Murdering b@$+@&ds...

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.