| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/15/2006 07:46:38 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
That said, Israelis are no more or less guilty of 'terrorism' than arabs around them. (Need to find another word instead of terrorism, this one is overused.) |
There are loads;
- Evildoers
- Beheaders
- Insurgents
- Sadammists
- Jihadists
- The bad guys |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 08:27:14 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
GeneralE, in your analysis you start from the premise that Israel existed forever, and that all conflicts that happened recently (in the past 60 years) are caused by people that hate Israel. Well, if you go 70 years back, there was no Israel - it was established there by the winners of the WWII (see my other post - reply to Jinjit). That's what caused all these atrocties in the past 60 years. |
If you want to use the Bible as a reference (as all three "major religions" are wont to do) then I'd say the "State of Israel" has existed at least since Moses led the Hebrews out of bondage in Egypt, and his successors (Aaron and Joshua? -- I'm not a Bible expert) conquered the Canaanites.
The Jews have lived in the land we call Israel from the time of Abraham, the patriarch to whom Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all trace their lineage. They have been forcibly removed several times (e.g. by the Babylonians), and I consider the creation of the modern State in 1948 as a reasonable attempt to repatriate long-term exiles -- victims of the latest diaspora, while providing ample territory for the Palestian population thus displaced. Look at a map of the Middle East and compare how much is Arab-controlled (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc.) to how much is under Jewish control.
After having some six million of their population systematically exterminated, I can't see how carving out a tiny homeland where they could control their own fate is such an imposition on the rest of the world ...
Message edited by author 2006-07-15 20:28:22. |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 08:27:27 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by srdanz:
That said, Israelis are no more or less guilty of 'terrorism' than arabs around them. (Need to find another word instead of terrorism, this one is overused.) |
There are loads;
- Evildoers
- Beheaders
- Insurgents
- Sadammists
- Jihadists
- The bad guys |
To add some:
- Freedom fighters
- Patriots
- civil defenders
- Jingoists
- rebels
- liberators
etc...
ps. this can apply to either side - not calling names anyone in particular. |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 08:32:53 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
After having some six million of their population systematically exterminated, I can\'t see how carving out a tiny homeland where they could control their own fate is such an imposition on the rest of the world ... |
I know and I understand that history. However, the forming of the modern Israel is in contradiction to all other modern (read:western) states. No other state exists where some parts of its population are unwelcome and considered citizens of the 2nd order. (Except, perhaps, US until the Civil Rights movement in the 60s)
Never use the 'ancient history' argument unless you (and me) are ready to pick up our belongings in one suitcase and get the hell out of the US back to UK, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, China, India or wherever the hell we came from in the first place and leave this country to the Indians! |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 08:41:56 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
... No other state exists where some parts of its population are unwelcome and considered citizens of the 2nd order. (Except, perhaps, US until the Civil Rights movement in the 60s) |
That situation exists today in almost all Islamic states. And that's half the Arab population!
Originally posted by srdanz:
Never use the 'ancient history' argument unless you (and me) are ready to pick up our belongings in one suitcase and get the hell out of the US back to UK, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, China, India or wherever the hell we came from in the first place and leave this country to the Indians! |
A popular bumper sticker around here reads U.S. Out Of North America
But, you are the one who raised the "ancient history" argument -- I'm perfectly willing to proceed from this point, with a small Jewish State surrounded by Islamic ones. I just think until the Islamic states accept this basic premise there will be no peace -- it is not Israel which wants to deny the practitioners of Islam their right to a homeland.
Message edited by author 2006-07-15 20:44:42. |
|
|
|
07/15/2006 10:59:20 PM · #106 |
I don't claim to know a huge amount about the region history of the middle east but I'm curious why the US vetoed against a ceasefire?
|
|
|
|
07/16/2006 08:00:29 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by Makka:
I don't claim to know a huge amount about the region history of the middle east but I'm curious why the US vetoed against a ceasefire? |
Because of the Negroponte doctrine
The US will veto any resolution involving Israel which doesn't contain the following elements;
* An explicit condemnation of terrorism;
* A condemnation by name of the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, Islamic Jihad and Hamas, groups that have claimed responsibility for suicide attacks on Israel;
* An appeal to all parties for a political settlement of the crisis;
* A demand for improvement of the security situation as a condition for any call for a withdrawal of Israeli armed forces to positions they held before the September 2000 start of the al-Aqsa intifada Palestinian uprising in which 1,467 Palestinians and 564 Israelis have died.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2006 11:20:16 AM · #108 |
GeneralE - you are giving me a fright. I find myself AGREEING with each post of yours. It was easier when you were more predictable.
