Murdering b@$+@&ds...

[marty4286]

Originally posted by First of Two
I assume you're not counting those freakazoids who dressed their baby up like a suicide bomber, or those freakazoids who are actually out their encouraging their kids to become those same suicide-attacking terrorists or inciting them to throw stones at armed men or giving them weapons instead of toys. Not those average folks, the other ones.

It takes people to elect a leader, and it takes people obeying that leader to give him power. You could declare yourself Holy Roman Emperor, but if no one follows you you're just a guy with a funny hat.

IIRC, the Israelis had a moderate leader or two before Sharon. I don't recall the Palestinians being impressed.

It would take a moderate leader on BOTH sides for anything to happen. Also, by your logic, we can say that all Germans are evil, I mean Hitler DID come to power, didn't he? Doesn't that mean all Americans are evil too? Why don't they actively do anything to stop their government from doing all the messed up things they do to the rest of the world? Aren't all French people evil? I mean, come on! They willingly surrendered to the Nazis!!

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

[Kevin]

Both sides are simply caught between a rock and a hard place.
if a palastinians leader stops and they are seen as giving up on forceing the Zionist invaders from their land or giving up on resisting the opressors. If an Israeli leader stops he/she would be seen has giving in to terrorism and as not doing anything to defend the people. It would be difficult for a future PA leader to run on an "end the violence" policy and near impossible for an Israeli PM.

Neither side has gurantees from the other side that they will respond in kind directly. but Indirectly.Palastine has alot to win if it puts down the gun first. Many nations support the idea of a Palastinians state including the US. But that Palastine must not be a threat to Isreal's security. It currently is. If it removes itself as a threat it gains more International support even the biggest one of all the US. If Israel continues with incursions into the occupied terrorties without the pretext of a terrorist attack or a violent uprising Isreal will be seen more and more as a bully in the eyes of more and more people. Thus an international outcry will lessen support for Israel and more international pressure will be placed on the nation. Isreal cannot trust Palastine and their supporters. To many variables, ie dozens of terrorist groups only united in cause and not leadership, too many wars, and too many broken promises to arrest terrorist by the current PA. Negotiations with terrorist can happen but definately not when you are under fire.

A real peace can start it is up to the Palastinians.

[marty4286]

Originally posted by Kevin
Both sides are simply caught between a rock and a hard place.
if a palastinians leader stops and they are seen as giving up on forceing the Zionist invaders from their land or giving up on resisting the opressors. If an Israeli leader stops he/she would be seen has giving in to terrorism and as not doing anything to defend the people. It would be difficult for a future PA leader to run on an "end the violence" policy and near impossible for an Israeli PM.

Neither side has gurantees from the other side that they will respond in kind directly. but Indirectly.Palastine has alot to win if it puts down the gun first. Many nations support the idea of a Palastinians state including the US. But that Palastine must not be a threat to Isreal's security. It currently is. If it removes itself as a threat it gains more International support even the biggest one of all the US. If Israel continues with incursions into the occupied terrorties without the pretext of a terrorist attack or a violent uprising Isreal will be seen more and more as a bully in the eyes of more and more people. Thus an international outcry will lessen support for Israel and more international pressure will be placed on the nation. Isreal cannot trust Palastine and their supporters. To many variables, ie dozens of terrorist groups only united in cause and not leadership, too many wars, and too many broken promises to arrest terrorist by the current PA. Negotiations with terrorist can happen but definately not when you are under fire.

A real peace can start it is up to the Palastinians.

Yes to everything you said. A good Palestinian leader who can stand up to Sharon will definitely lead to peace.

[C5]

The feeling I got was that there were people in both sides (not necessarily the leaders) who just don't want peace and will do anything to prevent it from happening. Palestinian terrorists who bomb schoolbuses as soon as Israel makes a peace offer are one example... but the extremists who murdered Rabin are another one that people seem all to ready to forget.

