Printable View
Posted by marty4286:
Not at all, I just wanted to point that out. I've seen people make that mistake. Hell, I even made that mistake once and was asked to apoligize.;)Quote:
I hope that wasn't directed at me, I didn't say anything of the sort .
Just wanted to clarify the fact that Arabs may vary in national identity, but they are one homogenous group. Which does have internal rivalries.
Larry Miller on his visit to some hospitals in Israel. Meanwhile, Dr. Abidel Aziz-Rantisi had this to say about the Israelis. "I want to tell the Zionists: There is no place for you here and there is no difference between one place in Palestine and the other. All of our land is usurped, and our warriors have the right to launch their strikes anywhere they wish.", including, no doubt, such vital military instalations like pizza shops, discos, bar mitzvas, seder dinners, bus stops, school busses, and college cafeterias. :mad: Sure am glad it's a peaceful religion they follow. Hate to see what they'd do if they followed a violent one... :rolleyes:
Don't blame the religion because of a vocal minority.
If I did what you are doing, I could say Catholicism is just a violent cult full of child molesters!
*cough*IRA*cough*
*cough*Priestsmolestingaltarboys*cough*
And amazing how many of our US boarders are going for the "historical precedence" argument - watch out guys, the Native Americans are listening!!
Just for the record, the Israeli responses to terror attacks are a form of terrorism in their own right. I mean, a tank driving down a street, having rocks chucked at it by ten-year old kids - not a gunman in sight - and it opens fire?! Hello? And the sad fact is, if it hadn't accidentally wounded a UN Aid worker, we'd never have heard about it...
You are looking at it in the wrong angle, Hunter. That actually shows how dangrous the Palastinians are. Even there kids can only be opposed by Israeli tanks.
I remember the time, when the chapel in Bethlehem was sieged, along with the orphanhouse cared for by nons ( Is that right spelling, I speak of the friendly woman of church orders ). It was shot upon by tanks either. The children had nothing to do with the whole thing, as did not the monk of the chapel who was shot.
And the Palastininians which had sought shelter in there, were not even leaders or otherwise important, it were just ordinary troops.
In my point of view, a country which fires upon children to get some criminals is not worth fighting for and actually already lost the war along with its dignity.
The glimmer of hope there being the growing numbers of Israeli soldiers who refuse to serve within the Occupied Territories out of disgust at the level of overkill being used...
And where is the "glimmer of hope" of growing number of Palistinians refusing to blow up schoolbusses? Oh, that's right, the PA uses them to decorate lampposts as a warning to others.Quote:
Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
The glimmer of hope there being the growing numbers of Israeli soldiers who refuse to serve within the Occupied Territories out of disgust at the level of overkill being used...
That's why it's called a "glimmer" of hope as opposed to a "beacon". I never said it was all good news. But then a sizable number of Palestinians have said that if the Occupation ceases there will be no need for further suicide attacks. While I get "Give a Mouse a Cookie" rammed down my thoat every time I say this, I genuinely don't believe they're all lying...
I've heard lots of Catholics take the Church to task for the child molestation scandal, and for violence like the IRA's attacks, the Crusades, the Spanish colonization of the New World (especially the Re-conquest in New Mexico), witch-burnings, and the horror of the 30 Years War. With the exception of the IRA, though, most of that violence is past tense. And they're still saying mea culpa over it. You don't see folks dancing in the streets of Belfast whenever The Troubles kick up a notch.Quote:
Originally posted by marty4286
Don't blame the religion because of a vocal minority.
If I did what you are doing, I could say Catholicism is just a violent cult full of child molesters!
*cough*IRA*cough*
*cough*Priestsmolestingaltarboys*cough*
However most of the ones in power say, in Arabic after the western news crews have left, words similar to Dr. Abidel Aziz-Rantisi. Surf over to http://www.memri.org/ and have a look for yourself. The PA has a worse negotiating record than the US has with the Indians...Quote:
Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
That's why it's called a "glimmer" of hope as opposed to a "beacon". I never said it was all good news. But then a sizable number of Palestinians have said that if the Occupation ceases there will be no need for further suicide attacks. While I get "Give a Mouse a Cookie" rammed down my thoat every time I say this, I genuinely don't believe they're all lying...
Cybrludite, I was talking about your average Palestinian in the street (assuming you can find one on the street given the Israeli "shoot and ask questions later" policy...), which the Brit news programmes interview quite regularly - not sure if the US channels do or nay.