Legalbeagle - your positions remind me of the consoler to a small child who has been bullied on the playground, only to be told that they just need to be nicer to the other children. When the truth is that until you bloddy the nose of the bully, they will always prey on those whom they perceive as weaker. They may always be a bully, but they learn who NOT to mess with.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2006 03:36:13 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by Flash:
GeneralE - you are giving me a fright. I find myself AGREEING with each post of yours. It was easier when you were more predictable.
Legalbeagle - your positions remind me of the consoler to a small child who has been bullied on the playground, only to be told that they just need to be nicer to the other children. When the truth is that until you bloddy the nose of the bully, they will always prey on those whom they perceive as weaker. They may always be a bully, but they learn who NOT to mess with. |
It is always a question of perspective - when you refer to the bully, I think of Israel (it always lands the bigger punch, often relying upon a pre-emptive strike doctrine), though I understand that you probably consider the surrounding states the bully for the purpose of your argument.
It is quite apparent that the political distinction between the US and the rest of the world's view of Israeli foreign action percolates down throughout large parts of the US. I am not sure if either of us is "right" (in fact, I am certain that no one has the right answer), but the majority verdict in international politics most definitely supports my contention. The US just happens to be a (if not "the") powerful exception, without which Israel would have been pulled into line many years ago.
I don't know whether it matters to you that pretty much every other government voices and independent international body voices a different opinion to the US stance - I don't know if that gets communicated to the US public as a matter of course.
The stereotypical view of the US is to see an insular state that cares for no other international voice, convinced of its own superiority: I do not know how true that is here. I would be interested for someone to tell me their view (I am off to have a look at CNN and Fox to have a look myself).
|
|
|
|
07/16/2006 03:47:02 PM · #110 |
Interesting, divergent descriptions of Hezbollah on CNN and BBC:
//www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/13/hezbollah/index.html
//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314423.stm
BBC:
"Hezbollah has always sought to further an Islamic way of life. In the early days, its leaders imposed strict codes of Islamic behaviour on towns and villages in the south of the country - a move that was not universally popular with the region's citizens.
But the party emphasises that its Islamic vision should not be interpreted as an intention to impose an Islamic society on the Lebanese. "
CNN:
"It opposes Israel and the West, and supports a fundamentalist Muslim government."
|
|
|
|
07/16/2006 03:52:01 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I don't know whether it matters to you that pretty much every other government voices and independent international body voices a different opinion to the US stance - I don't know if that gets communicated to the US public as a matter of course.
The stereotypical view of the US is to see an insular state that cares for no other international voice, convinced of its own superiority: I do not know how true that is here. I would be interested for someone to tell me their view (I am off to have a look at CNN and Fox to have a look myself). |
I really don't want in on this discussion but I have to answer this. Yes, as a matter of course I do know, watch, read, listen and understand that the rest of the world does not agree with the US position. I understand the those "LAME ASS" News channels regurgitate the administrations position and so you have this stereotypical view of me. That is sad just like this discussion.
The special things about this site are the things we have in common. You know photography and post processing. We should be discussing the things we have in common not just focusing on what is different. An example of this is in the voting and commenting during challenges. I received a comment from a member from Iran on my American Image and both the comment and the feeling I got by reading it was wonderful. No politics no hate just honesty and what we have in common.
My point is you keep prefacing your statement with "A stereotypical view" but then you give a stereotypical response by continuing to look at the differences.
I am not a stereotype
I am Erick Steffens and I care.
Message edited by author 2006-07-16 15:54:21. |
|
|
|
07/16/2006 04:27:45 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I am Erick Steffens and I care. |
Please explain this statement to me. (I'm not asking in an accusatory manner at all, but wondering what it means . . .) I'll explain more later.
edit -- nevermind. your name is "erick steffens" got it. I was a bit shocked there because a high school friend of mine, named "erik steffen" passed away recently, and that was a bit weird.
back to your regularly scheduled rant . ..
