What should we do now: for Liberals

[ScreamingEagle]

They guy who kicked you in the balls is still running around out there, just because you got some of his buddies dosen't mean the job is done.

Germany was not exploited, it was also completely crushed and occupyed by all Ally nations. It had nothing to offer, and America was in her golden age. Japan, well Japan had American culture thrusted upon her, and she too had no real resouces to offer.

America hasn't invaded and colonized. But it has couped, and undermined, and embargoed, and assasinated it's way into the hearts of many.

I call you 'neo-cons' because you are a new type of self-proclamed conservative. When i call someone neo-con, it's because they are fanatic and reactionary. I'm not sure if I have personally called you one, but now i am, Neo-con! But in the same light you mis-understand the word Liberal, and because of that your own ridiculous meanings come into play.

Agreed, we still need to get Osama. However, we have kicked him back in the balls pretty good so far. Also don't see him showing his ugly face in America these days.

Yes, Germany and Japan were pretty well crushed in WWII. But remember they were the ones who started the war or are you conveniently forgetting that? Also, it was the Islamofascists who started THIS war if you remember.
Saddam was also responsible for not living up to the UN resolutions so we had every right to take him out.

We are "fanatic and reactionary"? Yarn me another one.

 

[Mariner]

"So what"? We made these terrorists--it's not like they had previously decided to join Al Qaeda. The whole point of terrorism is that tiny numbers of people can have outsized influence. Creating a few thousand terrorists is a major problem--it took only 19 to enact 9/11. These new terrorists will make life difficult for our forces in Iraq, and might also threaten the "homeland."

The conservative Cato Institute has concluded that we're now doing ourselves more harm than good by being in Iraq--but of course there's no easy way out. It's not just a liberal worry, the "hearts and minds" issue that many on this website are so dismissive of.

Mariner.

 

[dilloduck]

not dismissive---just aware that hearts and minds were never with the US, even prior to invading Iraq. No terrorists were created--just a central battleground for them to gather on and suffer huge losses.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"So what"? We made these terrorists--it's not like they had previously decided to join Al Qaeda. The whole point of terrorism is that tiny numbers of people can have outsized influence. Creating a few thousand terrorists is a major problem--it took only 19 to enact 9/11. These new terrorists will make life difficult for our forces in Iraq, and might also threaten the "homeland."

The conservative Cato Institute has concluded that we're now doing ourselves more harm than good by being in Iraq--but of course there's no easy way out. It's not just a liberal worry, the "hearts and minds" issue that many on this website are so dismissive of.

Mariner.

The fighters supporting their terrorist caliphate cause now are the same ones who will later come to our shores.

 

[ajwps]

"So what"? We made these terrorists--it's not like they had previously decided to join Al Qaeda. The whole point of terrorism is that tiny numbers of people can have outsized influence. Creating a few thousand terrorists is a major problem--it took only 19 to enact 9/11. These new terrorists will make life difficult for our forces in Iraq, and might also threaten the "homeland."

Do you really believe that only 19 terrorists were needed to create the 9/11 catastrophie? The trouble with your ideas are that there are thousands upon thousands of Islamic terrorists who are responsible for events like 9/11 and many many more attacks against American and western world interests.

All is not as it appears. There are forces now in place who are busy as bees destroying the infrastructure of the Islamic terrorists of the world. You will never be told about these miraculous destruction of so many who plan the destruction of civilization. Don't believe everything you see on TV or in your New York Times.

These folks will be driven back to their stone age religion even though they may have more successful attacks against civilization. They are being outgunned while western military technology is gaining rapidly since 9/11 which will soon be able to destroy them from a distance and without risking western human life.

The conservative Cato Institute has concluded that we're now doing ourselves more harm than good by being in Iraq--but of course there's no easy way out. It's not just a liberal worry, the "hearts and minds" issue that many on this website are so dismissive of. Mariner.

The Cato Institute, even if they believe your conclusion, is wrong. We were never meant to have an easy way out of Iraq or the heartland of Islam. Either we fight them on their homeland or they bring it to us.

America, whether you believe it or not, is taking the positive direction in this very new type of world war. There is no explanation of why Bush is doing exactly the right things, but instead of hiding our heads in the sand hoping that these Islamic terrorists will go away or go on a frontal attack which has taken them by surprise. They never in their wildest dreams believed that the weak, corrupt and immoral west would fight them with force.

Islam, even though you don't see it as yet, has been taken aback and is now off balance. The terrorist will soon learn that the US is not alone in their fight for survival against an enemy who is bent on our destruction.

Thank G-d for GW Bush's response to the 9/11 sneak attack on our shores. The mainstream of Islam is now questioning their brothers extremist actions against a sleeping giant.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"So what"? We made these terrorists--it's not like they had previously decided to join Al Qaeda. The whole point of terrorism is that tiny numbers of people can have outsized influence. Creating a few thousand terrorists is a major problem--it took only 19 to enact 9/11. These new terrorists will make life difficult for our forces in Iraq, and might also threaten the "homeland."

The conservative Cato Institute has concluded that we're now doing ourselves more harm than good by being in Iraq--but of course there's no easy way out. It's not just a liberal worry, the "hearts and minds" issue that many on this website are so dismissive of.

