Murdering b@$+@&ds...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
Hitler knew this - institute reasonable and popular policies to gain public support.

---

Thank you, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
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...

---

Sticks like this, this, this or these?

Posted by marty4286:

Quote:

---

(also given asylum in America by an extreme-right wing idiot, Ronald Reagan).

---

You say people make ignorant and stupid statements. You've just made one.

Posted by C5:

Quote:

---

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).

---

Lets take the example of Eastern Europe. There was Soviet misinformation, but so what? Its not as if no one knew why there wasn't enough food in the stores and where political prisoners were disposed of. People are not dumb sheep. There are informal ties people share where information is dispersed. The people of Poland, Slovakia, Romanian, etc... rose up and overthrew the communists and in some cases killed them.
In Romania, the communist party chiefs were being rounded by civilians and hanged. The father of one of my Romanian friend was there and he helped organize it. Why? Because the communists had betrayed Romania and its people to "them". As far as he was concerned the aparatchniks deserved it.

For the better part of the Cold War all of these people's had been told that the Americans are evil bastards who want to destroy them. Fact is that after the 1990's, any U.S. president visiting Eastern Europe is treated very well. Massive crowds come out to greet him, their's a belief that the Americans helped them achieve their freedom (Reagan specifically).


Part of living in states is that the civilians under it are responsible for their government. If their afraid for their lives or are too old to stand up then that is THEIR problem. I mean that. My father was one of the organizers of Solidarnosc in Poland, he damn knew what was going to happen if the Soviets clamped down. Fact is he continued. My grandfather fought in the resistance during WW2, people do stand up against inavders and dictators. And the fact is tha in Palestine they do not.

People can also resist in non-lethal methods. I don't understand this, First of Two specifically mentioned this in his posts. Say the Palestinians don't want Arafat no more, then organize a new group, force him to let you run in the election under U.N. ospices. In western states, people become members of the opposition if their against their ruling party. In Canada, I'm a member of the Canadian Alliance. I do my part against the ruling liberal party which I don't agree with.

Resistance can take two forms. And First of Two brought it up, passive and active. Some regimes can be taken down with simple mass protests and political movement. I'm sure they could get funding from the U.N. and weapons from Israel to "defend" themselves. Their is always a way.

With respect to the folks out there who somehow feel that only organized militaries can be a force for change...

I feel obliged to point out that motivated individuals with weapons have altered the course of history on dozens of occasions.

They have assassinated Caesars, triggered World Wars, wiped out royal families, assassinated leaders both good and despotic for reasons both noble and vile.

What matters is whether you believe in what you are doing enough to exchange your life, if necessary, for that of the target. Most people don't.


And for those who do not speak...

Quote:

---

G'Kar: One word, Mollari. One word was all that was required of you.
Londo: It would not have mattered. It wouldn't have changed anything. It would not have stopped.
G'Kar: You're wrong, Mollari. Whether it was me or my world, whether it was a total stranger or your worst enemy...you were a witness! It doesn't matter if they stopped! It doesn't matter if they'd listen! You had an obligation to speak out!
Londo: I couldn't!
G'Kar: That is why you don't deserve to be emperor.
Londo clutches at his heart in pain.
G'Kar: And that is why you don't deserve to live.

---

This message has been removed on request by the
poster

One comment:

In my opinion, a professional military does not indiscriminately fire missiles into buildings possibly containing civilians. All it proves is that Israelis who advocate such violence are better organized and equipped than the Palestinians who likewise advocate violence.

I see little moral difference.

Cybrludite, read my post again - I was talking about the people who would oppose Arafat not having any weapons - do you honestly think he gives those shipments of guns to people who don't agree with him?

First of Two, again, I was talking not of armed individuals but unarmed civilians. It may be difficult for an American to believe but not everyone has the "right to bear arms". Certainly Saddam isn't going to let his people have guns. And, whilst your B5 quote is certainly appropriate, let's not fool ourselves - would we, in the same situation, do any better than Londo? Londo's certainly no coward - he fought in the military, faced down Morden and much more. In fact, in Londo's case, he wouldn't even be risking his life - just speaking out (the Centauri weren't oppressing their own people). Perhaps, if you want another B5 analogy, we should consider Jack the Ripper's speech to Sheridan and Delenn. Would we fight, even if we are all alone, in the dark, with an uncaring universe? It's easy for a moralist to say yes. But until we face that choice, we have no right at all to condemn others for choosing incorrectly.

On the Hitler issue, I was merely stating that many of the reforms instituted in the early years of Hitler's rule were considered popular by the German people. There was nothing obviously sinister about improved working conditions, more jobs and a revitalised economy. What he did later, of course, was utterly inhuman.

On the Hitler front, there is one thing to note - he told everyone what his plans were. Mein Kampf discussed his plans for Jews, France, Russia, etc. And it was a bestseller! He made no bones about his plans.

Was Mein Kampf published en masse prior to his coming to power? I can't recall. Also, I strongly doubt it mentioned gassing millions of Jews, just making them less of a force in the country (and if you don't think that view could happen, take a look at general opinion about immigrant workers in Britain).

Quote:

---

. It may be difficult for an American to believe but not everyone has the "right to bear arms"

---

Only because you only have the rights you seize for yourself.

Quote:

---

. Would we fight, even if we are all alone, in the dark, with an uncaring universe? It's easy for a moralist to say yes. But until we face that choice, we have no right at all to condemn others for choosing incorrectly.

