I get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure if there is a better forum for this type of discussion than an internet bbs, where we have a cross-section of not only our own country and culture but a global presence as well.
Are Palestinians a race? And can any generalization about a race be considered racist? As FB is saying, there are exception to any such generalization, but I'm not sure that makes any generalization 'racist' in the context we see it.
Now are all of the "Palestinians" murderers? Nah. But a great number were doing so until the Israelis separated themselves from that rabble with the wall. You really don't hear of that many Palestinians who are angry at the Intifaddah ruining their business. When you allow things to go on without making a change, you are a party to that evil and are no different than the evil-doers themselves. Well if your fictious olive farmer would raise his voice and do something to stop these savages from their cowardly attacks, he wouldn't have to worry about this "bigotted system" of necessary security to protect innocents from getting blown up by his subhuman countrymen. Anyone who detonates themselves in the midst of defenseless women and children is a cowardly, savage murderer. If you can't see that, whatever in your brain controls your ability to see right from wrong is missing or damaged. This is the problem I have with the Left. There is no black/white, ying/yang, good/evil distinctions. Everything is endless shades of gray, what you'd like to call a "nuanced" approach. The problem lies when you lose the ability to call a spade a spade, which the left clearly has.
Prejudice isn't just against race though. Saying that a race has physical characteristics is one thing, but ascribing particular character traits to a whole people whether they are a nationality, ethnicity or whatever is certainly bigotted, more than likely untrue, on a large scale, and ignorant. I do agree that they aren't a race, but from what I've read there are only 3 races: Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasion. Going from that basis they would be caucasion. In addition going strictly by the three races it wouldn't be possible for whites to to be racist towards Arabic people in general. But in the spirit of the definition it was racist.
Hard to argue with that. If it was on purpose. It does seem like this is detracting from the idea of the thread though. Quite uncivil.
The most uncivil participant in this thread is the most uncivil participant in every thread he posts in. He's unapologetic about it and unmoved by calls for civility so there's no use asking for it anymore. We can either take the bait (I am TOO against suicide bombers!) or ignore him. It won't make him go away, but at least the rest of can continue to enjoy a good conversation.
The important thing is that the Islamic holy lands (the mosque and everything) are returned to MUSLIMS. Any Muslim should be able to go and pray in Al Aqsa Mosque freely. If the Israelis are ok with that, and are not trying to get in the way of that, then there is no reason to destroy the state of Israel. However, if there are people who want to eradicate Islam (I.e., killing Muslims/Islam), by all means I will do anything in my power to burn them to the ground.
Are you suggesting that the IDF sharp shooters are not hitting what they are aiming at? Do a google search on "IDF head shot" and see what you get BTW, talking about Israel and Palenstine conflict is not a diversion on the thread topic. It is actually the heart of the matter, which you even mentioned earlier. Israel and Palestine solving their problems would go a long ways into diffusing the Islamic fundamentalists. Having the Israelis stop treating the Palestines like cattle would make a good first step.
Bamma, you are just plain wrong. The bigotted system set up by Israel is not out of necessity for securities sake. How does giving one water alotment for Palestinians that has to be used for drinking water, bathing, cooking, and irrigation going to secure Israeis who get the same water allotment for drinking water alone. That's right Palestinians have to drink, cook, bathe, eat, and irrigate with the same amount of water that Israeli settlers get just for drinking. Is your premise that thirsty terrorists aren't as effective? Palestinians aren't allowed to drill new wells for water. They aren't allowed to make existing wells deeper. Israelis are. How is that a benefit for ISrael's security? Palestinians pay one price for water, and ISraelis pay another. How is that for ISrael's security. The IDF has orders to demolish any Palestinian business that can compete econommically with an Israeli business. That's not Palestinians keeping fellow Palestinians from not having sound businesses. It's Israel making a policy based solely on nationality and not on security. Do you think Palestinians are angry for the fun of it? There are legitimate reasons for them to be upset. Israel is breaking the Geneva convention by settling in the occupied territories. Israel has a system for one group based on their nationality and another system for others based on them being a different nationality. Security doesn't enter into the examples I mentioned. This may not fit in with the one side is all good, and the other side are all bad view of things, but it is reality.
