Nobel Peace Prize Recipient Says ‘I Would Love to Kill George Bush’

[CSM]

To answer your last question:

For clarification, I do not support terrorism unquestioningly. But you do support it.First of all, I would like to point out that a lot of the problems nowadays are because of the Orwellian double-speak in politics: democracy holds no true meaning anymore in the media (since it refers to Iraq as being close to a democracy, whereas the Palestinians or Hezbollah, which are both elected into government, are referred to as terrorist groups). Granted...of course I have absolutely no respect for the media anyway.
The same goes for terrorism - the calculated use of violence to obtain goals that are either religious, political or ideological in nature: it is only called terrorism when the enemy of the one calling the shots is doing it. Not exactly true; it is terrorism when one deliberately targets innocent civilians IMO.If the one calling the shots is committing the same sort of atrocities, it is called liberation, or even promotion of democracy. Everybody does this. I disagree that "everybody does this"; that is deliberately target civilians although I agree that most entities have done that or are currently doing that.
When a people are condemned to live their lives under oppression of a foreign occupation, and fighting erupts, I tend to be in favor of those that are occupied: they are fighting for the basic right for self-determination, a fight I can sympathize with. I have no problem with that philosophy BUT I do have a problem when the "occupied" became that way because they want to occupy someone else!The occupier that wishes to impose its rule on the occupied, I cannot sympathize with, because I regard the right for self-determination as a very crucial measure of freedom. (This is also why I am opposed to religion dictated from above, such as the Catholic church - it quenches free thinking). I prefer not to discuss religion, thanks anyway.The people fighting for the right of self-determination are called freedom fighters or revolutionaries (by the population they represent) and they are called terrorists by the occupier. Not always, though 'rebels', 'insurgents' and other like terms are certainly apt.Take Vietnam or Iraq. Both were invaded by the United States to topple regimes deemed unfavorable to the United States – one communist, the other a dictatorial stooge that went against his master’s biddings. In both cases, we see that the population resists the foreign occupation with all their might – even though it seems insignificant compared to the occupation army. Love bashing the US don't you. I get your drift and while the analogy of Viet Nam/Iraq may or may not be valid, the resistance offered to any occupying army is legitimate...as long as they are not blowing up their own people to do it!
As people said about Vietnam – the Vietnamese will not stop fighting until every last one of them is dead. Which people said that? The Vietnamese perceived the Americans to be occupiers rather than liberators, and people fighting for their freedom will not stop – it took Europeans (I say European, but I mean Dutch, French, Germans and whatnot) over 1,000 years of vicious fighting before we got to the level of personal freedom where we are now. The European level of freedom is not exactly an ideal...at least not in my mind...but I guess it suits you ok.

And if you stop keeping watch, those freedoms will gradually erode once again, because “leaders” can lead a restrained population more efficiently. Take Nazi Germany – some engine of efficiency that was – personal freedoms were few and in between. Already agreed to that. Don't get redundant on me!

No one likes to feel like they are occupied, or as George Walker Bush said it, referring to the escalating situation in Iraq:
”Of course they’re not happy being occupied, I wouldn’t be happy if I were occupied either.”
The Iraqi’s will not stop fighting the American forces – all the mumbo jumbo about a liberation army that is only there to bring freedom and democracy has gone down the drain; the Iraqi's feel they’re being occupied, and rightly so. Yeah, yeah, more US/Bush bashing...got that...we already agreed to disagree. Saying it over and over won't get me to change my mind. Everyone has been lied to: for example the bands of South African mercenaries in Iraq, that obey no rule but money - those are the guys responsible for most of the atrocities committed by the invading forces, would be my guess. They destroy any effort on American marine's side to display some sort of liberation movement. You truly believe that South African troops are committing the worst atrocities???? Again, you ignore or even support the terrorist activities and philosophy...I guess the daily explosions killing Iraqis is excusable as are the kidnappings of Iraqi civilians and the beheading of captives!Same goes for the Palestinians, in their Gaza prison. And Hezbollah sympathizes with them, since they know what it is like to be under Israeli occupation. They’ve tasted the sweetness of victory they will therefore keep on fighting. I agree they think they have tasted victory, which is why they must be crushed. Crushing them will remove all doubt! In a sense, Israel has already lost this battle: military, diplomatically and politically. Only from your POV. Of course, we already know that your solution to all this is for Israel to surrender so they can be sent off to the 'final solution'. I sincerely believe that most of Europe secretly wishes the Nazis had succeeded in eradicating the Jews.. Although economically Lebanon has lost.

