[QUOTE]Originally posted by CaptainPatch:
Finally! The fifth and final installment of....(whimper) Round One.

I appreciate your rational contribution to the discussion. I disagree with this

BTW, were you paying attention when Israeli forces were trying to evict the Israeli settlers from the Gaza strip, because Israel was planning to turn all that land over to the Palestinian Authority? (Having heard people getting so bent about eviction since, hmm, since Palestinians were being moved out of areas where terrorists kept popping up!) Anyway, Israel was undoing that “illegal” settlement program they initiated in ‘67 to try to stop Arab terrorist traffic. It was a good faith gesture to show they were _trying_ work out a peace settlement. Are you willing to grant them even the tiniest of attaboys for trying?

No. This was a farce.

00:25 07/10/2004


U.S. asks Israel to clarify comments made by top PM aide

By Ari Shavit, Aluf Benn, Yair Ettinger, Haaretz Correspondents, and Haaretz Service

The United States on Wednesday evening asked Israel to clarify statements made by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior advisor, Dov Weisglass, in an interview with Haaretz that the disengagement plan means a "freezing of the peace process," Israel Radio reported.




"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Weisglass, one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, said in an interview for the Haaretz Friday Magazine.

"And when you freeze that process," Weisglass added, "you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem.

"Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde," he said. "It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians." (The full interview will appear on Friday.)


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=4...ntrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Follow the news from Israel closely. They are killing (provoking) Palestinians on a daily basis and probably are planning a raid on Gaza. These aren't the actions of people seeking peace.
Also, 71% want US to attack Iran. I say they should do it themselves. Good luck to them.

About what I expected from you.

quote:

Originally posted by memory_hole:
Intelligence reports are not infallible guides to reality. Far from it. So-called "intelligence" is often "cooked," as we have seen recently in the US. Just google "Niger" and "yellowcake."

Ah. But if, however, someone were to cite an Intelligence report that clearly demonstrated your point, you'd seize on it and brandish it broadly, proclaiming loudly, "See! This PROVES my thesis!"

You pick and choose your source material on one criteria: Things that support your view are TRUE while things that negate your position are FALSE.

quote:

Originally posted by memory_hole:

quote:

Originally posted by CaptainPatch:
So, in my worldview, the Arabs were about to attack in '67, the Israelis knew it and beat them to the punch.

In your worldview, you're not changing your view of this, no matter how much evidence I present to the contrary. You do not want to face the fact that the Israeli government has had an expansionist agenda from its inception, that it had an expansionist agenda in 1967, and that is why it attacked.

Looked in a mirror lately? You certainly haven't altered your view one iota.

And, au contraire, I'm more than willing to acknowledge that a substantial number of Jews at the beginning wanted to expand as much as possible. When the very first thing that happened was that the Arabs of all the surrounding nations declared war and launched attacks, many more Jews adopted a similar view. And over the years, with each attack Arabs have made on Israelis occurred, more Israelis shifted their attitude in that direction. The more Israel was attacked, the more it looked like a good idea to put as much distance between the Israeli cities and their Arab neighbors.

You on the other hand, have not faulted the Arabs for their behavior, and have ascribed their attacks as an understandable attempt to get some of their own back.

It makes me wonder: just who are the terribly wronged Palestinians in your life that you identify so incredibly much?

Anyway, like I said earlier, your mind is a closed box.

quote:

Originally posted by memory_hole:

quote:

Originally posted by CaptainPatch:
And now you can assert moral superiority and contend that I have no _proof_ that the report was an utter fabrication, planted "evidence".

You have offered nothing close to proof. Surely there must be some better source than some nameless intelligence official, forty years after the fact, who can corroborate this, if it were true.

Anybody with at least a marginally open mind would at least conclude, "Hmm. Just _maybe_ there's something to this." You, OTOH, immediately conclude, "Must be false."

From this we can derive that for you, "If it contradicts my position, it must be false. Absolutely. No doubt about. I'm right and anyone that disagrees with me is wrong."

Like I said, mind like a closed box. Locked. Welded shut. Encased in concrete.

quote:

Originally posted by memory_hole:
I'll acknowledge Egypt engaged in some moves that could be taken as "provocative," I'm not disputing that; I'm just saying that, given Israel's overwhelming strategic superiority at that time, it wasn't justified in attacking first as a result. And the UN agreed, appropriately condemning the Israeli aggression.

When you keep on saying that Israel was a superpower in 1967, you keep demonstrating that you do NOT know what you're talking about. What you're _actually_ saying is, "Given what they accomplished then, they MUST have been a superpower!"

The book you need to read to understand what I'm driving at is "Jane's Armies of the World 1967".

Did you know that it wasn't until AFTER '67 war that Israel had NO permanent divisions? They fought the war using Reservists. Their domestic weapons production consisted of a limited number of small arms (most notably the Uzi). They could manufacture ONE kind of missile, and they could manufacture ONE type of **trainer** jet. The French had them under a weapons embargo, so 1/3 of their air force couldn't even get spare parts.

In contrast, the combined armies of Egypt, Syria (at the time, the two of them were known as the "United Arab Republic"), and Jordan outnumbered the Israelis in tanks, artillery, APC's, and planes to the tune of about 5-to-1. And on the day the shooting started, between 80% and 90% of those forces were on Israel's border.

And it was Israel that was the "superpower"? Only if you factor in esprit de corps, of which the Israelis had plenty. And determination. And you know why that is? Because back then, if the Arabs lost a war with the Israelis, 10 years later they could try again. And again. But if the Israelis lost just _once_ that would be the end of Israel. And most of the Israelis. And they'd be facing a Second Diaspora.

You might say they were "motivated".