Mariner.

We don't CREATE terrorists.

Nothing worthwhile is easy. However, when a freer state in Iraq becomes established and the uncertain people learn that America actually helped them, things will get better - one step at a time. The only true antidote for terrorism is a free Iraq - it is the only way to change the "hearts and minds". Do you believe this to be an impossibility?

 

[Mariner]

Eagle, that people are responsible for their own actions, therefore we can't actually "create" a terrorist.

On the other hand, can't you imagine a reverse scenario, where a behemoth, immoral (from your point of view) Muslim country attacks a neighboring Christian country to yours--can't you imagine the sympathies would lie with your neighboring country, no matter the fact that it was run by a cruel dictator? And that being so, can't you imagine young Christian men choosing to become heroes by resisting the Muslim "aggressor," no matter what the invader said about its good intentions?

Unfortunately, that's the situation I think we're in. As I've written before, the idea of a "free Iraq" is a simplification--and the danger of that simplification has been evident ever since "Mission Accomplished." It's not as if there were one Iraqi people just waiting to be removed from the yoke of Saddam Hussein. If that were true, they would have simply deposed him themselves. Saddam skillfully played ethnic groups off one another to remain in power. By invading, and installing a leader from one ethnic group, we therefore enter into tribal politics--and tribal politics are the messiest there are. At best (if we're very, very lucky), we get a multi-party democracy. At worst, we get civil war. In between, I suppose, is the possibility of dividing Iraq into three states--but would that stabilize or destabilize the region? Iran's power might increase as it allied with its fellow denomationals in the new 1/3 Iraq next door.

So anyway, I don't think we make terrorists, but I do think we make the conditions under which the more angry and more fundamentalist Muslims are more likely to choose to become terrorists.

And that's why I was against this war from the beginning--it's too liberal even for me, to enter a country and try to remake it, from the ground up, by force.

Mariner.

 

[dilloduck]

Eagle, that people are responsible for their own actions, therefore we can't actually "create" a terrorist.

On the other hand, can't you imagine a reverse scenario, where a behemoth, immoral (from your point of view) Muslim country attacks a neighboring Christian country to yours--can't you imagine the sympathies would lie with your neighboring country, no matter the fact that it was run by a cruel dictator? And that being so, can't you imagine young Christian men choosing to become heroes by resisting the Muslim "aggressor," no matter what the invader said about its good intentions?

Unfortunately, that's the situation I think we're in. As I've written before, the idea of a "free Iraq" is a simplification--and the danger of that simplification has been evident ever since "Mission Accomplished." It's not as if there were one Iraqi people just waiting to be removed from the yoke of Saddam Hussein. If that were true, they would have simply deposed him themselves. Saddam skillfully played ethnic groups off one another to remain in power. By invading, and installing a leader from one ethnic group, we therefore enter into tribal politics--and tribal politics are the messiest there are. At best (if we're very, very lucky), we get a multi-party democracy. At worst, we get civil war. In between, I suppose, is the possibility of dividing Iraq into three states--but would that stabilize or destabilize the region? Iran's power might increase as it allied with its fellow denomationals in the new 1/3 Iraq next door.

So anyway, I don't think we make terrorists, but I do think we make the conditions under which the more angry and more fundamentalist Muslims are more likely to choose to become terrorists.

And that's why I was against this war from the beginning--it's too liberal even for me, to enter a country and try to remake it, from the ground up, by force.

Mariner.

Think big here, Mariner---Islamic countries have hated the United States for years and for different reasons (our religion, our support for Israel, our "decadence", our mere presence in Islamic land and our power ( military and financial ). A group of fanatics decided to take matters in their own hands and began to attack US interests with the support of the countries that gave them haven. While many muslims cheered this agression but were shocked to see the US finally retaliate in an effort to prevent further attacks.

The world community had no problems with the US assault on Afghanistan as it was basically a rogue muslim state run by the Taliban. No countries stood to lose anything by this attack but unfortunately they thought the US war on terrorism would end there.

The US knew that this was not the only nation in the area to support terrorism and hold hostile feelings toward to the US. The US made SEVERAL diplomatic efforts to either force Saddam to comply with UN resolutions or depose him however several UN member states and corrupt leaders were making millions by accepting illegal and immoral bribes from Saddam and were more interested in wealth than the security of the US. With all the intelligence from nearly EVERY country stating that Iraq had WMDs they doubted that the US would follow through with it's threat to attack unless Saddam and his sons left the country. He did not and the world soon discovered that the US was not bluffing.

The muslims in the area know full well who the US is working to supress and eradicate. If they support Islamo-faciscm they have taken up the cause of the terrorists and are being killed along side the radicals from neighboring countries who are only there to prevent Iraq from becoming a muslim nation that can coexist peacefully with the rest of the world.

In addition to being free from Saddam the Iraqis are now also free to choose how they want to live in spite of the muslims who are trying to suppress and kill them. The people of the US have benefitted by our show of resolve and certainly our Islamic enemies will think twice before further attacks on the US. Would you want some thug from your neighborhood pissing off the people of the US ? Imagine what your house would look like after the US discovered you were hiding killers.