That is my answer.

Got it. You support terrorism (freedom fighters from your perspective). The US is evil most of the time though you like our money. Israel should surrender and be punished for being evil along with the US. Europe is great and morally/democartically superior.

Just some sarcasm there but not really.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by CSM:
1) But you do support it.
2) Not exactly true; it is terrorism when one deliberately targets innocent civilians IMO.
3) I disagree that "everybody does this"; that is deliberately target civilians although I agree that most entities have done that or are currently doing that.

I grouped these because they are similar (just to point out that I’m not trying to rip them out of context).

I support “terrorism” as far as it concerns people fighting for their right of self-determination, and they take the fight to the occupier (not the general innocent bystanders). I define terrorism by what I just described (calculated use of violence to obtain political, religious or ideological goals) – when these ideological goals are self-determination, I might sympathize with terrorism. Were I take your definition instead: the blowing up of innocent civilians, then I am diametrically opposed to terrorism.
With that in mind, I am as opposed to Israel’s shelling of a UN outpost and the flat full of civilians in Quan, as I am oppose suicide bombers like those in Israel or in Madrid and London.

Originally posted by CSM:
I have no problem with that philosophy BUT I do have a problem when the "occupied" became that way because they want to occupy someone else!
I did not see Saddam occupying anything (other than Kuwait for a few months 15 years ago, and, granted, as a dictator he sort of occupied Iraq, with US support keeping him in the saddle).
I missed the Palestinian occupation of Israel actually – it must have been such a non-event that I didn’t notice it at all. Agreed, all Arabic countries in the area started a war with Israel after it was drawn there on a map by the British, which all the Arabic countries lost. The strips of land that were then taken by Israel are granted to them, that is, as a fruit of war. However, the occupation of the areas in the 1967 Six-Day War has never been officially acknowledged. In fact the United Nations Security Council passed several resolutions over the years in which Israel was asked to return those areas to their previous owners.
Israel has refused to this day.

Originally posted by CSM:
Love bashing the US don't you. I get your drift and while the analogy of Viet Nam/Iraq may or may not be valid, the resistance offered to any occupying army is legitimate...as long as they are not blowing up their own people to do it!

Actually, I hate to have to be bashing the US, but ever since 9/11 I have felt the need to do so.
Before that, I ignorant enough to believe that the West (Europe and the US) were mostly forces of good in recent times, and they had only been forces of destruction and evil in the old days. After 9/11 I gradually realized that this utopian view of the west is simply not true.

The West, as much as the East (China, Russia) are forces of power. And only this power dictates what is going to happen – there is no room for democracy or human rights in power-politics, they simply have to take the backseat and shut up. That realization made me wonder about a lot of things, but primarily, about the way the media has been spoon feeding me nothing but lies and half-truths, because the truth is not a pretty sight. And this is going on not only in the Netherlands, but even more so in the countries that are the power-players: the US, Russia and China – of which the US is still the freest.