But then, you've already concluded that I _must_ be misrepresenting the facts. That I'm exaggerating. That if I'm suggesting that if the Israelis could fight like their lives depended on it, I'm _really_ saying that it just proves that they were well-practiced warmongers.

"Still a man will see what he wants to see and disregard the rest."

Time to rebut me and prove that I'm right.

quote:

The more Israel was attacked, the more it looked like a good idea to put as much distance between the Israeli cities and their Arab neighbors.

Thank you, Captain. I think you are really helping me get a greater insight into the Zionist psyche, and why debates with them prove invariably futile. Evidence is futile. Basically, they presume that anything the state of Israel does is, by definition, defensive in nature. Israel can invade Lebanon, bomb Iraq, invade Egypt, even bomb Iran tomorrow, and you "fervent supporters of Israel" (in quotes b/c if you really supported the people of Israel you would not be so slavish in your support of its criminal government) will view it as another defensive move of "little Israel" against the demonic Arab hordes intent on its destruction.

You even basically acknowledge Israel's expansionist ambitions, but in an Orwellian twist, even that becomes defensive in nature. You still have not addressed the damning comments of Israeli generals and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan who utterly decimate your assumption that the government of Israel felt itself on the verge of extinction in May 2007 before launching its attack on the Arabs. One must conclude you simply HAVE no answer, other than a transparently lame attempt to impugn their characters.

And Free, thanks for the story about Sharon's obviously cynical ploy of pulling out of Gaza....yet another piece of evidence that I'm certain folks like Captain will ignore.

No, Captain, I don't give "attaboys" to war criminals like Sharon and his ilk.

PS: I was going to respond to the rest of your posts that had to do with the many "generous offers" of Israel to the Palestinians (e.g., at Oslo, a Palestinian "State" consisting of Bantustan-like neighborhoods criss-crossed with Jew-only roads), but I've decided not to, as you've already announced that you are unwilling to pursue this dialogue.

quote:

They could manufacture ONE kind of missile, and they could manufacture ONE type of **trainer** jet. The French had them under a weapons embargo, so 1/3 of their air force couldn't even get spare parts.

You seem to have forgotten something: twenty years (1947-1967) during which Israel was the favorite recipient of US weaponry. The US has always made the best military weaponry in the world, and that is, sadly, still our number one export. So it doesn't matter what Israel was manufacturing for itself, it was receiving all manner of tanks, aircraft, machine guns and artillery from the U$A.

quote:

Originally posted by Free:
I appreciate your rational contribution to the discussion. I disagree with this

quote:

Originally posted by CaptainPatch:
BTW, were you paying attention when Israeli forces were trying to evict the Israeli settlers from the Gaza strip, because Israel was planning to turn all that land over to the Palestinian Authority? (Having heard people getting so bent about eviction since, hmm, since Palestinians were being moved out of areas where terrorists kept popping up!) Anyway, Israel was undoing that “illegal” settlement program they initiated in ‘67 to try to stop Arab terrorist traffic. It was a good faith gesture to show they were _trying_ work out a peace settlement. Are you willing to grant them even the tiniest of attaboys for trying?

No. This was a farce.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/middle-east-crisis/85-of-...0/1124435183365.html
85% of Israeli settlers out of Gaza
By Goran Tomasevic
Neve Dekalim, Gaza Strip
August 21, 2005
Israeli forces have now evacuated more than 85 per cent of Gaza's Jewish settlers and all should be out by tomorrow, after nearly 40 years of occupation.

After three days of forced evacuations, during which settlers were carried weeping from their homes and protesters pulled screaming from synagogues by unarmed soldiers, only four of the 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip remain.

The removal of settlements is the first from land that Palestinians want for a state under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan for "disengagement" from conflict, which is backed by Washington as a possible step to peace.

In the Gaza Strip, Hamas militants who have largely respected a six-month-old truce reiterated that their fight would continue after Israel quit Gaza. The group is committed to destroying the Jewish state.

Police spokesman Avi Zelba said 85 per cent of the houses in Gaza that were once home to 8500 settlers were now empty. About 1.4 million Palestinians live in Gaza's densely populated cities and refugee camps.

*****************
Well, once desegregation started in the US, how long was it before you would say it was before race discrimination was no longer a noticeable factor in American society? Is it even entirely gone yet today?

If people are never willing to acknowledge that Israel is at least trying to normalize relations, even if it is only taking baby steps, what is their motivation for trying even that much? If the only reaction is to go from "They aren't doing _anything_!" to "It's not enough! It's a farce! It's worse than doing nothing at all", then the usual human reaction is to reply with, "Why should I even bother at all?"

quote:

Originally posted by memory_hole:

quote:

They could manufacture ONE kind of missile, and they could manufacture ONE type of **trainer** jet. The French had them under a weapons embargo, so 1/3 of their air force couldn't even get spare parts.

You seem to have forgotten something: twenty years (1947-1967) during which Israel was the favorite recipient of US weaponry. The US has always made the best military weaponry in the world, and that is, sadly, still our number one export. So it doesn't matter what Israel was manufacturing for itself, it was receiving all manner of tanks, aircraft, machine guns and artillery from the U$A.

You are soooooooo far out of your league when it comes to talking about military hardware!

As an example: The M60 Patton Main Battle Tank. When in service in the US Army, it is expected to get approximately 100 miles before it needs a major overhaul. That's SOP. I'm not talking maintenance; I'm talking _repairs_. When we sent Israel a number of those and got back the performance reports, we discovered that the Israelis were getting nearly 500 miles between major repairs. We had to send service crews over to find out why that was. It was because the very FIRST thing the Israelis did when they received "the best military weaponry in the world", they stripped it down to the nuts and bolts and then rebuilt it _right_.

