHU, whose Likud party supports Jewish settlement in the West Bank . . .

The Age version on July 10:

MR Netanyahu, whose Likud party supports illegal Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank . . .

So much for The Age independent and unbiased reporting on Israel.
PS I took the liberty of italising those two words.
PS2. Some posters on this board take offence when boat arrivals called illegal entrant, but do not object to Jewish town being called illegal settlements.
You make an excellent point. Don't expect excellent self-reflection from the antisemitic posters. It's like waiting for the invested left to acknowledge any of the mitigating factors of a softer GFC for Australia.

Capablanca-Fan
29-07-2010, 08:01 AM
Oh, but The Age isn't really antisemitic and biased against Israel, is it?

ER
29-07-2010, 10:38 AM
oh c'mon now Jono and Igor!
The AGE simply antisemitic?

After this?
http://www.vexnews.com/news/9866/anti-semitism-the-age-sinks-to-new-low-in-bizarre-front-page-attack-on-jewish-businessman/

and this? (the Age later apologised)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/jews-slam-racist-newspaper-article/story-e6frg6of-1111118609014

You must 've been making a mistake along the lines. I think "Blatantly Antisemitic" to describe such articles could present the situation much more accurately!

Capablanca-Fan
29-07-2010, 01:39 PM
Well spotted, JAK.

Ian Murray
29-07-2010, 02:28 PM
Now that's prime gutter journalism. When published by David Syme when I was a Melbourne boy it was the city's most respectable newspaper. My, things have changed under Fairfax

Igor_Goldenberg
03-08-2010, 03:00 PM
Rocket attack on Eilat and Agaba (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=183363)

Capablanca-Fan
03-08-2010, 03:28 PM
Rocket attack on Eilat and Agaba (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=183363)
Peaceful Hamas in action again, probably.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-08-2010, 04:44 PM
Peaceful Hamas in action again, probably.
Or peaceful Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa, Hizbullah or other peace organisation of Middle East.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-08-2010, 10:00 AM
Lebanon opens fire at Israeli soldiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaisseh_incident)


The Adaisseh incident occurred on August 3, 2010, when Israel Defense Forces attempted to cut down a tree on the Israeli-Lebanese border between the Israeli community of Misgav Am and the Lebanese village of Adaisseh. The Israeli soldiers came under fire by Lebanese Army snipers, killing one Israeli officer and critically wounding another. Israeli forces providing cover for the brush-clearing operation returned fire, leading to the deaths of 2 Lebanese soldiers and 1 civilian journalist involved near the scene, while five soldiers were wounded, UNIFIL confirmed Israeli soldiers were inside Israeli territory when the border clashes erupted, and that the Lebanese Army had "no reason" to fire on Israeli soldiers.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-08-2010, 09:14 AM
I am quite surprised. So many posters on this board attacked Israel in the past.
But none of them seems to rush to condemn Lebanon for completely unjustified attack. The silence is deafening.

Capablanca-Fan
06-08-2010, 03:13 PM
I am quite surprised. So many posters on this board attacked Israel in the past.
But none of them seems to rush to condemn Lebanon for completely unjustified attack. The silence is deafening.
But par for the course. They didn't condemn North Korea for much greater fatalities in their sinking of a South Korean ship.

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2010, 06:11 PM
But par for the course. They didn't condemn North Korea for much greater fatalities in their sinking of a South Korean ship.

Think I mentioned before that a possible reason for that is that at the time the sinking was big news, no-one knew who did it. It was only much later that NK was firmly indicated as the cause, so there wasn't a cycle of immediate outrage when it happened.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-08-2010, 10:38 AM
OK, now I am convinced moderate Muslims do exists. I can identify one:
Moderate Muslims needs to speak out (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/moderate-muslims-needs-to-speak-out/story-e6frg6ux-1225906031871)
Where is the rest?

Ian Murray
17-08-2010, 02:48 PM
OK, now I am convinced moderate Muslims do exists. I can identify one:
Moderate Muslims needs to speak out (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/moderate-muslims-needs-to-speak-out/story-e6frg6ux-1225906031871)
Where is the rest?
Try www.theahafoundation.org

Igor_Goldenberg
17-08-2010, 03:43 PM
Try www.theahafoundation.org
Ayaan Hirsi Ali would make #2. Still prefer to see and hear more of them. They are supposed to be a majority, aren't they?

