Words of Confidence from our President

S

SpaceTiger

New member
"I think it is fair to say that I believe we've got a great chance to establish a Palestinian state."

This isn't meant as Bush-bashing, I just thought it was kinda funny. Can't fault him for his honesty, I guess. <img src=smilies/magbiggrin.gif>

<P ID="signature">----
"And dreams may come
That are everlasting
Though all just plastic too..." </P>
 
By the response of the French you’d think the Pope had died. Chirac called the late terrorist-leader a man of “courage and conviction” and said he responded to the death with “emotion”. I know he’s appealing to his highly Muslim constituency of Palestinian-sympathizers (and he’s using vaguely supportive rhetoric to do it), never-the-less, it’s disgraceful. I do hope we can find some peace in that region, and hopefully it comes in the form of a new leader who condemns the terrorist acts against Israel.

<P ID="signature"></P>
 
> Yet, I've not once heard you condemn Israel's wholly
> disproportionate acts of state terrorism. Funny that.
>

Terrorism = acts of violence targetting non-combatant civilians in order to achieve political aims.
Terrorism ≠ trying to take out terrorists who purposefully base their operations in civilian areas, so as to use the surrounding community as human shields.

<P ID="signature"><center>
<a href=http://1001insomniacnights.com><img src=http://pages.nyu.edu/~jc73/misc/1k1IN.gif border=0>
1k1IN:</a><font color=#903030> A Dark Comedy About 2 Roomates</font></center></P>
 
> Terrorism = acts of violence targetting non-combatant
> civilians in order to achieve political aims.

Terrorism = political buzzword with no concrete definition

A word is defined by how people understand it. In my experience, people will call anything terrorism nowadays, as long as they don't like it.

<P ID="signature">----
"And dreams may come
That are everlasting
Though all just plastic too..." </P>
 
> A word is defined by how people understand it. In my
> experience, people will call anything terrorism nowadays, as
> long as they don't like it.

Hmmm... looks like I've been indirectly shot down here. My point is that it is absurd to paint the Isreal/Palestine situation as one between "good guys" and "bad guys". At the risk of repeating myself, we have to remember that since the beginning of the last intafada in 1998, more than three times the amount of Palestinians have been killed by Israel than suicide bombers have killed Israelis. This is quite apart from the routine bulldozing of substantial tracts of Palestinian towns and villages; the erection of the hideously egregious Security Wall and settlements in an effort to establish favourable de facto borders and the denial of any meaningful form of regional autonomy or statehood, particularly taking into account borders and airspace.

It's also misleading to suggest that "terrorist" organisations purposefully base their operations in civilian areas. This ignores completely the will of the people. After Arafat, the second most popular man amongst Palestinians has been found to be Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, founder of the Hamas movement. The third is Marwan Barghouti, leader of the Tanzim armed militia, who is currently in Israeli hands. You just can't separate the "terrorists" from the people there, because if you do so, the prism through which you must view the situation there is lost.

The last thing I would want to do is to suggest that Israel doesn't have a right to self-defence. That would be plainly untrue. Furthermore, I condemn completely any acts of violence on the Palestinian part, especially where they are committed upon civilians. But then, if you can't appreciate the immense frustration from where these violent acts come, you can never hope to play any part in resolving the peace process. This goes for people and States alike.

<P ID="signature"></P>
 
> Hmmm... looks like I've been indirectly shot down here.

That wasn't really the intention, but I can see how you would take it that way. I basically agree with you that we should take a neutral view of the situation, but words like "terrorism" usually just cloud things by bringing up other emotional associations. It's somewhat analogous to debating abortion with "baby-killing." I know you were just responding to Danoz in kind, so that's why I wasn't directing the criticism at you.

<P ID="signature">----
"And dreams may come
That are everlasting
Though all just plastic too..." </P>
 
> It's somewhat analogous to debating
> abortion with "baby-killing."