---

I'm not saying you're incorrect in this, but it does contain an inherent assumption (although young marty's was far more egregious) that may not be entirely correct. More than that, I do not say.

add to the list of quotes:

"I know the darkness. I am its friend. And I know that it is nothing to be played with."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
On the Hitler issue, I was merely stating that many of the reforms instituted in the early years of Hitler's rule were considered popular by the German people. There was nothing obviously sinister about improved working conditions, more jobs and a revitalised economy. What he did later, of course, was utterly inhuman.

---

ANd you weren't trying at all to smear Bush with the Hitler brush? Not even a teensy bit? Then why mention the Little Corporal at all?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ComaBoy
One comment:

In my opinion, a professional military does not indiscriminately fire missiles into buildings possibly containing civilians. All it proves is that Israelis who advocate such violence are better organized and equipped than the Palestinians who likewise advocate violence.

I see little moral difference.

---

Who said anything about it being indiscriminate? You'll note that when the Israeli's do such a strike, they generally get the terrorist leader they were after. And instead of dancing in the streets when bystanders are killed in the process, they appologize, and do what they can for the wounded. If you can see little moral difference, you might want to get your eyes checked.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
Was Mein Kampf published en masse prior to his coming to power? I can't recall. Also, I strongly doubt it mentioned gassing millions of Jews, just making them less of a force in the country (and if you don't think that view could happen, take a look at general opinion about immigrant workers in Britain).

---

Although it was publically available since the mid 20's it was actually no bestseller - it was not that all Germans owned one at that time. And mind you, that ordinary workers certainly had the time to read philosophical stuff ( how much crap it may be ) in their low freetime. However Hitlers plans were known, but he was simply underestimated. Those who brought him into power ( no not the electing people ), the industrial leaders and head of government, i.e. President Hindenburg and Mr. von Papen had the plan to use him until the present economical situation was overcome. Papen said: "Let's squeeze him till he queaks." which was what they planned, but never were able to do.
Concerning the resistance thing, it was not that Hitler had the majority in government, his power was only secured by the Enabling Act ( and similiar laws ). however if not the SPD had voted for him, his possibilites would have been restricted far more. But the SPd people werre intimidated by the SA, who treahtened them.
Morally and logically speaking, one has to agree, those who do not oppose deserve the consequences. But the problem is, that humans are no solely logic people, and the feeling of fear and the instinct of self-preservance is very strong. Additionally humans are 'herd-animals'.
It is the same effect how all watch the car accidant, but few dare to intervene and help. It is psychologically proven, that people have the feeling not to stick out of the mass out of fear of the consequences. It is the same in larger scale.
What if I say, the government is bad - I am an outsider than? While not neccessarily the actual thoughts, people have the instinct to stay in the group - its simply safer.
Maybe a more intense ethnical education could oppose that adn strengthen the feel of duty for intervention in larger issues, like a wrong government.


BTW: Hitler stated in his book about Germans superiority, the destruction of other people and how to end the 'Jew-Problem'. It was more or less publically known what would happen if he comes into power.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos

Lets take the example of Eastern Europe. There was Soviet misinformation, but so what? Its not as if no one why there wasn't enough food in the stores and where political prisoners were disposed of. But the people of Poland, Slovakia, Romanian, etc... rose up and overthrew the communists and in some cases killed them.

Part of living in states is that the civilians under it are responsible for their government. If their afraid for their lives or are too old to stand up then that is THEIR problem. I mean that. My father was one of the organizers of Solidarnosc in Poland, he damn knew what was going to happen if the Soviets clamped down. Fact is he continued. My grandfather fought in the resistance during WW2, people do stand up against inavders and dictators.

People can also resist in non-lethal methods. I don't understand this, First of Two specifically mentioned this in his posts. Say the Palestinians don't want Arafat no more, then organize a new group

---

As you said, there is always the possibility of non-violence. The GDR dissovled peacefully without one shot ever fired - thanks to the deeds of Mr. Gorbatshev. The question is is it desirable to kill people to achieve peace.
And mind you, that if you stick the scale to high, there is no human left ;)
You cannot regard heroes as the standard-scale. And actually the Palastinians form into groups against Arafat - although only rarely shown in the public. There are demonstrations against the attacks and also Israeli's protest against Israel politics. But it takes courage and hope, which many do not have, to stand up and resist. Because if there's no hope left, there is no motivation, but apathy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cybrludite
ANd you weren't trying at all to smear Bush with the Hitler brush? Not even a teensy bit? Then why mention the Little Corporal at all?

---

We have a saying here in Germany: "Hit dogs do bark."

Assuming something like this, raises the question, fi you do not actually think so yourself. Maybe you should not expect an insult where none is. :)

Posted by Capt.Hunter:

Quote:

---

Cybrludite, read my post again - I was talking about the people who would oppose Arafat not having any weapons - do you honestly think he gives those shipments of guns to people who don't agree with him?

---

They can buy them from Israeli arms dealers. Get money from U.S. sources, from Turkey or from Israel. Its not impossible, just difficult, but then life is complicated.

Posted by Evan Van Eyk:

Quote:

---

As you said, there is always the possibility of non-violence. The GDR dissovled peacefully without one shot ever fired - thanks to the deeds of Mr. Gorbatshev. The question is is it desirable to kill people to achieve peace.
You cannot regard heroes as the standard-scale. And actually the Palastinians form into groups against Arafat - although only rarely shown in the public. There are demonstrations against the attacks and also Israeli's protest against Israel politics. But it takes courage and hope, which many do not have, to stand up and resist. Because if there's no hope left, there is no motivation, but apathy.