TheJoker
20-08-2010, 05:01 PM
Ayaan Hirsi Ali would make #2. Still prefer to see and hear more of them. They are supposed to be a majority, aren't they?

IIRC she is an atheist

Ian Murray
20-08-2010, 11:08 PM
IIRC she is an atheist
Not sure of her current religious beliefs, if any, but her background is:


Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia and raised a devout Muslim. In 1992, Ayaan was married off by her father in a ceremony which she refused to attend. In order to escape this marriage, she fled to the Netherlands where she was given asylum, and eventually citizenship. After earning a degree in political science at the University of Leiden, she served as an elected member of the Dutch parliament for three years.

She has since become an active critic of fundamentalist Islam, an advocate for women's rights and a leader in the campaign to reform Islam. Her willingness to speak out and her abandonment of the Muslim faith as currently defined have made her a target for violence and threats of death by Islamic extremists.

Ms. Hirsi Ali was named one of TIME magazine's ''100 Most Influential People'' of 2005, one of Glamour Magazine's Heroes of 2005, and she received the Prix Simone de Beauvoir in 2008. She has published a collection of essays entitled The Caged Virgin (Free Press, 2006) and a best-selling memoir Infidel (Free Press, 2007). She is now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC.
www.theahafoundation.org/biography.php

Igor_Goldenberg
29-08-2010, 08:43 PM
One can hardly accuse BBC of being sympathetic to Israel. But even their journalists came to conclusion that Gaza flotilla had nothing to do with aid.
SXrzF0IOQYE
Nfo91FQVr7M

Capablanca-Fan
01-10-2010, 06:56 AM
NEW YORK (AFP) – Fidel Castro, the longtime president and leftist icon who stepped aside during a health crisis but still leads the Cuban Communist Party, has told a reporter that Israel definitely has the right to exist.

"Yes it does, without a doubt," Castro, 84, told visiting US journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic magazine, according to a new article published Wednesday.

In the same interview Castro criticized Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust and said in an interview Tehran should acknowledge Israel's fears for its own survival.

Asked if Cuba was ready to establish diplomatic ties with Israel, Fidel Castro said that those things took time, the report added.

The former Cuban president who handed over power to his brother Raul in 2006 said Iran should understand the consequences of theological anti-Semitism.

"This went on for maybe two thousand years," Castro was quoted as saying. "I don't think anyone has been slandered more than the Jews. I would say much more than the Muslims. They have been slandered much more than the Muslims because they are blamed and slandered for everything. No one blames the Muslims for anything."

"In my judgment here's what happened to them: Reverse selection. What's reverse selection? Over 2,000 years they were subjected to terrible persecution and then to the pogroms. One might have assumed that they would have disappeared; I think their culture and religion kept them together as a nation."

"The Jews have lived an existence that is much harder than ours. There is nothing that compares to the Holocaust," he said.

morebeer
01-10-2010, 08:35 AM
Uncharacteristically succinct and veracious from the normally garrulous Castro.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-10-2010, 07:19 PM
The jury is still out right now for Wilders, as he is being prosecuted for his hate speeches, and comparing Islam with Nazism, which is a punishable insult in Holland. However, Geert Wilders is not so much a criminal that should be banned from entering any country, but a simple (stupid) man with dangerous ideas and unfortunately with a platform in Dutch politics to express those in. This action by the UK government only strengthens his support, we are now even discussing that idiot at the other side of the world.
Wilders Dutch hate speech case 'should be dropped' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11554635)
Dutch prosecutors have recommended acquitting leading anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders on all five charges of hate speech.

I don't quite understand Holland legal system where prosecutors argue against the charge and the court insist on prosecutors to lay charges.

Hopefully justice and rule of law will prevail and Wilder will be acquitted.

antichrist
16-10-2010, 08:55 PM
Igor
.
PS2. Some posters on this board take offence when boat arrivals called illegal entrant, but do not object to Jewish town being called illegal settlements.

Gunnar Duggan Underpants
You make an excellent point. Don't expect excellent self-reflection from the antisemitic posters. ....
__________________

Igor,
in international law "some" posters on this board are correct - at least in the proven refugees amongst the boat people. Under international law all the settlements in the West Bank are illegal, as is the dividing wall, as is the cultural genocide practised on the Palestinians living in Israel, as were the invasions of Gaza and Lebanon, as is chemical weapons used during those invasions etc etc

Under international law the Hebrews' invasion of the Canaanites and genocide of such people would also be genocide - just like the Nazis practised on the Jews.