 

[MrMarbles]

Agreed, we still need to get Osama. However, we have kicked him back in the balls pretty good so far. Also don't see him showing his ugly face in America these days.

Yes, Germany and Japan were pretty well crushed in WWII. But remember they were the ones who started the war or are you conveniently forgetting that? Also, it was the Islamofascists who started THIS war if you remember.
Saddam was also responsible for not living up to the UN resolutions so we had every right to take him out.

We are "fanatic and reactionary"? Yarn me another one.

Well he keeps poking up his head and releaseing those tapes, and they seem enough to scare your gov't into raising the terror level.

I'm not arguing who did what in WWII. Islamic extremist started and yet you are ignoring them. Saddam's country was broken by sanctions, and was no threat. The premise of attacking Iraq was to eliminate a threat, yet no threat, oh and no link of him and 9/11.

America has taken a sharp turn towards fundamentalism, hence fanatic, and instead of examining why people would want to hurt the US, or addressing the issues why, you go off and invade the two poorest nations in the world; with not much to show of it.

 

[freeandfun1]

Saddam's country was broken by sanctions, and was no threat.

You're right, the country was broken, but thanks to the French, Germans and Russian, Saddam wasn't. It is easy for you, a Canadian, to say that Saddam was not a threat. Your pilots were not having to fly patrols in the no fly zone getting shot at nor were they being burdened with the cost of open ended "containment".

 

[freeandfun1]

you go off and invade the two poorest nations in the world; with not much to show of it.

Not much to show for it? Free elections in both countries with governments that are now friendly toward the USA. Sounds like quite a bit to show for it to me.

 

[José]

This is my first post outside the Israel/Palestine section but it is still related to it.

I would like to comment Mr Marbles’ statement:

originally posted by Mr. Marbles
The conflict in the middle east is very complicated. Bith parties are to blame for the tension. Palestine for using terror tactics, Israel for oppressing a people. To back one side only is wrong.

Marbles, Marbles... tsk, tsk, tsk

What is happening in Palestine is not a conflict between two sovereign nation states that have conflicting foreign policies/interests and resort to armed conflict to solve them in the battlefield.

You are looking at the israeli/palestinian conflict with the same eyes a historian/political scientist would look at the Russian/Japanese war or any other european conflict between nation states that happened in the last 6 centuries and THIS IS SHEER MADNESS MARBLES!!!

What is happening in Palestine is the establishment of a colonial project that aims at maximizing the number of jews and minimizing the number of arabs in Palestine.

In Palestine, you don’t have two powerful, sovereign nation states both trying to impose their foreign interests on the other. What you have there is a pure case of ethnic supremacism being exerted by european settlers on the native arab population through the “fast” ethnic cleansing of western Palestine that happened in 48 and the “slow”, gradual land grab of what’s left of that region.

Comparing what is going on in Palestine with a war between nation states is laughable.

Any mentally sane individual would compare it with the colonization of America or South Africa.

Dont let me down Marbles... I know you rarely post on the Israel/Palestine section so I assume you are not an expert on this matter and maybe this goes along way in explaining your “neutral” position.

But as someone who has read more than 100 of your posts, I’m sure you can do better than that... if you can’t, you have definitely lost your marbles (sorry, couldn’t resist the pun ; )

You are always praising Canada’s multi cultural policies, always highlighting the benefits of Canada’s melting pot, so I’m struck to see you look the other way when confronted with a clear cut case of ethnic supremacism being exerted by one ethnic group over another.

Bishop Desmond Tutu once said that people in this country (the US) are afraid to say wrong is wrong because the jewish lobby is too strong.

I would like to borrow Mr. Tutu’s words:

People on the US message board are afraid to say wrong is wrong because the pro Israel indoctrination in the US and the rest of the western world is too strong.

Marbles, try to think out of the box. Supporters of the israeli apartheid state want you to think exactly the way you do.

They succeeded in making up your mind. They want you to think about Israel/Palestine in terms of a conflict between two sovereign nation states and not what it really is: a colonial project aimed at replacing the native arab population in Palestine by colonizers from America and Europe mainly.

They want you to think this way because once the conflict is presented in terms of a conflict between nation states IT’S EASIER TO DISASSOCIATE IT FROM ANY MORAL CONSIDERATION REGARDING THE ISRAELI COLONIAL PROJECT.

Besides, behind the “BOTH SIDES ARE IN THE WRONG” attitude lies an unconscious psychological defence mechanism.

I have already said in a previous thread that Israel pits America the Idea and America the Tribe against each other.

So patriotic americans who believe in the principles of racial equality on which America was founded find themselves with a most excruciating crucible in front of them:

How to reconcile the principles of racial equality America stands for and in which they believe with the fact that the US possesses a de facto american satellite state THAT IS RACIST TO THE CORE??

In order to cope with the anguish created by this hard choice, many americans, including many members of the US MESSAGE BOARD, make use of this psychological defence mechanism, through which they turn what is clearly a case of naked ethnic supremacism into a classical conflict between nation states, european style, so they can think about what’s happening in Palestine with the “blame should be placed on both sides” attitude, therefore avoiding the ethical dilemma of supporting an apartheid state.

