 |
| |
|
|
Natan
|
 |
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
S. Kroeze, if Palestinian terrorism can't be defeated, Israel should just pack up and leave. But I don't see why people are so confidant that it can't be; Islamic terrorists have been defeated in various countries all over the world and will continue to be defeated. It's not impossible, it's just hard. It doesn't involve ethnic cleansing or extermination.
quote:
When no final solution will be reached in the short turn, Israel will be wiped off the face of the earth sooner of later. Time is running out! |
Why?
quote:
In my opinion the international community -which includes Europe and the US- has committed a most heinous crime by first allowing the Holocaust without doing anything to thwart it, then allowing the Jews to be slowly tormented, undermined, killed and wasted in some extremely volatile and underdeveloped part of the world -largely desert- acting as a hateful colonial oppressor, far away from Europe and the US. |
So you think that this is just a Euro-Jewish anti-Islamic conspiracy, and that he Arab states play no role in the conflict?
quote:
I guess this has been one great pharisaic, Christian conspiracy from the beginning: making Jews the unpaid guardians of 'our' Holy places! |
Please, this kind of rubbish is getting old. And the term "pharisaic conspiracy" is scaring me.
quote:
The killing of Palestinians -actually far more Palestinians are killed- is no problem at all: the life of an 'Arab' is still even more useless than the life of a Jew!
When the Muslims of Srebrenica were slaughtered -about 7000 men- Dutchbat wisely looked the other way. |
It's not about the lives of Jews or Muslims or Arabs, it's about the lives of people with some power or of some worth to those with power. Those who don't fall into one of those two latter categories aren't protected. NATO will intervene in Kosovo to prevent a flood of refugees to Western Europe and to maintain stability in the Balkans (related goals), but couldn't care less about Christians being killed in Sudan, or even Muslims and Christians being killed together by drug lords and smugglers in Sierra Leonne.
quote:
That is probably also the reason the US -and Europe to a lesser degree- do support these unpleasant and corrupt regimes, like the shah(Iran), Saddam Hussein(Iraq), Syria, Turkey, Saudi-Arabia etc. |
We support them because they are useful to us. We're just as happy to support dictators in Christian countries like Greece.
quote:
To my knowledge Bush and O.benLaden moved in the same upper walks of life! |
That's not even worthy of a response.
quote:
Yet we never hear the international community protesting these extremely cynical actions of Europe and the US! |
Guess who "the international community" is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
Drake, I can't find one single mention of yours regarding Europe in this thread. Did I miss something, or did you confuse this thread with one of the myriad other current ME threads?
As I posted in one of those other threads, however, that arabs treat each other badly is not an argument as to why we should allow Israel to do the same. Furthermore, European goverments do condemn other nations which treats their citizens inhumanely, but normally not as publicised as when nations war on each other.
One could argue whether it is morally equal for a goverment to kill a person as it is for an aggressive occupier to kill that person. Most people, and nations, don't think they are morally equivalent. I don't think so either, as I think that every citizen of a society does have some responsibility for who the rulers are, even in a dictatorship. So I'm OK with a nation condemning warcrimes while being less vocal about human rights abuses. You follow me?
You claim that you can make a good case for Eurpoe being biased towards arabs. Would you mind expanding on this? from my experience, europeans are if anything biased against arabs. That this does not translate into partial politics, however, is one more confirmation that EU is the most impartial political body there is. Of course, being the most impartial body does not mean it is perfectly impartial, far from it. It just means that it is more impartial than anything else.
EU's condementation of Israel, however, is nopt because of bias or partiality. It is because EU politicians not only can tell right from wrong, they are also prepared to act accodringly.
I don't know whether Bush can tell right from wrong. I have my doubts. but I'm prefectly sure that even if he would have a second of lucidity, he would most likely not do antyhing about it, since it is feirly well known that he is bought and paid for...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
So any lands you acquire by force you get to keep? Gee, Hitler would be proud of that statement. |
Are you so blind that you can't see the difference between Israel and Hitler? Israel acquired land in a war started by Arabs, then kept it for security from the aforementioned Arabs. Hitler attacked neighboring countries that were no threat to Germany solely to take all of their land. It's really not so hard to see the difference.
I'm getting really tired of the black and white view people have on the acquistion of territory. It isn't completely wrong in every circumstance. Like everything in life, it can be right or wrong depending on the circumstances. Hitler's acquisition of Polish land was wrong, but was the acquisition of Pomerania and Silesia by Poland after WWII wrong? Should the Allies have left Germany with all the land it had before it started WWII? What are the consequences for starting a war if your enemies can't take anything from you if you are defeated? The Arabs started a war, got beat, and lost some land because of it. Now they want it back and many people are ready to give it to them. This is idiotic, IMO. If you don't want to lose any territory, don't start wars you can't win. It's that simple.