------------------------------------------

Howard,
the press council recently ruled that people who criticise Israel are not anti-
Semitic, so you are defaming innocent people by alleging that they are anti-Semitic. So frankly speaking you should apologise.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-10-2010, 10:32 PM
Answering to the silly post above is feeding the troll, which is not my intention.
If anybody (apart from ac) wants to rise relevant points, I'll be happy to respond.

antichrist
16-10-2010, 11:04 PM
Thanks Igor for leading more bods to read thread.

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2011, 04:41 AM
IBFBvceJvIU

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2011, 05:28 AM
Muslim student leader admits that she wants to destroy the Jews:

David Horowitz (in Q&A time after lecture): ‘Okay, I’ll put it to you this way. I am a Jew. The head of Hizbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally. For or Against it?

Muslim student with her head rag: For it.
8fSvyv0urTE&feature=player_embedded

antichrist
16-01-2011, 03:16 AM
http://www.paltelegraph.com/palestine/west-bank/8174-israeli-army-demolishes-palestinian-school.html

Israeli army demolishes Palestinian school .
Wednesday, 12 January 2011 09:36 Samar Mohaisen Hits: 437 . . .Hebron, (Pal Telegraph) - Israeli bulldozers started Monday morning demolishing Al-Baqiqa school in Yatta village ,southeastern Hebron .

Witnesses said to SAFA news agency that five Israeli bulldozers and about 25 military vehicles raided the area and demolished the school .

The school includes 50 students at primary stage and ten teachers .

Al-Baqiqa school consists of a few number of classrooms built of poor materials .

Sources said that Israeli forces drove out the students and teachers from their school and started the demolishing .

Israeli army used to demolish schools built by the Palestinian authorities ;Israel claims that these schools are used for military trainings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has been a terrorist tactic of Israel for generations to drive Palestinians off their land.

antichrist
16-01-2011, 03:27 AM
ADL: 'One-sided' criticism of Israel by EU, UN is troubling
By JPOST.COM STAFF
01/11/2011 16:23


The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) on Tuesday said it is concerned about "one-sided" criticism of Israel in response to the demolition of the Shepherd's Hotel in east Jerusalem.

In a statement released Tuesday, ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman said: "We are deeply concerned by this barrage of condemnation aimed at Israel and the claim that building in any part of Jerusalem could stymie negotiations. It was especially troubling to see the harsh condemnations from the EU and the UN go as far as they did. Neither the demolition of the Shepherd Hotel nor the construction of housing for Jews anywhere in Jerusalem contradict the Israeli commitment to a negotiated resolution of all the core issues and certainly will not preclude the subject of Jerusalem from those negotiations."He continued: "The one-sided criticisms focused on Israel come at a time when the Palestinian leadership is brazenly violating internationally recognized obligations to participate in negotiations with Israel, and seeking U.N. resolutions which would effectively circumvent those obligations."

"Each of these activities...merit public and repeated condemnation by the international community. Collectively they convey to Israel and the world a strong message of bad faith by the Palestinian Authority," Foxman concluded.
______________________________________
AC
So what Israel is claiming it that breaking more UN resolutions and stealing more land does not hinder peace negotiations because it will all come out in the wash anyway. What is the truth is that Israel wants to negotiate from a positon of complete strength - where possession is 100% of the law

antichrist
16-01-2011, 04:04 AM
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/01/why-i-believe-that-palestinians-are-holding-up-the-world.html

Why I believe that Palestinians are holding up the world
by annie on January 14, 2011 ·

Why does Palestine matter to me? Why do I have the sense Palestine is holding up the world?

There's a voice inside of me that will not allow fear to conquer in my lifetime. It's an imperative that we move forward as a civilized people. I don't mean civilized in terms of our better homes and gardens, I mean in terms of the world I was born into in 1953. No, I was not a child whose family members survived ethnic cleansing, either the Nakba or the Holocaust, but we still matter. My father served and my uncle died fighting that war. 80 million died (thereabouts). It was so horrible my dad never talked about it til the end of his life. It ripped families, countries, peoples and everything apart. Hiroshima, the Holocaust, Pearl Harbor, massive unimaginable death and pain. Personally for me...there was my mother's permanent scar. Her rock, her brother Bill, he was gone forever in that war. She never knew her mother. Bill was everything to her.

When I was a child it seemed to me this had all taken place light years before my birth but now in retrospect I realize how fresh it was to her, this inner pain. I was born during this pain in my mother's life. So that is just my little story, one little girl.

From that war, what did humanity gain? What did civilization gain? I rack my brain but the only thing that stands out for me is International Law. Rules that mean... Never Again. This is not a slogan for me, it is this residue that represents our gain from the utter waste of millions of lives who did not offer theirs in sacrifice but were lives stolen unfairly by an ugly hideous all pervasive all encompassing world war.

If I've learned one thing from the internet is that I know nothing compared to so many of you. But none the less my takeaway from that war that rocked humankind (and my family) was we grew as a global community because of advances in international law with the creation of the United Nations, the International court of Justice, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention Rules of War adopted in 1949 by the international community specifically in response to Nazi atrocities during World War II. Because of international law as it pertains to treatment of civilians and prisoners of war in territory under military occupation, destruction of property, indiscriminate military attacks, biological or chemical warfare, civilization advanced...supposedly.

That is why I think Palestinians are literally holding up the world and our human rights at the same time.

What happens if one little country named Israel continues to defy international law? Does the law change? Does the gain we earned or accomplished as a civilized people from the devastation of hundreds of millions of lives, the supposed advancement of mankind, does it matter? Does their sacrifice matter or does it all wash away because some little country defies it over and over and over again? Do we risk loosing the only gain we made for those countless millions..does international law incinerate into waste like some old charred last century relic?

antichrist
16-01-2011, 08:49 PM
Hanna K.From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hannah K. is a 1983 drama film directed by Costa Gavras, starring Jill Clayburgh and Gabriel Byrne.


[edit] PlotHanna K. is the story of Hannah Kaufman, a child of Holocaust survivors and an American-Jewish immigrant to Israel, who was a court-appointed lawyer assigned to defend a Palestinian, Salim Bakri, accused of terrorism and infiltration. Salim claimed that he was trying to regain possession of his family house. Hanna saved him from a jail sentence, but he was deported to Jordan. Salim eventually returned, was jailed for illegal immigration, and he again asked for her services. Hanna investigated the story and discovered that Salim’s family home was now a tourist attraction in Kafr Rimon, a settlement built and lived in by Russian Jews. Bakri’s former village of Kufr Rumaneh had disappeared except for a few stones and trees.

The state’s attorneys offered Hanna a deal: if she dropped the proceedings, they would arrange for Salim to become a South African citizen, and he could then return to Israel and try to get his property back. Hanna was confronted with the fact that one legacy of the Holocaust was the disposition of the Palestinians while her colleagues attempted to persuade her of the merits of the arrangement for Salim with the argument that Israel must be “defended” even if Palestinians are denied their rights.[1]

The film contained a number of aesthetic problems and Hanna’s personal life at times overshadowed and muddled the political aspects of the story. Nevertheless, as Edward Said, Parr Professor of English Literature at Columbia University, commented: “As a political as well as cinematic intervention, then Hanna K. is a statement of a great and I believe, lasting significance.”

[edit] The controversyCheryl A. Rubenberg states in 1986, “The entertainment industry has traditionally contributed to the general American sympathy for Israel through popular films and television docudramas such as Exodus, The Chosen, Golda, and Entebbe, among others. No film was ever made reflecting the Palestinian perspective until Costa Gavras’s Hannah K. in 1983.[2] Rubenberg notes that Costa Gavras attempted to depict the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in human terms, and unlike previous Gavras films, Hanna K. did not turn on emotions and attempted to present the complexity of a multifaceted situation without Gavras’s usual heavy hand.

Pro-Israeli groups were extremely concerned about Hanna K. and its potential for depicting the Palestinian issue in a sympathetic light. An internal memorandum was circulated by a B’nai B’rith and advising members that if the film played in their cities there were certain comments that could be made in the local press. Attached to the memorandum were two sets of prepared criticisms, written by Shimon Samuels and Abba Cohen from the French headquarters of the B’nai B’rith, outlining the arguments supporters of Israel should make against the film.[3]

Hanna K. opened in several American cities and played for a short time to virtually universal negative reviews, (where it was reviewed at all), then was abruptly pulled from circulation by the American distributor of the film. One Chicago distributor commented off-the-record that while it could not be proven that the film was pulled because of political pressure, distributors “understood” that the film was unacceptable to supporters of Israel, who have many friends and are themselves important in the entertainment industry. The director’s wife commented: “in the United States, a Universal tour that was to have encompassed New York, Boston, Washington, Chicago, and San Francisco was dropped at the last moment and a two-week run in New York substituted. Costa Gavras gave scores of interviews to journalists and critics and began to notice a common thread. ‘They would come in and say that while they didn’t have political objections, a friend or relative had seen the film and thought it was anti-Israeli. After a while, we took side bets as to whether the writer in. We were about to see would have a cousin, Sr., neighbor etc., who’d spotted an anti-Israeli angle!’” Costa Gavras personally advertised the film in the New York Times at a cost of $50,000 after Universal refused to. Universal even forbade the director the use of advertisements that had been prepared for the film.[4]

----------------------------

Ac
The main actress Jill Clarburgh recently died, and was written that she gave up acting because of what happened to this movie

Capablanca-Fan
23-01-2011, 04:30 PM
:evil:

antichrist
23-01-2011, 04:36 PM
what are you talking about hypocrisy of the media, the Koran has been ridiculed many times.

It is completely okay for ex-Christians to ridicule the Bible coz that stupid book was rammed down our throats when we were too young to defend our rights as laid down in the UN Rights of the Child. Christianity belongs to all those also who wwere brainwashed so cop what is coming.

Kevin Bonham
23-01-2011, 04:56 PM
The main actress Jill Clarburgh recently died, and was written that she gave up acting because of what happened to this movie

Can't have been for long if so, as she appeared in two movies three years later and many more in subsequent years.

antichrist
30-01-2011, 01:44 PM
Is it my or A/C fault? :lol: :lol: :lol:

maybe that computer bug that Israel used to sabotage Iran's nuke bomb escaped over here to sabotage me.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-02-2011, 08:12 AM
North African and Middle East regimes killed hundreds (if not thousands) of protesters. Where is world wide condemnation? More importantly, I haven't seen any UN resolution condemning violence.
They must be too busy passing umpteen anti-Israel resolution because it's building few more flats in Samaria.

Basil
22-02-2011, 08:25 AM
North African and Middle East regimes killed hundreds (if not thousands) of protesters. Where is world wide condemnation? More importantly, I haven't seen any UN resolution condemning violence.
It won't come. The cringers make me f***** wanna puke. Voluminous big gobfulls all over their faces.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-02-2011, 08:35 AM
It won't come. The cringers make me f***** wanna puke. Voluminous big gobfulls all over their faces.
Did you mean UN or Arab regimes? Or both?:D :D

Basil
22-02-2011, 09:21 AM
Did you mean UN or Arab regimes? Or both?:D :D
I actually meant the worldwide lefties who would remain otherwise mute and inactive. However, and perversely, because we have lefty governments prepared to condemn, these freakin' cringers won't object to proposed action like they otherwise would have, had the same action been proposed by conservative governments.

These are the people [wet-arse, cringing, limping, beady-eyed, saps] over whose faces I'd like to evacuate big gobfulls of puke.

Ian Murray
22-02-2011, 10:20 AM
North African and Middle East regimes killed hundreds (if not thousands) of protesters. Where is world wide condemnation? More importantly, I haven't seen any UN resolution condemning violence.
They must be too busy passing umpteen anti-Israel resolution because it's building few more flats in Samaria.
What on earth are you dribbling about? The UN and world leaders have been condemning the violence for weeks, e.g.:-

UN, U.S. condemn Egypt violence, urge for restraint from all sides (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/un-u-s-condemn-egypt-violence-urge-for-restraint-from-all-sides-1.340896)
World Condemns Egypt Violence (http://www.onislam.net/english/news/africa/450850-world-condemns-egypt-violence.html)
Obama condemns violence against protesters in Bahrain, Libya, Yemen (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/obama-condemns-violence-against-protesters-in-bahrain-libya-yemen-1.344317)
U.K.'s Cameron Condemns Violence in Libya (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476604576158760841702284.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)
US and British Leaders Condemn Violence in Egypt as Political Unrest Continues (http://www.newsonnews.net/politics/7315-us-and-british-leaders-condemn-violence-in-egypt-as-political-unrest-continues.html)
EU chiefs condemn violence in Egypt (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/eu-chiefs-condemn-violence-in-egypt/story-e6frg6so-1226000501639)
Harper ‘vigorously condemns’ violence in Libya (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Cannon+urges+calm+Libyan+protests+swell/4319868/story.html)