Don’t be a robot Marbles. Exercise your human prerogative: your ability to think for yourself.

Don’t be afraid to sound like an anti semite. Israel’s founders are not even semites to begin with, let alone ethnic jews. They are ethnic europeans just like me and (I assume) you. Europeans using a mithical ancestry to “justify” their land grab.

Marbles...it’s a flagrant logical inconsistency to speak out in support of the right of an immigrant from Togo to practice his animist religion in Ottawa and keep a criminal silence regarding the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Be corageous enough to dump your moral relativism towards what’s happening in Palestine. Stand up in Palestine for the same values you cherish in Canada, Marbles. Be brave and say in unequivocal terms that the ethnic cleansing of western Palestine was wrong and must be reversed as soon as possible.

Wether you want to see it or not, THERE IS a wrong side to be blamed in this story. It’s the side who carried out the mass expultion of the native arab population of western Palestine. This is the “original sin” of Israel’s birth that CLEARLY shows us the jewish supremacist state is the one at fault here.

European settlers did not have and still do not have any right to expell or not allow the return of the native arab population of Palestine. You, of all the people here, as a supporter of ethnic minority rights should be the last person to hesitate in calling this WRONG.

You see Marbles, palestinian arabs didn’t move to Europe and took away the homes and farms of those european settlers... it was the opposite. So there is clearly a wrong side in this story.

Stop pretending this is a conflict between conflicting nation states’ interests.

It’s not the jewish people in Israel who must be blamed, it’s the policies implemented in Palestine by the israeli government since its foundation.

Israel, Marbles, is the worst nightmare you pray to not see in Canada: whites discriminating and expelling the same ethnic minorities whose rights you so passionately seem to champion.

The fight against ethnic cleansing in South Africa was not totally peaceful either. Many innocent whites were killed by african gangs and death squads.

But this violence, although reprehensible, never prevented the western world and its press to conclude that, IN THE BIG PICTURE, it was the whites who were exerting ethnic supremacism on the native african population. So the “BLAME BOTH SIDES” rethoric was never used to frame that conflict.

South Africa under apartheid was a colonial project and the south african government was the instrument through which the native black population was being gradually turned into foreigners inside their own homeland through forced displacement and resetlement in small, unconnected patches of land called Bantustans.

Israel is also a colonial project and the israeli government is the instrument through which ethnic supremacism is exerted on the native arab population using roughly the same methods as in South Africa.

The south african supremacist state was finally dismantled and replaced by a binational state in which blacks and whites live as equal citizens and the same fate should meet the jewish supremacist state, aka, Israel.

Supporting the peaceful dismantlement of Israel (with all the security checks for the jewish population in place, and also with security for both communities as an overriding priority) is the duty of every citizen who believe in western democracy, Marbles, and no amount of moral relativism and “blame both sides” rethoric will change this fact.

The most commonly tactic used by bigots who want to covertly support the existance of a racist state is to scare others with the prospect of racial conflict once the racial discriminatory aparatus is dismantled. We always hear people on this message board saying that peaceful coexistance between both communities is impossible. They seem to be willfully ignorant, content to ignore the fact that both communities did live in peace before the zionist movement was created in Europe and also, content to ignore the peaceful coexistance that still exist between the jewish population of Israel and a million arabs who managed, against incredible odds, to escape ethnic cleansing, having “only” lost their villages and property to european settlers and now living close to their former villages in the so called “arab unrecognised villages”.

This is the same rethoric used in South Africa during the last decades of apartheid. During the 70’s and the 80’s, supporters of South African apartheid also tried to convince the south african white population and the rest of the world that a binational state for both blacks and whites would never work, that it would soon degenerate into genocide.

If you want to "justify" the existence of a state based on racial discrimination, there's nothing better than paint the ethnic group being discriminated as ferocious beasts unable to live in harmony with any other people.

I advise you one more time against letting appartheid supporters programme your mind.

This is not an appropriate thread to continue to discuss this issue but before I leave I would like to put your comment in the south african context so you can see how absurd your statement really is:

“The conflict in South Africa is very complicated. Both parties are to blame for the tension. Black africans for using terror tactics, whites for oppressing a people. To back one side only is wrong.”

 

[theim]

This is my first post outside the Israel/Palestine section but it is still related to it.

I would like to comment Mr Marbles’ statement:



Marbles, Marbles... tsk, tsk, tsk

What is happening in Palestine is not a conflict between two sovereign nation states that have conflicting foreign policies/interests and resort to armed conflict to solve them in the battlefield.

You are looking at the israeli/palestinian conflict with the same eyes a historian/political scientist would look at the Russian/Japanese war or any other european conflict between nation states that happened in the last 6 centuries and THIS IS SHEER MADNESS MARBLES!!!

What is happening in Palestine is the establishment of a colonial project that aims at maximizing the number of jews and minimizing the number of arabs in Palestine.

In Palestine, you don’t have two powerful, sovereign nation states both trying to impose their foreign interests on the other. What you have there is a pure case of ethnic supremacism being exerted by european settlers on the native arab population through the “fast” ethnic cleansing of western Palestine that happened in 48 and the “slow”, gradual land grab of what’s left of that region.