Posted by Capt.Hunter:
Yes, but people don't negotiate with yoru average citizen, they negotiate with the elite. And that elite as Cybrludite is trying to say, is no interested in a lasting peace.Quote:
Cybrludite, I was talking about your average Palestinian in the street (assuming you can find one on the street given the Israeli "shoot and ask questions later" policy...), which the Brit news programmes interview quite regularly - not sure if the US channels do or nay.
Posted by Capt.Hunter:
They mean, when the occupation ends on "their" terms. And yes the "Give a mouse a cookie" principle applies here. When their were airplane hijackings in the 1970-80's, the only thing that stopped them was the constant use of force.Quote:
But then a sizable number of Palestinians have said that if the Occupation ceases there will be no need for further suicide attacks. While I get "Give a Mouse a Cookie" rammed down my thoat every time I say this, I genuinely don't believe they're all lying...
The difference in Palestine is that the one's doing it don't always listen to their PA leader. Their interests are not his interests. Oh and I also don't believe their all lying, just a sizable majority... :rolleyes:
The problem with the Cookie philosophy is that it bars negotiation. Are we saying we can never meet any of the Palestinians' requests (even if we're just granting them their rights) because it's "acceding to terrorist demands"?
This message has been removed on request by the
poster
Only just spotted your disclaimer in time there, Styro, or not even hiding behind the Almighty IBG would've saved your ass... :)
Well, I'll stick my neck way out then and say that in a large part I agree with Styro's non-serious point. With nothing to save my ass from Capt. Hunter.
It seems foolish not to recognize the inherent danger of negotiating with terrorists in such a manner. Especially from the perspective of Israel.
Might it be something you have to do? I suppose there might be times, but as a rule, I feel it is a bad idea. A very bad idea.
"See, we got them to give us a state because we kept killing their toddlers. Next we'll go for all of Jerusalem and an unlimited right of return. And it'll be easier now that we have our own state."
And for the record, I'm earnestly serious.
Does this mean Isreal should never ever negotiate? Of course not. But it means it should be very careful when doing so. And it should carefully choose who it negotiates with.
I await my ass-whooping.
This message has been removed on request by the
poster
I think we should put the blame solely on Yassir Arafat and the PLA. They considered themselves to be a "government in exile" and they decieved others including Israel into thinking that they really were. So Israel they gave them the control of the PA when it was formed... Even though the reason those talks even started were because of the first Intifadah, of which neither the PLA nor Arafat had anything to do with (they were sitting on their hands in Tunisia at the time). If Israel wasn't tricked, and instead dealt with the leaders of the first Intifadah, I don't think we would have the trouble we are having today (it could be bad, but not worse than this).
I think the average Palastinian is as sick of the war as Israelis. I do no believe they like to loose their children either to retaliation by the opponents or by assaults of the army and suicide attacks of the terrorists. It is actually quite simple - you stop and we stop fighting too. The problem is the leaders do not want the war to stop.
Arafat would loose the position he now has, because he is a military leader, no internation statesman. So is Sharon. He is a man to lead in crisis who know how to deal with terrorists ( or is believed to know ) due to his military experience. However in peace he would not be needed. His diplomatic skills disqualify him for doing the negotiations himself thus somebody else would be needed - who would turn into the spotlight then. His political career would be ended quite fast.
And there is no motivation. Their children are not killed and they themselves are save.
The Palastinian people have to drop Arafat and elect a more moderate leader, hopefully somebody with international reputation better than terrorist and so have the Israelis. They need sombody who is no Archenemy of the Palastinians, no military who has to much hate to negotiate. The problem is, I do not believe they would come into play as long as the other two are still in charge and the question is - are there such people.
I can only hope that the people of Israel and I mean all of them, finally realize that they can manage peace only together. It won't be something finished within months or even years. There are whole generations which hate each other thus it will take new generations to form a union, but it can work.
Look at the German past. We were not so well liked past WWII, but our internation reputation grew and we actually formed friendship, and close ones, with those who we once fought.
I can only hope something happens soon, because I am sick of listening to the news of new assasinations and retaliations, an I am not even living there. The inhabitant have to go through hell and this has to end.