Edit - more UN condemnations:
UN's Ban speaks with Gadhafi, condemns violence in Libya (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?ID=209241&R=R1)
UN condemns Libya, Bahrain violence against civilians (http://www.eturbonews.com/21284/un-condemns-libya-bahrain-violence-against-civilians)

Igor_Goldenberg
22-02-2011, 03:54 PM
What on earth are you dribbling about? The UN and world leaders have been condemning the violence for weeks, e.g.:-

UN, U.S. condemn Egypt violence, urge for restraint from all sides (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/un-u-s-condemn-egypt-violence-urge-for-restraint-from-all-sides-1.340896)
World Condemns Egypt Violence (http://www.onislam.net/english/news/africa/450850-world-condemns-egypt-violence.html)
Obama condemns violence against protesters in Bahrain, Libya, Yemen (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/obama-condemns-violence-against-protesters-in-bahrain-libya-yemen-1.344317)
U.K.'s Cameron Condemns Violence in Libya (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476604576158760841702284.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)
US and British Leaders Condemn Violence in Egypt as Political Unrest Continues (http://www.newsonnews.net/politics/7315-us-and-british-leaders-condemn-violence-in-egypt-as-political-unrest-continues.html)
EU chiefs condemn violence in Egypt (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/eu-chiefs-condemn-violence-in-egypt/story-e6frg6so-1226000501639)
Harper ‘vigorously condemns’ violence in Libya (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Cannon+urges+calm+Libyan+protests+swell/4319868/story.html)

Edit - more UN condemnations:
UN's Ban speaks with Gadhafi, condemns violence in Libya (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?ID=209241&R=R1)
UN condemns Libya, Bahrain violence against civilians (http://www.eturbonews.com/21284/un-condemns-libya-bahrain-violence-against-civilians)

What is the UN resolution number?

ER
22-02-2011, 04:28 PM
What is the UN resolution number?
Duggan is clueless about international politics so you don't expect any better! (*) :P
However, you know that you need a General Assembly for that, so stop being a pain you know where! :P
(*) I 'd still move up a couple of States to vote for him if he stood for QLD Parliament though! :P

Ian Murray
22-02-2011, 04:43 PM
What is the UN resolution number?
If you read the reports, you'd see that they quote the UN Secretary-General and UNHCHR. The world listens to them. Nobody pays any attention to the UN General Assembly - surely you know that! :wall:

Igor_Goldenberg
23-02-2011, 08:17 AM
If you read the reports, you'd see that they quote the UN Secretary-General and UNHCHR. The world listens to them. Nobody pays any attention to the UN General Assembly - surely you know that! :wall:
No, I don't know that. However, I take your post as an acknowledgement that UN has been very lax in passing any resolution against Arab states for mass murder, yet eager to pass numerous resolutions condemning Israel (even though Israel never committed anything like that).

Igor_Goldenberg
23-02-2011, 08:20 AM
Duggan is clueless about international politics so you don't expect any better! (*) :P
I was actually replying to Ian, not Howard.


However, you know that you need a General Assembly for that, so stop being a pain you know where! :P
UN didn't have trouble gathering General Assembly to pass resolution condemning Israel for building apartments in it's own capital.


(*) I 'd still move up a couple of States to vote for him if he stood for QLD Parliament though! :P
No arguments there:)

Ian Murray
23-02-2011, 09:03 AM
No, I don't know that. However, I take your post as an acknowledgement that UN has been very lax in passing any resolution against Arab states for mass murder, yet eager to pass numerous resolutions condemning Israel (even though Israel never committed anything like that).
Not the UN in toto, the General Assembly specifically, where every member state has an equal vote when obviously all states are not equal. The third world bloc now outnumbers and outvotes the rest, with plenty of crackpot resolutions.

The Security Council and the high commissions do the real work

Igor_Goldenberg
23-02-2011, 03:25 PM
Not the UN in toto, the General Assembly specifically, where every member state has an equal vote when obviously all states are not equal. The third world bloc now outnumbers and outvotes the rest, with plenty of crackpot resolutions.
Glad we agree on this. Do you agree that resolutions against Israel largely belong to the "crackpot" category


The Security Council and the high commissions do the real work
Not sure about it. How many special meeting did they have to discuss mass murder by Middle East/North African dictatorships? (which was abundant in the last sixty years) And how many meeting did they have to criticise Israel?