That's what they did with ALL of the stuff we sent them. Why? Because they had to make it last -- because they didn't have nearly enough of it. Get the Jane's book. Look at the numbers. And then conclude it's lies; everybody is lying to you. Except when they agree with you, of course.

quote:

If people are never willing to acknowledge that Israel is at least trying to normalize relations, even if it is only taking baby steps, what is their motivation for trying even that much? If the only reaction is to go from "They aren't doing _anything_!" to "It's not enough! It's a farce! It's worse than doing nothing at all", then the usual human reaction is to reply with, "Why should I even bother at all?"

Good that you mention motivation, as motivation is crucial. Motivation is not always easy to determine. But if the motivation for these "baby steps" is simply to thwart the peace process, as the article suggests, then to acknowledge it as something other than a gambit by a war criminal is to be a dupe or chump.

If we make ourselves dupes and chumps of cynical war criminals, then how will we ever have peace?

quote:

That's what they did with ALL of the stuff we sent them. Why? Because they had to make it last -- because they didn't have nearly enough of it. Get the Jane's book. Look at the numbers. And then conclude it's lies; everybody is lying to you. Except when they agree with you, of course.

You have a wondrous ability for focusing in on the tangential and avoiding the crucial. I'm not interested in getting the Jane's book nor would it matter one iota to the central issues we are discussing. The US made and makes better military weaponry than the Soviets EVER did, this is well known. Their opponents were getting most of their weaponry from the Soviets; ergo, while they had larger armies they had inferior weaponry.

I've never said or suggested everyone is lying who doesn't agree with me. You are being hyperbolic, once again projecting your own irrational certitude onto me.

For anyone that _did_ want some hard numbers for the '67 air war here they are

for the Arabs
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_262.shtml

and for the Israelis
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2848/operate6.htm

(The numbers and types are at the bottom. Wouldn't want you to have to read through the revisionist history just to get to those numbers.

Author Stephen Walt Takes On 'The Israel Lobby':

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14154082

memory_hole:

I think I may have figured out why we are so extremely opposed to each other's POV:

Have you ever been AT the site of a terrorist attack? Seen the shredded bodies, the blood splattered everywhere, the screams of wounded discovering that they've lost body parts and/or someone they love had just been sitting in front of them was just turned into hamburger? To have seen all that carnage and realized that the perpetrator had not done it to kill _those_ specific people; that anyone that happened to have been there at that moment was as good a target as any? And then tried to help to save at least _one_ person's life, tried to stop the bleeding, but it just seems to be leaking out **everywhere**? And try as you might, you simply _know_ they're going to die, no matter what you do? And knew that they had just been murdered for nothing that they themselves had personally done? They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I have. Several times. Seems there's never any lack of people willing to kill _others_ for what **they** believe in.

It was in Saigon, towards the end of the war. Even then, with the end in sight, it was a frequent occurrence. Frequent enough that I was "lucky" enough to be close enough to pitch in at 3 different locations. Two of those were the sites where 221-mm rockets landed. One location I _think_ was a grenade; all I know for sure was that it was an explosive.

Of course, when you were "in country", atrocities were more frequent, but you sort of actually _expected_ to run into those, depending on where you were.

Anyway, I figure it was because of those experiences that I'm generally hostile to any group that has an element that believes those kinds of tactics are not just acceptable, but practically preferable. (And why I also condemn Israel's practice of simply randomly lobbing missiles in retaliatory strikes.)

Just thought you might like to have some insight.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CaptainPatch:


If people are never willing to acknowledge that Israel is at least trying to normalize relations, It's a farce! It's worse than doing nothing at all", then the usual human reaction is to reply with, "Why should I even bother at all?

Because I've watched them for years. If anything, they've moved them out of harms way for when they wage a major attack on Gaza.


http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArtic...06,L-3445672,00.html

Also follow the blog of Daniel Levy for events

The popular Israeli narrative is that when the settlements and army were withdrawn from Gaza, the occupation ended - and yet the Palestinian terror and indiscriminate shelling continues.

Gazans will point out that not a day has passed since the evacuation without Israeli military activity in, or above Gaza, and that the sonic booms of Israeli jets strike fear into the hearts of Palestinian kids every day. Even before the Hamas takeover, movement in and out of Gaza was severely restricted, but since mid-June, an almost total blockade has been imposed. It has had devastating repurcussions for the entire population. Gaza has become one big prison with collective punishment the order of the day.


http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/

quote:

Captain - I think I may have figured out why we are so extremely opposed to each other's POV:

Have you ever been AT the site of a terrorist attack? Seen the shredded bodies, the blood splattered everywhere, the screams of wounded discovering that they've lost body parts and/or someone they love had just been sitting in front of them was just turned into hamburger? To have seen all that carnage and realized that the perpetrator had not done it to kill _those_ specific people; that anyone that happened to have been there at that moment was as good a target as any? And then tried to help to save at least _one_ person's life, tried to stop the bleeding, but it just seems to be leaking out **everywhere**? And try as you might, you simply _know_ they're going to die, no matter what you do? And knew that they had just been murdered for nothing that they themselves had personally done? They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I have. Several times. Seems there's never any lack of people willing to kill _others_ for what **they** believe in.

Captain, these experiences must have been horribly traumatic for you. Perhaps you even suffered from PTSD as a result. I don't think they explain our different perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute though. You know very well that not all the Palestinians support suicide bombings in Israel, just as not all Israelis support helicopter assassinations, roundups and indefinite detention and torture of Palestinians, without charge, and the other iron-fisted policies of Israel.

But it reminds me of something that may be very relevant to Israeli popular opinion: a fairly large percentage of Israelis may suffer from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), and that undoubtedly influences how they think, feel and vote on these issues. I remember reading about this years back, how odd it was that so many believed in the platform of Peace Now, yet voted for Sharon. PTSD may explain such a puzzling anomaly.

