Printable View
Gordian knot. Cut by Alexander of Macedon.Quote:
Originally posted by C5
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.
But Alexander DID 'benefit' from cutting the knot, according to legend.
The challenge was: he who could undo the knot could conquer Asia. No one could. Alexander cut it, and Zeus rewarded him for his initiative by allowing him to conquer Asia (back then, the Middle East was "Asia.")
So I'm not seeing where the analogy goes.
How about "Occam's Razor" instead? The simplest, least convoluted explanation / solution is usually the best?
Well, I forgot what the knot enigma allowed to do, so with the full story it becomes a bit less relevant.
My point was that violence can indeed solve anything (cutting the rope indeed untied the knot), but sometimes the solution is a bit too literal (the knot is untied okay, but now you have two halves of a rope instead of a good full one).
Oh well maybe it was also me posting late after a full day work and a karate lesson. ;)
No, you're absolutely correct. Violence is not always the BEST solution... but it is the one thing that will always provide a solution.
It is true that the situation must be evaluated to determine if the solution violence provides is worse than the original problem.
Having said all that, it is important to remember that there are times when violence does provide the best solution available. Often the use of violence is delayed for so long that when it is employed the problem has become much bigger and more complicated... and the amount of violence required to resolve it is correspondingly larger.
Quote:
Originally posted by C5
Well, I forgot what the knot enigma allowed to do, so with the full story it becomes a bit less relevant.
My point was that violence can indeed solve anything (cutting the rope indeed untied the knot), but sometimes the solution is a bit too literal (the knot is untied okay, but now you have two halves of a rope instead of a good full one).
Oh well maybe it was also me posting late after a full day work and a karate lesson. ;)
I'll probably get creamed for saying it but the one idea not broached here is trying to find a way for the two sides to live together without constant violence. How to do it? Beats the heck out of me, if I had the ironclad answer to that one I wouldn't be sitting at my desk right now. I think the majority on both sides would be all too happy not to live with the fear of being suddenly shot or blown up.
Last, I very much realize that any elected government and the bulk of any nation's citizens wouldn't stand for it but. . .
. . .what if one side or the other just stopped reacting? I'm not saying open the checkpoints and let anyone through, I'm just saying stop the eye for an eye.
Thanks for listening,
/s/ An Obviously Insane Dreamer:D
It would be nice, but there is a major problem (and it's why I blame the "Palestinians" for the majority of the conflict):
Arafat says one thing in english for western TV, and quite different things in Arabic for local consumption. In his english language interviews he seems quite reasonable... in Arabic he is a warmonger. In english he condemns the homicide bombers, in Arabic he praises them.
The Israelis have tried offering various peace proposals... and the "Palestinians" have even agreed to one or two... but "radicals" that Arafat says, in english, are not part of his organization have always blown something up. In Arabic he issues more praise and claims credit.
Quote:
Originally posted by ComaBoy
Last, I very much realize that any elected government and the bulk of any nation's citizens wouldn't stand for it but. . .
. . .what if one side or the other just stopped reacting? I'm not saying open the checkpoints and let anyone through, I'm just saying stop the eye for an eye.
Thanks for listening,
/s/ An Obviously Insane Dreamer:D
You know, I have a real problem with this statement that Arafat says one thing in English and another in Arabic. Do you seriously believe that a number of people both over here and among his own population can't speak both languages? How does he expect to get away with it? Realistically, he can't - so why do it? I'm sorry, but this does sort of smell like propaganda (a scent that's in the air a lot these days).
Posted by Capt.Hunter:
He does it whether you believe it or not. Watch Al-Jazeera and watch carefully the man to his side. While Arafat speaks in English, the other one translates into Arabic. And BTW, most people in the middle east don't speak both languages or speak poor english.Quote:
You know, I have a real problem with this statement that Arafat says one thing in English and another in Arabic. Do you seriously believe that a number of people both over here and among his own population can't speak both languages? How does he expect to get away with it? Realistically, he can't - so why do it? I'm sorry, but this does sort of smell like propaganda (a scent that's in the air a lot these days).
And Arafat only gives interviews on his terms. Meaning that all the parts which he says "something else" to his people are edited out. The cameramen working in the PA territories need special permission to be there. Meaning that he controls what goes in and what goes out; at least from the P.A. side.
Yes, I do expect many people can speak both... that's how we know he does it. I've seen translations of his radio addresses in Arabic.
Consider that those "Palestinians" in Gaza who do speak English probably don't get CNN...
Quote:
Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
You know, I have a real problem with this statement that Arafat says one thing in English and another in Arabic. Do you seriously believe that a number of people both over here and among his own population can't speak both languages? How does he expect to get away with it? Realistically, he can't - so why do it? I'm sorry, but this does sort of smell like propaganda (a scent that's in the air a lot these days).