As for the Vietnam/Iraq analogy, there are certain similarities that I try to point out. And as far as blowing up their own people, I don’t see Hezbollah (is not into suicide bombings) or Hamaz (suicide bombing Israeli’s) blowing up their OWN people. The blowing up of fellow citizens only happens in Iraq nowadays. And in Iraq, it’s a form of terrorism mixed with sectarian violence, in the middle of a foreign occupation of a leaderless country. All the ingredients one needs (in no particular order or quantity) for insanity to rule unquestioned. This has only started occurring AFTER Saddam was out of power – because now, the power is up for grabs for anyone willing to take it, and to endure the fierce (often deadly) competition.
Iraq is now in total anarchy – in which guns call the shots, not people.

Originally posted by CSM:
Which people said that?

I saw it in a film concerning Vietnam, in which they interviewed soldiers that had fought there.
They were quite mad about all the lies that got them in Vietnam in the first place – because they didn’t know at the start, they thought they were fighting evil instead of, in the end, peasants.

Originally posted by CSM:
The European level of freedom is not exactly an ideal...at least not in my mind...but I guess it suits you ok.

Fair enough. Tastes differ.

Originally posted by CSM:
Already agreed to that. Don't get redundant on me!

Sorry, my bad. These posts are just so very big.

Originally posted by CSM:
You truly believe that South African troops are committing the worst atrocities???? Again, you ignore or even support the terrorist activities and philosophy...I guess the daily explosions killing Iraqis is excusable as are the kidnappings of Iraqi civilians and the beheading of captives!

When considering only the occupying forces: Yes, they are the worst by far.
When looking at the entire picture, it’s hard to tell. Obviously the suicide bombers are an equally bad bunch of idiots that to me really complicate the picture with their religious zeal – blowing other people to hell for a suspected place in Heaven. Some compassion, that is. However, it’s a war-zone out there, and wars such as these get on everyone’s nerves: I wouldn’t be surprised if all parties involved have committed atrocities that we see only the occasional bits and pieces from.

Originally posted by CSM:
I agree they think they have tasted victory, which is why they must be crushed. Crushing them will remove all doubt!

I think it is impossible to crush them – unless they would kill every Lebanese, every last one of them.
The same shit happened in Vietnam (and countless other places, take Russia’s failed occupation of Afghanistan). Whenever people are fighting for their freedom they will not be stopped. They will keep on resisting until either the last one of them is dead, or the occupier is forced to leave.

Originally posted by CSM:
Of course, we already know that your solution to all this is for Israel to surrender so they can be sent off to the 'final solution'. I sincerely believe that most of Europe secretly wishes the Nazis had succeeded in eradicating the Jews..

Well, since I am partly Jewish by ancestry, and opposed to senseless slaughter, that is not my solution.

It may have been best if Israel was never created, but now that its there, in my opinion its best to work from there. As I said, the borders of 1948 are internationally acknowledged, those of 1967 and beyond are not. And building a wall around Gaza (turning it into the world’s largest outdoor prison) is not the way to go about this. Blowing up Israeli’s in restaurants is equally nerve-wracking: this way, peace will never be.

I think a final solution to the problem would be either a two-state model, Palestine and Israel, in which the borders are internationally acknowledged (including by the Palestinians and Israeli’s), or a one-state model, something like Pakael or Isralestine, in which they both share the same lands as a tribute to Jesus Christ and God’s forgiving nature.

Given that these options will never be accepted by both sides, I’d say we build a wall around the lot of them, print tickets and start a world-wide lottery about a last-man-standing scenario. “Let the games begin.” It would be televised live around the globe and the show only ends when there is but one person left. He gets all the land, some Miss Universe or something is selected as bride for the winner, and they may fertilize the land with, apparently, Gods new breed of chosen people.

In short, I don’t know – it’s a complicated issue, and as long as people aren’t willing to accept the other side, it’ll probably remain war for a very long time (as it has been war since the beginning).

 

[CSM]

I grouped these because they are similar (just to point out that I’m not trying to rip them out of context).

