Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on April 01, 2003, 04:01:44 am
-
[q]After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.
And, now that Bush is taking action to bring these people to justice, we have opponents charging him with being a war monger...
AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question.
There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why was it that the Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama bin Laden?
THINK ABOUT IT!
It is a strange turn of events.
Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir.
Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written.
This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to recall anything about past events while under oath!
Please forward this to as many people as you can!
We don't want Hillary to even THINK of running for President.
Remember:
The Alamo
Pearl Harbor
9-11-01
The Clinton Years
All Truly American Disasters!!![/q]
-
hmmm, the DOES make you think huh? can't think of a plausable answer..except
They KNOW where to find bill gates...
-
What a load of rubbish. Bush's back is really up against the wall if his supporters have to start having a go at Clinton using this rubbish as a reason.
If Bush was a warmonger for going in to Afghanistan after Sept 11th then what would Clinton have been for doing it before?
After September 11th large parts of the nation were behind going to war to get the ****** who did that to them. If Bush couldn`t get the support to go into Iraq how on Earth does anyone with half a brain expect Clinton to have got the support to go into Afghanistan?
If you want to have a go at Clinton go ahead, he's no friend of mine but also remember than it was the republicans who took Osama Bin Laden from Saudi Arabia and got him interested in Afghanistan and then dumped him as soon as they`d achieved their goal of causing problems for the soviets.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What a load of rubbish. Bush's back is really up against the wall if his supporters have to start having a go at Clinton using this rubbish as a reason.
If Bush was a warmonger for going in to Afghanistan after Sept 11th then what would Clinton have been for doing it before?
After September 11th large parts of the nation were behind going to war to get the ****** who did that to them. If Bush couldn`t get the support to go into Iraq how on Earth does anyone with half a brain expect Clinton to have got the support to go into Afghanistan?
If you want to have a go at Clinton go ahead, he's no friend of mine but also remember than it was the republicans who took Osama Bin Laden from Saudi Arabia and got him interested in Afghanistan and then dumped him as soon as they`d achieved their goal of causing problems for the soviets.
I see your point, but you're forgetting something. Did Clinton, after promising to bring justice to those responsible for {fill in the blank here}, get any flak? No. But Bush, actually keeping his word and acting upon his promises, gets flak - and for retaliating to something several orders of magnitude worse/greater than what Clinton dealt with (or didn't deal with, as the case may be).
So what is more screwed? Bush, for acting on something quite serious, or the world, for condemning him for it?
-
i see your point in all of this sandwich, all i can see on tv, is all those peace activists campaigning against the war in iraq for the good of the civilians without fully realising what type of person saddam really is... he idolizes Stalin for god's sake!
the reason most of the people of iraq support saddam is because they fear him... he should not be underestimated.
he plans the make the battle for baghdad (sp?) another stalingrad..
-
That's a completely different point though from basically blaming Clinton for 9/11.
I was fully behind Bush when it came to what went on in Afghanistan. As far as I was concerned even if they wiped out the Taliban and put a new dictatorship in their place it would be in improvement cause at least the new guys would let people fly kites or shave.
The reason why Bush gets flak now is because the attack on Iraq has very little to do with 9/11. If you're really worried about terrorism Syria and Iran are far worse. If you worried about a mad man with nuclear weapons then North Korea is far scarier.
The fact is that going after Iraq makes Bush look like he is trying to finish off his father's unfinished business and while I`m fairly ambivalent about the war in Iraq I think that Bush deserves every bit of flak he gets since he couldn`t give a single good reason why Iraq was top of his list rather than one of the three counties I`ve mentioned.
Originally posted by Turnsky
i see your point in all of this sandwich, all i can see on tv, is all those peace activists campaigning against the war in iraq for the good of the civilians without fully realising what type of person saddam really is... he idolizes Stalin for god's sake!
Looks like him too. :D Am I the only person who's ever noticed that those two look like they are related?
-
yeah, north korea is a tad scary, but don't forget.. the US has more than enough nukes to blast North korea into oblivion in retaliation for any attack on it's soil or it's allies. (but at what cost?)
BTW: I forgot to mention, Saddam has two idols, not one, Stalin and hitler... makes you think what kind of person he is...
-
Originally posted by karajorma
The reason why Bush gets flak now is because the attack on Iraq has very little to do with 9/11.
Ahh, but why does everything have to do with 9/11? In my mind, 9/11 woke the part of the world up that was willing to admit they had been sleeping to the fact that terrorisim is a danger, especially when terrorist groups are being harbored and/or supported by sovreign nations. Afganistan was both harboring and supporting terror, while Iraq was/is mainly supporting. But the other point people fail to realize is that the UN has been going on about Iraq's non-compliance for 12+ years, without doing a thing about it.
But I don't get why people see a connection between the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars in that they see GW as finishing what his pap started. His father was responding to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, helping - along with a whole bunch of other nations - the Iraqi military from another nation.
Bush Jr. is going after a regieme headed by a madman who hasn't hesitated at gassing his own people, who is on the brink of developing WMD's (if he hasn't already), who supports terrorisim the world over, and who has been brilliantly defying the UN for over a decade.
And IIRC, Bush already mentioned that Syria or Iran is next. I havemn't kept up on the situation in North Korea, so I don't know diddley-squat about that, though.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Afganistan was both harboring and supporting terror, while Iraq was/is mainly supporting.
Bullcrap. There's no proof whatsoever that Iraq is somehow supporting terrorism. Fundamentalists like Bin Laden and co hate "secular" arab leaders like Saddam.
-
Originally posted by Pera
Bullcrap. There's no proof whatsoever that Iraq is somehow supporting terrorism. Fundamentalists like Bin Laden and co hate "secular" arab leaders like Saddam.
I know you're not going to consider this "proof", but believe it or not, Israel isn't in the habit of lying outright.
http://www.idf.il/iraq/english/default.stm
More specifically, here: http://www.idf.il/iraq/english/info13.stm
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
but believe it or not, Israel isn't in the habit of lying outright.
