[Lonestar]

Another great move with the help of democracy! WOOOOO!

[Flipside]

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

[Gank]

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.

What the hell are you talking about?

[Rictor]

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.

[Warlock]

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"



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.

[Rictor]

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.

[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.
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

[Sandwich]

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 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.

[aldo_14]

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).

[Ghostavo]

a) they ****ed up
b) they will **** up and will have to do this all over again

which one is better?

[Flipside]

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

[Gank]

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.

[Flipside]

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

[Rictor]

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.

[Gank]

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.

[Zuljin]

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.

[Flipside]

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?

[Zeronet]

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.

[Gank]

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.

[Sandwich]

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.

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