There seems to be a benefit of the doubt being applied.

_Because_ Israel has had a formal, coherent government, whenever there has been harm directed towards the Palestinians, that proves that the entire Israeli government is evil and wicked and vicious with an oppressive agenda. Whereas, _because_ for all these years the Palestinians have been a nebulous, incoherent population, scattered with no solid government of their own, the attacks aimed at Israelis are viewed as the actions of the individual, misguided, aberrant perpetrators that had been apparently pushed over the edge of reason by the long history of social injustice. Unfortunate, but not to be viewed as actions representative of the will of the Palestinian people as a whole.

Would that explain the apparent dichotomy? Why Israelis harming Palestinians is reprehensible while Arabs harming Israelis, though not laudable, is at least understandable?

quote:

_Because_ Israel has had a formal, coherent government, whenever there has been harm directed towards the Palestinians, that proves that the entire Israeli government is evil and wicked and vicious with an oppressive agenda.

Not even the entire government, but it's "defense" establishment, yes, under both Labor and Likud governments.

quote:

Whereas, _because_ for all these years the Palestinians have been a nebulous, incoherent population, scattered with no solid government of their own, the attacks aimed at Israelis are viewed as the actions of the individual, misguided, aberrant perpetrators that had been apparently pushed over the edge of reason by the long history of social injustice. Unfortunate, but not to be viewed as actions representative of the will of the Palestinian people as a whole.

Note my emphasis added. Yes, absolutely. You've set up a false dichotomy or false analogy here, because you are comparing the "entire Israeli government" on the one hand, to "the will of the Palestinian people as a whole," on the other.

I never asserted that ANY Israeli govt. represented "the will of the Israeli people as a whole." Although surprisingly large numbers DID vote for the war criminal Sharon, as I recall (65, 70% I believe?)

Are you trying to suggest that every Palestinian in the Occupied Territories is evil and vicious enough to support suicide bombings in Israel? It would seem so. What is your basis for this belief? It's not good to demonize people. Demonization is the one of the first deceits practiced by those who want to make war.

Don't you understand the difference between governments and people? You inapt comparison suggests you get them mixed up.

quote:

Originally posted by memory_hole:
Not even the entire government, but it's "defense" establishment, yes, under both Labor and Likud governments.

Oops. I was on a roll. Should never have said "entire". What I was really reaching for was something like "_enough_ of the Israeli government such that they seem to be the ones deciding what the entire government will be held accountable for." Does that work better?

quote:

Originally posted by memory_hole:
I never asserted that ANY Israeli govt. represented "the will of the Israeli people as a whole." Although surprisingly large numbers DID vote for the war criminal Sharon, as I recall (65, 70% I believe?)

Well, just like here in the US, we can only hope that the world does not construe that the actions taken by our government are representative of the will of ALL of our citizens. Still, it is the election process that determines who will be running the government. A single, renegade administration would be one thing, but a continuous string stretching over 20-30-40-50 years? And then there's the checks-and-balances: theoretically, the actions of a run amok Chief Executive _should_ be neutralized by the Legislative branch, and vice versa. When there are NO corrections being done to constrain extreme behavior, you have to go back to "Where did _those_ people receive their empowerment?" There can be only one source in a democracy: The People. Every election, The People have the opportunity to do wholesale housecleaning. If you have a pattern of behavior that extends across several elections, it does, in fact, say something about "the will of The People". (Even if that something is just to suggest that too many people don't bother to involve themselves in the process for one reason or another: too disillusioned, too lazy, too gullible, too docile, whatever.)

quote:

Originally posted by memory_hole:
Are you trying to suggest that every Palestinian in the Occupied Territories is evil and vicious enough to support suicide bombings in Israel? It would seem so. What is your basis for this belief? It's not good to demonize people. Demonization is the one of the first deceits practiced by those who want to make war.

Never said "every". But on the other hand, I do know this: Terrorism does not exist in a vacuum. Terrorists do not just wake up one morning and decide on their own to blow something up. They don't manufacture their weapons out of thin air at the moment they are employed. And generally they don't keep their intentions secret from _everyone_. And mostly they do not do it because that they think what they believe is what ONLY they think is the right thing to do. For every terrorist in a population, there is a support structure of people that either actively assist the terrorist, and/or are aware of his activities but lend tacit endorsement by doing NOTHING to stop the terrorist.

Weapons cost money; where did the money come from? Weapons need to be transported into the area where the terrorist lives and/or works. Would you suggest that NO ONE in the neighborhood knows that so-and-so is stockpiling weapons? Terrorists generally don't get their ideas independently; who's doing the rabblerousing? And rabblerousers are seldom low profile. How many of the population hearing the "Kill the Israelis!" spiel are bothering to notify the Authorities (Palestinian or Israeli) that "You should keep an eye on those fellows!"? And of the Palestinian Authorities, how often did they warn the Israelis that "We suspect that so-and-so is planning to put some murderous plan into motion"? Or even more importantly, how many terrorists did the Palestinian Authorities stop before they could strike? How many did they arrest after the strike already occurred? (Not all terrorist attacks were suicide bombings.)

Besides a significant number of actual terrorists, there most definitely are a far greater number that are aware of who they are, where they live, and what they're up to. By being aware and choosing to do _nothing_, those people are tacitly endorsing the terrorism.

So, not ALL Palestinians support terrorism aimed at Israelis. Just like not ALL Israelis support the oppressive policies of the Israeli government. But on both sides of the fence, there ARE a large number that _do_ support those actions, either actively, or tacitly through their decisions not to do anything to stop those actions.

quote:

Originally posted by memory_hole:
Don't you understand the difference between governments and people? You inapt comparison suggests you get them mixed up.