Ian Murray
23-02-2011, 05:47 PM
Glad we agree on this. Do you agree that resolutions against Israel largely belong to the "crackpot" category
Lots of them do. I'm not sufficiently interested to read them all, so can't agree or disagree with 'largely'


Not sure about it. How many special meeting did they have to discuss mass murder by Middle East/North African dictatorships? (which was abundant in the last sixty years) And how many meeting did they have to criticise Israel?
I'll leave it to you to research the numbers if you really want to know. The Security Council does review regularly (once or twice a year) UN peacekeeping missions in the Middle East and Lebanon (and other world trouble spots), noting observance or otherwise of the accords by all parties, before recommending to the secretary-general whether or not to maintain operations.



Edit: Don't waste too much time looking for anti-Israel Security Council resolutions. Any proposed would not receive the US vote as a matter of course, and so fail. Similarly Russia would not vote for anti-Arab motions.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-02-2011, 08:11 PM
Edit: Don't waste too much time looking for anti-Israel Security Council resolutions. Any proposed would not receive the US vote as a matter of course, and so fail. Similarly Russia would not vote for anti-Arab motions.
US veto is the only thing that stops anti-Israel resolutions.
I disagree about Russia, they are more or less neutral. China would be more likely to veto anti-Arab motions, but the main thing stopping them is, as you noted earlier, the fact that thugs and dictators constitute a majority block.

Ian Murray
23-02-2011, 10:01 PM
US veto is the only thing that stops anti-Israel resolutions.
I disagree about Russia, they are more or less neutral. China would be more likely to veto anti-Arab motions, but the main thing stopping them is, as you noted earlier, the fact that thugs and dictators constitute a majority block.
You're still confusing the Gneral Assembly with the Security Council. Totally separate entities

Capablanca-Fan
25-02-2011, 05:38 AM
“If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Israeli ambassador Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

Ian Murray
26-02-2011, 10:35 PM
US veto is the only thing that stops anti-Israel resolutions.
I disagree about Russia, they are more or less neutral. China would be more likely to veto anti-Arab motions, but the main thing stopping them is, as you noted earlier, the fact that thugs and dictators constitute a majority block.
I've just noticed the misrepresentation. I said the third world has the majority in the General Assembly. 'Thugs and dictators' you got from Jono, not me. Please be more careful when attributing statements to me.

For your edification, the Security Council has 16 members - there is no majority bloc.

Rincewind
26-02-2011, 11:09 PM
I disagree about Russia, they are more or less neutral.

Much less and than more if you look at the vetos they have used.

For example there was a motion to sanction Mugabe which Russia vetoed. There was a motion to pressure Burma to free political prisoners which Russia vetoed. There was any motion on Kosovo which Russia also put the kibosh on with their power of veto. Certification of election results in Cote d'Ivoire - vetoed by Russia.

They certainly seem to be sticking up for the little guy. Especially when you consider their place on the P5 is not entirely legitimate (Russia <> USSR).

Igor_Goldenberg
27-02-2011, 09:00 AM
I've just noticed the misrepresentation. I said the third world has the majority in the General Assembly. 'Thugs and dictators' you got from Jono, not me. Please be more careful when attributing statements to me.

IMO, most of third world leaders are thugs and dictators.

Ian Murray
27-02-2011, 05:44 PM
As we speak. the Security Council has imposed sanctions against Libya's dictatorial regime. By unanimous vote.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-02-2011, 06:58 PM
As we speak. the Security Council has imposed sanctions against Libya's dictatorial regime. By unanimous vote.
Yes, saw it on TV again. About time!

Kaitlin
27-02-2011, 07:29 PM
:drool: hmmm sweet crude

Ian Murray
27-02-2011, 08:39 PM
Yes, saw it on TV again. About time!
So the UN does act against North African dictators, a scenario you doubted.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-02-2011, 09:58 PM
So the UN does act against North African dictators, a scenario you doubted.
1 resolution against Gaddafi versus umpteen resolutions against Israel is your idea of objectivity and balance?

Ian Murray
27-02-2011, 10:09 PM
1 resolution against Gaddafi versus umpteen resolutions against Israel is your idea of objectivity and balance?
Ignore the General Assembly - it can only talk, not act. When has the UN acted against Israel?

Igor_Goldenberg
01-03-2011, 10:24 AM
Ignore the General Assembly - it can only talk, not act. When has the UN acted against Israel?
It's talking still does a lot of damage. It was used as a justification for constant attacks on Israel.