Nice troll, Bucephalus. Got me a little riled up, but it would've been better if you hadn't resorted to a Hitler reference. Makes it too easy. 7/10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
|
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Drake, I can't find one single mention of yours regarding Europe in this thread. Did I miss something, or did you confuse this thread with one of the myriad other current ME threads? |
My first post in this thread was originally directed toward Europeans, but I changed "Europe" to the "international community" right before I posted it so as not to offend anyone. Believe it or not, I like to avoid unnecessary conflict. Sorry about any confusion that might have caused.
quote:
As I posted in one of those other threads, however, that arabs treat each other badly is not an argument as to why we should allow Israel to do the same. Furthermore, European goverments do condemn other nations which treats their citizens inhumanely, but normally not as publicised as when nations war on each other. |
I think we had a little more confusion here. I wasn't referring to the Arab states treatment of their own citizens. It is horrible, but I think Europeans do a good job of decrying it. My comments were directed towards the part the Arab states played in creating and continuing the Palestinian refugee problem. IMO, the Arab states have used the Pals as a tool to combat Israel with since the inception of the Jewish state. If the Arab states really cared about the Palestinians, they would have allowed them to emigrate a long time ago. They don't care about the Pals, however, and would rather keep the Pals in squalor so that they will continue to be a threat to Israel. The Pals also provide a convenient cause that can be used to divert any unrest towards the regimes in Arab states. This behavior by the Arabs angers me greatly, but I never hear Europeans mention it. All the blame for the current situation seems to be put upon Israel, despite the fact that the Arab states are just as responsible. It doesn't seem like a very objective view of the conflict to me.
quote:
You claim that you can make a good case for Eurpoe being biased towards arabs. Would you mind expanding on this? |
I believe that Europe has a vested interest in supporting the Arab states for two reasons.
1. Europe gets the majority of its oil from the Arab states, so must maintain good relations with them in order to guarantee its economy stays healthy. Supporting Israel in any way would jeopardize these vital relations.
2. Europe has a large Arab minority that needs to be kept happy. Recent anti-Semitic attacks in France and Germany have demonstrated that the risk of violence amongst the Arab population is not farfetched. What would the Arab population in Europe do if a European country was to side with Israel in this conflict? I don't think any European leaders want to find out.
In short, I think that Europe is just looking out for its own interests. There is nothing wrong with that. What I disagree with, however, is the belief that Europe is completely unbiased and acting completely on moral grounds. Frankly, that's a bunch of bullshit. To say that "european nations are as a whole the most impartial of all nations on earth" is not only arrogant, it is also patently untrue IMO.
Last edited by Drake Tungsten on 10-04-2002 at 06:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
|
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Eli |
I assume that you're reffering to me, since your subsequent factual errors and reading mistakes are apparent references to what you construed my post to be.
quote:
where on earth did you get the idea that the french resistance fought to advance the border of France? The french resistance fought to end the occupation of germany... That's quite a bit of difference. |
Germany had annexed parts of France, with the agreement of the French Vichy government. The French resistance was fighting to get back all of it. Admittadly, the Germans later occupied the whole thing, but we don't consider those who resisted Vichy to be terrorists or criminals.
quote:
And no one in their right mind praises the french resistance for the germans they killed just because they were germans... |
Did I say that? No, I said Nazis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you do acknowledge a difference between Nazis and Germans. Do you think no one in their right mind praises the French resistance for killing Nazis? Would it have been wrong to kill Nazis had they restricted their murder of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and the disabled to the borders of Germany? And come to think of it, wasn't Nazi Germany's demand for the Polish corridor just a fight against the unfair Polish occupation of what had been German soil for quite some time?
quote:
They praise them because they risked their lives so that France would be free again. |
If that was the whole issue, then everyone would praise the fighters of the Paris Commune in 1871 just as much. They would also praise the Serbs in Kosovo, who were fighting to protect their Kosovo province from Albanian aggression in the hostilities there a few years ago. But they don't. On the other hand, most people do praise Germans who resisted Nazism, even though they were not necessarily fighting to end Germany's occupation of foriegn countries.
quote:
Also, history DOES remember the germans as the villains of WW1... Maybe because they lost, but they did declare war on France and England. |
England declared war on Germany for violating Belgian neutrality, not the other way round. I don't know what history books you read, but I've rarely seen much other than allied propaganda pretend that Germany was evil for continuing its occupation of Alsace-Lorraine.
quote:
I don't get the zoning part... please explain? |
If you hated Irish protestants as much as you hate Israelis, you'd be arguing that Ireland was unnaturally divided to accomodate a state for the Protestant minority.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
Spraybear:
quote:
You say they [the suicide bombings] aren't effective. I say that they are wrong because they target
civilians for no other purpose than that they are Jews. |
And you are wrong. Let's try a hypothetical mind-exercise.