I assume you're not counting those freakazoids who dressed their baby up like a suicide bomber, or those freakazoids who are actually out their encouraging their kids to become those same suicide-attacking terrorists or inciting them to throw stones at armed men or giving them weapons instead of toys. Not those average folks, the other ones.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
I think the average Palastinian is as sick of the war as Israelis. I do no believe they like to loose their children either to retaliation by the opponents or by assaults of the army and suicide attacks of the terrorists
It takes people to elect a leader, and it takes people obeying that leader to give him power. You could declare yourself Holy Roman Emperor, but if no one follows you you're just a guy with a funny hat.
IIRC, the Israelis had a moderate leader or two before Sharon. I don't recall the Palestinians being impressed.
It would take a moderate leader on BOTH sides for anything to happen. Also, by your logic, we can say that all Germans are evil, I mean Hitler DID come to power, didn't he? Doesn't that mean all Americans are evil too? Why don't they actively do anything to stop their government from doing all the messed up things they do to the rest of the world? Aren't all French people evil? I mean, come on! They willingly surrendered to the Nazis!!Quote:
Originally posted by First of Two
I assume you're not counting those freakazoids who dressed their baby up like a suicide bomber, or those freakazoids who are actually out their encouraging their kids to become those same suicide-attacking terrorists or inciting them to throw stones at armed men or giving them weapons instead of toys. Not those average folks, the other ones.
It takes people to elect a leader, and it takes people obeying that leader to give him power. You could declare yourself Holy Roman Emperor, but if no one follows you you're just a guy with a funny hat.
IIRC, the Israelis had a moderate leader or two before Sharon. I don't recall the Palestinians being impressed.
A lot of people's one sided (and sometimes outright racist) views disgust me.
Both sides are simply caught between a rock and a hard place.
if a palastinians leader stops and they are seen as giving up on forceing the Zionist invaders from their land or giving up on resisting the opressors. If an Israeli leader stops he/she would be seen has giving in to terrorism and as not doing anything to defend the people. It would be difficult for a future PA leader to run on an "end the violence" policy and near impossible for an Israeli PM.
Neither side has gurantees from the other side that they will respond in kind directly. but Indirectly.Palastine has alot to win if it puts down the gun first. Many nations support the idea of a Palastinians state including the US. But that Palastine must not be a threat to Isreal's security. It currently is. If it removes itself as a threat it gains more International support even the biggest one of all the US. If Israel continues with incursions into the occupied terrorties without the pretext of a terrorist attack or a violent uprising Isreal will be seen more and more as a bully in the eyes of more and more people. Thus an international outcry will lessen support for Israel and more international pressure will be placed on the nation. Isreal cannot trust Palastine and their supporters. To many variables, ie dozens of terrorist groups only united in cause and not leadership, too many wars, and too many broken promises to arrest terrorist by the current PA. Negotiations with terrorist can happen but definately not when you are under fire.
A real peace can start it is up to the Palastinians.
Yes to everything you said. A good Palestinian leader who can stand up to Sharon will definitely lead to peace.Quote:
Originally posted by Kevin
Both sides are simply caught between a rock and a hard place.
if a palastinians leader stops and they are seen as giving up on forceing the Zionist invaders from their land or giving up on resisting the opressors. If an Israeli leader stops he/she would be seen has giving in to terrorism and as not doing anything to defend the people. It would be difficult for a future PA leader to run on an "end the violence" policy and near impossible for an Israeli PM.
Neither side has gurantees from the other side that they will respond in kind directly. but Indirectly.Palastine has alot to win if it puts down the gun first. Many nations support the idea of a Palastinians state including the US. But that Palastine must not be a threat to Isreal's security. It currently is. If it removes itself as a threat it gains more International support even the biggest one of all the US. If Israel continues with incursions into the occupied terrorties without the pretext of a terrorist attack or a violent uprising Isreal will be seen more and more as a bully in the eyes of more and more people. Thus an international outcry will lessen support for Israel and more international pressure will be placed on the nation. Isreal cannot trust Palastine and their supporters. To many variables, ie dozens of terrorist groups only united in cause and not leadership, too many wars, and too many broken promises to arrest terrorist by the current PA. Negotiations with terrorist can happen but definately not when you are under fire.
A real peace can start it is up to the Palastinians.
The feeling I got was that there were people in both sides (not necessarily the leaders) who just don't want peace and will do anything to prevent it from happening. Palestinian terrorists who bomb schoolbuses as soon as Israel makes a peace offer are one example... but the extremists who murdered Rabin are another one that people seem all to ready to forget.