Message edited by author 2006-07-16 16:29:31. |
|
|
|
07/16/2006 04:39:28 PM · #113 |
| Sorry to hear of your friends passing. My condolences. |
|
|
|
07/16/2006 05:19:44 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I really don't want in on this discussion but I have to answer this. Yes, as a matter of course I do know, watch, read, listen and understand that the rest of the world does not agree with the US position. I understand the those "LAME ASS" News channels regurgitate the administrations position and so you have this stereotypical view of me. That is sad just like this discussion. |
Some views on this thread suggest the contrary - if the media does regurgitate the administration position, then that would be hugely significant. I don't think it does, but there is a difference of approach. I am trying to understand.
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
We should be discussing the things we have in common not just focusing on what is different. An example of this is in the voting and commenting during challenges. |
That would be very dull - simply agreeing and reinforcing mutual beliefs. I prefer to be challenged and to understand different people's reasoning: you will have to forgive me for not being able to agree with you on this.
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I received a comment from a member from Iran on my American Image and both the comment and the feeling I got by reading it was wonderful. No politics no hate just honesty and what we have in common. |
I do not preach hatred: I am trying to be rational about this and have consistently criticised people in this thread (starting with the first post) that did rely on hatred. I wish that your appreciation for your commonality with an Iranian would lead you to speak up against people here who criticise every Arab for his sub-humanity.
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
My point is you keep prefacing your statement with "A stereotypical view" but then you give a stereotypical response by continuing to look at the differences. |
I don't fully understand what I am doing wrong (I would be interested to know) - the views I suggest as being stereotyped are not necessarily my own, and of course I accept that everyone is different and the stereotype is just that: I would welcome opposing evidence, and will otherwise try and find some for myself.
Apologies if I have offended you.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2006 05:38:14 PM · #115 |
No offence taken. You asked I answered. Break it down how ever you like.
:-)
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 01:54:21 AM · #116 |
| The next 48 hours are critical. How peace or a cease fire is accomplished will be amazing if it can occur. The part I'm most interested in hearing about is what role China and Japan are taking, or not taking behind the scenes. Their economies could be hit very hard if Iran becomes Israel's next target. It's in their interest that Ahmadinejad is removed from power. |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 02:40:29 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
The next 48 hours are critical. How peace or a cease fire is accomplished will be amazing if it can occur. The part I'm most interested in hearing about is what role China and Japan are taking, or not taking behind the scenes. Their economies could be hit very hard if Iran becomes Israel's next target. It's in their interest that Ahmadinejad is removed from power. |
If Iran became Israel's next target I think the war would escalate immensley! I keep noticing that the rockets that are being thrown at Israel are referred to as 'Irani supplied' rockets so I guess they see them as a target! What a major mess the whole region is! So sad!
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 04:24:34 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by Makka:
I keep noticing that the rockets that are being thrown at Israel are referred to as 'Irani supplied' rockets so I guess they see them as a target! |
I sincerely hope that this is not the PR precursor to an attack. I think probably not: Iran is much more powerful than Hezbollah. Any attack would also draw in Syria. Neither of those countries would show much restraint in retaliation if either were attacked by Israel.
The real reason, I think, is to focus international criticism on Iran (key in the light of the nuclear threat and recent politics). Iran does have close links with the militant wing of Hezbollah, and pressure needs to be applied at all levels.
Originally posted by Makka:
What a major mess the whole region is! So sad! |
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 11:49:30 AM · #119 |
To quote Mr. Bush;
"See, the irony is, what they really need to do is to get Syria to get Hizbollah to stop doing this s**t," Mr Bush told Mr Blair in a discussion before a G8 summit lunch.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 01:34:27 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by cfischl:
I have to agree with you. Israel isn't going to take any crap. That was a VERY bad move by the Lebanese.....
edit: This is going to turn into a big debate very quickly.... |
A lot of the intelligence seems to indicate Lebanon is not involved. And rather, it's Iran/Syria's Hezbolleh. Lebanon just recently began to free itself from being a puppet state of those too. |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 02:18:20 PM · #121 |
"Part of the problem is a breakdown in civil communications between BOTH parties."