I support “terrorism” as far as it concerns people fighting for their right of self-determination, and they take the fight to the occupier (not the general innocent bystanders). I define terrorism by what I just described (calculated use of violence to obtain political, religious or ideological goals) – when these ideological goals are self-determination, I might sympathize with terrorism. I would not term that as terrorism...I would call that guerilla warfare (which I beleive is a legitimate and legal form of warfare). Were I take your definition instead: the blowing up of innocent civilians, then I am diametrically opposed to terrorism. Good, then except for terminology, I think we are in agreement.

With that in mind, I am as opposed to Israel’s shelling of a UN outpost and the flat full of civilians in Quan, as I am oppose suicide bombers like those in Israel or in Madrid and London. Noted.

II did not see Saddam occupying anything (other than Kuwait for a few months 15 years ago, and, granted, as a dictator he sort of occupied Iraq, with US support keeping him in the saddle). Puleeze! It was not only the US that kept him in the saddle...lots of European countries were right there getting their chunk of oil and money too. Even the Netherlands was the second largest supplier of WMD materials to Saddam. That being said, aren't you glad that the US remedied the mistake of propping up a blood thirsty murderer?I missed the Palestinian occupation of Israel actually – it must have been such a non-event that I didn’t notice it at all. Obvioualy, occupation is not the only reason for terrorism nor is it the only justification. Supporting terrorism (as I define it) is jsutification for occupation however...at least it is in my book.

Agreed, all Arabic countries in the area started a war with Israel after it was drawn there on a map by the British, which all the Arabic countries lost. The strips of land that were then taken by Israel are granted to them, that is, as a fruit of war. However, the occupation of the areas in the 1967 Six-Day War has never been officially acknowledged. In fact the United Nations Security Council passed several resolutions over the years in which Israel was asked to return those areas to their previous owners.
Israel has refused to this day. Don't blame them...those territories were taken during a war. The previous owners gambled and LOST! They have wanted a "do over" ever since. I wont even get into the UN thing...you already know how I feel about that.

Actually, I hate to have to be bashing the US, but ever since 9/11 I have felt the need to do so. Before that, I ignorant enough to believe that the West (Europe and the US) were mostly forces of good in recent times, and they had only been forces of destruction and evil in the old days. After 9/11 I gradually realized that this utopian view of the west is simply not true. Clarification please? You almost sound like you are saying the US DESERVED 9/11. Also, your focus seems to be solely on the evil of the West (mostly the US). I guess we (the US) can stop even trying to do good...no more foriegn aid to tsunami victims, earthquake victims, etc. Not a bad idea as it will save us money that we can spend on more and better weapons so we can dominate the world!
The West, as much as the East (China, Russia) are forces of power. And only this power dictates what is going to happen – there is no room for democracy or human rights in power-politics, they simply have to take the backseat and shut up. True enough. Power and freedom are not necessarily compatible. That realization made me wonder about a lot of things, but primarily, about the way the media has been spoon feeding me nothing but lies and half-truths, because the truth is not a pretty sight. And this is going on not only in the Netherlands, but even more so in the countries that are the power-players: the US, Russia and China – of which the US is still the freest. Again, you seem to lack balance. Do you presume that Syria, Iran, or any other Muslim country offers more freedom ort is more concerned about human rights than those you mentioned? As for the media, well...you know.

As for the Vietnam/Iraq analogy, there are certain similarities that I try to point out. And as far as blowing up their own people, I don’t see Hezbollah (is not into suicide bombings) You are kidding right??? Hezbollah INVENTED suicide bombings! Remeber the Marine barracks or Kobar towers? I guess that was "divine intervention".or Hamaz (suicide bombing Israeli’s) blowing up their OWN people. The blowing up of fellow citizens only happens in Iraq nowadays. Really? I seem to recall a few minor incidents in Indonesia, the Phillipines and, heck. even Spain. And in Iraq, it’s a form of terrorism mixed with sectarian violence, in the middle of a foreign occupation of a leaderless country. All the ingredients one needs (in no particular order or quantity) for insanity to rule unquestioned. This has only started occurring AFTER Saddam was out of power – because now, the power is up for grabs for anyone willing to take it, and to endure the fierce (often deadly) competition. True enough.
Iraq is now in total anarchy – in which guns call the shots, not people. Yeah, them damn guns. Ya know, for inanimate objects, they sure are sneaky little devils. How about PEOPLE WITH GUNS are the ones calling the shots (nice pun by the way!). Obviously, guns are tools, as are bombs and other destructivce devices. I should not have to point out that PEOPLE wield those tools, some of those people have good intentions, others don't.