I think the word you were looking for was "inept". And yes, it _was_ inept; never should have used the word "entire". Mea culpa.

Cheney Orders Media to Sell Attack on Iran:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78381

C-SPAN viewer Call for GAO head David Walker which mentioned Walt and Mearsheimer book

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/09/israel-...-foreign-policy.html

http://tinyurl.com/2KHCED

GoodBusiness, before you say anything else to GG, I suggest that you watch this. You heard the terms "shell shock" or "vietnam syndrome" - well there are other non-war ways of acquiring some PTSD symptoms. Anything even remotely related to what happened in the past makes her relive it and that is where she is coming from: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/goodfather/

These disparate bits and pieces that don't seem to have anything in common were likely bits and pieces of things that she associates with what happened.

If it doesn't make you capable of empathy, I've found Dick Cheney's clone.

quote:

Originally posted by CaptainPatch:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by memory_hole:
Not even the entire government, but it's "defense" establishment, yes, under both Labor and Likud governments.

Oops. I was on a roll. Should never have said "entire". What I was really reaching for was something like "_enough_ of the Israeli government such that they seem to be the ones deciding what the entire government will be held accountable for." Does that work better?

quote:

Originally posted by memory_hole:
I never asserted that ANY Israeli govt. represented "the will of the Israeli people as a whole." Although surprisingly large numbers DID vote for the war criminal Sharon, as I recall (65, 70% I believe?)

Well, just like here in the US, we can only hope that the world does not construe that the actions taken by our government are representative of the will of ALL of our citizens. Still, it is the election process that determines who will be running the government. A single, renegade administration would be one thing, but a continuous string stretching over 20-30-40-50 years? And then there's the checks-and-balances: theoretically, the actions of a run amok Chief Executive _should_ be neutralized by the Legislative branch, and vice versa. When there are NO corrections being done to constrain extreme behavior, you have to go back to "Where did _those_ people receive their empowerment?" There can be only one source in a democracy: The People. Every election, The People have the opportunity to do wholesale housecleaning. If you have a pattern of behavior that extends across several elections, it does, in fact, say something about "the will of The People". (Even if that something is just to suggest that too many people don't bother to involve themselves in the process for one reason or another: too disillusioned, too lazy, too gullible, too docile, whatever.)

quote:

Originally posted by memory_hole:
Are you trying to suggest that every Palestinian in the Occupied Territories is evil and vicious enough to support suicide bombings in Israel? It would seem so. What is your basis for this belief? It's not good to demonize people. Demonization is the one of the first deceits practiced by those who want to make war.

Never said "every". But on the other hand, I do know this: Terrorism does not exist in a vacuum. Terrorists do not just wake up one morning and decide on their own to blow something up. They don't manufacture their weapons out of thin air at the moment they are employed.

Watch this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070905/wl_time/israelweighsawaringaza

quote:

Never said "every". But on the other hand, I do know this: Terrorism does not exist in a vacuum. Terrorists do not just wake up one morning and decide on their own to blow something up. They don't manufacture their weapons out of thin air at the moment they are employed.

Watch this

Free, the comments of mine you are quoting were a reply to Captain Patch, not you. I referenced you in one message, for the article you posted about the cynical reasons for the Israeli pull-out from the Gaza. Perhaps that caused some confusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Free:

Watch this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070905/wl_time/israelweighsawaringaza

Don't know what point you wanted to make here. The article reinforces that these people -- both Palestinians and Israelis -- are locked in a blood feud. And they've been at it for over a century.

How can there be peace as long as there are people that feel _obligated_ to "even the score"? No matter if "our" side struck the last blow, _I_ don't get the satisfaction of feeling that I have balanced the books for Grandpa's death 20 years ago!

How can there be peace unless BOTH sides decide to stop killing people? When a person gets killed, that person's immediate family, all their aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, friends, loved ones -- ALL of them feel violated. ALL of them will feel that "something should be done!" to make the other side atone for the wrong that has been done.

And this is the Cradle of "an eye for an eye".

With relatively easy access to weapons throughout the region, the rockets keep on flying. And each time an explosion even comes close to killing someone, more people are added to the pool of people that feel _something_ should be done to "balance the books".

quote:

both Palestinians and Israelis -- are locked in a blood feud

I dispute that. If it were really a "Blood Feud", Israelis would be arbitrarily launching rockets at Palestinians.

quote:

Originally posted by Gnarlodious:

quote:

both Palestinians and Israelis -- are locked in a blood feud

I dispute that. If it were really a "Blood Feud", Israelis would be arbitrarily launching rockets at Palestinians.

The Israelis are a bit more coherent as a group. (Well, more than "a bit", really.) The catharsis of striking back is often provided by government action. Just consider how many military strikes are fired into the Palestinian areas and camps each year. (In particular, just think of how many missiles were fired into the PA compound just to "send Arafat a message".)

For purposes of the feud, Israeli military strikes equate to striking back. What the military likes to refer to as a "proportional response".

I was referring to intentionally targeting civilians. The elementary school was probably a lucky strike for them.

quote:

Originally posted by Gnarlodious:
I was referring to intentionally targeting civilians. The elementary school was probably a lucky strike for them.

I'm not entirely certain that the Palestinian strikes are necessarily _always_ aimed at **specific** civilian targets. I get the impression that many (possibly most) are simply lobbed in "that" direction.