First of Two, have you ever considered that the "freakazoids" who did those things make the news precisely because what they did was so shocking? Doesn't the US have militants of its own? The views of the average Palestinian aren't newsworthy to our jaded media, because they typically don't espouse the total annihilation of the Israelis. Hell, one elderly Palestinian interviewed by the BBC complained that the Intifada had stopped him playing his weekly chess game against his Israeli neighbour! I've compared interviews with Palestinians when the reporter had a visible camera and when s/he had a hidden camera. The extremists come out to play for the visible camera - they see the reporter coming and make sure they're the ones interviewed. With the hidden camera, you get far more moderate people coming forward - no platform for the extremists to make a stand from, so they ain't interested.
Dan, I'm too tired to whup your ass :mad: - here is my fist, kindly run towards it as fast as you can :p
Welcome to the political threads on the General Chat .Quote:
Originally posted by marty4286
A lot of people's one sided (and sometimes outright racist) views disgust me.
Here, let me buy you a drink. :(
Joe, just watching not saying anything
Don't quite see whats wrong with being one-sided at times. Sometimes, there's just a wrong thing to do. Sometimes, someone is just in the wrong. Should we try to see the "sniper's side" in the Washington-area murders? Should we try to understand Timothy McVey's point in the Oklahoma City bombing?Quote:
Originally posted by marty4286
It would take a moderate leader on BOTH sides for anything to happen. Also, by your logic, we can say that all Germans are evil, I mean Hitler DID come to power, didn't he? Doesn't that mean all Americans are evil too? Why don't they actively do anything to stop their government from doing all the messed up things they do to the rest of the world? Aren't all French people evil? I mean, come on! They willingly surrendered to the Nazis!!
A lot of people's one sided (and sometimes outright racist) views disgust me.
Hitler came to power through German elections. Does that mean all Germans are evil? No, but it means they had to accept the consequences of his being in power. Ordinary Germans died in the war. My wife never knew her maternal grandfather (a German officer) as a result and her mother, born in Prussia during WWII, spent the first decade of her life moving from place to place, with the rest of her family, constantly outrunning the Soviets as they
"relocated" skilled workers to Russia. There are consequences to leadership that ordinary people must bear. Perhaps that is why the idea of another Hitler or getting involved in another such war is such an anathema to most Germans today.
Just as Americans need to accept the consequences of our leaders. That's why we have elections. It is a cop-out saying "our leaders did it". One of the foundations of American politics is the idea that government comes from the consent of the governed. If you accept that, then YES, Americans should be held responsible for their government. It works both ways. It's not just a happy wonderful thing selecting your leaders. It is a matter of utmost responsibility. If the United States federal government loses a lawsuit and has to pay out fines or a legal award, does "the government" pay. Yes? But where does "the government's" money come from? The citizens! If a war breaks out, does "the government" fight it? Or do individuals?
And what is so wrong with applying the same standard to the Palestinians? Or Israel? Yes, some countries are more democratic than others, but citizens always bear responsibility for their government's actions.
Citizens have always had to deal with the consequences of their government. If those consequences are unacceptable, then they should change that government. Whether through elections, protest, rebellion. The latter is certainly the least preferred, but sometimes the only way.
About the majority of the average person on both sides wanting peace. I believe it. Its just that there is an old saying about the squeaky wheel getting the oil. Unfortunatley its the loudest voice that gets heard. I really don't blame the media or believe they have an agenda. As you noted it is the Extremist thats runs to the reporter with the camera and begins shouting his views to make it appear he is more important then he is. The problem with the extremist minority is that they organize. The man just wanting to play chess probably never thought of that. The Extremist raises money organizes meeting with the press and do things that draw attention to themselves. That man wants to just live his life.
The problem with the silent majority is that they are silent. If you have extremist voice saying things without an equally loud voice countering it. It is easy to believe that the silent majority supports or at least is not too outraged by the extremist.
Thes folks must rise up with their message and be heard the actively try to steal the camera from the warmongers. I know there are some groups already. they are still over shadowed by militants. And many of them have to learn never to say "But..." after a condemnation of an attack or an apology.