---

Absolutely true.:)

Heroes are rare indeed. But even the simplest person can rise up to the occassion, its just a matter of being pushed so far against a wall that one has no choice.
I still don't believe it has reached that point in Palestine. IMO the silent majority is still content enough not to do anything about Arafat.
I also believe that the Palestinians and the Cubans have a similar situation. Both leaders are old and will keel over soon, many may think that waiting is a better option.

How can he not be an extreme-right wing idiot? He gave asylum to Marcos and praised his "democratic ideals". He supported Marcos because he was afraid that anyone else would be "too soft on communism". He armed and funded him.

Marcos had no democratic ideals, his country was brutally repressed. When he announced martial law, thousands of opposition leaders and intellectuals were imprisoned and tortured. Sure he was tough on communism on the outside, but his brutality was the reason communism even rose up in the Philippines. The Huks were long dead, and his "crusade" was a sham to distract everyone. People started sympathizing with the few people who were truly communist just to spite him. The NPA, New People's Army, which numbered only 20 or so radical students at the start of his 20 year reign ended up being a 40,000 strong guerilla fighting force, poised to capture Manila. And what makes it worse, is that he wasn't a very good capitalist either. He practiced crony-capitalism, where black-mail and threats landed him and his buddies control of 90% of the nation's business.

He had this control for so long because people were afraid of his soldiers. Guess who trained and armed the soldiers? The United States. In the end, it was Reagan supporting Marcos to the end (Bush Sr. even toasted him for making the Philippines the beacon of hope an freedom in asia...)

Quote:

---

You say people make ignorant and stupid statements. You've just made one.

---

*cough*

Quote:

---

Who said anything about it being indiscriminate? You'll note that when the Israeli's do such a strike, they generally get the terrorist leader they were after. And instead of dancing in the streets when bystanders are killed in the process, they appologize, and do what they can for the wounded. If you can see little moral difference, you might want to get your eyes checked.

---

Oh my... I remember seeing footage of Israelis shelling a TV news building. It had the viewpoint of the people outside shelling and the inside being shelled. It seemed to me all a big misunderstanding, the journalists inside trying hard to keep showing the world what was happening to them without getting killed, and the Israeli soldiers outside truly believing they were doing something right. I also don't remember any apology.

Quote:

---

They can buy them from Israeli arms dealers. Get money from U.S. sources, from Turkey or from Israel. Its not impossible, just difficult, but then life is complicated.

---

You act as if its just an easy soloution. "Those pussies won't stand up for the right thing, why don't they just get these weapons and fight!"

Quote:

---

Reagan was many things... But he was not an idiot. Just remember as you sit in front of your computer that the current crop of computer technology is an outgrowth of his SDI plan...

---

Whee! I love speculation! Did you know there were computers BEFORE his SDI plan?

Quote:

---

Lets take the example of Eastern Europe. There was Soviet misinformation, but so what? Its not as if no one knew why there wasn't enough food in the stores and where political prisoners were disposed of. People are not dumb sheep. There are informal ties people share where information is dispersed. The people of Poland, Slovakia, Romanian, etc... rose up and overthrew the communists and in some cases killed them.

---

Remember the story about my mom participating in a peaceful revoloution (which occured a few months before anything similar happened in Eastern Europe, and a couple of years before Tiananmen Square)? She rose up all right, but she didn't pass judgement on the people who were afraid to do anything about it.

No civillians were killed during those few days of the revoloution, but just a little bit before, during the fake elections, a lot were being killed. Gunmen would visit voting precincts, watch who you voted for, and either bribed you or shot you. Even though the outcome was fixed, there was brutality in the voting process. How could you not be paralyzed by fear? Although I can imagine some young reactionary sitting on his ass in the Philippines somewhere right now posting on a message board about how the people who were living in fear at the time were "pussies" that deserved to live that way.

You could call me stupid or ignorant for calling Reagan an idiot, but I actually have facts to back it up, not blind party ideology (Damn, that marty must be a pinko commie f*g/n****r lover!) or speculation (WITHOUT SDI THERE WOULD BE NO INTERNET! HE WAS BRILLIANT EVEN WITH ALZHEIMERS!)

Let me quote from a book Bush Dyslexicon, by Mark Crispin Miller (which is not a collection of out-of-context quotations and political satire which the title implies)

Quote:

---

The next chief executive to put on the impenetrable mantle was Ronald Reagan, our Teflon President, who never once appeared to peek out from behind his happy mask. The camera failed to glorify him only at tose moments when it mercilessly showed that there was no one there (because of Alzheimer's, perhaps), his ruddy and anachronistic visage standing empty, like an old brick high school soon to be converted to loft apartments. This happened at his first debate with Walter Mondale-"I'm all confused now"-and again when, having been asked out at his ranch what was being done to free the hostages in Lebanon, he just stood there, beaming vacantly, with Nancy tensed up next to him. "We're doing everything we can," she muttered at the ground through gritted teeth, and he, uncomprehendingly, repeated it, still smiling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by marty4286
A lot of people's one sided (and sometimes outright racist) views disgust me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by marty4286
How can he [Reagan] not be an extreme-right wing idiot?

---

Question: Are you allowed to have one-sided views?

You condemn others for "not having studied the issues enough". Yet it is ok for you to call Reagan an idiot.