Comparing what is going on in Palestine with a war between nation states is laughable.

Any mentally sane individual would compare it with the colonization of America or South Africa.

Dont let me down Marbles... I know you rarely post on the Israel/Palestine section so I assume you are not an expert on this matter and maybe this goes along way in explaining your “neutral” position.

But as someone who has read more than 100 of your posts, I’m sure you can do better than that... if you can’t, you have definitely lost your marbles (sorry, couldn’t resist the pun ; )

You are always praising Canada’s multi cultural policies, always highlighting the benefits of Canada’s melting pot, so I’m struck to see you look the other way when confronted with a clear cut case of ethnic supremacism being exerted by one ethnic group over another.

Bishop Desmond Tutu once said that people in this country (the US) are afraid to say wrong is wrong because the jewish lobby is too strong.

I would like to borrow Mr. Tutu’s words:

People on the US message board are afraid to say wrong is wrong because the pro Israel indoctrination in the US and the rest of the western world is too strong.

Marbles, try to think out of the box. Supporters of the israeli apartheid state want you to think exactly the way you do.

They succeeded in making up your mind. They want you to think about Israel/Palestine in terms of a conflict between two sovereign nation states and not what it really is: a colonial project aimed at replacing the native arab population in Palestine by colonizers from America and Europe mainly.

They want you to think this way because once the conflict is presented in terms of a conflict between nation states IT’S EASIER TO DISASSOCIATE IT FROM ANY MORAL CONSIDERATION REGARDING THE ISRAELI COLONIAL PROJECT.

Besides, behind the “BOTH SIDES ARE IN THE WRONG” attitude lies an unconscious psychological defence mechanism.

I have already said in a previous thread that Israel pits America the Idea and America the Tribe against each other.

So patriotic americans who believe in the principles of racial equality on which America was founded find themselves with a most excruciating crucible in front of them:

How to reconcile the principles of racial equality America stands for and in which they believe with the fact that the US possesses a de facto american satellite state THAT IS RACIST TO THE CORE??

In order to cope with the anguish created by this hard choice, many americans, including many members of the US MESSAGE BOARD, make use of this psychological defence mechanism, through which they turn what is clearly a case of naked ethnic supremacism into a classical conflict between nation states, european style, so they can think about what’s happening in Palestine with the “blame should be placed on both sides” attitude, therefore avoiding the ethical dilemma of supporting an apartheid state.

Don’t be a robot Marbles. Exercise your human prerogative: your ability to think for yourself.

Don’t be afraid to sound like an anti semite. Israel’s founders are not even semites to begin with, let alone ethnic jews. They are ethnic europeans just like me and (I assume) you. Europeans using a mithical ancestry to “justify” their land grab.

Marbles...it’s a flagrant logical inconsistency to speak out in support of the right of an immigrant from Togo to practice his animist religion in Ottawa and keep a criminal silence regarding the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Be corageous enough to dump your moral relativism towards what’s happening in Palestine. Stand up in Palestine for the same values you cherish in Canada, Marbles. Be brave and say in unequivocal terms that the ethnic cleansing of western Palestine was wrong and must be reversed as soon as possible.

Wether you want to see it or not, THERE IS a wrong side to be blamed in this story. It’s the side who carried out the mass expultion of the native arab population of western Palestine. This is the “original sin” of Israel’s birth that CLEARLY shows us the jewish supremacist state is the one at fault here.

European settlers did not have and still do not have any right to expell or not allow the return of the native arab population of Palestine. You, of all the people here, as a supporter of ethnic minority rights should be the last person to hesitate in calling this WRONG.

You see Marbles, palestinian arabs didn’t move to Europe and took away the homes and farms of those european settlers... it was the opposite. So there is clearly a wrong side in this story.

Stop pretending this is a conflict between conflicting nation states’ interests.

It’s not the jewish people in Israel who must be blamed, it’s the policies implemented in Palestine by the israeli government since its foundation.

Israel, Marbles, is the worst nightmare you pray to not see in Canada: whites discriminating and expelling the same ethnic minorities whose rights you so passionately seem to champion.

The fight against ethnic cleansing in South Africa was not totally peaceful either. Many innocent whites were killed by african gangs and death squads.

But this violence, although reprehensible, never prevented the western world and its press to conclude that, IN THE BIG PICTURE, it was the whites who were exerting ethnic supremacism on the native african population. So the “BLAME BOTH SIDES” rethoric was never used to frame that conflict.

South Africa under apartheid was a colonial project and the south african government was the instrument through which the native black population was being gradually turned into foreigners inside their own homeland through forced displacement and resetlement in small, unconnected patches of land called Bantustans.

Israel is also a colonial project and the israeli government is the instrument through which ethnic supremacism is exerted on the native arab population using roughly the same means as in South Africa.

The south african supremacist state was finally dismantled and replaced by a binational state in which blacks and whites live as equal citizens and the same fate should meet the jewish supremacist state, aka, Israel.

Supporting the peaceful dismantlement of Israel (with all the security checks for the jewish population in place, and also with security for both communities as an overriding priority) is the duty of every citizen who believe in western democracy, Marbles, and no amount of moral relativism and “blame both sides” rethoric will change this fact.