You can still be objective but not sympathetic. I mean, I tried to find out the point of view of the DC sniper and Timothy McVeigh before, and what I came up was that they were insane murderers. I'm just complaining because some people are only studying one side of the picture, putting out their misguided conclusions, and getting credibility.Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Stack
Don't quite see whats wrong with being one-sided at times. Sometimes, there's just a wrong thing to do. Sometimes, someone is just in the wrong. Should we try to see the "sniper's side" in the Washington-area murders? Should we try to understand Timothy McVey's point in the Oklahoma City bombing?
Hitler came to power through German elections. Does that mean all Germans are evil? No, but it means they had to accept the consequences of his being in power. Ordinary Germans died in the war. My wife never knew her maternal grandfather (a German officer) as a result and her mother, born in Prussia during WWII, spent the first decade of her life moving from place to place, with the rest of her family, constantly outrunning the Soviets as they
"relocated" skilled workers to Russia. There are consequences to leadership that ordinary people must bear. Perhaps that is why the idea of another Hitler or getting involved in another such war is such an anathema to most Germans today.
Just as Americans need to accept the consequences of our leaders. That's why we have elections. It is a cop-out saying "our leaders did it". One of the foundations of American politics is the idea that government comes from the consent of the governed. If you accept that, then YES, Americans should be held responsible for their government. It works both ways. It's not just a happy wonderful thing selecting your leaders. It is a matter of utmost responsibility. If the United States federal government loses a lawsuit and has to pay out fines or a legal award, does "the government" pay. Yes? But where does "the government's" money come from? The citizens! If a war breaks out, does "the government" fight it? Or do individuals?
And what is so wrong with applying the same standard to the Palestinians? Or Israel? Yes, some countries are more democratic than others, but citizens always bear responsibility for their government's actions.
Citizens have always had to deal with the consequences of their government. If those consequences are unacceptable, then they should change that government. Whether through elections, protest, rebellion. The latter is certainly the least preferred, but sometimes the only way.
There are two, and only two, positions on leadership:
1. You accept it.
2. You resist it.
If you do not resist, you accept. There is no "neutral" outside of AD&D.
Now, there may be various reasons for acceptance, as there may be for resistance, but it all boils down to those two positions.
If you do nothing while your leader runs rampant, then you are as accepting of that leader's actions as those who actively supported him. Only if you oppose him, are you innocent of his actions.
Your friendly neighborhood Palistinians can SAY they don't want Arafat and war all they want. Bully for them.
Here's a couple of reliable sayings for them:
"Talk is cheap."
"Actions speak louder than words."
"It's time to ante up and kick in"
Because it's all just so much meaningless TALK, unless they act on it. Replace the guy. Vote him down. Don't just refuse to participate in the destruction, actively OPPOSE it. Get the word out. Bring him down. March on the compound yourselves. Start policing your own. Turn in those would-be bombers. Frag them yourself if you have to. Send the message: "You don't kill in our names!" :mad:
If somebody was blowing up buses full of kids, and he came to me and told me he was doing it for me, would I join his cause, I'd declare him a f*ckwit and shoot him myself.
That is so easy for a guy who lives in relative comfort and wealth to say.
Lets say 3rd world country "A" just had a new dictator. He started "ethnically cleansing" half of his population. Then there are the ones that can't do anything about it. I can imagine you sitting on your ass in a nice home in a safe country whining your extremist views on a message board "OMFG THOSE EVIL BASTARD BLAH BLAH BLAH JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE! ITS THEY'RE FAULT BLAH BLAH THEY DO NOTHING BLAH BLAH! I WOULD BE SO BRAVE AND STUFF AND RESIST AND STUFF!"
oh wait...
I'd respond to that if it had a little coherence and a whiff of sense to it. And less shouting. People with weak positions shout.
If you willingly belong to a group or organization, it is your duty to keep that organization true to its ideals and to make sure that it is not corrupted from within.
I am not a Palestinian. What I say or do has no bearing on Palistinean politics.
But if I was a member of the Church of Hugo the Eternal Wombat, whose members are supposed to be peaceful and tolerant, and some other person who was a member of the same church started blowing up buses in the name of Hugo, I would damn sure fight him. At the very least, I would endeavor to publicize the fact that he did NOT speak for the Church of Hugo, and I would lend my support to endeavors to stop/suppress/take him out. In an extreme case, I would consider it my duty to stop him myself, with extreme prejudice if necessary.
Anything else is hypocrisy and moral cowardice.
And you do not want to SEE me take aggressive action, sir.
Another BLAH for good measure.Quote:
Originally posted by marty4286
That is so easy for a guy who lives in relative comfort and wealth to say.