In regards to the Israeli counterstrikes, don't buy into the "surgical strike" jargon. "Collateral damage" is another way of saying, "Well, we weren't aiming at **them**; their own damn fault for being too damn close to what we _were_ shooting at!" Anyway you look at it, the Palestinians are so jampacked into such a tight space that _any_ explosion has a high probability of hitting some civilians as well. And the Israelis damn well know it, but they launch anyway. That makes them just as guilty of indiscriminate mayhem in my book.

quote:

Originally posted by memory_hole:
[QUOTE]The more Israel was attacked, the more it looked like a good idea to put as much distance between the Israeli cities and their Arab neighbors.

Thank you, Captain. I think you are really helping me get a greater insight into the Zionist psyche, and why debates with them prove invariably futile. Evidence is futile. Basically, they presume that anything the state of Israel does is, by definition, defensive in nature. Israel can invade Lebanon, bomb Iraq, invade Egypt, even bomb Iran tomorrow, and you "fervent supporters of Israel" (in quotes b/c if you really supported the people of Israel you would not be so slavish in your support of its criminal government) will view it as another defensive move of "little Israel"

Memory,

Just like they will make excuses for Israel violating Syria airspace and dropping ammunition yesterday. Several weeks ago, I told someone on this forum that they would do something to Syria before Iran. This didn't take long.
This was CLEARLY a provocation. To what end.
Iran said they would defend Syria. Is this was Israel hoped for?
How many wars to do they want us to fight for their hegemony in the region?
I hope people who are aruging for closing our borders will demand the same thing when the 71% of Israel citizens who want us to attack Iran try to come to the US when all hell breaks lose!!

quote:

Originally posted by CaptainPatch:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Free:

Watch this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070905/wl_time/israelweighsawaringaza

Don't know what point you wanted to make here. The article reinforces that these people -- both Palestinians and Israelis -- are locked in a blood feud.

That wasn't mt point. Israel has continued to raid Gaza. They need victims to continue their aggression.

Targets like this.

Tom Ricks, you've covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other? THOMAS RICKS, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.

KURTZ: Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of it's fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?

RICKS: Yes, that's what military analysts have told me.

KURTZ: That's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here.

RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/06/rs.01.html

Then we have this. I know...I know...someone who doesn't like what they're reading will whine about a spaaaaaaaaaam. Get a grip.

Children of war

By Gideon Levy


No child in Sderot is more secure as a result of this killing. On the contrary.

Anyone who takes an honest look at the progression of events during the past two months will discover that the Qassams have a context: They are almost always fired AFTER an IDF assassination operation, and there have been many of these. The question of who started it is not a childish question in this context. The IDF has returned to liquidations, and in a big way. And in their wake there has been an increase in Qassam firings.




Again children. Five children killed in Gaza in eight days. The public indifference to their killing - the last three, for example, were accorded only a short item on the margins of page 11 in Yedioth Ahronoth, a sickening matter in itself - cannot blur the fact that the IDF is waging a war against children. A year ago, a fifth of those killed in the "Summer Rain" operation in Gaza were children; during the past two weeks, they comprised a quarter of the 21 killed. If, heaven forbid, children are hurt in Sderot, we will have to remember this before we begin raising hell.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/899694.html

quote:

Thank you, Captain. I think you are really helping me get a greater insight into the Zionist psyche, and why debates with them prove invariably futile. Evidence is futile. Basically, they presume that anything the state of Israel does is, by definition, defensive in nature. Israel can invade Lebanon, bomb Iraq, invade Egypt, even bomb Iran tomorrow, and you "fervent supporters of Israel" (in quotes b/c if you really supported the people of Israel you would not be so slavish in your support of its criminal government) will view it as another defensive move of "little Israel"

Bravo, Bravo... That was a nearly perfect reframing of the conversation to make Captain look like the not having his facts straight, When clearly he was the only one who does. If you were here, I would High Five you. Beautifully Done. Had you not used “slavish” and that condescending tone, it probably would have gone un-noticed.


Although that was the first time anybody had ever brought up 1981 Osirak bombing before. Israel was wrong in that bombing. But perfectly done.

And Norman Finkelstein, reknowned scholar in his field, was just denied tenure at DePaul U., thanks to the success of the lobby which contends any questioning of Israel equals antisemitism.

Freedom of speech squelched in Amerika; no surprise that.

quote:

And Norman Finkelstein, reknowned scholar in his field, was just denied tenure at DePaul U., thanks to the success of the lobby which contends any questioning of Israel equals antisemitism.

Freedom of speech squelched in Amerika; no surprise that.

Yep, another victim of the Zionist thought police, and other idolaters of the state of Israel. It's quite outrageous.

quote:

Norman Finkelstein

Thank you Loganthor for noting that I was once again being quoted out of context. As many times as I've criticized Israel in this series I can't conceive of anyone accusing me of being "slavish" to the Israeli agenda and managing to keep a straight face when they do so. [Oh, wait! This is a text exchange! We can't see his face when he makes those spurious assertions! That explains it! ]

Anyway, since people have been putting up "relevant" links (some of which are more than a year old), I thought I'd put up this one:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57407

"A top leader of the so-called "military wing" of Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party vowed in a WND interview his terror group would continue firing rockets from the Gaza Strip at nearby Jewish communities regardless of peace negotiations reportedly taking place between Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert."

Now, I'm wondering how these broadsides do anything to help bring peace to the region? Just remove all the labels and look at the underlying group dynamics:

You have two population groups, A and B. These two groups have been tearing at each other **forever**. Cooler heads from both groups are at least _trying_ to find some way to stop the violence. Not surprisingly what A wants from B is more than what B is willing to give, and what B wants from A is more than what A is willing to give. But at least the two groups are talking instead of simply going at it hammer-and-tongs.

Enter subset C, part of group B. Subset C makes a formal declaration that their "terror group would continue firing rockets ....at nearby [Group A] communities regardless of peace negotiations."