It's amazing how many debates you can win by bringing baby-killing into the argument though. I've found that as an argumentative tactic, it's beaten only by the technique of comparing those who disagree with you to Hitler.

Those of you who did any form of debating in high school will probably understand what I'm getting at here. To all others, I apologise profusely, and I'll drag my baby-killing behind right out of here. <img src=smilies/upeyes.gif>

<P ID="signature"></P>
 
> Yet, I've not once heard you condemn Israel's wholly
> disproportionate acts of state terrorism. Funny that.

Why don't you tell me, specifically, what actions you condemn and we can discuss those. Because as far as I can see, when somebody bombs thier children Israel doesn't hesitate for a second to assasinate the person who directed it. You have to remember that the goal of the Palestinians was the destruction of the state of Israel, not a coexisting state. And as I recall, Arafat was offered quite a deal towards the end of the Clinton administration that he refused.

<P ID="signature"></P>
 
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Why don't you tell me, specifically, what actions you condemn and we can discuss those. Because as far as I can see, when somebody bombs thier children Israel doesn't hesitate for a second to assasinate the person who directed it. You have to remember that the goal of the Palestinians was the destruction of the state of Israel, not a coexisting state. And as I recall, Arafat was offered quite a deal towards the end of the Clinton administration that he refused.

<hr></blockquote>

With regard to specific acts, look here.

Also, I don't think anyone can speak to the will of "the Palestinians". But the Palestinian leadership, ie Arafat, has acknowledged the right of Israel to exist as a State since the mid-80s. It's true to say, though, that he turned down what seemed to be a pretty good offer back during Clinton's efforts, where he picked up the name of "the man who wouldn't take 'yes' for an answer". But then, I never said he was perfect.

<P ID="signature"></P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by thegodofhellfire on 11/13/04 01:27 PM.</FONT></P>
 
> That wasn't really the intention, but I can see how you
> would take it that way. I basically agree with you that we
> should take a neutral view of the situation, but words like
> "terrorism" usually just cloud things by bringing up other
> emotional associations.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. For my part, I tend not to throw around words like "state terrorism". It was more of a rhetorical thing than anything, drawing direct contrast from Danoz's post. And my last post should be read as a rebuttal to Isildur, not you.

Just for clarification. ;)

<P ID="signature"></P>
 
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

By the response of the French you’d think the Pope had died.

<hr></blockquote>

Now, you've irritated me. Arafat was a leader of his people. If you're gonna say he was 'a terrorist against the US', you need to rethink your statements. He led a group of people, he died. People, granted, his people, respected and loved him. End of story.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Chirac called the late terrorist-leader a man of “courage
and conviction” and said he responded to the death with
“emotion”. I know he’s appealing to his highly Muslim
constituency of Palestinian-sympathizers (and he’s using
vaguely supportive rhetoric to do it), never-the-less, it’s
disgraceful. I do hope we can find some peace in that
region, and hopefully it comes in the form of a new leader
who condemns the terrorist acts against Israel.

<hr></blockquote>

You sound like McCarthy. Looking for a commie in every movie, house or family. You're reading wayyyyy to much into what was said. Or you're freaking paranoid..


<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Symbiosis..just when you thought the woods were safe...</P>
 
> Why don't you tell me, specifically, what actions you
> condemn and we can discuss those.

I condemn Israeli tanks opening fire on children 9-12 years old throwing rocks and Israeli bulldozers making runs at them for the same.

I condemn Israeli soldiers murdering international journalists filming in palestinian neighbourhoods, waving white flags, with "TV" emblazoned on their chests and backs.

These things have been recorded on film.

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/>
button_raven2.jpg
</a></center></P>
 
> By the response of the French you’d think the Pope had died.

If the Pope died I'd steal his hat when no one was looking.

<P ID="signature">Prayer is not an old woman's idle amusement. Properly understood and applied, it is the most potent instrument of action.
-Mahatma Gandhi</P>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom