Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on March 27, 2004, 12:53:37 pm
-
Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu is to be realeased in a few days time from an Israeli prison, where he has been sitting for 16 years, since 1988.
What horrible crime did he commit to deserve 16 years in almost constant solitary confinement? He revealed to the world the existence of an Israeli secret nuclear weapons in the Dimona facility. Hmm..
In 1988, he was lured by a woman, Cheryl Hanin, from London to Rome, where he was kidnapped by Mossadi agents and taken to Israel to rot. This was done with the full knowledge and cooperation of the Britsh government (under Thatcher) as well as the Italian government. So much for habeas corpus.
Once released, Vanunu will has severe restrictions set on both his speech and his movements, to prevent him from revleaing any more unpleasant tidbits of secret information.
Lovely, ain't it? America goes after Saddam for maybe, perhaps developing soemthing resembling a nuclear related program. Maybe. Except, well, the WMD have been found. Not in Iraq, mind you. And the man who found them spent 16 years of his life in a cell. Ah, sweet justice, how fair and noble thy cause.
Articles
Counerpunch - by Robert Fisk (http://www.counterpunch.com/fisk03262004.html)
Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/02/25/israeli_who_leaked_secrets_to_be_freed/)
Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8086246.htm)
-
Everyone already knew that Israel "didn't" have nukes, but Vanunu sold secret information about them. I don't see what's wrong with punishing someone who so blatantly and willfully is endangering the security of his country.
-
Revealing a nuclear program everyone knew existed (but not in such a large scale) is endangering the security of his country?
Punishing him for revealing secret info on the nuclear program is nothing wrong. What is wrong is punishing him even after releasing him (aka "shuting him up").
What harm can be come from letting him speak? Not letting him speak will bring much more harm.
-
Well, it should not have been secret in the first place. So if say, Britain, is developing some sort of nuclear device in secret, the man who reveals it should be appluaded as a hero, not stuck in jail.
If the security of any one country threatens the security of the entire world, the world is more important.
-
[q]the man who reveals it should be appluaded as a hero[/q]
Yeah then we might think our govt. was investing in defence ;)
-
this is the stupidest thing y...
eh... :doubt: **** it, never mind
-
The World is entitled to my opinion :D:D
But, think what you will. I thought this was an interesting bit of news, so here it is.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Revealing a nuclear program everyone knew existed (but not in such a large scale) is endangering the security of his country?
No, but revealing secret information about said topic does endanger the security of this country. I personally don't know what he revealed, but imagine if it was something along the lines of in-flight detonation codes (don't even know if such things are restricted to the realm of sci-fi, but this is just for arguments' sake). - that'd be a pretty serious security breach.
And yeah, those codes could be changed, but I'm just giving an example.
-
I guess it comes down to who gets priority, your country or the world. For me, this will always (well, in all probably circumstance. I'm not saying always always) be the world, regardless of which country is involved.
I just don't see what gives Israel the right to have a nuclear program, and a secret one at that, and not say, Iraq. Or not just Iraq, any country.
-
I don't see how giveing the in flight detonation codes of your contries nukes is going to help world safety at all.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I guess it comes down to who gets priority, your country or the world. For me, this will always (well, in all probably circumstance. I'm not saying always always) be the world, regardless of which country is involved.
I just don't see what gives Israel the right to have a nuclear program, and a secret one at that, and not say, Iraq. Or not just Iraq, any country.
You could look at it based on past actions; Israel's never used WMD's against enemies even when attacked. Pre-American intervention Iraq had Saddam gassing up the Kurds in the north w/o blinking an eye.
Also, Israel's the only democracy in the Middle-East, for what that's worth.
I guess it could be boiled down to a matter of responsibility, which is something that can only be proven over time.
-
just thought of something, Turkey is a democrocy, is it not considered part of the mid-east?
anyway, how would giveing out the in flight det codes improve international security?
hypotheticaly.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
just thought of something, Turkey is a democrocy, is it not considered part of the mid-east?
anyway, how would giveing out the in flight det codes improve international security?
hypotheticaly.
IIRC Turkey's considered part of Europe.
And who said it would improve international security, Bob? I sad it would endanger Israel.
-
If it was detonation codes, that would cast the situtation in a new light. But from what I can gather it wasn't anything that specific. More of genral information regarding the existence of such programs. Can you maybe find a link or something Sandwich, I'de appreaciate it.
For me, it doesn't come down to "responsiblity". First of all, who decides which country is responsible. In theory, every country is resonsible up until the time they use a nuclear weapon. No nation can judge another based on circumstantial and, by definition, non-existant evidence.
Secondly, which nation in the world is the only one ever to have used nukes? Thats right. So, why do they get to have nukes? I mean, if you are working on the "responsiblity principle", they are the least responsible, since they are the only ones ever to have used nuclear weapons. Every other nation is more responsible, even Iran, Cuba, Syria and all the other "bad places."
Iraq using biological weapons on the Kurds is not really relevant. First of all, they were/are not "his own people" as everyone says. They were Saddam's enemies, and vice versa. And then, there is the little matter of who supplied Saddam with those weapons, and who encouraged him to use them against Iran. You can't really say he was acting irresponsibly if he used them with Washington's blessing.
So, the responsibility thing is out, you got any others?
BTW, I don't think that democracy is directly related to responsibility in handling nuclear weapons. Even in a democracy, it comes down to the Chief Guy to make the decision, not the people. And I wouldn't trust Netanyahu or much less, Sharon with nuclear weapons any more than I would trust say, the President of Bulgaria.
-
Given the situation at the time, I can definitely see why *any* information leaks could potentially be a national security problem for Israel. It's one thing being far away from any danger, it's quite another when every single neighbouring country would like to see you wiped from the face of the earth. Thankfully that's somewhat less of a problem now than it was, last thing that part of the world needs is more war.
As for Turkey, it has a foot in each camp so to speak. North-west of Istanbul is in Europe, south-east of it is in the middle east. They regularly try to gain entry into the EU though, but that's not likely to happen until they drastically improve their record on human rights and the like.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
If it was detonation codes, that would cast the situtation in a new light. But from what I can gather it wasn't anything that specific. More of genral information regarding the existence of such programs. Can you maybe find a link or something Sandwich, I'de appreaciate it.
I'll look around.
Originally posted by Rictor
...In theory, every country is resonsible up until the time they use a nuclear weapon...
Secondly, which nation in the world is the only one ever to have used nukes? Thats right. So, why do they get to have nukes? I mean, if you are working on the "responsiblity principle", they are the least responsible, since they are the only ones ever to have used nuclear weapons. Every other nation is more responsible, even Iran, Cuba, Syria and all the other "bad places."
Uhh, no, that's not responsibility. According to the dictionary, responsibility is:
[q]\Re*spon`si*bil"i*ty\ (r?*sp?n`s?*b?l"?*t?), n.; pl. -ties (-t?z). [Cf. F. responsabilit['e].] 1. The state of being responsible, accountable, or answerable, as for a trust, debt, or obligation.
2. That for which anyone is responsible or accountable; as, the resonsibilities of power.
3. Ability to answer in payment; means of paying.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
responsibility
n 1: the social force that binds you to your obligations and the courses of action demanded by that force: "we must instill a sense of duty in our children"; "every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty"- John D.Rockefeller Jr [syn: duty, obligation] 2: the proper sphere or extent of your activities; "it was his province to take care of himself" [syn: province] 3: ability or necessity to answer for or be responsible for one's conduct; "he holds a position of great responsibility"; "young children on a farm are often given responsibilities" [syn: responsibleness] [ant: irresponsibility, irresponsibility][/q]
The US used nukes to end a war, not to start one. It was a way of saying to Japan of the '40's "Enough, no more" in a way they could not possibly misunderstand.
Responsiblity does not mean you won't use something. It means that when you do use whatever it is, you'd better have a darn good reason, and be willing to take the blame for the outcome.
And, to remind you, America DID take the responsibility of rebuilding the war-torn Japan, and was crucial in aiding her to get back on her feet to the position she now holds as hi-tech leader of the world.
Originally posted by Rictor
BTW, I don't think that democracy is directly related to responsibility in handling nuclear weapons. Even in a democracy, it comes down to the Chief Guy to make the decision, not the people. And I wouldn't trust Netanyahu or much less, Sharon with nuclear weapons any more than I would trust say, the President of Bulgaria.
True; America, Israel - pretty much any nation known as a "democratic" nation today - are not true democracies, but republics, where the people elect one person or a governing body made up of representatives they trust to make the decisions for that country.
Anyway, you seem to be under the impression that Israeli prime ministers are answerable to no one. They aren't.
-
Since that detail was brought in that thread about the air speed record, is this any worse than shooting people on sight for wanting to see cool planes at Nellis? I think not :doubt:
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]the man who reveals it should be appluaded as a hero[/q]
Yeah then we might think our govt. was investing in defence ;)
:lol::ha: That'll be the day..... :doubt: This country wouldn't stand a chance in the state we're in at the moment....
As for Vanunu, I'm behind him all the way. There is no place in this world for nuclear weapons any more. If someone from the MOD here came out with a story like that, the government wouldn't be in office for more than five minutes. Nobody needs mass destructive/mass casualty weapons any more. We've gone past the nation-state level of civilisation. They're strategically useless (apart from MAD, but that's pretty much redundant since Russia went tits-up). All anyone would do by using them would be to royally **** the planet up, and us with it.
-
Anyone who ****s with Israel's nuclear weapons is okay in my books.
There's abso-****ing-loutely no way Israel should have anything even resembling a WMD. It'd be like going up the Nazi's and saying "Here's a bio-genetic weapon. Don't use it on France".
-
Originally posted by an0n
Anyone who ****s with Israel's nuclear weapons is okay in my books.
There's abso-****ing-loutely no way Israel should have anything even resembling a WMD. It'd be like going up the Nazi's and saying "Here's a bio-genetic weapon. Don't use it on France".
Quite so.
I think that if not so much of Israel had been taken down in the event of a nuclear explosion, I think that Israel would have nuked Palestine long ago.
-
You could look at it based on past actions; Israel's never used WMD's against enemies even when attacked. Pre-American intervention Iraq had Saddam gassing up the Kurds in the north w/o blinking an eye.
So how would the international community feel if Germany started building up a nuclear arsenal?
Or even any other small/medium sized european country like Greece, Portugal or Ireland?
-
Originally posted by an0n
It'd be like going up the Nazi's and saying "Here's a bio-genetic weapon. Don't use it on France".
They wouldn't, they think we're just mislead.
"shivers"
The other way around, tho...
-
Well, on one side Israel is possibly the only country in the world surrounded and depended on (Suez canal) hostile nations - which may or may not possess chemical weapons..... so i can understand their justification (as a deterrent against a united arab attack / 'holy war').
On the other hand, Israel actually using nukes would probably spark another global war......
-
Originally posted by Zuljin
Quite so.
I think that if not so much of Israel had been taken down in the event of a nuclear explosion, I think that Israel would have nuked Palestine long ago.
Oh, get real. Even if we wanted to wipe the Palestinians off the face of the earth, we wouldn't need a nuke to do so. But we don't, so you can sleep a little easier at night now. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by aldo_14
On the other hand, Israel actually using nukes would probably spark another global war......
Probably so, and don't think Israel isn't aware of it, either.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
You could look at it based on past actions; Israel's never used WMD's against enemies even when attacked. Pre-American intervention Iraq had Saddam gassing up the Kurds in the north w/o blinking an eye.
Yes, because America gave him weapons and said "Go nuts". So he thought "Hell, these guys don't seem too worried about me nerve-gasing people.....Y'know, those Kuwaitees have been pissing me off for a while now".
Also, Israel's the only democracy in the Middle-East, for what that's worth.
It's worth a few hundred Palestinians a year, apparently.
I guess it could be boiled down to a matter of responsibility, which is something that can only be proven over time.
You're saying Iraq firing chem-weapons at troops is bad, but Israel shooting missiles into civillian targets is good?
Israel is quite possibly the most irresponsible country in the region with the possible exception of the soon to be United States of Oil (READ: Tattered remains of Iran/Iraq/Saudi Arabia).
-
Blah blah - is that the best you can do? Claiming that Israel shoots missiles at civillian targets? Gimme a break. I thought we had beaten that topic to death already.
-
How about the fact that you only got the country out of pity and because all the other countries would've rather let the Germans win than put up with taking in Jews?
-
Alright anon, shut the hell up now. I was never talking about Israel's right to exist, but rather specific polcies and so forth.
Saying **** like that isn't helping anyone.
-
Y'never know. If I say it often enough it might help the Palestinians from being butchered by the odd Apache.
Hell, there could even be a direct effect in that Sandwich will begin feeling so guilty, the next time he gets a chance to kill some little kid for throwing rocks he'll think "No. It would upset an0n" and not.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Y'never know. If I say it often enough it might help the Palestinians from being butchered by the odd Apache.
Hell, there could even be a direct effect in that Sandwich will begin feeling so guilty, the next time he gets a chance to kill some little kid for throwing rocks he'll think "No. It would upset an0n" and not.
You know what? Once you've come over here and seen for yourself what goes on, instead of relying on the media's regurgitated-for-the-masses, spoon-fed "reports", you can ***** all you want about whatever injustices may or may not be being done over here.
Until then, shut the hell up.
-
yeah, Israel is such an irresponsable nation, that's why they've used the nukes they've had for so long on all the surounding nations, and why they've cordoned off the west bank/gaza and cluster bombed it for three weeks strait followed by a week of saturateing it with VX.
oh, wait, that's right, they havn't...
in spite of the fact that they could in a heart beat.
-
That the best defense of its actions you can come up with? At least they didnt massacre millions. :rolleyes:
Personally I'm all for nuclear proliferation, great deterrants all round. Throw a few to arafat and co and see how quick the occupied territorys become unoccupied.
-
But you do not have the moral authority to judge who is fit to use them. As I said, everyone must be considered fit to posses nuclear weapons until such a time a time as they use them. Its the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.
And again, whether a country is a democracy or a dictatorship is irrelevant in this case. In both cases, you have a very small group of people deciding whether or not to use the nukes. Sandwich, you say that Israel is a democracy, so that is why they are fit to posess nuclear weapons. But, do you think that there would bea referendum or anything of the sort if it came down to using the weapons? Hell no. Sharon or whoever would just say Yes or No, and that would be it.
And since you brought it up, no, I don't think that the current Israeli administration is responsible to anyone. Certainly not to the international community, that one should be obvious. Not to international law, again obvious.
Now, are they responsible to the Israeli people? To some extent they are, every four years. In between, they can do as they damn well please, and thats exactly what they do. But keep in mind, that the fear of the big bad boogyman that held the American people in its grip after 9/11 and allowed such laws as the PATRIOT Act t be passed is much more common in Israel. You are a better judge of this than I am of course, but it seems to me that Sharon is using the fear of terrorism to take the power out of the hands of the people.
In every national crisis, such as 9/11, people gladly give up their civil liberties and their democratic rights to influence government for protection and security. Normally, if the government is doing something that I don't like, I feel that I have a right to dissent and attempt to change those policies. But if you are constantly being told that there is a crazed suicide bomber just around the corner, and only Sharon can keep you safe, than you keep your mouth shut despite the fact that you disagree with what he's doing. I think this fear or terrorism plays a big part in Israeli politics. I mean, not just external, but also internal. So, when election time comes, Sharon goes out there and he tells the Israeli people "look, if you want be safe, vote for me". I mean, that utter nonsense, but thats what he says. And people buy it, cause he has a zero tolerance stance on terrorism, and that what people think is keeping them safe.
But in truth, if you were to elect a more moderate PM, one who would address the Palestinian's grievance instead of just trying to drown out their cries with gunfire, Israel would be a much safer place. Every time the IDF goes into the camps and kill 10 militants, it creates 20 more to take their place. You can't win this by attacking the people who attack you. You attack them because they attack you, and they attack you becausr you attack them. So, there's no way out.
And even when there is a short ceasefire that could potentially lead to peace, Sharon ****s it up by ordering an asassination which of course provokes the Palestinians to attack. Sharon is not interested in peace, because if peace ever came he would be gone in a second.
Hamas and Hezbollah don't want to kill all the Jews or whatever you say. They just want to live in peace and have the right of slef determination, just like every person on this planet. If they were interested in anhilliating you, they would not agree to truce after truce and truce. But they do.
-
umm
Hamas and Hezbollah do want to kill all the Jews. They don't just want to live in peace and have the right of slef determination, just like every person on this planet. They do not hold to truce after truce and truce, becase they are interested in anhilliating you. they don't.
see makeing statments without backing them up is easy and fun! :D
-
Hamas truce not enough says Israel (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/16/1055615733489.html) June 2003
Hamas calls truce (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1723306.stm) December 2001
Yassin to call of all terrorist activity if Israel withdraws from Gaza and West Bank (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9710/07/israel.hamas/) October 1997
Hamas offers truce (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/452/re6.htm) October 1999
13 Palestinian militas offer ceasefire (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=471138) December 2003
Israel rejects Plaestinian ceasefire proposal (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97417,00.html) September 2003
Israel reject Palestinina truce call (http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,4789_W_954767,00.html) August 2003
Al Aqsa renounces truce after Israeli asassination (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/03/1057179097067.html) July 2003
Israeli tank raid brakes ceasefire (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,495351,00.html) May 2001
and so on and so forth. this is just a few of the results I eno****ered when searching for "Hamas truce". I never even searched for Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and all the rest. I'll try to find some sort of comprehensive database of peace offers.
-
Well, as pacifist as I am, I have to agree with Bob here, these particular organisations are strictly and violently anti everything-but-themselves, or at least this is their precise motives as named by their mouthpieces. Hell, some of them even hate each other, it's better than Monty Python!
I don't like the current situation in the Middle East any more than anyone else does, but the simple fact is that just about everyone is to blame, Europe, America, and of course, the Middle East itself.
The problem is that if we don't stop this 'you hit us, we'll hit you harder' posturing, it's just going to lead to more and more death.
Rictor : All you'll get is a list of Israeli or American peace proposals, it's not simply a question of 'offering peace' no matter how much I wish it was.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Well, as pacifist as I am, I have to agree with Bob here, these particular organisations are strictly and violently anti everything-but-themselves, or at least this is their precise motives as named by their mouthpieces. Hell, some of them even hate each other, it's better than Monty Python!
I don't like the current situation in the Middle East any more than anyone else does, but the simple fact is that just about everyone is to blame, Europe, America, and of course, the Middle East itself.
The problem is that if we don't stop this 'you hit us, we'll hit you harder' posturing, it's just going to lead to more and more death.
Indeed, as long as that keeps going on there will never be peace.
But the way things are looking now, it looks pretty grim for any peace agreement unfortunatly :(
And saying that Hames etc. is anti everything is a little unjust remark I think.
As said above, they have offered many truces to try and make peace, but the truces have always been broken so far..(by both sides)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
umm
Hamas and Hezbollah do want to kill all the Jews. They don't just want to live in peace and have the right of slef determination, just like every person on this planet. They do not hold to truce after truce and truce, becase they are interested in anhilliating you. they don't.
see makeing statments without backing them up is easy and fun! :D
So is copy-pasting my original statement - complete with spelling errors and the fact that the last sentence does not make sense if you just reverse everything without re-writing., :D:D
-
yes, yes it is
-
wrong button, sorry my fault
ignore this post
-
Another great move with the help of democracy! WOOOOO!
-
Zuljin, what I meant was that over the years I have heard countless.....
'Group X and called Country/Group (Delete appropriate) Y a traitor to their people and declared them the enemy for signing a treaty with Country/Group(Delete appropriate) Z'
It's one thing to be against American policies in the middle East. But to simply hate people for having anything to do with America, such as being born there, or living in a country that gets on ok with them, is, to me, taking the whole hate thing too far.
I won't deny the Hamas have made peace proposals, and possibly I am being too harsh, but it wasn't intended just for the Hamas or even for the Middle East, there is not a single 'Rebel' group in the world who's demands don't include 'Insert Name Here' when it comes to leadership and powerful positions in their newly liberated country.
Anyway, your point is well taken, I'll try not to make such sweeping statements again :)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
It's one thing to be against American policies in the middle East. But to simply hate people for having anything to do with America, such as being born there, or living in a country that gets on ok with them, is, to me, taking the whole hate thing too far.
:wtf:
What the hell are you talking about?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I won't deny the Hamas have made peace proposals, and possibly I am being too harsh, but it wasn't intended just for the Hamas or even for the Middle East, there is not a single 'Rebel' group in the world who's demands don't include 'Insert Name Here' when it comes to leadership and powerful positions in their newly liberated country.
Well, thats reasonable isn't it? I mean, most rebel groups are fighting for the right to form a government of their choosing, since they percieve the current one to be oppressive or dangerous. Of course their demands are going to include a leader of their choosing, thats the whole point of self determination.
In the case of Hamas-Israel, it comes down to which faction is going to stop acting like vindicative children, be the bigger man and call an unconditional, indefinate truce. Cease-fires have worked before, but they always get botched when one side takes offensive action. The key is for either Israel or Palestine to say "OK, we're calling a truce, no matter what you hit is with. Thats how dedicated we are to peace". The trouble is, there is no central authority on the Palestinian side. Arafat can't tell the militias what to do; he can sway them a bit but in the end its not his choice to make. This is why I think that Israel ought to be the one who makes this gesture and follows through with definitive plans for a Palestinian state. But Sharon won't do that, its everything he's been fighting against his whole life. Even ****'s roadmap could have worked, but Sharon refused to follow a few key steps and derailed the whole thing.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
But you do not have the moral authority to judge who is fit to use them. As I said, everyone must be considered fit to posses nuclear weapons until such a time a time as they use them. Its the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.
So until Saddam or Bin Laden actually vaporized a country they should be allowed to have nukes?
WTF kinna logic is that?
That's like saying a mad who's released from prison after serving 15 years for beating a man to death with a poolcue shouldn't have any restrictions on purchasing firearms.
"Well he's only killed with a poolcue,...he never used a gun on someone yet"
:wtf:
Fine I'll concede your point that it may not be the U.S. or Isreal's call on who should and who shouldn't,...but a little common sense should be allowed for.
-
Yes, but the vast vast majority of the world has never used WMD, therefor they are entitled to have them. Using your analogy, they would be allowed to purcahse whatever firearms they want, since they have never attacked anyone with a poolcue before. Anyone who has never commited a crimiinal offence before can legaly buy and own firearms (WMD). But the US is against anyone who is not them having nukes, and they use bull**** logic to back it up. They can say they don't want anyone having nukes "cause we're big and bad, and what we say goes" but I can't stand them trying to reason it out.
Even in Saddam's case, he used biological weapons against Iran with American's backing. They sold it to him, they told him how to use it, and then they told him "Go use it on those filthy Iranians". So, he just assumed that a few thousand Kurds more or less wouldn't make a difference. Is it right to use WMD against some people, and not against other? Yes, he did kill someone with a gun (your analogy) but thats hardly an offence when the police told you to do it and sold you the gun in the first place.
And again I'll ask you the same thing, which is the only country ever to use nuclear weapons? And they think they can get all preachy about responsiblity and all that; they're the worst offenders ever.
-
Gank, I mean if if a group says that it is against American policy in the Middle East, I'm fine with that. If they say they are against Americans, I am not. Americans have about as much 'real' say in policy as the any other Democratic societies, ie., more than some, but not nearly enough,
To target American people, and American allies, and anything to do with America is just pure spite, which is what the general Ethos seems to be amongst these groups. Despite the fact that Israel stated that America was not involved, one of the first statements by the new Hamas leader was to declare America the Enemy and only just stop short of including them in their circle of violence.
If they are going to oppose America's stranglehold policies, it's violent foreign policies or it's self-centred oil policy, then I'm ok with that. But that was not what was said nor hinted at by the new Hamas leader. It was racism, Things went more or less along the lines of......'You are American, you are the enemy, you are a freind of America, you are the Enemy'. This does not sound like someone searching for peace in his time.
Sorry, I sort of half replied to an earlier post, I can see how that would cause confusion, I wasn't aiming it at Zuljin ;)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And since you brought it up, no, I don't think that the current Israeli administration is responsible to anyone. Certainly not to the international community, that one should be obvious. Not to international law, again obvious.
Now, are they responsible to the Israeli people? To some extent they are, every four years. In between, they can do as they damn well please, and thats exactly what they do.
No, I did mean that Sharon (or any Prime Minister of Israel) is answerable to the Knesset (parliment), at any point in time. When Sharon proposed his pulling the settlers out of the Gaza Strip, he had 3 no-confidence votes that just barely did not pass in one afternoon.
Originally posted by Rictor
But in truth, if you were to elect a more moderate PM, one who would address the Palestinian's grievance instead of just trying to drown out their cries with gunfire, Israel would be a much safer place. Every time the IDF goes into the camps and kill 10 militants, it creates 20 more to take their place. You can't win this by attacking the people who attack you. You attack them because they attack you, and they attack you becausr you attack them. So, there's no way out.
I agree with the second half of this statement, but the first is utter bollocks. Pretty much the ONLY thing Ehud Barak is seen as having done while he was PM was to prove to the world that Arafat and the PLO was not interested in land. Barak offered Arafat East Jerusalem as their capitol, 3 quarters of the Old City, and 98% (IIRC... it was above 95%) of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as a Palestinian state.
Originally posted by Rictor
And even when there is a short ceasefire that could potentially lead to peace, Sharon ****s it up by ordering an asassination which of course provokes the Palestinians to attack. Sharon is not interested in peace, because if peace ever came he would be gone in a second.
What "ceasefire" would you be referring to? Something involving Israel??
Originally posted by Rictor
Hamas and Hezbollah don't want to kill all the Jews or whatever you say. They just want to live in peace and have the right of slef determination, just like every person on this planet. If they were interested in anhilliating you, they would not agree to truce after truce and truce. But they do.
"Agree to truce after truce after truce." Mind explaining this one to me? I seem to be stupid in thinking that all their Arabic-language rally speeches are just fluff, and what they REALLY mean is what they tell the English-speaking world.
Originally posted by Rictor
Hamas truce not enough says Israel (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/16/1055615733489.html) June 2003
From the article: "The Palestinian Information Minister, Nabil Amr, said he believed a six-month hudna would be agreed within 48 hours".
Do you know what a "hudna" is? What the origin of the term is?
I'm not going to check the others - for one, I don't have time, but mainly because I want to see if you know what a "hudna" really, truly is.
-
Here's an aside that occured to me - the US wants to pull out of Iraq by July. The US also stated certainty that WMD were in Iraq before the war - but has yet to find any.
Now, if the Us is withdrawing in July, surely that means either;
a) there are no weapons
b) there are weapons, and they're being left lying around in an increasingly unstable country which is in danger of civil war and suffering from guerilla and terrorist insurgency
Just a thought (and it's not really worthy of a seperate topic, so i put it here).
-
a) they ****ed up
b) they will **** up and will have to do this all over again
which one is better?