Let's say that all the jews in Israel switch places with all the Norwegians in Norway. Do you think the arabs would try to plant bombs in Norway (so they could kill jews), or would they try to kill the (now occupying) norwegians?
Of course, Norwegians being fine and upstanding people, they would most likely grant the palestinians the land and security they deserve, and the conflict would be over. But that is a different question.
The point is that the arabs aren't targeting Israeli civilians because of the genetic heritage they carry. They are targeting them as representatives of an occupying power. There is an immense difference.
It has been a steadfast policy of the Israeli and jewish PR machine to label anyone who opposes Israeli practices an anti-semite or nazi. I sincerely hope that you don't intend to do the same, since if anything in this thread is insulting, it is that implication...
As long as Israel occupies palestine, the murders you talk of ARE cries for freedom... How could they be otherwise? In a throwback to Elis misconception, do you belive the french resistance killed germans because they hated everything german, or because they tried to end the occupation? that the second spawned the first I won't argue with, but not the other way around... And as france/germany have shown quite well after WW2 is that a nation where the people would go to great lengths in killing an occupying neighbour can get along very well when the occupation is over.
I'm not sure what part of my post was insulting, but I would like to know what nation you consider most unbiased. Maybe Iceland... Australia? New Zealand? Canada? all very much like the EU... and so any difference between them would be minor, especially compared to countries like Egypt, US, China, etc.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
|
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by S. Kroeze
When you would at least read and try to understand my post, you would conclude that allowing the foundation of the state of Israel and the resulting conflict is the result of appalling indifference of the US, USSR and Europe for the well-being of the Jewish people. It was both anti-Muslim AND anti-Jewish.
Having failed to protect the Jews, they gave the Jews a small piece of desert far away to die for! I am not surprised the Jews jumped at it. The survivors of the Holocaust had every reason to flee Europe and Russia. |
Attempts to blame the conflict on outside bystanders are silly. The two sides are not fighting against their will as a result of the doings of outsiders. Jews started Zionism, and Arabs started opposition to it; Europeans may have mananged to increase the misery of Jews and Arabs, but they did not create the conflict in any conscious way. European anti-Semitism could be blamed, but that was hardly part of a plan to plant European Jews in the Arab world to guard Christian holy sites.
quote:
I suppose you will not launch the theory that the Arab people were ever consulted in advance, before 1940.
They had some disagreeable recollections from the Crusades!
This was another attempt to conquer the 'Holy' places. |
You seem to overrate the level of planned European involvement in this.
quote:
a substantial part of former Palestine and also a part of Jerusalem.
The most important word here is SUBSTANTIAL!
Im my view 50% corresponds more with this concept than 20%. The original UN plan (1947) was quite fair. It is a pity the Jews didn't scratch their head when the Arabs were unwilling to accept it. But why should they have accepted it? |
I could just as well (and probably should) point out that the Arabs actually got most of the Palestine mandate when they got trans-jordan. I would also say that borders must be drawn on the basis of present facts; we should no more return Jaffa to the Palestinians than we'd return Danzig to Germany.
quote:
They were not in any way responsible for the Holocaust! |
We could bring up the Mufti of Jerusalem and the Rashid Ali coup in which Arab leaders sided with the Nazis, but the whole line of argument isn't worthwhile. It's not the Irish catholics fault that scots moved into Ireland, but that doesn't mean the Protestants in the north shouldn't be allowed to keep the north a part of the UK.
quote:
This rejection clearly reflected their lack of enthusiasm for a Jewish state in that part of the world. But Europe, US and USSR couldn't care less! The more Jews and Muslims fight one another the less threat they can pose to Christianity. |
Yes, the USSR was thinking a lot about how to preserve Christian hegemony.  But really, what did you expect to have happen? Did you think that maybe the 600,000 Jews in Israel and the half a million or so Holocaust survivors would just go back to Stalin's Russia?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
Eli, I'm terribly sorry that I confused you with NAtan. My sinserest apologies 
Natan, also sorry.
quote:
Germany had annexed parts of France, with the agreement of the French Vichy government. The French
resistance was fighting to get back all of it. Admittadly, the Germans later occupied the whole thing,
but we don't consider those who resisted Vichy to be terrorists or criminals. |
Vichy France was a german puppet regime.
Apparently you haven't studied WW2 to any great length. In 1939, Germany after England and France declared war on Germany because of Germanys invasion of Poland, Germany attacked France. France quickly fell, and Germany set up a puppet regime in Vichy. The legitimate french goverment fled to London. the struggle to liberate France was led by England and later partnered with the U.S.. Prior to the invasion of Normandie, the french resistance fought to make the german ocupation more costly. They knew perfectly well that they could not alone throw off the german yoke, but they knew that every bit they did made it easier for the Allied powers when the D-day finally came. After D-day, the french resistance helped by sabotaging german communications and supply line, by guiding allied soliders and other irregular duties.