What study is that idiocy based on? Beyond a disagreement with his politics. It would be possible, for example, for me to disagree with everything Bill Clinton stood for yet still see him as intelligent.

Heck, I disagree with some of what Reagan did, including with regard to Marcos. But the broad-brush being used could easily be applied to others of opposing political views for similar reasons.

How could Jimmy Carter not be an extreme left-wing IDIOT, for giving sanctuary to a dictator like the Shah of Iran.

How could JFK not be an exteme left-wing [b]IDIOT[/b, for launching the Bay of Pigs invasion?

Every president has made decisions which history reveals as poor, foolish, and even unprincipled.


I'd really like to be able to disagree with people without being disagreeable. Sometimes things get a little heated here in the political debates here. If you look enough I'm certain you'll find statements I regret saying. But I always try to be objective, considerate, and have some understanding of other viewpoints, especially those I disagree with (how better to debate them) - and every once in a while a "pinko left-wing commie" has made a compelling enough case to sway my opinion to their side. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. But they use far more compelling arguments than broad brushes like the ones being used here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Stack
[B]Question: Are you allowed to have one-sided views?

You condemn others for "not having studied the issues enough". Yet it is ok for you to call Reagan an idiot.

What study is that idiocy based on? Beyond a disagreement with his politics. It would be possible, for example, for me to disagree with everything Bill Clinton stood for yet still see him as intelligent.

Heck, I disagree with some of what Reagan did, including with regard to Marcos. But the broad-brush being used could easily be applied to others of opposing political views for similar reasons.

How could Jimmy Carter not be an extreme left-wing IDIOT, for giving sanctuary to a dictator like the Shah of Iran.

How could JFK not be an exteme left-wing IDIOT[/b, for launching the Bay of Pigs invasion?

Every president has made decisions which history reveals as poor, foolish, and even unprincipled.


I'd really like to be able to disagree with people without being disagreeable. Sometimes things get a little heated here in the political debates here. If you look enough I'm certain you'll find statements I regret saying. But I always try to be objective, considerate, and have some understanding of other viewpoints, especially those I disagree with (how better to debate them) - and every once in a while a "pinko left-wing commie" has made a compelling enough case to sway my opinion to their side. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. But they use far more compelling arguments than broad brushes like the ones being used here.

---

I don't have a one sided view about Reagan, I've studied as much of the things he has done. I DO think that Carter did idiotic things during his term as president, and that JFK was very much overrated. I don't have a double standard, I don't care what party someone is or what ideology they cling to, if I think someone is stupid, I try study that person to make sure I'm correct in my view. If I find out he wasn't stupid after all, I change my mind.

Well, at least you're reading my posts, I notice a couple of people seem to read to the middle then say something that has nothing to do with whatever was said.

Posted by marty4286

Quote:

---

You act as if its just an easy soloution. "Those pussies won't stand up for the right thing, why don't they just get these weapons and fight!"

---

Don't put word into my mouth. I didn't say they were pussies, you did. And I never said it was easy. LOOK at the quote. I said its not impossible, just difficult. Chalk up another dumb comment.:mad:

Posted by marty4286:

Quote:

---

You could call me stupid or ignorant for calling Reagan an idiot, but I actually have facts to back it up, not blind party ideology or speculation (WITHOUT SDI THERE WOULD BE NO INTERNET! HE WAS BRILLIANT EVEN WITH ALZHEIMERS!)

---

I could, but I'll refrain from that.

How nice that you assumed that I'm somehow part of the Republican party or even American. :rolleyes:


Posted by marty4286:

Quote:

---

(Damn, that marty must be a pinko commie f*g/n****r lover!)

---

And where the hell did this come from?:confused:

Posted by marty4286:

Quote:

---

How could you not be paralyzed by fear? Although I can imagine some young reactionary sitting on his ass in the Philippines somewhere right now posting on a message board about how the people who were living in fear at the time were "pussies" that deserved to live that way.

---

And if you are paralyzed by fear and not able to stand up, then you are still responsible for what happens. If you don't stand up, then you are part of the silent majority/minority.

As an American saying goes;
-"Live free, or die."

I'm willing to accept people who don't want to fight for their freedoms. Its their choice.

Oy, this has been sidetracked too much. At first, I was just trying to correct a mistaken view that because a vocal minority of Palestinians are doing extremely horrible things, doesn't mean every Palestinian is evil or barbaric. We all know we've reached a point where we can't convince each other of our individual views and that we're off topic. Lets just agree to let this thread die, because It's a waste of time and energy anyway... let's just get back to the purpose of the forums: Star Trek RPGing (or General Chat... whatever :p)

Cybrludite, no I was not trying to smear Bush with the Hitler tar. I may consider Bush a hawkish moron milking the support for the War on Terror as much as he can, but he's no Nazi. And at least he's been shown to actually listen to more moderate viewpoints.

For those of our American friends who've claimed that a populace should rise up and fight against a corrupt government, it would be interesting to see just how many would if the US admininstration went nutso. Sure, you have a gun. They have stealth bombers and smart missiles. Would you? Would you really? If you can look deep in side, consider the matter extensively and say unequivocally "yes", then maybe - just maybe - you have the right to judge others of lesser moral fibre. I suspect the best most of us would manage would be "maybe".

Oh, and First of Two - on the right to bear arms, not everyone wants (or feels they need) it.

I'm still desperately...pathetically...beggingly...hoping against hope that this "Those who don't rise up against their oppressors deserve everything they get" mindset is a joke of some sort.