-
Actually, if WMD's are found AFTER they leave Iraq, it'll give them every right to say 'I told you so!' to most of the rest of the world.
Though, this does of course depend on how well they bury them ;) hehehehehehe
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I agree with the second half of this statement, but the first is utter bollocks. Pretty much the ONLY thing Ehud Barak is seen as having done while he was PM was to prove to the world that Arafat and the PLO was not interested in land. Barak offered Arafat East Jerusalem as their capitol, 3 quarters of the Old City, and 98% (IIRC... it was above 95%) of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as a Palestinian state.
92%, and the palestinians agreed to all the that, it was Israel retention of control over the Al-Aqsa Mosque which scuppered the plan.
Originally posted by Flipside
Gank, I mean if if a group says that it is against American policy in the Middle East, I'm fine with that. If they say they are against Americans, I am not..........
Flipside, thats a load of bull. What Hamas actually said was the US gave the green light and must take responsibility for that. Far cry from the racism you describe it as. Could be taken as a threat but they say its not
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1C830F58-8D5A-4F19-9F9C-F8AD559ECF1D.htm
To be honest with you I find those who spew out the its ok to kill them because they hate us crap as bad as racists.
-
AlJazeera will say one thing, CNN will say another the truth lay in the Middle.
And if you are referring to me with 'those who spew out it's ok to kill them.... etc', I'm sure you have been reading my posts about how I wish the circle of violence in the whole area would end and that it would take steps on both sides, so I'm certain you are aiming that remark at someone else :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
No, I did mean that Sharon (or any Prime Minister of Israel) is answerable to the Knesset (parliment), at any point in time. When Sharon proposed his pulling the settlers out of the Gaza Strip, he had 3 no-confidence votes that just barely did not pass in one afternoon.
He got 3 non-confidence votes, becuase he was percieved as being to soft and giving to the Palestinians. Thats what I make of it atleast. If he is answerable to the Knesset, it is then the exact opposite of the type of accountability that would bring peace. He can do what he likes to the Occupied Territories, and never hear a peep out of the Knesset. Or is there some non-confidence initiates in the past that I am not aware of? But the moment he looks like he's going to compromise a little bit - wham - they try to kill the effort. And being accountable to the Knesset is not really enough I mean, in Israel as in America, you're never going to get any really dissenting voices by the elected representatives. Answerable to the will of the people is what he's supposed to be.
Originally posted by Sandwich
I agree with the second half of this statement, but the first is utter bollocks. Pretty much the ONLY thing Ehud Barak is seen as having done while he was PM was to prove to the world that Arafat and the PLO was not interested in land. Barak offered Arafat East Jerusalem as their capitol, 3 quarters of the Old City, and 98% (IIRC... it was above 95%) of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as a Palestinian state.
I'll have to look up some info on this. I wasn't really old enough to have a keen interest in politics at the time when Barak was PM, so will have to do some research on him and his policies regarding Palestinians.
Originally posted by Sandwich
What "ceasefire" would you be referring to? Something involving Israel??
"Agree to truce after truce after truce." Mind explaining this one to me? I seem to be stupid in thinking that all their Arabic-language rally speeches are just fluff, and what they REALLY mean is what they tell the English-speaking world.
I'm not going to check the others - for one, I don't have time, but mainly because I want to see if you know what a "hudna" really, truly is.
Alright, I'm not going to bull**** and say I knew what a hudna was all along. I Yahoo'ed it, there.
From what I can gather, it is a form of time-limited ceasefire that is rooted in Mulsim tradition, and has been applied to the Israel-Palestine conflict at times.
So, mind telling me why the term is relevant? I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here, not having lived in the area, so I am unfamiliar with the local practices.
As I said before, I'm trying to find a comprehensive database of peaceoffers and whether the various factions followed up, who broke the peace and so forth. The Guardian has a nice timeline thing, which relates to the latest truce and who did what t whom, but someting a bit more comprehensive would be what I'm looking for.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
From what I can gather, it is a form of time-limited ceasefire that is rooted in Mulsim tradition, and has been applied to the Israel-Palestine conflict at times.
So, mind telling me why the term is relevant? I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here, not having lived in the area, so I am unfamiliar with the local practices.
Its basically a ceasefire. Sandwich is playing up the fact that under the Islamic definition its permitted to rebuild and regroup your forces and not mentioning that the alternative to doing this is called surrendering, in any language.
Flipside, google things in future and check up on the facts. Hamas made no threats against the american people or their friends.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Flipside, google things in future and check up on the facts. Hamas made no threats against the american people or their friends.
That statement would be more correct for Al-Quaeda rather than Hamas.