The most commonly tactic used by bigots who want to covertly support the existance of a racist state is to scare others with the prospect of racial conflict once the racial discriminatory aparatus is dismantled. We always hear people on this message board saying that peaceful coexistance between both communities is impossible. They seem to be willfully ignorant, content to ignore the fact that both communities did live in peace before the zionist movement was created in Europe and also, content to ignore the peaceful coexistance that still exist between the jewish population of Israel and a million arabs who managed, against incredible odds, to escape ethnic cleansing, having “only” lost their villages and property to european settlers and now living close to their former villages in the so called “arab unrecognised villages”.

This is the same rethoric used in South Africa during the last decades of apartheid. During the 70’s and the 80’s, supporters of South African apartheid also tried to convince the south african white population and the rest of the world that a binational state for both blacks and whites would never work, that it would soon degenerate into genocide.

I advise you one more time against letting appartheid supporters programme your mind.

This is not an appropriate thread to continue to discuss this issue but before I leave I would like to put your comment in the south african context so you can see how absurd your statement really is:

“The conflict in South Africa is very complicated. Both parties are to blame for the tension. Black africans for using terror tactics, whites for oppressing a people. To back one side only is wrong.”

Huh. An answer that makes one from Marbles look good. This is...interesting.

Palestine is not a nation. It never has been. It has been a Roman Province, part of the Ottoman Empire, and a British colony. There is, nor has there ever been, a country called Palestine. The Palestinians have only themselves to blame. Notice in their "retaliatory actions" (thats what both sides call them) that Isrealis kill terror leaders/members (with secondary civilian casualties) and that Palestinians kill innocents as a PRIMARY target.

Again:

Isrealis kill terror leaders/members PRIMARILY and civilians UNINTENTIONALY
Palestinians kill civilians PRIMARILY

The entire Middle East breeds such hatred of everything except Islam, it is frightening. Like Mordor in Lord of the Rings. "What can man do against such reckless hate"?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Eagle, that people are responsible for their own actions, therefore we can't actually "create" a terrorist.

On the other hand, can't you imagine a reverse scenario, where a behemoth, immoral (from your point of view) Muslim country attacks a neighboring Christian country to yours--can't you imagine the sympathies would lie with your neighboring country, no matter the fact that it was run by a cruel dictator? And that being so, can't you imagine young Christian men choosing to become heroes by resisting the Muslim "aggressor," no matter what the invader said about its good intentions?

Unfortunately, that's the situation I think we're in. As I've written before, the idea of a "free Iraq" is a simplification--and the danger of that simplification has been evident ever since "Mission Accomplished." It's not as if there were one Iraqi people just waiting to be removed from the yoke of Saddam Hussein. If that were true, they would have simply deposed him themselves. Saddam skillfully played ethnic groups off one another to remain in power. By invading, and installing a leader from one ethnic group, we therefore enter into tribal politics--and tribal politics are the messiest there are. At best (if we're very, very lucky), we get a multi-party democracy. At worst, we get civil war. In between, I suppose, is the possibility of dividing Iraq into three states--but would that stabilize or destabilize the region? Iran's power might increase as it allied with its fellow denomationals in the new 1/3 Iraq next door.

So anyway, I don't think we make terrorists, but I do think we make the conditions under which the more angry and more fundamentalist Muslims are more likely to choose to become terrorists.

And that's why I was against this war from the beginning--it's too liberal even for me, to enter a country and try to remake it, from the ground up, by force.

Mariner.

No, I CANNOT imagine Christians today joining a fight against an "invader" who is only freeing their neighbors from an immoral horrid dictator who is threatening the world and who did nothing but keep the populace under his killing thumbs and prevented any individual from freely pursuing a decent life under democracy.

That kind of highlights the basic difference between Christians and Islamofascists.

 

[Mariner]

Timothy McVeigh would leap at the chance to down the Islamic Empire's tallest buildings, or to oppose the Islamic Empire's actions in a neighborint state? Of course he would. Don't kid yourself--Christians are perfectly capable of violence. If you want a truly non-violent religion, look at certain Buddhist and Hindu sects which have never started wars, or maybe the Arapaho.

You know, it would be much easier to convince these Islamic nations that we are as good as we say we are if we didn't constantly provide them evidence to the contrary. This past week, declassified reports show that Bush knew of the impending coup in Venezuala, but chose not to warn the at-risk leader (Chavez). The putative reason is that Bush was irritated by Chavez's criticisms of U.S. policy. That's the type of thing that makes us look self-serving, and makes people doubt our intentions in Iraq.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Timothy McVeigh would leap at the chance to down the Islamic Empire's tallest buildings, or to oppose the Islamic Empire's actions in a neighborint state? Of course he would. Don't kid yourself--Christians are perfectly capable of violence. If you want a truly non-violent religion, look at certain Buddhist and Hindu sects which have never started wars, or maybe the Arapaho.