It has to be.

I mean, surely nobody could seriously think the Iraqis could just 'rise up' and overthrow Hussein. What are they supposed to do, fling used coffee grounds at the Republican Guard's T-72 tanks?

It's interesting someone brought up the Maquis (no, not the anti-Cardassian one; the French one). Yes, they fought against the Germans very well.
Unfortunately, the German policy was 10 French citizens executed for every German soldier killed by the Resistance.

I wonder if these armchair revolutionaries would be as eager to storm the Bastille if they knew their spouses and children were going to be executed as a result.

Hell, at least the suicide bombers know their families will be well looked-after.

And, of course, the biggest joke of all: "If they rose up against Arafat, they would get arms support from the US and Israel."

Yeah, right.

Just like the Kurds were supported after they were encouraged to "rise up" against Hussein in 1991.

Nope...has to be a joke.

Nobody could be so narrow-minded as to think everyone else should think the same as them, that a glorious revolution against the oppressor is anything other than a pipe-dream in most cases - especially when the government has the trained soldiers, the armoured vehicles, the attack helicopters, strike aircraft, artillery, biological/chemical weapons, secret police, surveillance of civilian activity, restrictions on travel, government-controlled media and communications, identification which must carried at all times, curfews, prisons overflowing with political prisoners, daily executions of dissidents and their families...need I go on?

What's happening to the Palestinians at the moment is a good example of what I'm talking about - and they're already pretty well-armed, and the Israelis are pretty much holding back from what they could do.

Oh, yeah. "Rise Up!"

I'm waiting for someone to start chanting "Do You Hear the People Sing?".

Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ some people need to wake up and smell the coffee - and perhaps try to open their eyes and see it from the other side for once!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aldaron
I'm still desperately...pathetically...beggingly...hoping against hope that this "Those who don't rise up against their oppressors deserve everything they get" mindset is a joke of some sort.

---

"Joke"? No.

"Deserve what they get?" Not the words I use, but close to the intent.

Let me reiterate it for the 1000th time. Whether they deserve what they get is a moot point, the people always wind up bearing the consequences of their leadership, deservedly or not.

When the Allies invaded Germany,the German people bore the consequences. Would the Allies have invaded Germany had not, under Nazi leadership, the Germans conquered all of Europe.

Does this mean everything bad that happens to someone is a result of their leadership? No that trivializes things too much.

What I am saying is that govermnents cannot make distinictions when setting foreign policy. "Gee, the leaders of the Soviet Communist Party swear our grandchildren will be communists, but I bet the people there are ok. Lets not do everything we can to destroy the Soviet Union, as ordinary people would be hurt."

Dan, your message is clear and (gasp!) I agree with you. What I was trying to address with my posts is that certain people here have taken it to mean that a person who does not act to change their leaders out of fear is automatically just as evil as those leaders.

I should also point out that it's a lot easier to say you'd fight to change the government if they're oppressing you - but would you fight to stop them oppressing someone else? The British Empire performed horrible acts of oppression abroad, as did the Romans. Did their citizens rise up to change the leadership? Not so easy to risk your life fighting the state on behalf of people you have no personal connection to, is it? (remember, the vast majority of Palestinians have never even met an Israeli).

Quote:

---

For those of our American friends who've claimed that a populace should rise up and fight against a corrupt government, it would be interesting to see just how many would if the US admininstration went nutso. Sure, you have a gun. They have stealth bombers and smart missiles. Would you? Would you really? If you can look deep in side, consider the matter extensively and say unequivocally "yes", then maybe - just maybe - you have the right to judge others of lesser moral fibre. I suspect the best most of us would manage would be "maybe".

---

If the Government went nutso as you say which would mean going against hte Constitution. Then a great majority of those who control the stealth fighters and smart missiles will end up fighting that nutso government.

We int the US militaryr aren't mindnum robots (not even the marines;) ). We don't blindly follow our leaders. We are not yes man. We swear allegiance to the Constitution not to the president, not to congress, not even to the land. We fight for the Ideals that are on that peice of paper and don't ever think we don't know whats written on it.

I know you were not saying otherwise. I just wanted to illustrate why I believe this scenario isn't going to be accepted as plausable by us Yanks.

Posted by Aldaron:

Quote:

---

Hell, at least the suicide bombers know their families will be well looked-after.

---

Hence, Israel destroys their houses so they "know" that if one of their family members goes out and kills Israelis, there will be consequences.

Posted by Aldaron:

Quote:

---

And, of course, the biggest joke of all: "If they rose up against Arafat, they would get arms support from the US and Israel."

---

Do you even know where Arafat gets his weapons from? Excluding Arab sources and Iran, they also get them from Israeli smugglers. Soldiers have been caught in the past selling weapons to the PA, and other organisations. Everyone is out to make a buck.

Posted by Aldaron:

Quote:

---

Just like the Kurds were supported after they were encouraged to "rise up" against Hussein in 1991.

---

I'm guessing you know very little about what happened then. The CIA agents in the country were told to leave. You do know that a unit of Republican Guards mutinied against Hussein, but without foreign support they were quickly crushed. Kurds nowadays do have a working army. People need foreign support if they choose an armed revolution. Read "See No Evil" by Robert Baer, he was there at the time.


And people still simply do not understand what a revolution is. IT includes military units. Its not just civilians rising up against the government. And it doesn't have to be violent. Their can be peaceful attempts to win freedom, Mahatma Gandhi in India comes to mind. I find it weird that people automatically assume that rising against a government automatically means bloodshed and violence.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos
I find it weird that people automatically assume that rising against a government automatically means bloodshed and violence.