-
I'll be happy to check my facts as soon as you point out the point in my post where I said they DID make threats :)
I believe my statement was regarding the 'general ethos' and that they 'just stopped short of' including America in their targets? Which, if you refer to the new Hama leaders latest speech.....
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4575552
There is a quote in that News Statement you posted....
"In the aftermath of the killing of Hamas leader Shaikh Ahmad Yasin, a Hamas spokesman has threatened revenge against Israel and US interests," the US State Department said in a statement.
The Hamas deny it, someones lying. It's easy to think 'America' but when I am honest with myself, I have absolutely no idea.
That's what I'm saying Gank, everyones right, no-ones wrong, so why the hell are they shooting at each other?
-
Hudna is basically, saying we need a rest to rearm and resupply before we renew attacks against you. Mohammod offered one to the tribes controlling Mecca while he prepared to attack them. So obviously, the implication is, a hudna isn't a peace offer, but just a stalling tactic used, while Hamas regroups.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
It's one thing to be against American policies in the middle East. But to simply hate people for having anything to do with America, such as being born there, or living in a country that gets on ok with them, is, to me, taking the whole hate thing too far.
Originally posted by Flipside
Gank, I mean if if a group says that it is against American policy in the Middle East, I'm fine with that. If they say they are against Americans, I am not. Americans have about as much 'real' say in policy as the any other Democratic societies, ie., more than some, but not nearly enough,
To target American people, and American allies, and anything to do with America is just pure spite, which is what the general Ethos seems to be amongst these groups. Despite the fact that Israel stated that America was not involved, one of the first statements by the new Hamas leader was to declare America the Enemy and only just stop short of including them in their circle of violence.
I believe my statement was regarding the 'general ethos' and that they 'just stopped short of' including America in their targets?
Aye, misread your post, my apologys. You have a lot in there though which is a pretty big jump from what Hamas actually said. Btw, US policy funds Israel to the tune of 3 billion a year, roughly one third of all its foreign aid. Hamas do actually have a reason to regard the US as the enemy.
-
Originally posted by Gank
92%, and the palestinians agreed to all the that, it was Israel retention of control over the Al-Aqsa Mosque which scuppered the plan.
The location of the Al-Aqsa Mosque (and the Dome of the Rock) happens to be the Temple Mount, pretty much the holiest site on earth for Jews and Christians as well as the 3rd holiest site for Muslims, after Mecca and Medina.
Originally posted by Rictor
Alright, I'm not going to bull**** and say I knew what a hudna was all along. I Yahoo'ed it, there.
From what I can gather, it is a form of time-limited ceasefire that is rooted in Mulsim tradition, and has been applied to the Israel-Palestine conflict at times.
So, mind telling me why the term is relevant?
HERETIC! USE GOOGLE! ;)
"Hudna", first link in Google: http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Hudna_With_Hamas.asp
Originally posted by Gank
Its basically a ceasefire. Sandwich is playing up the fact that under the Islamic definition its permitted to rebuild and regroup your forces and not mentioning that the alternative to doing this is called surrendering, in any language.
:wtf: Two nations that agree to a cease-fire without planning to attack later on is surrendering?? Are you speaking the same English I'm speaking?
Originally posted by Gank
Flipside, google things in future and check up on the facts. Hamas made no threats against the american people or their friends.
http://www.google.com/search?q=hamas+threatened+america
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
The location of the Al-Aqsa Mosque (and the Dome of the Rock) happens to be the Temple Mount, pretty much the holiest site on earth for Jews and Christians as well as the 3rd holiest site for Muslims, after Mecca and Medina.
Its the supposed site of the temple mount, its also not part of Israel.
"Hudna", first link in Google: http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Hudna_With_Hamas.asp
Oh an Israeli site, telling us a palestinian ceaseifre is meaningless. :rolleyes:
:wtf: Two nations that agree to a cease-fire without planning to attack later on is surrendering?? Are you speaking the same English I'm speaking?
One nation agreeing to a ceasefire without planning to attack later is surrendering Sandwich, unless your tring to tell me that Israel will dismantle all the settlements when this happens?
http://www.google.com/search?q=hamas+threatened+america
What they actually said does not contstrue a threat. It could be taken that way but they later clarified it.
I don't want to stir this up again, so I'm editing my reply in here as opposed to replying properly. I've been absent from HLP for a week or so, which is why I never replied until now.
The location of the Temple Mount isn't disputed.
So you're saying that settlements = attacking? Weird.
And quit running around in circles with definitions and redefinitions. The Hamas threatened America, and then thought better of it and tried to take it back by saying it wasn't a threat to begin with. Puh-leese.
// Sandwich