Cal, why bother with the quote marks around the word Palestinians? I know what you're getting at - that historically there has never been a Palestinian people (just a bunch of people who live in Palestine without forming a state). But that's true of a lot of cultures, like the Native Americans. Does that mean someone else automatically has the right to take their land and - oh, wait....
The answer, of course, is just what you say. There is no, and never has been, a Palestinian state... or ethnicity, or culture.
There were and are many Native American nations, actuall political entities, and many more cultures... the Navajo, Crow, Nez Pierce, etc. COLLECTIVELY they are referred to as Native Americans or Indians for convienience. That doesn't make it correct... in fact, they are not native to the continental US... they came from somewhere else, too... nor, obviously, are they Indian.
The people often refered to as "Palestinians" are mostly Jordanians, Egyptians, or Israelis... their ethnicity is Semite (just like the Jewish Israelis) and their culture is Arab. Note that many are actually Israeli... there are many Arab Israelis who do not live in the Controlled Territories and get along with their Jewish Israeli neighbors just fine.
As for taking their land... tell it to the Saxons... or the Goths, or the Visigoths, or the Celts, or the Mongols, or the Romans... moving in and taking land is part of the march of history.
If the "PLO-alestinians" want to participate in that march, that's just fine... but they have to be willing to pay the price, including having to fight a war on their own doorstep.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
Cal, why bother with the quote marks around the word Palestinians? I know what you're getting at - that historically there has never been a Palestinian people (just a bunch of people who live in Palestine without forming a state). But that's true of a lot of cultures, like the Native Americans. Does that mean someone else automatically has the right to take their land and - oh, wait.... [/QUOTE]
Well, by your argument we should've let Saddam have Kuwait (whadda we make of the "apology" by the way?) - but never mind, you made my point - the Palestinians are fighting a war on their own doorstep against an "invader" (their perception - and not entirely unjustified given the settlement plans of the Israelis). The problem I have (lest I come over as too pro-Palestinian) is the methods they have chosen to fight with - the slaughter of innocents. If they'd stick to military targets, I'm sure their support in the international community would skyrocket.
Who created Kuwait? Who tried to keep jews out of "Palestine" while letting arabs flood the area?Quote:
Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
Well, by your argument we should've let Saddam have Kuwait (whadda we make of the "apology" by the way?) - but never mind, you made my point - the Palestinians are fighting a war on their own doorstep against an "invader" (their perception - and not entirely unjustified given the settlement plans of the Israelis). The problem I have (lest I come over as too pro-Palestinian) is the methods they have chosen to fight with - the slaughter of innocents. If they'd stick to military targets, I'm sure their support in the international community would skyrocket.
Is Britain the real Evil Empire? Maybe they are Great Satan?
;)
I agree with your last statement up to the ",".
You misunderstand me. I have no problem, in a historical sense, with the Palestinians trying to carve out their own country... or the Isralis holding on to theirs... or Iraq invading Kuwait, and subsequently being attacked by the US.
500 years from now it will all be, at best, a paragraph in a highschool history book.
It's hard to explain via typing...
Life is a struggle, history is a struggle... individuals and groups, nations and cultures... war is part of human existance.
I as an individual soldier fight, kill and possibly die for my nation... I think the "Palestinians" and Arabs are in the wrong, I think we should finish what we started in Iraq, etc. As an individual soldier I make value judgements and take sides... but in the end, it's just business.
As a student of history I think that the Pentagon was a valid target on Sept 11th, and the WTC arguably so, and the WHite House would have been... the planes having passengers aboard is problematic but no moreso that the civilians killed during the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden. They are still acts of war, and therefore the lives of those who sent them are forfeit, but there's no point in demonizing anyone. They attacked us; we will kill them, tear down their buildings and walls so that no stone stands upon another, and sow the soil with salt... as a warning to future would-be-attackers... but it's "just business".
I believe that whining about Israelis shooting rock-throwing kids, when the rifles are hidden at the approach of Western news crews, is a perfectly valid tactic on the public-opinion battlefield.
The US will be attacked, attack and otherwise make war until it is at last defeated... from without, like Cartherage, or from within, like Rome... the same as any nation. My job is just to put that off as long as possible. If you want to make war on the US, go ahead.. I won't hate you for it, I'll just kill you... and knock down your hut, and crush your goats under my treads, and possibly your family will be caught in the blast radius of a HEAT round... but if you want to make war, come ahead... it's just business.
Is that making any sense?
Quote:
Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
Well, by your argument we should've let Saddam have Kuwait (whadda we make of the "apology" by the way?) - but never mind, you made my point - the Palestinians are fighting a war on their own doorstep against an "invader" (their perception - and not entirely unjustified given the settlement plans of the Israelis). The problem I have (lest I come over as too pro-Palestinian) is the methods they have chosen to fight with - the slaughter of innocents. If they'd stick to military targets, I'm sure their support in the international community would skyrocket.
You misunderstood Hunter, he spoke of taking land, not oil.Quote:
Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
Well, by your argument we should've let Saddam have Kuwait (whadda we make of the "apology" by the way?) -