I find that very hard to believe. Governments who are practically at war don't have the habit of being perfectly objective about the other side.
But assuming all that's said there is true, the only thing I saw even remotely linking Iraq to "terrorist activity", is them giving funds to families of Palestine suicide bombers. And since I can't downright consider the palestine suicide bombers as terrorists(at least any more than IDF), that isn't much.
What do the Palestinian extremists have to do with Al Quaida anyway? I thought we were talking about terrorist who were attacking US, not Israel.
-
I am extremely dubious that Saddam would support terrorism other than what he carries out himself. Remember that he rules by fear - if there was no fear, then Saddam would be nothing. He's not stupid - he knows that with this method of governing a country, if he gave any support to terrorists his ass would be blown to kingdom come by them before he knew what was happening.
-
you know what us biggest faliure is CIA
exaple : killed salvador aliende installed pinochett
btw we where all behind taking out afganistan besides that fact that usa payd the taliban a few million bucks in aid a bit before wtc distaster and after that war ther growing opium again :)
but bashing clinton ? meh he was a better president for the american people than bush so far(note i sayd so far)
-
Originally posted by Pera
And since I can't downright consider the palestine suicide bombers as terrorists(at least any more than IDF), that isn't much.
Please explain this point of view; from ground zero here, I find it impossible to comprehend. How are the suicide bombers being portrayed in your country so that they're not considered to be terrorists any more than the IDF are "terrorists"? And how do they portray the IDF, for that matter?
-
This thread looks hilarious; everyone is a "she." :D I do agree that Clinton was mediocre when it came to foreign policy though.
Bullcrap. There's no proof whatsoever that Iraq is somehow supporting terrorism. Fundamentalists like Bin Laden and co hate "secular" arab leaders like Saddam.
See the Iraq thread for some simple "proof." :D
Looks like her too. Am I the only person who's ever noticed that those two look like they are related
yeah, I saw that too; there is certainly an uncanny resemblance between them, as Hussein looks like a slightly chubbier Stalin. :D
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
How are the suicide bombers being portrayed in your country...
Nice way of saying it. We just tried to dismiss your opinion by making it look like I was simply misinformed by one-sided propaganda.
But to explain your opinion quickly: The Palestinians have just as much right for your piece of land as the Israeli have. I don't consider a suicide bomber blowing up a bus full of civilians any worse than IDF flattening a block of buildings with tanks as a "retaliation" against "terrorist hideouts". The IDF can portray the killed civilians as "collateral damage", but they know very well what they are doing. Killing civilians on purpose is terrorism, no matter who does it, nor in what way.
To we it naturally seems I'm for Palestinians and against Israel and I understand that. It's nothing personal really, I'm not saying that we are a child killing kitten-eating monster just because we work in the IDF. You're simply doing what we think is right. Just like them.
Edit: :nervous: :wtf: Why does your first paragraph look like that? I can't even edit it. Just replace "We" with we and "your" with my.
Double edit: Goddamn. The sickest April fool joke ever. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ahh, but why does everything have to do with 9/11? In your mind, 9/11 woke the part of the world up that was willing to admit they had been sleeping to the fact that terrorisim is a danger, especially when terrorist groups are being harbored and/or supported by sovreign nations. Afganistan was both harboring and supporting terror, while Iraq was/is mainly supporting. But the other point people fail to realize is that the UN has been going on about Iraq's non-compliance for 12+ years, without doing a thing about it.
But I don't get why people see a connection between the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars in that they see GW as finishing what his pap started. Her father was responding to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, helping - along with a whole bunch of other nations - the Iraqi military from another nation.
Bush Jr. is going after a regieme headed by a madman who hasn't hesitated at gassing his own people, who is on the brink of developing WMD's (if she hasn't already), who supports terrorisim the world over, and who has been brilliantly defying the UN for over a decade.
And IIRC, Bush already mentioned that Syria or Iran is next. I havemn't kept up on the situation in North Korea, so I don't know diddley-squat about that, though.
Lets face facts. The war in Iraq would not be currently going on if it wasn`t for 9/11. Everyone was perfectly happy to leave Saddam alone until that happened.
And while Saddam may be an evil man there are lots of evil men in the world and I don`t see many of them being punished.
If Bush really wants to go after evil he should shoot his own vice president first for being involved in Savimbi's diamond smuggling in Angola even after the whole of Africa declared that they wanted Savimbi put on trial for war crimes.
Besides even if Bush has said that Iran or Syria is next I want to know why they weren't first. I want to know why North Korea who are far closer to having the bomb isn`t being dealt with first. If you remember when Bush's big problem with WMD was getting the missile shield in place it was North Korea that was always mentioned. Now all of a sudden they are being ignored even though they are far more of a direct threat to both the US.
Explain that one to me and then you can say that Bush hasn't deserved every bit of flak he got.
-
At least for North Korea, it is because they are more powerful and harder to deal with, so it is better to get the easier guys out the way first while they are still weak. Also, Bush is not so much after Hussein because he is an "evil man," but just that he is opposed to the US, which is all that matters here.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
At least for North Korea, it is because they are more powerful and harder to deal with, so it is better to get the easier guys out the way first while they are still weak. Also, Bush is not so much after Hussein because she is an "evil man," but just that she is opposed to the US, which is all that matters here.
Which is why you have to deal with North Korea now. If you wait too long to get at them they'll have the bomb and then you`re stuck.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Besides even if Bush has said that Iran or Syria is next I want to know why they weren't first. I want to know why North Korea who are far closer to having the bomb isn`t being dealt with first. If we remember when Bush's big problem with WMD was getting the missile shield in place it was North Korea that was always mentioned. Now all of a sudden they are being ignored even though they are far more of a direct threat to both the US.
Explain that one to me and then we can say that Bush hasn't deserved every bit of flak she got.
:rolleyes: No matter who Bush would have gone after, there would have been people asking why she didn't go after that threat first.
And about N.K., again, I haven't read up on that issue at all.
Originally posted by Pera
Nice way of saying it. We just tried to dismiss your opinion by making it look like I was simply misinformed by one-sided propaganda.
But to explain your opinion quickly: The Palestinians have just as much right for your piece of land as the Israeli have. I don't consider a suicide bomber blowing up a bus full of civilians any worse than IDF flattening a block of buildings with tanks as a "retaliation" against "terrorist hideouts". The IDF can portray the killed civilians as "collateral damage", but they know very well what they are doing. Killing civilians on purpose is terrorism, no matter who does it, nor in what way.
To we it naturally seems I'm for Palestinians and against Israel and I understand that. It's nothing personal really, I'm not saying that we are a child killing kitten-eating monster just because we work in the IDF. You're simply doing what we think is right. Just like them.
Again, that is how you see the "facts" as portrayed by the media. Try and understand that the media is not balanced. Not just about Israel and the Palestinians, but about virtually anything. On the other hand, I've been there - me, personally.
The IDF operates in a manner that risks the lives of its soldiers so as not to cause undue casualties. I risked my life going into Jenin, house-to-house, searching for terrorists, instead of watching from the comfort of my living room as jets tossed bombs - even "precision" bombs - on suspected terrorist hideouts.
And pardon me, but how dare you compare a suicide bomber blowing himself and 15 others up in a pizza parlor in the middle of Jerusalem to the IDF razing a few unoccupied buildings? Or is it that the world media portrays it as if we were knocking houses down on top of women and children left and right, with absolutely no warning?
Look at the ratio of deaths of women and children. Israeli women and children make up around half of the deaths, while the Palestinian women and children barely make up a few percentages (I'll find the exact numbers later). Anybody care to take a guess as to why that is, or what it means? :rolleyes:
Look, all I'm trying to say is that everyone should be aware that the media does distort things, especially about this area of the world, and that there is always another side of the coin. Sorry if I went off the deep end, there, Pera.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Try and understand that the media is not balanced. Not just about Israel and the Palestinians, but about virtually anything. On the other hand, I've been there - me, personally.
True, but you take a side in this situation. Your opinion is simply too biased for me to believe, since it's personal to you.
there is always another side of the coin.
Which is pretty much what I tried to point out.
Sorry if I went off the deep end, there, Pera.
I think we both went off the topic.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
:rolleyes: No matter who Bush would have gone after, there would have been people asking why she didn't go after that threat first.
And about N.K., again, I haven't read up on that issue at all.
Maybe you should before you roll your eyes at me.
It's pretty obvious that a country which has admitted that it is developing nuclear weapons is a far bigger danger than one which denies it for whom you can find no proof whatsoever of nuclear research.
North Korea is definately working on missiles with which it can launch nukes. It already has the range to shoot missles over japan into the sea (something it has actually done for no good reason). Saddam on the other hand has missiles with a range of a 100 miles or so and no proof whatsoever of attempts to make nukes.
Anyone who tells you that NK isn`t the bigger threat is either an idiot or has access to information that hasn't been made public.
-
Originally posted by Pera
True, but you take a side in this situation. Your opinion is simply too biased for me to believe, since it's personal to you.
Ok, what part of what I said do you consider to be biased so much that it's unbelievable?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ok, what part of what I said do we consider to be biased so much that it's unbelievable?
"The IDF operates in a manner that risks the lives of its soldiers so as not to cause undue casualties"
"IDF razing a few unoccupied buildings"
"while the Palestinian women and children barely make up a few percentages " <--- Does that mean killing men is not a problem?
I can't tell if those are true or not, but as an Israeli you can't say anything else than that. You wouldn't say anything negative about IDF and Isreali activities even if you could.
But mainly it's your attitude that's biased. I simply don't think you have any right to treat the Palestinians the way (_I have the impression_) you do. You seem to think you have, and I can't undestand that.
I really don't get it why you keep on taking this so personally. This debate began when I claimed that there is no proof Iraq is supporting terrorism, and when you brought in the Palestinians I tried to point out that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
And now you're telling me that there's always another side of a coin. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I see your point, but you're forgetting something. Did Clinton, after promising to bring justice to those responsible for {fill in the blank here}, get any flak? No. But Bush, actually keeping his word and acting upon his promises, gets flak - and for retaliating to something several orders of magnitude worse/greater than what Clinton dealt with (or didn't deal with, as the case may be).
So what is more screwed? Bush, for acting on something quite serious, or the world, for condemning his for it?
Don't forget that during the Clinton administration CIA operations were at an all-time high against Al-Qaeda. :p The question isn't how Clinton did not keep his promise, but why Bush was asleep at the switch when so many people had an eye on Bin Laden. (Yes, I'm referring to how the CIA and FBI both had pieces of the puzzle, and why "Homeland Security" [I smell facism in the air...] is another level of beaurocracy, not security)
On the topic of Palestine, it's sadly something that's going to be arround for a long time. Societies have a bad habit of founding new nations where people already live. (Let's look at what happened when the American colonies were founded, hrrrm?) This adds in the complication that Israel is home to both the more recent Israelis and the Palestinians who now after several generations both have legitimate claim to live in their homes.
Effectively, our generation is being screwed over thanks to poor decisions made out of convenience at the end of World War II and during the Cold War. :p
As an answer to your rhetorical question. Israel has UN sanctions against it, do you want us to invade you because of not upholding a resolution passed against you? It is a "serious issue" just as Iraq is, and the hundreds of other petty dictators in Africa and Asia that have done inhumane acts just as bad if not worse then Saddam.
-
Originally posted by Pera
"The IDF operates in a manner that risks the lives of its soldiers so as not to cause undue casualties"
By this I mean we went from house to house, searching for our target, not just carpet bombing the whole area. We lost 13 reservists in an ambush in the middle of the Jenin refugee camp because of this modus operandi.
"IDF razing a few unoccupied buildings"
These buildings range from explosives laboratories to the homes of suicide bombers. Since the families of suicide bombers would receive enormous monetary compensation for their sacrifice, which went into glamorizing the house, for one, the preventive medicine is to negate that monetary compensation. They must realize that they cannot blow up civillians without any reaction.
"while the Palestinian women and children barely make up a few percentages " <--- Does that mean killing men is not a problem?
No, it means that while the target of Palestinian attacks is the general Israeli public, the target of Israeli attacks is against the terrorist groups, which are composed primarily of men.
I can't tell if those are true or not, but as an Israeli we can't say anything else than that. We wouldn't say anything negative about IDF and Isreali activities even if we could.
Oh? I could say that I wish we had carpet-bombed the places where the terrorist hideouts are, so that I didn't have to risk my life. They don't seem to care that much about the lives of their own women and children, considering that they locate their terrorist activities among them - why should we care?
But I don't - I realize the importance of being morally in the right, so to speak - shame the world doesn't seem to put as much a value on it as we do.
-
Originally posted by Ace
This adds in the complication that Israel is home to both the more recent Israelis and the Palestinians who now after several generations both have legitimate claim to live in their homes.
"...more recent Israelis..."?? Got mixed up there, methinks.
Originally posted by Ace
As an answer to your rhetorical question. Israel has UN sanctions against it, do we want us to invade we because of not upholding a resolution passed against you? It is a "serious issue" just as Iraq is, and the hundreds of other petty dictators in Africa and Asia that have done inhumane acts just as bad if not worse then Saddam.
Read this article, it's quite informative on the subject of this wonderfully catch-all phrase, "UN Resolution". http://www.cicweb.ca/settingrecordstraight/UN/index.shtml
-
Actually, there's a good deal of hard evidence that the Israelis bulldozed occupied buildings, opened fire on crowds of unarmed Palestinian civilians, and all the rest. But that's neither here nor there, and in war even the "facts" are mutable.
But there's no evidence at all that Saddam supports terrorism, beyond providing a sort of life-insurance policy for Palestinian suicide bombers, which is far from inducement to take up that career in and of itself. There's some circumstantial evidence that the Kurds are all over that As-Qaeda action, or at least used to be as a way of dealing with Saddam, but they're ostensibly our friends (in that they don't complain too much when we **** them over for no readily apparent reason), so that's whitewashed over.
There's little evidence that the MDWs exist. She probably has them, but lack of evidence is not hard evidence, and in fact there was a degree of evidence that the MDWs had been neutralized- those empty warheads that the news media started screeching about as "proof"? Those were the sorts of things the inspectors were supposed to find, they were evidence against the US case. Not only are there worse violators, but there are better ways of dealing with a suspected violator than becoming some kind of mutant cowboy vigilante.
Saddam has nothing to do with al-Qaeda or terrorism, poses an unlikely threat at best, and there is nobody being "brought to justice". The two affairs are utterly independent- this is simply a case of Bush realizing election time's comin' up, and that wascally Bin Laden is nowhere to be found, soo... "Hey! Look here, guys! He's just as good!"
And of course now that Iraqi army is shocking the world by actually resisting being shot at (horrors!), that's turning out to not be such a hot idea either. Still enough to get Bush reelected, but probably not enough to give his the carte blanche she was so obviously hoping for.
And Sandwich: I bet if we fitted those Palestinian militant groups with tanks, bombs, guns and helicopters, so that a direct conflict with the IDF wouldn't be outright suicide, you'd see a lot fewer civilian casualties. Simple fact of war, dude- people don't stand in front of your guns and dance around just because it's "fair" in the superior force's book.
Also, historical justification is, bar none, the lamest excuse for war ever made. It's the same reason Saddam invaded Kuwait, Hitler Poland, Stalin and Kruzchev damn near everything...
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
But I don't - I realize the importance of being morally in the right, so to speak - shame the world doesn't seem to put as much a value on it as we do.
Whatever. Good luck trying to cure a disease by treating the symptoms.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Actually, there's a good deal of hard evidence that the Israelis bulldozed occupied buildings, opened fire on crowds of unarmed Palestinian civilians, and all the rest. But that's neither here nor there, and in war even the "facts" are mutable.
Let's see this evidence.
Originally posted by Stryke 9
But there's no evidence at all that Saddam supports terrorism, beyond providing a sort of life-insurance policy for Palestinian suicide bombers, which is far from inducement to take up that career in and of itself.
This "life-insurance policy" (does anyone else find that mildly ironic?) as we call it is plenty of incentive to the families - these suicide bombers, who could otherwise work to help support their families, remove themselves from the work pool, leaving behind a family to fend for themselves. So naturally if they had enough money to keep them in good shape it'd be just that much easier.
I'm not saying that this is the primary reason, but it is a factor.
Originally posted by Stryke 9
And Sandwich: I bet if we fitted those Palestinian militant groups with tanks, bombs, guns and helicopters, so that a direct conflict with the IDF wouldn't be outright suicide, you'd see a lot fewer civilian casualties. Simple fact of war, dude- people don't stand in front of your guns and dance around just because it's "fair" in the superior force's book.
Agreed - since they have taken the path of violence, there's not much they can really do against a standing army (though they have managed to blow apart 3-4 of our tanks with ~100kg of explosives buried underground). They have no other violent alternative - not that blowing themselves and us up is getting them what they claim to be fighting for, though. :doubt:
Originally posted by Pera
Good luck trying to cure a disease by treating the symptoms.
Yes, well I wish the cause of the disease would up and leave, but Arafat seems to be in this for better or for worse, despite what he's leading his people through. :sigh:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
not that blowing themselves and us up is getting them what they claim to be fighting for, though. :doubt:
Not like turning Jenin into a pile of rubble has noticeably reduced the attacks either. Total war isn't about solving problems, it's about two groups that hate each other playing Hatfields and McCoys.
Hell, if anyone really wanted this settled they wouldn't have welshed on the Oslo accord- the fact that both sides did almost instantly speaks louder than any blowhard speech expressing fine sentiments about peace
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Yes, well I wish the cause of the disease would up and leave, but Arafat seems to be in this for better or for worse, despite what he's leading his people through. :sigh:
Kick out Sharon while you`re at it. Considering he's the direct cause of the latest round of problems. Things looked like they were going to get better until the prick went up onto a sacred Islamic site dispite warnings that it would cause unrest.
And how did you reward this troublemaker for kicking off a fresh round of violence and hatred? You elected him ruler of your country.
Before claiming that the palastinians are the sole cause of your problems it might be an idea to start closer to home.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
"...more recent Israelis..."?? Got mixed up there, methinks.
Read this article, it's quite informative on the subject of this wonderfully catch-all phrase, "UN Resolution". http://www.cicweb.ca/settingrecordstraight/UN/index.shtml
More recent Israelis, as in those of European descent who moved to Israel at the end of World War II.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Not like turning Jenin into a pile of rubble has noticeably reduced the attacks either. Total war isn't about solving problems, it's about two groups that hate each other playing Hatfields and McCoys.
Not like we actually turned it into a pile of rubble, either. That was an area smaller than a city block, IIRC.
And I don't know where you get your stats, but it did immensly reduce the number of attacks.
(http://www.idf.il/daily_statistics/english/4.gif)
Notice the blue bars - those represent the terrorist attacks inside the West Bank, aka Judea and Samaria. That's where Jenin and Ramallah are located. Notice how there is a drastic reduction in incidents from Mar 2002 on, which is the month I was in Jenin.
Originally posted by karajorma
Kick out Sharon while you`re at it. Considering he's the direct cause of the latest round of problems. Things looked like they were going to get better until the prick went up onto a sacred Islamic site dispite warnings that it would cause unrest.
Oh, please. The Temple Mount is sacred to all 3 major religons, first of all. Second, Jews have been going up there for decades. Attempting to somehow blame the current round of violence on Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount is nothing more than proof of either ignorance or gullibility, perhaps both. Just don't.
Originally posted by Ace
More recent Israelis, as in those of European descent who moved to Israel at the end of World War II.
As opposed to the Jews that have been in the area for thousands of years, right? :rolleyes:
-
I take it they have metal detectors in the malls?
The most effective way to stop terrorism is to target its source: hatred.
-
Vega: Yeah, that's a great idea. Go do it.:p
I believe I've said all I need to about expressing nice sentiments about war and killing, when that does exactly ****.
Sandwich: if ya look at the aerial pictures taken after the bulldozing, what you've got there is either
1. two-man tents instead of houses
2. Quite a bit bigger than a city block
And- well, I guess it worked, then. Though evidently the only really dramatic change was in the West Bank, while Jenin is in Gaza... odd.
And at any rate, while Sharon did technically have a right of access to the Temple Mount, when he went there it was clearly intended as a belligerent act- never mind that it wasn't going to the Mount itself that caused the uproar, it was the fact that he used the Arab entrance to it, if my memory serves me right.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Don't forget that during the Clinton administration CIA operations were at an all-time high against Al-Qaeda. :p The question isn't how Clinton did not keep his promise, but why Bush was asleep at the switch when so many people had an eye on Bin Laden. (Yes, I'm referring to how the CIA and FBI both had pieces of the puzzle, and why "Homeland Security" [I smell facism in the air...] is another level of beaurocracy, not security)
:lol:
It's always the CIA's fault. The American Presidential Administration has been saved many a time by the CIA's scapegoating.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Oh, please. The Temple Mount is sacred to all 3 major religons, first of all. Second, Jews have been going up there for decades. Attempting to somehow blame the current round of violence on Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount is nothing more than proof of either ignorance or gullibility, perhaps both. Just don't.
1) Sharon goes to Temple Mount in a way that inflames the Palestinians. If Jews have been going up there for years and having no effect why were there such complaints about this particular visit?
2) Palestinian tensions rise
3) Israeli troops shoot dead an unarmed 13 year old boy on the way to a car rally. That pretty much ends the peace process.
Maybe it's because I listen to the liberal media (http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/28/jerusalem.violence.02/) but considering the fact that Israels press was voted 97th in the world in terms of how much freedom their press has I wouldn`t put much stock in what you see on TV or read in the papers in Israel either.
Sharon didn`t go to Temple Mount to deliver a message of peace or any of that crap. He went there to prove that he was a hardliner and that was done at a time when the Middle East definately didn`t need yet another hardliner.
As Pera said Sharon is trying to treat a disease by treating the symptoms. Under Sharon support for Hamas and other hardline palestinian groups has increased until virtually every palestinian supports them. Considering that before Sharon came to power most of them didn`t it's pretty obvious that Sharon has done nothing but fan the flames.
You can`t get rid of terrorism by simply flattening buildings. Even in Iraq the US are trying very hard to "win hearts and minds" Sharon doesn`t care about that sort of thing. He thinks you can win by simply upping the level of violence. That's idiotic and as someone who has been there you really should know that it doesn`t work.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
I take it they have metal detectors in the malls?
The most effective way to stop terrorism is to target its source: hatred.
Yes, metal detectors at every entrance, armed guards, etc. When I visit in the US and just walk into a mall w/o being checked for bombs or weaponry, I feel really really unsafe for some reason. :nervous:
And about the source being hatred... while I agree 100%, I'm not going to get into that - again.
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Sandwich: if ya look at the aerial pictures taken after the bulldozing, what you've got there is either
1. two-man tents instead of houses
2. Quite a bit bigger than a city block
Ok, let's use precise terms here. The area that was wiped out and flattened was approximately 100x100 meters:
(http://www.idf.il/newsite/english/map_jenin.jpg)
M'kay? Call it smaller than a city block, call it bigger than one - it really doesn't matter: 100x100 meters. And if someone would like to claim that other news sources reported differently, then I'd respond by asking for an aerial picture of the city-wide devestation the IDF wrought upon Jenin, not just some reporters ground-based opinion. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Stryke 9
And- well, I guess it worked, then. Though evidently the only really dramatic change was in the West Bank, while Jenin is in Gaza... odd.
No, don't know where you got that, maybe I mistyped something. Jenin is in Samaria, which - along with Judea, is also known as the West Bank ("west" referring to the orientation of the area from the river Jordan - don't ask me why, though, since it occupies the eastern core of Israel).
Originally posted by Stryke 9
And at any rate, while Sharon did technically have a right of access to the Temple Mount, when he went there it was clearly intended as a belligerent act- never mind that it wasn't going to the Mount itself that caused the uproar, it was the fact that he used the Arab entrance to it, if my memory serves me right.
Not even CNN reported that. Look at the article Karajorma linked to:
[q]Sharon, leader of the hard-line opposition party Likud, said he had gone to the site with a message of peace.
"I believe that we can live together with the Palestinians," Sharon said. "I came here to the holiest place of the Jewish people in order to see what happens here and really to have the feeling of how we need to move forward. There was no provocation here."
But Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi said Sharon had gone to the site because he fears former Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu will wrest control of the right-wing party from him. The visit, Ashrawi said, was "a very cynical and willful manipulation of an extremely volatile situation."[/q]
At the worst, you have: "...because he fears former Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu will wrest control of the right-wing party from him." What does that have to do with the price of tea in either China or Islamic holy sites?
And I didn't hear that aspect of which entrance he used, although IIRC there might only be one entrance to the Mount... I may be completely wrong about that, though.
Originally posted by karajorma
1) Sharon goes to Temple Mount in a way that inflames the Palestinians. If Jews have been going up there for years and having no effect why were there such complaints about this particular visit?
You tell me. I call it an excuse, and a childish one, at that.
Originally posted by karajorma
3) Israeli troops shoot dead an unarmed 13 year old boy on the way to a car rally. That pretty much ends the peace process.
Link? Proof? If you're talking about the famous Mohammed al-Dura, here's a few links that may interest you. The first one, while quite stocked with emotional "pity us / hate them" propoganda on the side of the Jews, does present some hard evidence. And the second, well... read for yourself.
http://masada2000.org/al-dura.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31363
Originally posted by karajorma
Maybe it's because I listen to the liberal media (http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/28/jerusalem.violence.02/) but considering the fact that Israels press was voted 97th in the world in terms of how much freedom their press has I wouldn`t put much stock in what you see on TV or read in the papers in Israel either.
Really? I'd like to see that vote, please. Before I do, though, I do know there is a lot of security-related scoops that the press aren't given the go-ahead to release at the time - for obvious security reasons. Just like now the US has that 4-hour delay on all reports leaving Iraq (or at least they had, as of the start of Op. Shock & Awe).
Originally posted by karajorma
Sharon didn`t go to Temple Mount to deliver a message of peace or any of that crap. He went there to prove that he was a hardliner and that was done at a time when the Middle East definately didn`t need yet another hardliner.
See my response above - not even CNN said that.
Originally posted by karajorma
You can`t get rid of terrorism by simply flattening buildings. Even in Iraq the US are trying very hard to "win hearts and minds" Sharon doesn`t care about that sort of thing. He thinks you can win by simply upping the level of violence. That's idiotic and as someone who has been there you really should know that it doesn`t work.
Not even by "simply flattening buildings" that happen to be explosives laboratories? Huh - could've fooled me.
But hey, I'm all for imitating what the US is doing in Iraq - that's actually a great idea. Remove the dude in power through military force and install a governing body friendly to yourself. That's an "ideal" situation - except for the fact that if we did that, the world would clamp down on us - hard. They disapproved of the US's actions strongly enough as it is. Isael would get mashed by international pressure - including, most likely, pressure from the US themselves. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
You tell me. I call it an excuse, and a childish one, at that.
I don`t think so. Everyone knows that Sharon going to Temple Mount would cause problems. Even the CNN report seems to agree with that. If it wouldn`t have made Sharon look like a hardliner I doubt he would have done it.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Link? Proof? If you're talking about the famous Mohammed al-Dura, here's a few links that may interest you. The first one, while quite stocked with emotional "pity us / hate them" propoganda on the side of the Jews, does present some hard evidence. And the second, well... read for yourself.
http://masada2000.org/al-dura.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31363
Now that is interesting. I`ll have to read that in more detail later.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Really? I'd like to see that vote, please. Before I do, though, I do know there is a lot of security-related scoops that the press aren't given the go-ahead to release at the time - for obvious security reasons. Just like now the US has that 4-hour delay on all reports leaving Iraq (or at least they had, as of the start of Op. Shock & Awe).
Nope that wasn`t the problem. As you say security related issues can`t be released. Heres the quote
The attitude of Israel (92nd) towards press freedom is ambivalent. Despite strong pressure on state-owned TV and radio, the government respects the local media's freedom of expression. However, in the West Bank and Gaza, Reporters Without Borders has recorded a large number of violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which guarantees press freedom and which Israel has signed. Since the start of the Israeli army's incursions into Palestinian towns and cities in March 2002, very many journalists have been roughed up, threatened, arrested, banned from moving around, targeted by gunfire, wounded or injured, had their press cards withdrawn or been deported.
The report comes from a worldwide survey by Reporters Sans Frontiers and you can read about it in more detail onthis page (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=4116&var_recherche=ranking)
Originally posted by Sandwich
Not even by "simply flattening buildings" that happen to be explosives laboratories? Huh - could've fooled me.
Nope. Not even then. Flatten all the buildings you want you`ll never have peace, you`ll just make people hate you more.
If you feel the need to flatten buildings go ahead but that can`t be all you do. At the moment that is the sole responce of the Israeli government and it's plain to see that it doesn`t work. Instead look at Northern Ireland where two sides who hate each other have been made to sit down and talk. That's what you need to do and when Israel was doing that it did make things better. Flattening buildings alone has no effect.
Originally posted by Sandwich
But hey, I'm all for imitating what the US is doing in Iraq - that's actually a great idea. Remove the dude in power through military force and install a governing body friendly to yourself. That's an "ideal" situation - except for the fact that if we did that, the world would clamp down on us - hard. They disapproved of the US's actions strongly enough as it is. Isael would get mashed by international pressure - including, most likely, pressure from the US themselves. :rolleyes:
It wouldn`t work. The difference is that Saddams own people hate him. He rules through fear and terror. The same thing was going on in Afghanistan with the Taliban. A dictator who rules through fear can easily be deposed in that manner.
Arafat on the other hand isn`t percieved that way by the public. If you depose him and set up a government by election you`ll simply get someone even more hardline than he is. If you simply install someone you like You'll soon find that the Palestinians don`t respect them and view them as your puppets. Most likely anyone you put in place would be assassinated before the end of the year.
The problem is that Israel view this as a problem that can be solved by force and it isn`t. Yes you need to use force to keep the terrorists at bay but you can`t solve this problem through military channels alone. While you continue to think you can you`ll never have peace.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I don`t think so. Everyone knows that Sharon going to Temple Mount would cause problems. Even the CNN report seems to agree with that. If it wouldn`t have made Sharon look like a hardliner I doubt he would have done it.
You may not think so, but an excuse it was. Besides, where is it written that only Moslems can access the Temple Mount without fear of causing an uproar?
And I'm a bit blurry on the definition of this term "hardliner". Can we get a definition here?
Originally posted by karajorma
Now that is interesting. I`ll have to read that in more detail later.
That kind of stuff is what I mean when talking about media slant and mis-portrayal. The incident itself made headline news the world over - and rightly so. But once the investigation came to a close and reached the conclusion it reached, how many of those news networks carried that report?
Originally posted by karajorma
Nope that wasn`t the problem. As you say security related issues can`t be released. Heres the quote
[q]The attitude of Israel (92nd) towards press freedom is ambivalent. Despite strong pressure on state-owned TV and radio, the government respects the local media's freedom of expression. However, in the West Bank and Gaza, Reporters Without Borders has recorded a large number of violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which guarantees press freedom and which Israel has signed. Since the start of the Israeli army's incursions into Palestinian towns and cities in March 2002, very many journalists have been roughed up, threatened, arrested, banned from moving around, targeted by gunfire, wounded or injured, had their press cards withdrawn or been deported.[/q]
Ok, first of all, it isn't security related? Looks like it to me - all the reported problems are in the West Bank and Gaza, which are largely PA-controlled areas. The security situation there is quite different from the rest of Israel, as you can see by that bar chart I posted earlier with the number of terrorist attacks in each area; "The Home Front" is everything aside from Gaza and the West Bank.
Second, I really would like to find out more about these allegations of man-handling journalists. I know that I've had to personally restrict a journalist's entry into an area due to a security situation currently taking place, such as cars being shot at on a highway, etc.
But I do admit that there is no lack of soldiers who prefer to physically force/prevent journalists and/or Palestinians from going into currently off-limits areas after a simple verbal warning doesn't work. The IDF - both officially and unofficially - does not allow such behavior, and clamps down hard with disciplinary action on those who take to such means.
That, unfortunately, covers the "roughed up, threatened...{and} banned from moving around" aspects of those allegations. The rest, all of which is considerably more serious (arrested... targeted by gunfire, wounded or injured, had their press cards withdrawn or been deported), sounds more like the PA offhand. But again, I'd like to read about specific examples before going into this further.
Originally posted by karajorma
Nope. Not even then. Flatten all the buildings you want you`ll never have peace, you`ll just make people hate you more.
If you feel the need to flatten buildings go ahead but that can`t be all you do. At the moment that is the sole responce of the Israeli government and it's plain to see that it doesn`t work. Instead look at Northern Ireland where two sides who hate each other have been made to sit down and talk. That's what you need to do and when Israel was doing that it did make things better. Flattening buildings alone has no effect.
:rolleyes: I never said that was the only action being taken in our war on terror. We also use targeted assasinations (which probably has the highest number/ratio/whatever of deaths from collateral damage :o) arrests, and widespread security checkpoints (which employ *gasp* racial profiling!! *gasp*).
But simply eliminating terror will not bring peace. Like Mr. Vega said, the hatred needs to be dealt with. As long as the Arafat-led Palestinian Authority inculdes hate-filled material in it's educational system, there will be no peace. Encouragement to become a "martyr" (suicide bomber), teaching hatred of Jews and Christians, etc - it's all being pumped into their children's minds. Heck, the most widely sold book in the PA is Mein Kampf (sp?). :doubt:
And no one can say that Israel wasn't willing to sit down, talk, compromise, etc. We did that, under Mr. Barak. While at the time I despised him for it, he offered Arafat 98% (I think - it was in the high 90's somewhere) of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. It doesn't get better than that. But Arafat, in a move criticized even by most Islamic nations, refused, thereby proving to anyone willing to see that it wasn't about the land. It is about pushing the Jews into the sea, plain and simple. Always has been, and always will be. And if you need proof of that, I can dig up some - just say so.
Originally posted by karajorma
Arafat on the other hand isn`t percieved that way by the public. If you depose him and set up a government by election you`ll simply get someone even more hardline than he is. If you simply install someone you like You'll soon find that the Palestinians don`t respect them and view them as your puppets. Most likely anyone you put in place would be assassinated before the end of the year.
ACtually, we hear from those Palestinians who have the freedom to speak out (those who have, for example, married Israeli Arabs and are now Israeli citizens, no longer under Arafat's rule) that they had things much better before Oslo and the PA, under Israeli rule.
Originally posted by karajorma
The problem is that Israel view this as a problem that can be solved by force and it isn`t. Yes you need to use force to keep the terrorists at bay but you can`t solve this problem through military channels alone. While you continue to think you can you`ll never have peace.
You're right that it can't be completely solved be force, but you're wrong that Israelis think so. Yeah, we could "wipe them out... all of them...", but what kind of a sick, Hitler-esque solution is that?