[Capt.Hunter]

First of Two, have you ever considered that the "freakazoids" who did those things make the news precisely because what they did was so shocking? Doesn't the US have militants of its own? The views of the average Palestinian aren't newsworthy to our jaded media, because they typically don't espouse the total annihilation of the Israelis. Hell, one elderly Palestinian interviewed by the BBC complained that the Intifada had stopped him playing his weekly chess game against his Israeli neighbour! I've compared interviews with Palestinians when the reporter had a visible camera and when s/he had a hidden camera. The extremists come out to play for the visible camera - they see the reporter coming and make sure they're the ones interviewed. With the hidden camera, you get far more moderate people coming forward - no platform for the extremists to make a stand from, so they ain't interested.

Dan, I'm too tired to whup your ass - here is my fist, kindly run towards it as fast as you can

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by marty4286

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

Welcome to the political threads on the General Chat .
Here, let me buy you a drink.

Joe, just watching not saying anything

[Dan Stack]

Originally posted by marty4286
It would take a moderate leader on BOTH sides for anything to happen. Also, by your logic, we can say that all Germans are evil, I mean Hitler DID come to power, didn't he? Doesn't that mean all Americans are evil too? Why don't they actively do anything to stop their government from doing all the messed up things they do to the rest of the world? Aren't all French people evil? I mean, come on! They willingly surrendered to the Nazis!!

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

Don't quite see whats wrong with being one-sided at times. Sometimes, there's just a wrong thing to do. Sometimes, someone is just in the wrong. Should we try to see the "sniper's side" in the Washington-area murders? Should we try to understand Timothy McVey's point in the Oklahoma City bombing?

Hitler came to power through German elections. Does that mean all Germans are evil? No, but it means they had to accept the consequences of his being in power. Ordinary Germans died in the war. My wife never knew her maternal grandfather (a German officer) as a result and her mother, born in Prussia during WWII, spent the first decade of her life moving from place to place, with the rest of her family, constantly outrunning the Soviets as they
"relocated" skilled workers to Russia. There are consequences to leadership that ordinary people must bear. Perhaps that is why the idea of another Hitler or getting involved in another such war is such an anathema to most Germans today.

Just as Americans need to accept the consequences of our leaders. That's why we have elections. It is a cop-out saying "our leaders did it". One of the foundations of American politics is the idea that government comes from the consent of the governed. If you accept that, then YES, Americans should be held responsible for their government. It works both ways. It's not just a happy wonderful thing selecting your leaders. It is a matter of utmost responsibility. If the United States federal government loses a lawsuit and has to pay out fines or a legal award, does "the government" pay. Yes? But where does "the government's" money come from? The citizens! If a war breaks out, does "the government" fight it? Or do individuals?

And what is so wrong with applying the same standard to the Palestinians? Or Israel? Yes, some countries are more democratic than others, but citizens always bear responsibility for their government's actions.

Citizens have always had to deal with the consequences of their government. If those consequences are unacceptable, then they should change that government. Whether through elections, protest, rebellion. The latter is certainly the least preferred, but sometimes the only way.

[Kevin]

About the majority of the average person on both sides wanting peace. I believe it. Its just that there is an old saying about the squeaky wheel getting the oil. Unfortunatley its the loudest voice that gets heard. I really don't blame the media or believe they have an agenda. As you noted it is the Extremist thats runs to the reporter with the camera and begins shouting his views to make it appear he is more important then he is. The problem with the extremist minority is that they organize. The man just wanting to play chess probably never thought of that. The Extremist raises money organizes meeting with the press and do things that draw attention to themselves. That man wants to just live his life.

The problem with the silent majority is that they are silent. If you have extremist voice saying things without an equally loud voice countering it. It is easy to believe that the silent majority supports or at least is not too outraged by the extremist.

Thes folks must rise up with their message and be heard the actively try to steal the camera from the warmongers. I know there are some groups already. they are still over shadowed by militants. And many of them have to learn never to say "But..." after a condemnation of an attack or an apology.

[marty4286]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
Don't quite see whats wrong with being one-sided at times. Sometimes, there's just a wrong thing to do. Sometimes, someone is just in the wrong. Should we try to see the "sniper's side" in the Washington-area murders? Should we try to understand Timothy McVey's point in the Oklahoma City bombing?