I saw it in a film concerning Vietnam, in which they interviewed soldiers that had fought there. AHHH! I'll let that be. Don't know which film. For one who has had a recent epiphany regarding the media, you seem to hold some of it in high esteem still.

They were quite mad about all the lies that got them in Vietnam in the first place – because they didn’t know at the start, they thought they were fighting evil instead of, in the end, peasants. Hmmm, I think I will call that Kerry syndrome from now on.... outbreaks occur most often when there are TV cameras around and aggravated by political ambition or possible chances of fleeting fame..

Fair enough. Tastes differ.

Sorry, my bad. These posts are just so very big.

When considering only the occupying forces: Yes, they are the worst by far. Ok, so then we need to start bashing the heck out of South Africa instead of the US...you go first. When looking at the entire picture, it’s hard to tell. Obviously the suicide bombers are an equally bad bunch of idiots that to me really complicate the picture with their religious zeal – blowing other people to hell for a suspected place in Heaven. Some compassion, that is. However, it’s a war-zone out there, and wars such as these get on everyone’s nerves: I wouldn’t be surprised if all parties involved have committed atrocities that we see only the occasional bits and pieces from. Yep.

I think it is impossible to crush them – unless they would kill every Lebanese, every last one of them. The same shit happened in Vietnam (and countless other places, take Russia’s failed occupation of Afghanistan). Whenever people are fighting for their freedom they will not be stopped. They will keep on resisting until either the last one of them is dead, or the occupier is forced to leave. Hmm, I am willing to bet that there are instances where occupied peoples have either been assimilated or simply gave up. I can think of a few historical examples and I bet you can too. WW II has a few nations that are a wee bit different now because of "occupation"... Japan comes to mind as a good example.

Well, since I am partly Jewish by ancestry, and opposed to senseless slaughter, that is not my solution.

It may have been best if Israel was never created, but now that its there, in my opinion its best to work from there. As I said, the borders of 1948 are internationally acknowledged, those of 1967 and beyond are not. And building a wall around Gaza (turning it into the world’s largest outdoor prison) is not the way to go about this. Blowing up Israeli’s in restaurants is equally nerve-wracking: this way, peace will never be. I would say that blowing up a restaurant is a little more than nerve-wracking...especially if you are in it when the bomb goes off!

I think a final solution to the problem would be either a two-state model, Palestine and Israel, in which the borders are internationally acknowledged (including by the Palestinians and Israeli’s), or a one-state model, something like Pakael or Isralestine, in which they both share the same lands as a tribute to Jesus Christ and God’s forgiving nature. I don't know about the 'tribute piece of it, but I suspect that such a solution is a noble goal, even if it is not achievable.

Given that these options will never be accepted by both sides, I’d say we build a wall around the lot of them, print tickets and start a world-wide lottery about a last-man-standing scenario. “Let the games begin.” It would be televised live around the globe and the show only ends when there is but one person left. He gets all the land, some Miss Universe or something is selected as bride for the winner, and they may fertilize the land with, apparently, Gods new breed of chosen people. Now you're talking!

In short, I don’t know – it’s a complicated issue, and as long as people aren’t willing to accept the other side, it’ll probably remain war for a very long time (as it has been war since the beginning).

Awesome debate, Harma. We managed to get through it without calling each other an idiot (not too often, anyway). What other subject would you like me to enlighten you on?