No, the problem is you have one party "A" which has endeavored (including granting many concessions) and you have party "B" which is in fact made up of dozens and dozens of parties. Has made little concessions. And is unable to actually implement the only desired concession. "Cessation of attacks."
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I agree with Jinjit that the Lebanese government has not asserted its control sufficiently strongly in the area. However, it is crazy to believe that invasion combined with the destruction of Lebanese infrastructure could make the situation better or safer. |
No, it won't make the situation better. What it will do, is force it to be addressed.
Everyone must remember the G8 summit is going on. And a lot of this is all the parties saying "War is imminent unless something is done!"
Israel made numerous concessions over the last half a decade. They were rewarded with an increase in attacks. Then you have Iran sitting there developing nukes and the U.N. doing nothing but playing with it's own balls. All the while, the President of Iran is repeatedly threatening the destruction of Israel. Syria is complicent as the go between supplier for Iran to many of the terrorists. They also were the puppet government in Lebanon until very recently when the Lebanese actually rose up and threw them out. But the Lebanese government is neither strong nor well-equipped. If they were to go gun for gun and try to rid themselves of Hezbolleh they'd find themselves equally matched while facing an enemy with financial/arms backing from Iran/Syria.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I strongly wish that Israel would play a safer game, for its own sake, as much as for the sake of the people whose lives are affected by its militarily aggressive foreign policy. |
That's all nice and dandy. But do please explain to every Israeli just what a safer game entails? They gave up land, they maintained a cease-fire for sometime even while suffering constant attacks from the opposition. Meanwhile, they've endeavored to let the global community handle other issues (ie: Iran + Nukes) only to see nothing done.
Do tell me what is the "safer game" they should be playing. Cause an overview will quickly show that there is no safe game for them to play. So they are reverting back to a "strong & deadly" game. Sad. There was an opportunity available. But peace can only come if a) both sides desire it or b) one side is strong enough to enforce.
Originally posted by "srdanz":
just accelerating their erasure from the earth |
Um....there is Syria, Jordan, etc. (Which is actually what constitutes the vast majority of what are called Palestinians.) The real native group (Beduins) are very small communities. Who actually have reasonable relations with both sides.
The Palestinians could easily accept the land division. They don't/wont.
Originally posted by "shanksware":
The bridges and roads that Israel has put out of commission are not military. They are basic infrasture in Lebanon that civilians use every day. |
Regarding the bombings of bridges, roads, airport and infrastructure. From the expressed comments by Israel they are endeavoring to create a buffer region. They are trying to minimize the actual civilian loss. But they are endeavoring economic damage. Such damage will make it much more difficult to live in the region and drive the inhabitants north and away from the border. This will leave a remnant which will likely be divided into two groups. a) those with strong hostile intentions and b) long term inhabitants, shepherds, etc who are in the more remote sections and will be mostly ignored.
So yes, Israel is targeting civilian infrastructure while endeavoring not to target the civilians themselves.
Originally posted by "Palmetto_Pixels":
They can not fly out due to the airport bombing and they can not travel to Syria because of the road bombings. |
You have just demonstrated proof of the strategic value of said targets. They have now greatly diminished the movement between Syria and Lebanon in said area. That is a significant strategic target.
Originally posted by "Palmetto_Pixels":
Especially when you take into consideration that most of the weapons and support for the Hizballah come from Iran and Syria that were unaffected by the bombings. |
The crux of the issue. Iran/Syria....and the global community has done what? Haifa was bombed. Minimal damage. Iran + nukes + missiles = Haif bombed AND gone.
That is what Israel has to face. And yes, attacking Iran/Syria will lead to full scale war. One that Israel might not be able to win conventionally. God help everyone if it reaches that point.
Originally posted by "shanksware":
This is NOT an aggression by the Lebanese people against Israel. They are caught in the cross-fire just as much is the innocent Israelis that are finding rockets raining down on there heads. |
Sadly, so true.