Hitler came to power through German elections. Does that mean all Germans are evil? No, but it means they had to accept the consequences of his being in power. Ordinary Germans died in the war. My wife never knew her maternal grandfather (a German officer) as a result and her mother, born in Prussia during WWII, spent the first decade of her life moving from place to place, with the rest of her family, constantly outrunning the Soviets as they
"relocated" skilled workers to Russia. There are consequences to leadership that ordinary people must bear. Perhaps that is why the idea of another Hitler or getting involved in another such war is such an anathema to most Germans today.

Just as Americans need to accept the consequences of our leaders. That's why we have elections. It is a cop-out saying "our leaders did it". One of the foundations of American politics is the idea that government comes from the consent of the governed. If you accept that, then YES, Americans should be held responsible for their government. It works both ways. It's not just a happy wonderful thing selecting your leaders. It is a matter of utmost responsibility. If the United States federal government loses a lawsuit and has to pay out fines or a legal award, does "the government" pay. Yes? But where does "the government's" money come from? The citizens! If a war breaks out, does "the government" fight it? Or do individuals?

And what is so wrong with applying the same standard to the Palestinians? Or Israel? Yes, some countries are more democratic than others, but citizens always bear responsibility for their government's actions.

Citizens have always had to deal with the consequences of their government. If those consequences are unacceptable, then they should change that government. Whether through elections, protest, rebellion. The latter is certainly the least preferred, but sometimes the only way.

You can still be objective but not sympathetic. I mean, I tried to find out the point of view of the DC sniper and Timothy McVeigh before, and what I came up was that they were insane murderers. I'm just complaining because some people are only studying one side of the picture, putting out their misguided conclusions, and getting credibility.

[First of Two]

There are two, and only two, positions on leadership:

1. You accept it.
2. You resist it.

If you do not resist, you accept. There is no "neutral" outside of AD&D.

Now, there may be various reasons for acceptance, as there may be for resistance, but it all boils down to those two positions.

If you do nothing while your leader runs rampant, then you are as accepting of that leader's actions as those who actively supported him. Only if you oppose him, are you innocent of his actions.

Your friendly neighborhood Palistinians can SAY they don't want Arafat and war all they want. Bully for them.

Here's a couple of reliable sayings for them:
"Talk is cheap."
"Actions speak louder than words."
"It's time to ante up and kick in"

Because it's all just so much meaningless TALK, unless they act on it. Replace the guy. Vote him down. Don't just refuse to participate in the destruction, actively OPPOSE it. Get the word out. Bring him down. March on the compound yourselves. Start policing your own. Turn in those would-be bombers. Frag them yourself if you have to. Send the message: "You don't kill in our names!"

If somebody was blowing up buses full of kids, and he came to me and told me he was doing it for me, would I join his cause, I'd declare him a f*ckwit and shoot him myself.

[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...

[First of Two]

I'd respond to that if it had a little coherence and a whiff of sense to it. And less shouting. People with weak positions shout.

If you willingly belong to a group or organization, it is your duty to keep that organization true to its ideals and to make sure that it is not corrupted from within.

I am not a Palestinian. What I say or do has no bearing on Palistinean politics.

But if I was a member of the Church of Hugo the Eternal Wombat, whose members are supposed to be peaceful and tolerant, and some other person who was a member of the same church started blowing up buses in the name of Hugo, I would damn sure fight him. At the very least, I would endeavor to publicize the fact that he did NOT speak for the Church of Hugo, and I would lend my support to endeavors to stop/suppress/take him out. In an extreme case, I would consider it my duty to stop him myself, with extreme prejudice if necessary.

Anything else is hypocrisy and moral cowardice.

And you do not want to SEE me take aggressive action, sir.

[Dan Stack]

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...

Another BLAH for good measure.

Though you weren't replying to me, First of Two has views on this similar to mine, but I'll reply just for myself.

The truth of the matter, as I said earlier, is not whether or not someone SHOULD do something about their government. The truth, in my view, is that people bear the consequences of their government. They themselves need to weigh in the consequences when supporting or resisting a dictator (or elected offiical for that matter).