Lets say 3rd world country "A" just had a new dictator. He started "ethnically cleansing" half of his population. Then there are the ones that can't do anything about it. I can imagine you sitting on your ass in a nice home in a safe country whining your extremist views on a message board "OMFG THOSE EVIL BASTARD BLAH BLAH BLAH JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE! ITS THEY'RE FAULT BLAH BLAH THEY DO NOTHING BLAH BLAH! I WOULD BE SO BRAVE AND STUFF AND RESIST AND STUFF!"
oh wait...
Though you weren't replying to me, First of Two has views on this similar to mine, but I'll reply just for myself.
The truth of the matter, as I said earlier, is not whether or not someone SHOULD do something about their government. The truth, in my view, is that people bear the consequences of their government. They themselves need to weigh in the consequences when supporting or resisting a dictator (or elected offiical for that matter).
Of course we need to judge other countries. Otherwise we'd never have gone to war with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. After all, the average German Japanese citizen were probably ok people.
If you read my post, I wasn't "Shouting". Also, like I said, it is way too easy to talk than to take action. Take Philippines for example, for 20 years it had a horrible dictator. Some of people resisted. A lot of people didn't do anything. Were those people hypocrites or cowards? No. They feared for their lives, they weren't the one with the guns. If your hypothetical person happened to be militant, are you completely sure you could rise up against him? You're an idealist, that is a good thing, but it's very irritating when people talk bullshit: "Look at me, I'm a brave man who fights for his beliefs! I'm serious!"Quote:
Originally posted by First of Two
I'd respond to that if it had a little coherence and a whiff of sense to it. And less shouting. People with weak positions shout.
If you willingly belong to a group or organization, it is your duty to keep that organization true to its ideals and to make sure that it is not corrupted from within.
I am not a Palestinian. What I say or do has no bearing on Palistinean politics.
But if I was a member of the Church of Hugo the Eternal Wombat, whose members are supposed to be peaceful and tolerant, and some other person who was a member of the same church started blowing up buses in the name of Hugo, I would damn sure fight him. At the very least, I would endeavor to publicize the fact that he did NOT speak for the Church of Hugo, and I would lend my support to endeavors to stop/suppress/take him out. In an extreme case, I would consider it my duty to stop him myself, with extreme prejudice if necessary.
Anything else is hypocrisy and moral cowardice.
And you do not want to SEE me take aggressive action, sir.
The world is not just black and white, guys. You can't just make one thing plain evil and another thing plain good. Everything is relative. Westerners usually have that mindset, and its pretty irritating having to tolerate this kind of ignorance at times (I'm not implying anything whatsoever... I'm a westerner too).
Since we just learned that the world doesn't work that way, let's put our new knowledge to good use.
1) Since someone isn't actively resisting a government he thinks is doing something wrong, he is not necessarily a:
coward
hypocrite
2) He/she could be:
too old
opressed
next in line for the mass grave
3) Someone's dressing up their kids as a suicide bomber on the news... This:
does not represent all Palestinians (No matter how much you want to believe so)
does not represent all Muslims (No matter how much you want to believe so)
is very disturbing indeed, I agree wholeheartedly
is just a vocal minority
4)^The above statement (actually, the whole post that went with that statement), being stupid as it is, does not mean the person who said it is necessarily stupid, just ignorant and quick to judge.Quote:
It takes people to elect a leader, and it takes people obeying that leader to give him power. You could declare yourself Holy Roman Emperor, but if no one follows you you're just a guy with a funny hat.
Most who seem quick to point out that they'll "fight for what's right" are very judgemental indeed. I know my mother shares the same viewpoint as I have, but she's actually fought for what was right.
The Filippino dictator for twenty years that I spoke of briefly a while ago, Ferdinand Marcos, was in his last days of power. In a 3 day revoloution where no bloodshed to civilians occured, a violent leader got deposed and exiled (also given asylum in America by an extreme-right wing idiot, Ronald Reagan). My mom was there during the revoloution. She was a college student in a human shield around a military base where rebelling officers and government leaders were making their stand. It was pretty scary few days from what I researched on what happened.
The right-wing facist government tried twice to break that human shield. Their first try, they sent a company of tanks to literally crush them with a battalion of infantry ready to "mop up" survivors. The next day, they started gassing the crowd and were readying to bayonet them. The soldiers didn't do it because they couldn't bear killing their fellow countrymen and ended up defecting to their side.