At the moment, Israel's official stance is that Arafat is no longer a valid partner for peace talks. He's been given plenty of opportunity, but keeps on encouraging terrorist attacks "behind the scenes", in arabic-language broadcasts that aren't translated or monitored by the mainstream media. So now Israel is looking for the Palestinians to elect someone else - and then we'll see.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
You may not think so, but an excuse it was. Besides, where is it written that only Moslems can access the Temple Mount without fear of causing an uproar?
There are some things you don`t do because it isn`t allowed while there are others you don`t do because it isn`t wise. Sharon knew that going to Temple Mount would cause a lot of problems. Even if it was an excuse (as you claim) why give the other side an excuse?
Originally posted by Sandwich
And I'm a bit blurry on the definition of this term "hardliner". Can we get a definition here?
: advocating or involving a rigidly uncompromising course of action
Basically someone who follows a course of action even though logic shows you shouldn`t. It's a term used often to cover those who still advocate communism in Russia etc.
Sharon went to Temple Mount to show he wasn`t scared of Palestinian opinion. He wanted to prove that unlike Ehud Barak he wouldn`t be giving away any of the Gaza strip etc. And his gambit worked because he did get himself elected even though from what I can see Ehud Barak was doing a better job of solving the problems in the area.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Second, I really would like to find out more about these allegations of man-handling journalists. I know that I've had to personally restrict a journalist's entry into an area due to a security situation currently taking place, such as cars being shot at on a highway, etc.
But I do admit that there is no lack of soldiers who prefer to physically force/prevent journalists and/or Palestinians from going into currently off-limits areas after a simple verbal warning doesn't work. The IDF - both officially and unofficially - does not allow such behavior, and clamps down hard with disciplinary action on those who take to such means.
That, unfortunately, covers the "roughed up, threatened...{and} banned from moving around" aspects of those allegations. The rest, all of which is considerably more serious (arrested... targeted by gunfire, wounded or injured, had their press cards withdrawn or been deported), sounds more like the PA offhand. But again, I'd like to read about specific examples before going into this further.
The Reporters San Frontiers site has plenty of examples. Click here for their annual report (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=1486)
I was going to include some more examples but the RSF website seems to have gone down while I was writing this.
Originally posted by Sandwich
And no one can say that Israel wasn't willing to sit down, talk, compromise, etc. We did that, under Mr. Barak. While at the time I despised him for it, he offered Arafat 98% (I think - it was in the high 90's somewhere) of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. It doesn't get better than that. But Arafat, in a move criticized even by most Islamic nations, refused, thereby proving to anyone willing to see that it wasn't about the land. It is about pushing the Jews into the sea, plain and simple. Always has been, and always will be. And if you need proof of that, I can dig up some - just say so.
Got a link for that? I suspect I know Arafat's reasons but I`d prefer to read more about it before I comment.
Originally posted by Sandwich
ACtually, we hear from those Palestinians who have the freedom to speak out (those who have, for example, married Israeli Arabs and are now Israeli citizens, no longer under Arafat's rule) that they had things much better before Oslo and the PA, under Israeli rule.
That's no surprise. The problem with new governments is that they can rarely get anything to work as well as the people that they've just gained freedom from. If you`ve got any actual evidence of a reign of terror by Arafat I`d like to hear it.
Originally posted by Sandwich
You're right that it can't be completely solved be force, but you're wrong that Israelis think so. Yeah, we could "wipe them out... all of them...", but what kind of a sick, Hitler-esque solution is that?
There are forceful solutions other than wiping them all out. Israels tactic of hitting a police station every time there was a bombing is one example of this. I doubt that it helped anything.
Originally posted by Sandwich
At the moment, Israel's official stance is that Arafat is no longer a valid partner for peace talks. He's been given plenty of opportunity, but keeps on encouraging terrorist attacks "behind the scenes", in arabic-language broadcasts that aren't translated or monitored by the mainstream media. So now Israel is looking for the Palestinians to elect someone else - and then we'll see.
But you know full well that the Palestinians will end up electing someone far worse than Arafat. I read a report that support for Hamas was up to 95% after Jenin. Whoever replaces Arafat will almost certainly be as big a hard-liner as Sharon is and things will get far worse.
-
Sandwich: Yeah, I caught the Jenin/West Bank thing about five minutes after I'd posted that, but I was off by then and busy with something else. My only excuse is that it was posted at 1AM and I was more occupied with why the computer kept locking up. And that same aerial picture is used by both sides of the argument, with scales ranging from 50m to "three football fields". Personally, I'm inclined to consider any specific number horse****, as they invariably turn out to be- a lot of people were killed, a lot of houses were destroyed. That's about it.
Kara: Yeah, Arafat refused on the second try. Partly because he'd heard that same deal before and it never happened, partly because by that point he had no control at all over Hamas and preferred to look strong rather than peaceful- after all, all he really has any more is the illusion of control, and once that's wiped by a bombing he didn't publicly condone he's finished.
This argument is pretty pointless, though. I've noticed the trend that trying to convince an Israeli that not all Palestinians are out for their blood is about the same as trying to convince a Palestinian that Israelis don't just want them all rounded up and gassed. Since shortly before the beginning of the most recent intifada, both sides have become close enough to being right to make me jealous, though- that kind of clarity rarely comes to politics. :rolleyes:
Of course, there's still the illusion of a solution to the whole deal to be contended with, but hey.
-
Gah - way too tired to reply AATM - not after a four and half hour talk with a friend tonight. All I will say for now is in reference to the whole journalisim thing. Just like Israeli forces have been shot at from Red Crescent ambulances, they have also found journalists abusing their special freedoms. I may hunt up a link to that sometime, but not now. Head hurts.
Good night. :)
EDIT: Much as it might irk me, I'll post a link to this article (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=279569&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y) by Israel's Ha'Aretz (The Land) newspaper, dealing with offensive soldiers at roadblocks.