What effect will that have on the negotiations? Group A is being told that irregardless of any agreements reached, some members of B will keep on trying to kill people in Group A. So what is the point of making any concessions? How could any negotiators from Group B feel that they can honestly demand any concessions knowing that some of their members intend to ignore any agreement reached? How can they trust that Group A would stand by any agreements when A knows it is going to be attacked by people from Group B?

C has just assured that any negotiations will amount to nothing more than a sham. And when things fall apart, both sides can claim it was the other side's fault for not having held to the agreements.

Which is pretty much what C wanted all along. And has always wanted. And will continue to want.

War without end. Amen.

Not everything can be skewed. Appeals to tradition, and authority sway uncritical hearts, and minds. Also, the fast-one favorite of teens is, 'it's not good for me, but my friends are doing it...so I will.' BANDWAGON fallacy. This is what I think I heard, and now I will re-state unequivocally my American position on Israel and our allies, and a faithful foreign policy in the world today: we need them desperately.
"Diversity, grows stronger!" GB

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CaptainPatch:


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57407

"A top leader of the so-called "military wing" of Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas'

Cap,

Thanks for bringing this up. I've been telling people that as soon as Israel finishes using Abbas to destroy Hamas they'll turn on him just like they used Hamas to destroy the PLO and Arafat.
This article was a little reminder that they still claim that they don't have a partner for peace.

Thom Hartmann had cut me off the last time I called into his program and mentioned the following article from Israel to 'bolster' his position that the Iraq war wasn't for Israel:

'Sharon Warned Bush: Hit Iran, Not Iraq'


According to a former top U.S. Administration official, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon tried to convince George W. Bush not to invade Iraq in 2001, and told him "Iraq is not the enemy, Iran is the enemy."

The quotes appear in a report by the NFC news site, which identifies the official as "Gen (res.) Lawrence Wilkinson, one of former American Secretary of State Colin Powell's top advisors." He is also said to be "the person who, two years ago, exposed American intelligence's systematic lies before the Iraq War."

The official reportedly said that when Sharon understood that Bush was serious about invading Iraq, he asked to meet him, and relayed messages that "if you are going to upset the balance of power in the Middle East, this had better be done vis-à-vis the Iranians and not the Iraqis." Bush, however, refused to heed Sharon's advice. When Sharon understood that the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, he promised not to make Israel's opposition to it known.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/132462

However, Thom should have done a little more research (access the CBS News piece via the following URL which clearly conveys how Israel was pushing for US to attack Iraq):

C-SPAN viewer Call for GAO head David Walker which mentioned Walt and Mearsheimer book

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/09/israel-...-foreign-policy.html

http://tinyurl.com/2KHCED

Terrorists formally thank Cindy Sheehan

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78951

quote:

Originally posted by NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL:
Terrorists formally thank Cindy Sheehan

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78951

There's a LOT of emotion wrapped up in that word "terrorist". Just like attaching the word "rabid" to "dog". Most dogs you can get along with. Rabid dogs, all they want to do bite and rend and tear _anyone_ that gets too near.

Terrorists are actually _extreme_ political activists. They differ from other political activists in that they are willing to use _any_ means to make their point. But the point is that they DO have a point.

Unfortunately, it is to the Administration's benefit to lump ALL violent opposition under the single labels of "terrorists" or "insurgents". In fact, they try to get people to mentally associate EVERY violent opponent to "Al Qaida", even though Al Qaida only accounts for about 5% (?) of the attacks in Iraq.

Nearly ALL of the "terrorists" in Iraq are doing what they are doing in order to achieve some political goal. But like every other political landscape anywhere in the world, there are MANY goals being worked for. Apparently, Al Qaida _does_ want to destroy America, and they are contenting themselves attacking those Americans that they easily reach. There _is_ a segment of "terrorists" that is comprised of Muslim extremists that would like to destroy every non-Muslim in the world. But I suspect that _most_ of the "terrorists" perceive themselves as "freedom fighters", trying to persuade the foreign army occupying their country to leave ASAP. Like, the French Resistance fought the Germans in France in WWII. Like the Viet Minh fought the French in IndoChina. Like the Viet Cong fought the Americans and "their political puppets in Saigon" in Viet Nam. Like Begin in the Irgun fought the British in Palestine prior to the creation of Israel. Like, like, like, like....

One man's "terrorist" is another man's "patriot". It all depends on who wins the war to determine what labels are used.

So, to those "terrorists" that fight and die to rid Iraq of a foreign occupying army, why would they NOT be thankful to an American political figure that advocates American withdrawal?

Do yourself -- and everyone else a favor and look past the label to see who is talking.

quote:

Terrorists formally thank Cindy Sheehan

So what? What's your point in posting this? Why should we give a flying f*ck what terrorists think of Sheehan?

quote:

Originally posted by memory_hole:

quote:

Terrorists formally thank Cindy Sheehan

So what? What's your point in posting this? Why should we give a flying f*ck what terrorists think of Sheehan?

Cindy Sheehan is right.

Pro-Democracy Means Anti-Fascism

By Cindy Sheehan

“The world is watching the people of Burma take to the streets to demand their freedom, and the American people stand in solidarity with these brave individuals,” - George W. Bush
09/28/07 "ICH" -- -- Watching the pro-democracy marches in Burma both inspires and sickens me. I am inspired by seeing thousands of red-robed monks leading the demonstrations and sickened by the violence they are being met with by the military.

Seeing the images of the monks and others being beaten reminds me of the Democratic Convention in 1968 where Chicago police beat the living daylights out of demonstrators who were there to try and force the party to come closer to the budding anti-war movement. It didn’t work. Instead of wonderful pro-peace candidate, Eugene McCarthy, the party nominated Johnson’s VP, Hubert Humphrey. We know what happened next: Nixon. After last night’s Democratic “debate” I am terrified and assured that the Democrats will have another pro-war nominee.