My mom was there for those three days, and was even one of the first few civilians that stormed the "presidential" palace when Marcos left.
Before that, she was campaigning for the opposition candidate for president, Cory Aquino, when Marcos announced an election (which was fake after all of everyone's efforts). And even before that, she was helping stage rallies and protests against the dictator.
With all that she had done, she did not pass judgement on the people who could only sit back and watch the events unfold.
Lesson to all: Don't judge the people who are affected, especially when you just sit on your ass.
...And thats why it seems like I'm doing "personal attacks"...
People with weak positions make poor excuses to make their poor selves feel better.Quote:
I'd respond to that if it had a little coherence and a whiff of sense to it. And less shouting. People with weak positions shout.
Tien An Menh proves that, sometimes, voicing one's disapproval of the government leads to absolutely nothing, save one's death.
And there is something called misinformation, too. Remember, not everyone has access to a few dozens of TV channels, another dozen of newspapers and the Internet. I doubt the average Palestinian has, for instance. So when every source of information you have plays the same sound, you can become very well convinced that your government is doing the right thing (alternatively, you can have NO information at all, and just have people around you shouting that THEY have the information and that this information leads to the destruction of whoever).
Can you judge someone guilty for having been deceived ?
Plus there's the fact that, while the Palestinian people might not like Arafat, they're a hell of a lot more scared of the Israelis. Look at Bush. Prior to 9/11 he's a laughing stock who everyone imagines will easily lose support. Now his approval ratings are through the roof. The man hasn't changed (at least, I can't see a sudden apparent increase in his IQ or his ability to find his own ass without a roadmap), but since the American people are afraid of the nebulous foe, they've rallied behind him.
Hitler knew this - institute reasonable and popular policies to gain public support. Then, when you start the nasty stuff, people are less inclined to speak out, since they've supported you from the beginning. Humans inherently dislike change, paradoxically even change for the better.
And yes, we need to stop judging people who don't stand up to their leaders. We can't know whether we'd be any different in that situation. First of Two, I know you have a military background, but then when a soldier fights, he has a gun. He has comrades. He has resources backing him up. When a civilian fights, all he has is his courage and possibly a stick - the guys with the guns, buddies and resources are the ones trying to kill him...
I'm a westerner too. But I do have at least some familiarity with eastern philosophy and help out teaching a Tai C'hi class, so I'm familiar with when instructing not making "judgements", not finding "errors" but making "adjustments".
However, I am still a westerner, and it western philosphy is as valid a philosophy as any other. Is it not passing judgement to call westerners judgemental? :eek:
Seriously, I believe that governments have no choice but to be judgemental. Doing otherwise leads to paralysis.
"Well yes, the Twin Towers were hit. We know the terrorists have training facilities in Afghanistan, but the people of the Middle East have legitimate grievances and the Taliban is a valid a way of life as any other so we will take no action."
"Yesterday, December 7, a day that will live in infamy. My fellow Americans, the Empire of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Yet it is important to realize that the attack was provoked deliberately by the United States, as we would not sell Japan our surplus scrap metal. Therefore it would be wrong to pass judgement on Japan. And I cannot lead us to war, for many innocent Japanese may die in such a war who wish us no ill and would rise up against their government if they could. Indeed, many of their soldiers are conscripts and we do not have the right to fight them - they really had no choice but to participate in military action. And remember, above all else, my fellow Americans, remember that the culture of Japan is different from our own."
Dan, I don't think anyone's advocating that sort of thinking - there are certain acts so morally reprehensible that they should not be tolerated by any culture. But outside of such acts, we should respect other cultures more. Anything less leads to misunderstandings, outright xenophobia and an "Us and Them" mentality that is inherently dangerous to all concerned. Since 9/11, for example, anti-Moslem sentiment has skyrocketed, despite the vast majority of Moslems openly condemning the attacks. We have people claiming Moslems are barbaric because they force women to cover up - whereas a good many "liberated" Western Moslem women have actually come forward and defended it as part of their cultural heritage (you wouldn't stop a Rasta wearing his brightly-coloured hat, now would you?).
And yes, it is judgemental to condemn Western cultures for being too judgemental - but as Joe Dredd once said, "If a Judge is above the law - then there is no law". Someone else said something about casting the first stone, which may also have some relevance...