Originally posted by legalbeagle":
Where were you in the 1980s? The IRA's head office for its money raising arm was based in New York and received millions from Americans. Millions that were used to train terrorists who carried out bombing campaigns targetting civilians in the UK. The US government did nothing about it. |
Perhaps, I am not so sure I buy they did nothing. But let me ask you this, right now there is immense debates and issues and slurrs being thrown for the U.S. government investigating where the money goes in order to prevent it from getting to terrorists. Hot button issue and the President has taken tons of heat courtesy of the NY Times for it. This is in a post-911. Part of the difficulty is following the money in order to decide to take action. And I would wager a lot of action did occur behind the scenes.
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
How do you think The US "acquired" California, Texas. Arizona, and "New" Mexico? |
Actually, a lot of it was purchased. Yes, at dirt cheap prices. When Mexico needed the money to fight off Spain.
That said, I love how Mexicans like to point out that the land was stolen. But deny the whole fact of their own European Spanish heritage. So SpainMexico stole the southern area. The English/U.S. the middle. The French/Canada the north.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I am not trying to defend the actions of Hizbollah in firing rockets indiscriminately or at civilian targets. |
But I have seldom heard you condem such actions either. And when you have it's either a "blanket" statement or a back-handed criticism of Israel.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Israel is not teaching anyone a lesson, other than that Israel cannot be negotiated with - it only respects violence. |
Oh puh-lease.... Israel has negotiated a multitude of times. And followed thru many of those times. Meanwhile, their oppenents have seldom EVER followed thru. It took nearly a decade just to get the PLO to change their charter not to include a line demanding Israel's destruction.
How frickin hard is it to chain a single line on a piece of paper for peace?
Of course, based on numerous past discussions I believe you to be extremely biased toward Israel and very apologetic to the Islamic extremists.
I also have yet to ever hear you propose a solution for Israel. Until you can provide a workable solution I think you have little right to criticize. You are free too. But it is of low-regard, IMHO.
Why don't you tell everyone what Israel should do. And please....they've tried giving tons of land. They've offered the Palestinians an additional homeland (Jordan being much of their homeland. Taken the same way as is claimed against Israel. But unlike Israel. There were not 1/2 a million Jordanians pushed out of the surrounding neighboring states.)
So I think you claim of 30 yrs without negotiation to be baseless, uninformed and uneducated. And an example of flat out bias.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Israel has come so close to handing large parts of it back - if it coul only continue along that path, there might be a hope. |
Only a fool would think there is hope in such at this point. They've given large tracts and asked for little in return. They have received NOTHING in return for their good faith negotiations.
And here is the truth, Israel could hand over the entire state of Israel to the Arabs and it'd do no good. Said factions would still call for the destruction of every Jew. Mind you, this was the favorable opinion of many BEFORE the state of Israel existed as well.
"However, Hezbollah is a militant operation. Israel is a nation state. Israel has the responsibility not to be drawn into fighting and to be manipulated into war so easily."
Hezbollah is merely a front for a group of nation states to make offense while avoiding global scrutiny. Should we ignore racists simply because they're not part of the KKK or NAZI party? The KKK may claim to not have done anything...those guys aren't members. But they gave them the books, the money, the training and the guns. And told them who to target.
See LegalBeagle, you're a lawyer. So to you, such designations make a difference. Most of us common people think legal jargon is bullsh!t. Usually it allows one side to avoid and the other to bear. Ironically, I bet you support Geneva conventions for any Hezbollah members captured? But they are not members of a state military unit. Nor uniformed so that they can be identified as combatants. So if we're going to play the rules. Can we quit giving such terrorists and associated parties the rights as if they belonged to a state?
Oh, and don't say you don't. Because I've heard yours & others' comments on Gitmo and detaining without trial. And said groups have a substantial influence and quantity in said region. In the case of Hezbolleh they have nearly equivalent might and force as the Lebonese government.
Your argument is "Since they're not a state...do nothing." Well that doesn't cut it. Sorry.
Originally posted by "RonB":
Hmmm. You seem to have overlooked some of Israel's non-violent, non-aggressive policy initiatives, like |
Legalbeagle is the type that greatly strengthens and encourages such terrorism by constantly denying history and refusing to condemn such entities so that he can have more fuel for his anti-American sentiments.