---

Sadly, if rising against a government doesn't automatically means bloodshed and violence, stopping people who rose against a government does.

In fact, your 'do something or bear the consequences' attitude actually goes along with the Palastinian point of view.
They arer surpressed, underpriviliged and second grade humans in the view of Israel, thus they resist - as you demand. however that obviously does not work, so maybe we should put the arms away and start communicating.


BTW, I wonder why you follow President Bush, when you are sworn to the Consitution. As far as I remember, it was revealed that the votes were miscounted and thus he was not actually elected. Additionally if you are responsible for what you government does, than all US citizen have the idea, that arab americans have to be put into prison camps like Mr. Ashcroft demanded. I actually cannot remember any demonstrations or other form of resistance to that statement and as far as I know Mr. Ahscroft is still in office.
And it was the same Mr. Ashcroft, who allowed several thousand arabs to be taken into prison whithout any reason, just because they were arab - without telling anybody what happened, no lawyers and no families.
After being set free again, one sued against the state and a Californian judge declared Ashcroft's deeds 'unlawful', still he is in office and no resistance - i.e. all Americans want their arab neighbours being imprisoned in camps or actual prisons...


Or maybe you theory is not a solid as you think.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
BTW, I wonder why you follow President Bush, when you are sworn to the Consitution. As far as I remember, it was revealed that the votes were miscounted and thus he was not actually elected. Additionally if you are responsible for what you government does, than all US citizen have the idea, that arab americans have to be put into prison camps like Mr. Ashcroft demanded. I actually cannot remember any demonstrations or other form of resistance to that statement and as far as I know Mr. Ahscroft is still in office.
And it was the same Mr. Ashcroft, who allowed several thousand arabs to be taken into prison whithout any reason, just because they were arab - without telling anybody what happened, no lawyers and no families.
After being set free again, one sued against the state and a Californian judge declared Ashcroft's deeds 'unlawful', still he is in office and no resistance - i.e. all Americans want their arab neighbours being imprisoned in camps or actual prisons...


Or maybe you theory is not a solid as you think.

---

Oh, my theory is still solid... :D

There has been considerable public and vocal dissent in America to many of the policies of Ashcroft (whether it has been covered overseas is another manner.) And no, we are not responsible for the actions of Bush and Ashcroft on that matter, rather we will have to bear the consequences.

As for the election, actually Bush was elected according to the Constitution. This really isn't the forum for such a debate, but the Consitution doens't care about popular vote at all for president, just whom the state-appointed electors choose. The way that all states currently choose their electors is via popular vote. All those court fights were about the manner in which Florida was counting votes. The US Supreme Court decided that the manner the Florida Supreme Court had chosen to count votes violated the US Constitution (a 5-2 decision). A more controvertial 4-3 decision ended further recounts - while the decision was controvertial, the Supreme Court's constitutional authority was recognized by both sides (as an aside, unoffial vote tallies of the entire state of Florida revealed that Bush indeed won the popular vote in Florida . Indeed, the recount that was stopped would have given Bush the victory).

From CNN.com:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html

Quote:

---

Florida Supreme Court recount ruling

On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials' determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast.

Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

---

To be equal opportunity, the people of Israel are also bearing the consequences of their leadership - i.e. continuing settlements, not creating a Palestinian State, not granting the right of return.

This is not to say whether they should do those things, nor is to say whether or not things would be better or worse were they to do those things.

Terrorism against the Israelis is for a political objective. (A varying objective - for some it is to secure a Palestinian state, for others it is a first step in destroying the Israeli state.)

Isreal's leaders could end terrorism against Israel easily - by giving up their right to exist. That would guarantee an end to all terrorism against Isreali state. I suspect that most Isrealis would prefer to bear the current sad state of affairs than abandoning the idea of statehood for Israel.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Stack
Oh, my theory is still solid... :D

There has been considerable public and vocal dissent in America to many of the policies of Ashcroft (whether it has been covered overseas is another manner.) And no, we are not responsible for the actions of Bush and Ashcroft on that matter, rather we will have to bear the consequences.

This really isn't the forum for such a debate, but the Consitution doens't care about popular vote at all for president, just whom the state-appointed electors choose.

All those court fights were about the manner in which Florida was counting votes.

Indeed, the recount that was stopped would have given Bush the victory).

---

Well obviously a fine example of misinformation. The only political involvement of the US citizen we I saw here was waving small stars and stripes on everything Bush or his cabinet says. But still I cannot understand how Ashcroft still can be in office ( Well and I do not understand why Mr. Koch, Prime Minister of Hessen is still in office and even reelected although being a proven criminal ).
But concerning the election, I heard the exact opposite, that actually Gore would have won - I heard people actually talk of a power seize by Bush ( an obvious overreaction ). No matter the fact, I did not want to start a discussion about the US voting system at all, I justed wanted to show the flaws of your theory, but it seems I failed as I did misunderstand you about the responsibilites.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
But concerning the election, I heard the exact opposite, that actually Gore would have won - I heard people actually talk of a power seize by Bush ( an obvious overreaction ).

---

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blcrybaby.htm


:D

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hell, at least the suicide bombers know their families will be well looked-after.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hence, Israel destroys their houses so they "know" that if one of their family members goes out and kills Israelis, there will be consequences.