The basic flaw in your assessment was the acceptance of Vichy france as a legitimate nation. On the contrary, the goverment of france was in London, trying their best to liberate France from their attackers.
You never answered my question... where did you get this notion? Since I know you must have gone to an american school, I'm assuming you didn't learn it their... Was the history education in your school so bad that you had to try to get information on your own, and read a israeli textbook? Or was it your parents who told you this? Again, I'm genuinly curious...
Replace every single 'german' in my previous post with 'nazi' and you'll get the same result. People can be killed because the actions they perform, not because of the political views they have.
If germany hadn't invaded France, France would have had no justification killing a single german, nazi or otherwise.
If the germans would have started the holocaust without invading other countries, then France would have reason to invade Germany, I believe, and put the german goverment on trial for crimes against humanity.... Much like Sharon should be today.
quote:
If that was the whole issue, then everyone would praise the fighters of the Paris Commune in 1871 just
as much.They would also praise the Serbs in Kosovo, who were fighting to protect their Kosovo
province from Albanian aggression in the hostilities there a few years ago. |
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. please elaborate. Both examples.
quote:
On the other
hand, most people do praise Germans who resisted Nazism, even though they were not necessarily
fighting to end Germany's occupation of foriegn countries. |
I'm not entierly sure what the point of that statement is, since to the best of my knowledge there aren't a single case of a german who opposed the holocaust but approved of germanys occupation of neighbouring countries... Maybe there were some, but I don't know of them. If there were such a person, I would say that overall, he does not deserve praise... Just as you would most likely agree that someone who approved of the holocaust but disapporved of germanys war of aggression would desreve praise... (in which category there are actually a few people.... a notorious swedish author, amongst others... He has taken some serious **** about that, and justifiably so.)
quote:
England declared war on Germany for violating Belgian neutrality, not the other way round. I don't
know what history books you read, but I've rarely seen much other than allied propaganda pretend that
Germany was evil for continuing its occupation of Alsace-Lorraine. |
You are mincing words. Sure, England declared war on germany, but as a direct result of germany invading englands ally Belgium. What difference does that make, other than make it seem like you are rebutting my point without actually saying anything?
I have never in my life seen any propaganda claiming that germany was 'evil' for occupying alsace-lorraine... Plenty of people, however, claims that germany was the villain of WW1 because they invaded their neighbours. You really have a problem with that whole 'invasion' and 'aggression' thing...
quote:
If you hated Irish protestants as much as you hate Israelis, you'd be arguing that Ireland was unnaturally
divided to accomodate a state for the Protestant minority. |
As I said before, I don't hate Israelis. I just belive in right and wrong, and that aggression is wrong.
I actually don't know much about the zoning of Ireland. I do know that neither Ireland nor Norther Ireland want a unified Irish country, while England would be more than happy to get rid of that perpetual money-sink that is NI...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
Natan:
quote:
I would also say that borders must be drawn on the basis of present facts |
again, Hitler would be proud.
BTW, does this mean that if the arabs started a war with Israel and actually won, you would support expelling all the jews? If not, how long must the arab armies occupy israel before it is legitimate? One year? Five years? Fifty years?
Natan and MrFun, one of the greatest development of the 20'th century was the realisation that changing borders as a result of warfare is a bad practice, only spawning more enmity and war. Most of the world (the ones who are members of the UN) have ratified that aggression is not a legitimate way to obtain land. Israel is violating this principle, but starting from sympathy from the holocaust, it has managed to put enough spin on it to be accepted in the U.S.. Nevertheless, two wrongs does not make one right, and ISraels war on aggression should not be allowed to gain Israel land...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
 |
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Europeans may have mananged to increase the misery of Jews and Arabs, but they did not create the conflict in any conscious way. |
I agree they did not cause the conflict. Yet they allowed it to arise. What about the Balfour declaration(1917)?
The British should never have created their protectorate in Palestine.
And allowing -and supporting- the foundation of Israel was a conscious act, partly the result of feelings of guilt.
quote:
You seem to overrate the level of planned European involvement in this. |
And it is my impression your knowledge of the European policy versus the 'Holy Land' is lacking.
Apart from seven crusades, all great European powers have in all centuries tried to have influence in Palestine and to protect Christians in the Near East, especially when the Turks were weak. After ~1650 Turkish power was gradually declining. You should read some treaties with the Porte!
It was inevitable that some days Europeans would try to control the 'Holy' places again. Especially because the West became so powerful and the Muslim world so backward! History is far stronger than the individual will of a human being. Christianity is still the dominant religion of Europe, even in Russia!
Most Jews who founded Israel came from Europe. Without constant support -by Europe and US- Israel would not exist!
Last edited by S. Kroeze on 10-04-2002 at 07:39
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-04-2002 04:41
|