The other event in my memory that the pro-democracy movement in Burma reminds me of is Kent State, Ohio in May, 1970. Four students were killed and nine were wounded marching against escalation of the Vietnam debacle.. I have heard from many people who were of age to protest the Vietnam war at that time that the killings had the affect of frightening them into not protesting, or scaling their protests back.

Of course the present state of our nation is not as overtly oppressive as the government of Myanmar (Burma), presently where a Nobel Peace Laureate Aung Sang Suu Kyi has been under house arrest there for years, but we who have been paying attention to events can see that America is on the precipice of serious fascism and only the brave actions of Americans committed to freedom, democracy and peace will help stem the tide of this rising neo-fascism that doesn’t march through our streets in goose-step and swastikas, but is creeping into our lives like cat’s paws.

According to Chris Rowthorn, in his brilliant article, When America Went Fascist, we went fascist on December 11, 2000 when the Supreme Court appointed George as our unelected, un-democratic and illegal President. Although it is easy and tempting to blame everything on BushCo, this is about the only assertion that I disagree with in his article.

What about during the Clinton regime? Does anyone remember Elian Gonzales or The Branch Davidians in Waco? Let’s go back further. What about when Truman dropped to WMD on hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in Japan? What about Korea? Eisenhower and the Military Industrial Complex? What about the Gulf of Tonkin? What about Watergate? What about Panama? Kosovo? Nicaragua? Free trade agreements that hurt workers in all countries that are involved in them and what about the abuse of language in this country: Patriot Act; Homeland Security; Clear Water and Clean Skies—and the No Child Left Behind Act that leaves every child behind and is just a funnel to the recruiter’s office?

There are just a few measures that we can use to stop this slide and Rowthorn articulates what has become an important part of my platform. Only vote for candidates that promise the following things…for president, or any other federal elective offices:

* Repeal the Patriot Act
* Repeal No Child Left Behind
* Scale down the Department of Homeland Security and rename it so it loses its Nazi
tone and is brought under civilian control.
* Restore habeas corpus and close all torture camps by repealing the Military Commissions’ Act.
* Repeal all contracts with paid mercenary killer companies.
* Restore the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
* Repeal all BushCo-Presidential directives (especially Directive 51) and review all laws that contain signing statements.
* Restore the 4th Amendment by enforcing warrants for spying on Americans.
* Impeach Bush and Cheney-post presidency so they can’t receive federal benefits.
* Bring all troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and review military needs for other bases around the world.
* Repeal all free trade agreements.
* Kick AIPAC and other lobbyists out of the halls of Congress where they have no business.

One of the most profound ways we can stop this descent into fascism is by impeaching, removing from office and incarcerating George Bush and Dick Cheney, et al. I am very skeptical of a complicit Congress, Inc doing anything about them in this term. I am also very skeptical of a “professional” and fascist military leadership taking their oath of service seriously and above their corporate-military allegiance to the Executive Branch recently and so tellingly revealed by General Betray-Us, so a military coup is out of the question and has the tricky element of becoming a military dictatorship.

I was supposed to be in court today in Washington, DC for my last arrest. I didn’t go because I am not under allegiance and repudiate the fascists that run our government and the enforcers who are doing their best Nazi-job of “following orders” in oppressing our rights as Americans.

Why are they beating up a Reverend who served in the Air Force, and honorably left after the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq, for wanting to attend a hearing in Congress?

Why are they arresting a Gold Star Mother for exercising the very freedoms for which George Bush freakishly says her son died?

Why are my daughter and assistant under indictment for Contempt of Congress when BushCo have steadily refused to testify before committees under oath, or any other way? As a matter of fact, Betray-Us wasn’t even put under oath that day in the House.

Why are college students being tasered for asking the same questions that we all want answered from John Kerry who threw our Representative Republic in the garbage along with the 2004 election?

Why are nooses being hung in the South?

Why do any of us pay our Federal Taxes to a government that we abhor and which we adamantly disagree with? Why do we allow our hard earned money to be used for murder and oppression?

Why is Congress giving BushCo more authority to begin a New World War?

Where are religious leaders to lead us in pro-democracy demonstrations? Most of our mainstream religions suffer from the same neo-fascism that our governmental leaders suffer from.

Why do we march in DC on Saturdays and get arrested just to get arrested? It’s time to descend on DC on a weekday and make commitments to our world and our posterity to over throw this fascism right now?

When can we have a country-wide massive general strike?

Recent reports show that Saddam made overtures to America through the UAE and Spain to go into exile weeks before the March, 2003 invasion of Iraq. Of course, the overtures were rejected because George’s small mind was already made up to invade Iraq before he became president in some sick way to either show up or gain approval from a dysfunctional family. What if Spain’s former President Aznar had spoken up then? What if Colin Powell, George Tenet, or any of the criminal neocons had spoken up to prevent this horrible loss of life and pain before it even started?

I wouldn’t be under a bench warrant right now. Rev wouldn’t be recovering from a badly sprained ankle. Casey would be alive and hundreds of thousands of others would be alive.

We can’t count on anyone but ourselves. It’s now up to we the people to follow the example of our brothers and sisters in Burma to courageously confront the anti-democracy/pro-fascist elements of our society.

Contact Cindy at: Cindy@CindyforCongress.org

Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan who was KIA in Iraq on 04/04/04. She is a co-founder and President of Gold Star Families for Peace

These authors are also right to warn us of what is coming again

September 28, 2007

See No Evil

http://counterpunch.org/christison09272007.html

So what about Iran? by Uri Avnery

Israel and the USA plotting to attack Iran

29 September 2007


http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html