Yes, but you missed my point.
I was saying that even the lunatic suicide bombers do it because they think their families will be taken care of (which they are, as far as possible).

My point was that there are few people (myself included) who would risk the lives of their spouse and children to persue an ideological goal.

As to the justice of Israel going after the families of the bombers - well, it's a topic for another debate, but I have an inherent abhorrence to targeting innocents who happen to have lunatic relatives.

(And before someone starts bleating about "they should have put their relative in to the authorities", I'm talking about the now-homeless innocent relatives; like 2 year olds, okay?)

Posted by Aldaron:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, of course, the biggest joke of all: "If they rose up against Arafat, they would get arms support from the US and Israel."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you even know where Arafat gets his weapons from? Excluding Arab sources and Iran, they also get them from Israeli smugglers. Soldiers have been caught in the past selling weapons to the PA, and other organisations. Everyone is out to make a buck.

Umm...yeah?

Are you including Colt, General Dynamics and McDonnel Douglas in the "out to make a buck" comment, suggesting they would supply weaponry to the hypothetical anti-Arafat rebels?

Or did you again miss my point, since I said the above in relation to the next line.

Posted by Aldaron:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like the Kurds were supported after they were encouraged to "rise up" against Hussein in 1991.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm guessing you know very little about what happened then. The CIA agents in the country were told to leave. You do know that a unit of Republican Guards mutinied against Hussein, but without foreign support they were quickly crushed. Kurds nowadays do have a working army. People need foreign support if they choose an armed revolution. Read "See No Evil" by Robert Baer, he was there at the time.

Ummm...yeah, again.

Precisely my point.

Let me summarise: many have been saying that if the hypothetical anti-Arafat rebels would rise up to overthrow him, they would be supported from outside.

I am asking if the support would be similar to that given to the Kurds in 1991.

That is: none.

So you've actually just supported my argument. Thanks.

That is, that the response of "they'd be supplied by the US or Israel" in answer to my "Where the hell are they supposed to get weapons to fight off the evil regime?" is completely moot. History shows quite clearly that they can't rely on anyone to supply them - not now that the Cold War is over, anyway.

And people still simply do not understand what a revolution is. IT includes military units.

And which Palestinian "military units" will this entail?

Its not just civilians rising up against the government.

It would be in Palestine. The nearest thing Palestine has to a military is Hamas!

And it doesn't have to be violent. Their can be peaceful attempts to win freedom, Mahatma Gandhi in India comes to mind. I find it weird that people automatically assume that rising against a government automatically means bloodshed and violence.

Because it does.
India's overthrow of British rule was not a peaceful sit-in. Thousands of Indians died in riots and demonstrations, and the British were responsible for several massacres when they opened fire on the Indian protesters.

And the Brits were just about the best people in the world to resist, because the UK was a democracy, with a rule of law and free press. When the British parliamentarians saw and heard what had happened with the massacres, they were outraged.

It may be considered stereotyping, but I honestly don't think it is, to say the the British have a very finely honed sense of fair play. And slaughtering unarmed civilians was, to borrow a phrase: "Not Cricket!"

Let's imagine how Hitler or Hussein would deal with Gandhi and his passive resistance, and tell me you still think it could be accomplished without bloodshed.

Bottom line is, it beggars belief that people are saying those who don't rise up and overthrow their oppressors deserve what they get (and I know, some have qualified their statements - it's not them I'm talking about.)

This isn't the first time it's come up on these boards.

To my mind, people claiming that the Iraqi people, Palestinian people...whoever...are some kind of moral cowards for not overthrowing their government (and therefore in the same box as the violent murderers that are running their respective regimes) need a healthy dose of reality, not to mention a bit of "Not everyone thinks violence is an acceptable solution".

Someone here (I can't remember who, off-hand) even went as far as to say outright that violence is a perfectly acceptable solution to most problems, as long as people were willing to live with the consequences.

Well, sorry. That's just plain, simple, unadulterated horse-shit.

A person may live with the consequences of their actions, but I for one do not want the snot kicked out of me because some idiot up the road who I've never heard of or spoken to went and blew up a busload of nuns.

As for the argument that what your government does comes back to you, the Palestinians can take that to mean that all Israelis are targets - which they do...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
As for the argument that what your government does comes back to you, the Palestinians can take that to mean that all Israelis are targets - which they do...

---

Oh, I agree. It doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean that the Isreaelis shouldn't fight it. Nor does it mean it can't be condemned. But if the Israeli government did what most terrorist groups want them to do (i.e. cease to exist) the suicide bombings would stop in a heartbeat. Of course, they'd be replace by wholesale slaughter...

And the Palestinians need to live with the consequences of killing Israeli toddlers. (Which here in Massachusetts, at least at Harvard Univesity, the consequences include inviting poets to the University who call for the killing of more Israeli civilians).

Posted by Aldaron:

Quote:

---

Yes, but you missed my point.
I was saying that even the lunatic suicide bombers do it because they think their families will be taken care of (which they are, as far as possible).

---

Nope. I understood your point.:)

I just wanted to point out the Palestinian case.


As for the weapons being provided to Arafat, they are being provided by Western sources also. Israelis do get caught smuggling weapons into Palestinian territory.

As for the Kurds, that was different situation and a different administration. You'll notice that in American foreign politics, their interest in foreign areas is fleeting. Since the anti-Iraq coalition didn't want Hussein removed, the CIA plans were scrapped.
In the case of the PA and Arafat, it would actually be better if they fragmented from the strategic perspective. Whatever weakens Arafat is good for Israel, so strategically it would be wise to support anti-Arafat rhetoric and groups.