Of course we need to judge other countries. Otherwise we'd never have gone to war with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. After all, the average German Japanese citizen were probably ok people.

[marty4286]

Originally posted by First of Two
I'd respond to that if it had a little coherence and a whiff of sense to it. And less shouting. People with weak positions shout.

If you willingly belong to a group or organization, it is your duty to keep that organization true to its ideals and to make sure that it is not corrupted from within.

I am not a Palestinian. What I say or do has no bearing on Palistinean politics.

But if I was a member of the Church of Hugo the Eternal Wombat, whose members are supposed to be peaceful and tolerant, and some other person who was a member of the same church started blowing up buses in the name of Hugo, I would damn sure fight him. At the very least, I would endeavor to publicize the fact that he did NOT speak for the Church of Hugo, and I would lend my support to endeavors to stop/suppress/take him out. In an extreme case, I would consider it my duty to stop him myself, with extreme prejudice if necessary.

Anything else is hypocrisy and moral cowardice.

And you do not want to SEE me take aggressive action, sir.

If you read my post, I wasn't "Shouting". Also, like I said, it is way too easy to talk than to take action. Take Philippines for example, for 20 years it had a horrible dictator. Some of people resisted. A lot of people didn't do anything. Were those people hypocrites or cowards? No. They feared for their lives, they weren't the one with the guns. If your hypothetical person happened to be militant, are you completely sure you could rise up against him? You're an idealist, that is a good thing, but it's very irritating when people talk bullshit: "Look at me, I'm a brave man who fights for his beliefs! I'm serious!"

[marty4286]

The world is not just black and white, guys. You can't just make one thing plain evil and another thing plain good. Everything is relative. Westerners usually have that mindset, and its pretty irritating having to tolerate this kind of ignorance at times (I'm not implying anything whatsoever... I'm a westerner too).

Since we just learned that the world doesn't work that way, let's put our new knowledge to good use.

1) Since someone isn't actively resisting a government he thinks is doing something wrong, he is not necessarily a:

coward

hypocrite

2) He/she could be:

too old

opressed

next in line for the mass grave

3) Someone's dressing up their kids as a suicide bomber on the news... This:

does not represent all Palestinians (No matter how much you want to believe so)

does not represent all Muslims (No matter how much you want to believe so)

is very disturbing indeed, I agree wholeheartedly

is just a vocal minority

4)

It takes people to elect a leader, and it takes people obeying that leader to give him power. You could declare yourself Holy Roman Emperor, but if no one follows you you're just a guy with a funny hat.

^The above statement (actually, the whole post that went with that statement), being stupid as it is, does not mean the person who said it is necessarily stupid, just ignorant and quick to judge.

Most who seem quick to point out that they'll "fight for what's right" are very judgemental indeed. I know my mother shares the same viewpoint as I have, but she's actually fought for what was right.

The Filippino dictator for twenty years that I spoke of briefly a while ago, Ferdinand Marcos, was in his last days of power. In a 3 day revoloution where no bloodshed to civilians occured, a violent leader got deposed and exiled (also given asylum in America by an extreme-right wing idiot, Ronald Reagan). My mom was there during the revoloution. She was a college student in a human shield around a military base where rebelling officers and government leaders were making their stand. It was pretty scary few days from what I researched on what happened.

The right-wing facist government tried twice to break that human shield. Their first try, they sent a company of tanks to literally crush them with a battalion of infantry ready to "mop up" survivors. The next day, they started gassing the crowd and were readying to bayonet them. The soldiers didn't do it because they couldn't bear killing their fellow countrymen and ended up defecting to their side.

My mom was there for those three days, and was even one of the first few civilians that stormed the "presidential" palace when Marcos left.

Before that, she was campaigning for the opposition candidate for president, Cory Aquino, when Marcos announced an election (which was fake after all of everyone's efforts). And even before that, she was helping stage rallies and protests against the dictator.

With all that she had done, she did not pass judgement on the people who could only sit back and watch the events unfold.

Lesson to all: Don't judge the people who are affected, especially when you just sit on your ass.

...And thats why it seems like I'm doing "personal attacks"...