You know, it would be much easier to convince these Islamic nations that we are as good as we say we are if we didn't constantly provide them evidence to the contrary. This past week, declassified reports show that Bush knew of the impending coup in Venezuala, but chose not to warn the at-risk leader (Chavez). The putative reason is that Bush was irritated by Chavez's criticisms of U.S. policy. That's the type of thing that makes us look self-serving, and makes people doubt our intentions in Iraq.

Mariner.

Sikhs are the warrior class of hinduism. They've been known to kick ass.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Timothy McVeigh would leap at the chance to down the Islamic Empire's tallest buildings, or to oppose the Islamic Empire's actions in a neighborint state? Of course he would. Don't kid yourself--Christians are perfectly capable of violence. If you want a truly non-violent religion, look at certain Buddhist and Hindu sects which have never started wars, or maybe the Arapaho.

You know, it would be much easier to convince these Islamic nations that we are as good as we say we are if we didn't constantly provide them evidence to the contrary. This past week, declassified reports show that Bush knew of the impending coup in Venezuala, but chose not to warn the at-risk leader (Chavez). The putative reason is that Bush was irritated by Chavez's criticisms of U.S. policy. That's the type of thing that makes us look self-serving, and makes people doubt our intentions in Iraq.

Mariner.

Are you saying that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian?

He was more likely a member of Al Qaeda or instrumental of an attack from Iraq. In any case, he was a mass killer of unknowing innocent people within his own country. He was a homegrown terrorist and certainly not representative of normal Christians.

Re Bush, I'm glad he is being self-serving for our country. If not him, who?

 

[MrMarbles]

This is my first post outside the Israel/Palestine section but it is still related to it.

I would like to comment Mr Marbles’ statement:



Marbles, Marbles... tsk, tsk, tsk

What is happening in Palestine is not a conflict between two sovereign nation states that have conflicting foreign policies/interests and resort to armed conflict to solve them in the battlefield.

You are looking at the israeli/palestinian conflict with the same eyes a historian/political scientist would look at the Russian/Japanese war or any other european conflict between nation states that happened in the last 6 centuries and THIS IS SHEER MADNESS MARBLES!!!

What is happening in Palestine is the establishment of a colonial project that aims at maximizing the number of jews and minimizing the number of arabs in Palestine.

In Palestine, you don’t have two powerful, sovereign nation states both trying to impose their foreign interests on the other. What you have there is a pure case of ethnic supremacism being exerted by european settlers on the native arab population through the “fast” ethnic cleansing of western Palestine that happened in 48 and the “slow”, gradual land grab of what’s left of that region.

Comparing what is going on in Palestine with a war between nation states is laughable.

Any mentally sane individual would compare it with the colonization of America or South Africa.

Dont let me down Marbles... I know you rarely post on the Israel/Palestine section so I assume you are not an expert on this matter and maybe this goes along way in explaining your “neutral” position.

But as someone who has read more than 100 of your posts, I’m sure you can do better than that... if you can’t, you have definitely lost your marbles (sorry, couldn’t resist the pun ; )

You are always praising Canada’s multi cultural policies, always highlighting the benefits of Canada’s melting pot, so I’m struck to see you look the other way when confronted with a clear cut case of ethnic supremacism being exerted by one ethnic group over another.

Bishop Desmond Tutu once said that people in this country (the US) are afraid to say wrong is wrong because the jewish lobby is too strong.

I would like to borrow Mr. Tutu’s words:

People on the US message board are afraid to say wrong is wrong because the pro Israel indoctrination in the US and the rest of the western world is too strong.

Marbles, try to think out of the box. Supporters of the israeli apartheid state want you to think exactly the way you do.

They succeeded in making up your mind. They want you to think about Israel/Palestine in terms of a conflict between two sovereign nation states and not what it really is: a colonial project aimed at replacing the native arab population in Palestine by colonizers from America and Europe mainly.

They want you to think this way because once the conflict is presented in terms of a conflict between nation states IT’S EASIER TO DISASSOCIATE IT FROM ANY MORAL CONSIDERATION REGARDING THE ISRAELI COLONIAL PROJECT.

Besides, behind the “BOTH SIDES ARE IN THE WRONG” attitude lies an unconscious psychological defence mechanism.

I have already said in a previous thread that Israel pits America the Idea and America the Tribe against each other.

So patriotic americans who believe in the principles of racial equality on which America was founded find themselves with a most excruciating crucible in front of them:

How to reconcile the principles of racial equality America stands for and in which they believe with the fact that the US possesses a de facto american satellite state THAT IS RACIST TO THE CORE??

In order to cope with the anguish created by this hard choice, many americans, including many members of the US MESSAGE BOARD, make use of this psychological defence mechanism, through which they turn what is clearly a case of naked ethnic supremacism into a classical conflict between nation states, european style, so they can think about what’s happening in Palestine with the “blame should be placed on both sides” attitude, therefore avoiding the ethical dilemma of supporting an apartheid state.

Don’t be a robot Marbles. Exercise your human prerogative: your ability to think for yourself.

Don’t be afraid to sound like an anti semite. Israel’s founders are not even semites to begin with, let alone ethnic jews. They are ethnic europeans just like me and (I assume) you. Europeans using a mithical ancestry to “justify” their land grab.