Currently there is NO opposition to Arafat in the PA or otherwise. They are there however, its just a matter of making it plain that outsiders will help them.

Posted by Aldaron:

Quote:

---

And which Palestinian "military units" will this entail?

---

I was talking about revolution in general. The gunmen running around is as close as a Palestinian military unit can get. They are technically the one's who enforce Arafat's rule.

Posted by Aldaron:

Quote:

---

To my mind, people claiming that the Iraqi people, Palestinian people...whoever...are some kind of moral cowards for not overthrowing their government (and therefore in the same box as the violent murderers that are running their respective regimes) need a healthy dose of reality, not to mention a bit of "Not everyone thinks violence is an acceptable solution".

---

And I agree with you. I said it in an above post that I can accept people who don't want to fight for whatever reason.

Its true that violence isn't an acceptable solution, but sometimes its the only thing left.

Posted by Aldaron:

Quote:

---

This isn't the first time it's come up on these boards.

---

Ah, yes. The eternal struggle between Hawks and Doves.:D

And probably won't be the last either.;)

Despite your blather and shouting, I will attempt to respond:

Speaking for myself, yes. If I were unhappy enough with the goivernment of the United States, if I felt that the sitting government had diviated impossibly far from the Constitution, then my personal beliefs and sworn oath would require me to act... regardless of the consequences.

My father used to have a useful opinion; if you didn't want to do something, you simply weren't ready. It had interesting applications: Didn't want to eat your vegetables? You must not be hungry yet. Go do your homework until you are. Can't sleep? You must not be tired yet. Help your mother fold laundry until you are.

The application for the "Palestinians": don't want to revolt against Arafat? You must not be ready. Live in the middle of a war zone until you are.

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...

---

And individuals with no weapons whatsoever...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two
With respect to the folks out there who somehow feel that only organized militaries can be a force for change...

I feel obliged to point out that motivated individuals with weapons have altered the course of history on dozens of occasions.

They have assassinated Caesars, triggered World Wars, wiped out royal families, assassinated leaders both good and despotic for reasons both noble and vile.

What matters is whether you believe in what you are doing enough to exchange your life, if necessary, for that of the target. Most people don't.


And for those who do not speak...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aldaron

My point was that there are few people (myself included) who would risk the lives of their spouse and children to persue an ideological goal.

---

Then you accept the risk that they may be killed by an Israeli retaliation... or even that one of your own children may be swept up in the insanity and become a bomber himself.

Quote:

---

It would be in Palestine. The nearest thing Palestine has to a military is Hamas!

---

The "Palestinians" don't have security services? Who are those guys in uniform on TV?

Quote:

---

Because it does.
India's overthrow of British rule was not a peaceful sit-in. Thousands of Indians died in riots and demonstrations, and the British were responsible for several massacres when they opened fire on the Indian protesters.

---

Absolutely correct. It is highly likely that many/ most of those rebelling would be killed.

Quote:

---

Bottom line is, it beggars belief that people are saying those who don't rise up and overthrow their oppressors deserve what they get (and I know, some have qualified their statements - it's not them I'm talking about.).

---

They don't deserve what they get. To paraphrase Gandalf: "Many that die deserve life, some that live deserve death." They merely get what they get. It's up to them to decide whether to risk death thru inaction, or risk death by acting.

Quote:

---

To my mind, people claiming that the Iraqi people, Palestinian people...whoever...are some kind of moral cowards for not overthrowing their government (and therefore in the same box as the violent murderers that are running their respective regimes) need a healthy dose of reality, not to mention a bit of "Not everyone thinks violence is an acceptable solution".

---

Not cowards, moral or othrwise. I merely stress that they have made a choice, and must live with the consequences. It isn't a judgement... merely a statement of fact. Israel cannot fail to act against the "Palestinians" merely because some innocent may get in the way. The survival of their nation and their people is too important. Likewise the US and Iraq.

Quote:

---

Someone here (I can't remember who, off-hand) even went as far as to say outright that violence is a perfectly acceptable solution to most problems, as long as people were willing to live with the consequences. Well, sorry. That's just plain, simple, unadulterated horse-shit.

---

I said it, but you are mistating my position. In response to the statement "Voilence never solves anything" I replied that "Sufficient violence properly applied will solve any problem" and it will. It is a statement of fact, not a value judgement.

I happen to thing that people are overly reluctant to use violence to resolve problems... but it certainly isn't the best tool for every situation.

Quote:

---

A person may live with the consequences of their actions, but I for one do not want the snot kicked out of me because some idiot up the road who I've never heard of or spoken to went and blew up a busload of nuns.

---

Life sucks. Better luck next time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by calguard66
I said it, but you are mistating my position. In response to the statement "Voilence never solves anything" I replied that "Sufficient violence properly applied will solve any problem" and it will. It is a statement of fact, not a value judgement.

I happen to thing that people are overly reluctant to use violence to resolve problems... but it certainly isn't the best tool for every situation.

---

There is an allegory from the Ancients, where a man had to untie a knot on a rope to solve an enigma (I complitely forgot the name of the allegory). No one could solve it, until a guy came, and slew the rope in two with his sword - and the knot.

Am I in error to think that it's a perfect example on how violence properly applied can solve any problem - but for me it also shows that problems are solved in a way that is not necessarily the better for every party involved.