Many have posted such information. He chooses to dismiss it. Nor has he ever provided a solution. Just condemnation. His grasp of history is so poor it is quite tragic. His statement demonstrates such:
"It is clear that Israel is the only country to have occupy parts of its surrounding nations by military aggression. Lebanon has been a traditional moderate in relation to Israeli existence (I fear now, never again). "
Totally dismissing Syria's occupation of Lebanon, and numerous other nations around the world. No...none of this happens anywhere but Israel (and perhaps the U.S.).
I find LegalBeagle's anti-semitism to be showing more and more clearly.
His quote below is a great example:
"None of my Jewish friends can stand any Arab - they literally call them "dirty Arabs", and cannot understand how I can also have Lebanese and Egyptian friends"
Perhaps such is the case and he has no Jewish friends who feel such. But that may be because he is in the U.K. In the U.S. I have had friends both Jewish and Muslim. I've met a great many number of Jews who have opposed Israel's actions. I've met Jews and Muslims who are friends. In my case, I've met very few muslims who would unconditionally condemn Islamic terrorists. But who will condemn them while condemning Israel.
Likewise, this may be more of a European issue where anti-semitism toward Jews is very common and seemingly only moderately addressed.
Ironically, I myself had an Egyptian-Israeli friend/professor. He is of Jewish heritage but was born in Egypt. He had Egyptian friends. That was until his family was forced out of Egypt in the middle of the last century. Him and all the other Jewish families. On penalty of death. Where did they wind up?
Well, Europe had already killed millions. America had placed quotas and even when lifted it was a very far distance to travel. He and his family wound up in the small state of New Jersey. Ooops...my bad. Israel (about the size of New Jersey). He would later fight in the 6-day war when an endeavor was made once again to eradicate Israel (and yes, Israel struck first, but when half a dozen nations mobilize their armies on your border and the radios are declaring 'we will be victorious' one is rather inclined to assume said invasion was imminent.).
But I ask you, where was he supposed to go? Him and the other 1/2 a million Jews forced out of Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
BTW: A do not approve of any of these actions -- I am a registered pacifist* and opposed to the use of violence to coerce change.
I just think that, in general, it has been the Arab states who have instigated the violence, and the Israelis have been the respondents.
*I was granted Contientious Objector status by the Selective Service System (Draft Board) in 1972; my status is now 4W, having completed two years of alternative service en lieu of military induction. |
I have great respect for you on this GeneralE. I myself, am unable to believe in pacifism. (Sadly, I am incapable of believing in it due to my experiences on the playground in 5th/6th grade.) But I love the concept of the ideal.
And I respect those who truly do endeavor for the ideal. While at the same time calling wrong wrong.
I too think it's travesty how many innoncents are going to die. But I also believe that if all the aggression toward Israel stopped. Then Israel would cease their aggression. I do not believe the reverse is true. And Israel has gone long periods with no aggression in the hopes of peace. Most of those periods resulted in increasing aggression against the State of Israel until they were forced to respond.
In my determination of right or wrong, I look at who's actions would cause the dilemma to cease. In this case, I believe that burden lies further on the side of Israel's enemies.
That said. I am saddened by the losses on both sides. Lately, I've grown very sorrowful for the Arabs of the middle-east. More so than for the Israeli's. I mourn for both. But where as I see the Israeli's as being provoked. I view many of the Arabs in these states as being deceived into fomenting their own mutual destruction.
Message edited by author 2006-07-17 15:08:50. |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 02:18:43 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
You overlook that for this comparison to be at all accurate, there would have to have been four decades history of the US invading and seizing Mexican land, preventing Mexican people from working in occupied territories, refusing to acknowledge their leadership or their elected leaders, bulldozing Mexican homes, and killing 20 or 30 Mexicans for every American killed. |
And you would have to overlook the fact that
a) the Mexicans themselves were likewise conquerers from Europe
b) and in this case the San Diego residents had ancestral roots back several thousand years and though most of their families and relatives were killed, deported and enslaved the Diegos still had residences through out.