If you are really concerned about using intel to fight the WoT, then you need to take another look at John Kerry, who plans to expand the role of our intelligence services to improve the intel we get in order to effecively fight terrorism. World alliances are not that hard to create when the cause is just, as GHWB proved in '91.
Very well put. I wish that someone running for president was saying these things... Wait a minute, these are all things that Kerry has talked about.
I call FB on this and you whine and cry "We'll just ignore him...boo-hooo. He doesn't agree with us." FB and I are having a civil conversation on this and you have to put in your two cents. Truce is over, hoss. Just because I dare challenge the lefty slobberfest/ echo chamber you have here, you have to take your ball and go home. There has to be another side for a discussion. All I did was call the "Palestinian" terrorists what they are, a bunch of subhuman, savage, bloodthirsty, cowardly murderers and called out those who silently stand by and let them perform their acts of evil. There is nothing racist in that statement. It is a statement of fact and if you can't face up to it, you're a coward. And yes, this does apply to the war on terror. Who made you the damned judge of what is civil and what is not? Who made you the judge of what is ontopic and what is not? The arrogance of many on your side (FB, GV76 and even Glynch excepted) is just sickening.
OK, FB, walk a mile in the Israelis' shoes. You have a people who are systematically committed to your destruction and with stunning regularity, decided to explode themselves among your women and children. Are you going to let the "Palestinians" have every right accorded to a peace-loving society? Of course not. In order to protect your own people, you're going to have to resort to some measures that folks feel is cruel. I don't know about some of your allegations, but I do know that Arabs who live within the state of Israel who are Israeli citizens are free to worship and speak out as they see fit. In fact, they are the most free Arabs in the ME. You are working from two wrong foundations: A. The "Palestinians" are a distinct people who populated the land that is Israel and have a "right of return" to that land. B. That the territory Israel builds their settlements in is "occupied." That land was gained at the cost of much Israeli blood in a war brought about by Arab aggression. The Geneva Convention does not apply to the building of settlements. In case you're wondering, here is the text of the Fourth Geneva Convention applicable: link Now as for the "Palestinian" terrorists, they are not subject to the Geneva Conventions as any terrorists: link If kids are engaged in throwing molotov cocktails or big rocks, they deserve a rubber bullet.
There is another side to the discussion. It's represented by basso, giddyup and plenty of other conservative or hawkish posters who don't treat politics as a "full contact sport" when the admins have specifically asked us not to do that here and specifically told us they'll close the forum if we do. I'm not getting into a slash and burn screaming match with you again. Your truce may be over with me, but mine with you is just beginning. I like this forum and I don't need to argue with you badly enough that I'll sacrifice the forum to win. I'm with Deckard and R2K and the rest. If you want to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leave out the reactionary e-screaming and I'd be happy to let you know my feelings on it.
The people who blow up civilians should be dealt with. That is part of what I said in my initial proposal on terrorism. But I don't punish all Palestinians for what the terrorists do. You are wrong in saying that the occupied territories are are conquered areas that are part of Israel. If that were the case then ISrael should name them as part of ISrael proper and grant rights to the inhabitants. They never will because they will be outnumbered, and lose power. Thus the lands remain as occupied. Here is some paraphrased information on the 4th Geneva convention and then the convention itself. 4th Geneva convention can be found here. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html Israel is guilty of collective punishment and settling it's own citizens in land under military control.
Ever since June when they cracked my daughter's chest open and replaced one of her heart valves, I've vowed not to take this place so seriously. Since then I've seen my nephew relapse, adult friends get sick and friends who have had children die. I''m not likely to ramp it up again. I enjoy the discussion but not the viciousness. I've long thought that our postings were mostly for the benefit of the lurkers here. Another thread has proven that there are many more than we may have guessed. I enjoy Bamaslammers's posts. He has a unique perspective due to his military experience. I can ignore the aggressiveness of some of his posts because I'm not the target... but I do concur that his messge would be better heard were it toned down. Same goes for SamFisher-- coming from the completely opposite direction. He seems to have made an effort to be more civil. Let's hope he returns from vacation more mellow than ever! Many of the most brilliant posters hold political opinions perfectly opposite of mine. I still enjoy reading them. None of us has all the answers... we just enjoy pretending that we do. This BBS is our podium, I guess. Keep it up but keep good comraderie.