Marbles...it’s a flagrant logical inconsistency to speak out in support of the right of an immigrant from Togo to practice his animist religion in Ottawa and keep a criminal silence regarding the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Be corageous enough to dump your moral relativism towards what’s happening in Palestine. Stand up in Palestine for the same values you cherish in Canada, Marbles. Be brave and say in unequivocal terms that the ethnic cleansing of western Palestine was wrong and must be reversed as soon as possible.

Wether you want to see it or not, THERE IS a wrong side to be blamed in this story. It’s the side who carried out the mass expultion of the native arab population of western Palestine. This is the “original sin” of Israel’s birth that CLEARLY shows us the jewish supremacist state is the one at fault here.

European settlers did not have and still do not have any right to expell or not allow the return of the native arab population of Palestine. You, of all the people here, as a supporter of ethnic minority rights should be the last person to hesitate in calling this WRONG.

You see Marbles, palestinian arabs didn’t move to Europe and took away the homes and farms of those european settlers... it was the opposite. So there is clearly a wrong side in this story.

Stop pretending this is a conflict between conflicting nation states’ interests.

It’s not the jewish people in Israel who must be blamed, it’s the policies implemented in Palestine by the israeli government since its foundation.

Israel, Marbles, is the worst nightmare you pray to not see in Canada: whites discriminating and expelling the same ethnic minorities whose rights you so passionately seem to champion.

The fight against ethnic cleansing in South Africa was not totally peaceful either. Many innocent whites were killed by african gangs and death squads.

But this violence, although reprehensible, never prevented the western world and its press to conclude that, IN THE BIG PICTURE, it was the whites who were exerting ethnic supremacism on the native african population. So the “BLAME BOTH SIDES” rethoric was never used to frame that conflict.

South Africa under apartheid was a colonial project and the south african government was the instrument through which the native black population was being gradually turned into foreigners inside their own homeland through forced displacement and resetlement in small, unconnected patches of land called Bantustans.

Israel is also a colonial project and the israeli government is the instrument through which ethnic supremacism is exerted on the native arab population using roughly the same methods as in South Africa.

The south african supremacist state was finally dismantled and replaced by a binational state in which blacks and whites live as equal citizens and the same fate should meet the jewish supremacist state, aka, Israel.

Supporting the peaceful dismantlement of Israel (with all the security checks for the jewish population in place, and also with security for both communities as an overriding priority) is the duty of every citizen who believe in western democracy, Marbles, and no amount of moral relativism and “blame both sides” rethoric will change this fact.

The most commonly tactic used by bigots who want to covertly support the existance of a racist state is to scare others with the prospect of racial conflict once the racial discriminatory aparatus is dismantled. We always hear people on this message board saying that peaceful coexistance between both communities is impossible. They seem to be willfully ignorant, content to ignore the fact that both communities did live in peace before the zionist movement was created in Europe and also, content to ignore the peaceful coexistance that still exist between the jewish population of Israel and a million arabs who managed, against incredible odds, to escape ethnic cleansing, having “only” lost their villages and property to european settlers and now living close to their former villages in the so called “arab unrecognised villages”.

This is the same rethoric used in South Africa during the last decades of apartheid. During the 70’s and the 80’s, supporters of South African apartheid also tried to convince the south african white population and the rest of the world that a binational state for both blacks and whites would never work, that it would soon degenerate into genocide.

If you want to "justify" the existence of a state based on racial discrimination, there's nothing better than paint the ethnic group being discriminated as ferocious beasts unable to live in harmony with any other people.

I advise you one more time against letting appartheid supporters programme your mind.

This is not an appropriate thread to continue to discuss this issue but before I leave I would like to put your comment in the south african context so you can see how absurd your statement really is:

“The conflict in South Africa is very complicated. Both parties are to blame for the tension. Black africans for using terror tactics, whites for oppressing a people. To back one side only is wrong.”

First off, I really didn't read all of it, it's reaallyyy long, and i'm of the MTV, fast food generation.

Just because Palestine is not a sovereign nation, dosen't make their suffering any less real.

And i'm not sure if I have ever said they were to seperate nations.

You have one ethnic race using terrorism against another race which is oppressing it. Whos right? Isreal? A state born out of terrorism stamping on the rights of Arabs. Or Palestinians? A people using an outlawed form of warfare to secure their own country. It's sticky. And again, no one is right. But i guess it is all how you look at it.

 

[Mariner]

Sikhs aren't Hindus, they're an offshoot religion, kind of the way Islam is an offshoot from Christianity, and Christianity from Judaism. Yes, they're more aggressive, both in business and war.

Merlin--I agree, it's unfair to call Timothy McVeigh a Christian. But maybe, in the same way, it's unfair to call a Muslim terrorist a true Muslim.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Sikhs aren't Hindus, they're an offshoot religion, kind of the way Islam is an offshoot from Christianity, and Christianity from Judaism. Yes, they're more aggressive, both in business and war.

right. they used to be hindus, but wanted a reform and they are a warrior class. NOT PEACEFUL. see my point. You?

Merlin--I agree, it's unfair to call Timothy McVeigh a Christian. But maybe, in the same way, it's unfair to call a Muslim terrorist a true Muslim.

Mariner.

jihad is a very real muslim concept.