c) the fact that San Diego was mostly desert and sparsley inhabited. Until the Diego family's relatives began returning and irrigating turning the desert into valleys of oranges and avacodos and making lots of $$$. Since that time the population in the region grew rapidly. With Mexicans coming over from other regions for the economic benefit and many Diego family members returning to the land.
d) Meanwhile, you'd also have to dismiss that the Mexicans got a large chunk of California called the Baja Penisula. On top of the larger chunk they already had all the way to the Gulf.
e) And sure one might complain of the 500,000 Mexicans who were displaced by the Diego family. Of course, you'd have to ignore history's record that 500,000 Diego family members were forcibly forced out of Mexico losing their land and wealth. Mind you, at the same time 6 million Diego family members were killed in Europe and millions more displaced.
f) Then, dismiss the numerous attempts of the Diego family to negotiate a division or agreement to live in the region together.
g) And yes, you can also point out that the Diego family tends to respond harshly in defense of their own. And has won several large battles with the Mexicans after the Mexicans attacked.
You know have a much more accurate parrellel. What do you think now? |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 02:51:49 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by cfischl:
I have to agree with you. Israel isn't going to take any crap. That was a VERY bad move by the Lebanese.....
edit: This is going to turn into a big debate very quickly.... |
A lot of the intelligence seems to indicate Lebanon is not involved. And rather, it's Iran/Syria's Hezbolleh. Lebanon just recently began to free itself from being a puppet state of those too. |
yep - Hezbollah was founded based on Iranian backing, and is generally supported by the hard line elements of Iran and Syria. It has won the respect of the people for its military victories over Israel and, more recently, its political wing has two seats in the parliament and has moderated its approach. It was sort of on the path to greater political acceptability, but the refusal to demilitiarise, or combine with the Lebanese army, is a source of conflict. Most Lebanese do not actively support them (none of my friends in Lebanon do) and regarded (before the invasion) the hostage taking as foolishness.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 02:59:34 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
...its political wing has two seats in the parliament... |
The CNN article you posted earlier said they have 14 seats.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 03:00:25 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
You overlook that for this comparison to be at all accurate, there would have to have been four decades history of the US invading and seizing Mexican land, preventing Mexican people from working in occupied territories, refusing to acknowledge their leadership or their elected leaders, bulldozing Mexican homes, and killing 20 or 30 Mexicans for every American killed. |
And you would have to overlook the fact that
a) the Mexicans themselves were likewise conquerers from Europe
b) and in this case the San Diego residents had ancestral roots back several thousand years and though most of their families and relatives were killed, deported and enslaved the Diegos still had residences through out.
c) the fact that San Diego was mostly desert and sparsley inhabited. Until the Diego family's relatives began returning and irrigating turning the desert into valleys of oranges and avacodos and making lots of $$$. Since that time the population in the region grew rapidly. With Mexicans coming over from other regions for the economic benefit and many Diego family members returning to the land.
d) Meanwhile, you'd also have to dismiss that the Mexicans got a large chunk of California called the Baja Penisula. On top of the larger chunk they already had all the way to the Gulf.
e) And sure one might complain of the 500,000 Mexicans who were displaced by the Diego family. Of course, you'd have to ignore history's record that 500,000 Diego family members were forcibly forced out of Mexico losing their land and wealth. Mind you, at the same time 6 million Diego family members were killed in Europe and millions more displaced.
f) Then, dismiss the numerous attempts of the Diego family to negotiate a division or agreement to live in the region together.
g) And yes, you can also point out that the Diego family tends to respond harshly in defense of their own. And has won several large battles with the Mexicans after the Mexicans attacked.
You know have a much more accurate parrellel. What do you think now? |
Its never going to be perfect - it is such a broad parallel. I think I said myself that the comparison would be better the other way around (equating Israel with Mexico). Your further comparisons can be contrasted further (in both directions):
Jews were not the original settlers of Israel.
The fact that Israel has increased cultivation in parts of Palestine is given as a justification for taking the land: but it is a false justification, in that tearing down a little olive farm and putting in place massive, modern style factory farming operations is not a justification for confiscating land.
I am not sure what point some of the further ones make: but this is pointless - we could go on for ever, and I already admit (in fact, pointed out), that the parallel cannot be drawn accurately.
|
|