How big does the rock have to be before they deserve to get shot in the head with a rubber bullet? What about the kids who had done nothing wrong but still get an eye put out by a rubber bullet? Final Question which I double dare you to answer: How does the number of IDF killed Palestines compare to the number of Israelis who are killed by suicide bombers?
So glad somebody brought this up. You can slow down a terrorist cause but never defeat it- unless you take away the cause. The number one grudge of most Islamic terrorist groups is the Israeli/Palestine conflict. The number one priority in the war on terror must be acheiving lasting peace between Israel/Palestine. Tall order. On one hand we hold all the purse strings to Israel and provide all their arms. On the other we propose big incentives on the Palestine side- rebuilding infrasctructure, projects involving lots of opportunity for employment, build lots of schools that aren't going to parrot fundamentalist religious teaching. Many Palestinians won't accept peace if it doesn't include the utter destruction of Israel- but they can either accept a new life of peace, independence and prosperity or continued desperation and death. We do everything we can to apply pressure and incentives to both sides. We make peace in Israel/Palestine the number one priority in foreign policy. We aggressively pursue alternative energy technologies. Perhaps both incentives and regulation together would get results. It's going to be a long time before we have cars operating on fuel cells, so in the meantime we must open up more land for oil drilling here in the US and shift our oil dependence to countries other than mideast OPEC nations. Once we stop depending on mideast oil, we can: Stop meddling in mideast politics. We have our hand in every damn cookie jar over there but ignore bloody human-rights violating dictatorships in Africa and South America and Southeast Asia because of oil. Period. Get off sucking that tit of mideast oil so we can stop being hypocrites that cry for democracy in Iraq but give massive military and financial support to oppressive monarchies and dictatorships in Saudi and Pakistan because they'll play ball. Over the long term we remove our military presence from there because it's not needed. Let those who truly thirst for democracy and feedom cry out for it, instead of having it thrust upon them. Whether our grand experiment in mideast democracy will really work or not is very much up in the air, which brings me to the next point: We do everything we can to succeed in starting a peaceful, stable Iraq governed by a secular democracy. This means putting more troops on the ground, not less. Lots and lots of troops on the ground- overwhelming force, as Powell would have it. Too bad the neocons didn't get this right the first time or we may not have been forced to do it now. We establish a massive presence to try and keep the uprising down. We ask other nations to get as involved as possible, whether militarily or financial support or health care or election oversight or whatever. Leaving Iraq and having it collapse into civil war would be a massive, massive disaster. Huge death toll, Iran and Syria get involved, the whole country becomes another terrorist breeding ground. Then, ironically, we have to invade them as a state supporting terrorism- one we created. Let's get this thing right NOW, because if we don't, we'll have to do it later. I have more but I gotta go.
Batman, are you talking about me? I don't get it. I was under the impression that what was described was when Israeli soldiers have the leeway to free fire when they are attacked. I don't think they are pointing sniper rifles at kids heads. I'm suggesting that you can't argue, if they ARE indeed doing it on purpose, that it is acceptable. Civilians accidentally getting killed is not the same as soldiers rounding up kids and gunning them down. Its still bad but its not the same thing. Well, really no. Its not the 'heart of the matter.' As I've shown in my earlier post I would advocate action on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, but it is on a part of the overall issue, not the core. For example, both Hezbollah AND Hamas do NOT want a beef with the US. They are the most directly involved terrorist organizations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But they have come out publicly AGAINST widening the war to include the US or Europeans. On the other hand, Al Queda, who HAS attacked the US and Europe have as their main contention US troops in Saudi Arabia. NOT the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Certainly they've paid lip service to this lately, but that is a far cry from being the 'main' reason for their actions, or the main drawing card for their recruits. Whereas Hamas and Hezbollah are single issue groups - the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. In this thread several times people have declared this conflict to be the CENTER of the problem, and it just ISN'T. Did Chechyn rebels kill school children because of Israel/Palestinian disputes? No. Did AQ blow up the WTC or embassies or trains in Spain over it? No. Did kashmiri mulslim militants attack the Indian parliment over it? No. And you missed my other point anyway, which was that the argument over whether or not phibamaslamma was a racist detracts from the thread, which is about 'what would you do to make the WOT more effective.'
