US ignores international mood and lays blame on Palestinians By Andrew Buncombe in Washington 01 April 2002 Amid a wave of international concern over Israel's ongoing siege of Yasser Arafat, the United States again condemned the latest Palestinian suicide bombings yesterday and said Mr Arafat could do more to stop such attacks. Several world leaders made direct appeals to Israel, asking it to show restraint and to ensure Mr Arafat's safety. The foreign ministers of China and Japan, and Morocco's King Mohammed called either the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, or the Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, to voice concern. France, Germany, Turkey and Arab states also urged restraint. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, has called on Mr Sharon to pull back his tanks from Mr Arafat's headquarters. Mr Straw tried to speak to Mr Arafat by telephone but the line went dead. He hopes to speak soon to Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, about the siege. The Speaker of Greece's parliament accused Israel yesterday of committing "genocide". Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates all made diplomatic appeals, and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia contacted the US to voice his concerns. Germany's Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, said in a statement: "The military confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians is cause for great concern. It holds the danger of a destabilisation of the entire region. The German government urgently appeals to the Israeli side to guarantee Palestinian President Arafat will not be harmed." Amid such growing concern over Israel's siege of Mr Arafat's compound in Ramallah, the US has stood almost alone – backing Mr Sharon's right to defend his country. On Saturday – with Mr Arafat still trapped and with his communications under threat – President George Bush told reporters at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, that the Palestinian leader could, and should, do more to prevent suicide attacks, including the most recent in Tel Aviv. Yesterday, a senior official repeated Mr Bush's assertion. "We condemn these terrorist attacks," the official said. "Chairman Arafat knows what he needs to do. President Bush was very clear about that yesterday and in previous days and our heartfelt sympathies and condolences go out to the victims and the families of the victims of these brutal attacks." Washington's refusal to express anything other than "grave concern" about the situation in Ramallah underlines the difficulty which the Bush administration faces in addressing the problem of the Middle East, while also prosecuting its so-called war on terror. When Mr Bush came to office last year, it was immediately made clear that the United States would play a much-reduced role in trying to achieve a peaceful settlement in the region and that the President would not expend the sort of personal and political capital that the previous president, Bill Clinton, had. A series of initiatives aimed at attempting to bring both sides together was terminated. The attacks of 11 September have made criticism of Israel more difficult for Mr Bush – even if he wished to indulge in such activity. In the aftermath of the attacks on New York and Washington, Mr Sharon visited Mr Bush, and argued the Palestinian suicide bombers were no different to those who had attacked the US. It was an argument which the US did not seek to counter. While Mr Bush last year became the first US President to use the word "Palestine" in terms of an independent state, his administration's dealings with the two sides remain unbalanced. Though Mr Arafat has repeatedly condemned the spate of suicide bombings, Mr Bush has refused to meet the Palestinian leader until he makes a public call in Arabic for the suicide bombings to end and to arrest those involved in the attacks. here
Another Independent article from boy... You really should broaden your scanning list - the articles from the Independent all kind of blend thgether after a while. Two things of note about the article, though: 1) None of international community will condemn the suicide bombers, or at least this publication/article refuses to report on that. But they sure are quick to condemn Israel. 2) It shows that the international community does not believe that Israel has a right to defend itself. If that is what they think, then they should be ignored.
There could not be a more appropriate thread title for you two. The schtick from both of you guys on this one in this forum is getting old, fast. It is hard to imagine two more stubborn and one-sided arguments coming from you guys. Personally, I don't care if you both go to your graves thinking you are right, but please spare us the tired rhetorical crapola. Both of you post articles that come from sources so biased, it is impossible to formulate an opinion about it one way or another. In addition, the only threads either one of you start are on the same thing over and over and over again. There is a point where harping on ad nauseum about the same thing and droning on with the same opinion should become tiresome even for you two. I'm glad you both have such fervent opinions on the situation, but wasting the bandwidth here to post one more article that addresses the same points you've been making over the past six months serves no purpose but your own.
I thought you weren't for censorship of the boards, except where personal attacks and excessive profanity were concerned, Jeff? You're basically telling us to shut up and stop posting on this issue. Nice. BTW, I'll grant you that Debka and CSP are biased, but how are the NYT, Washington Post, Washington Times, New Yorker, etc biased? At least I use a little more variety.
I don't care if you think it is NICE or not. Variety? Try talking about something else. That is variety. Part of the problem with what both of you do is that you spend the entire time you are in here kicking a dead horse. If you have something NEW to add to the discussion, by all means. But, when you post 5 threads in the span of 24 hours and every single one is dedicated to the EXACT SAME THING, it borders on "flooding" which is BIG no no on just about every BBS on the internet. I mean, for God's sake, is it possible to post on something OTHER than the middle east for you two? Have you noticed that the vast majority of the times that you post on the ME, it ends with no one responding to either of you? It would be like if I spent every post here displaying articles about being a vegetarian. I could show its health benefits. I could talk about fur. I could talk about leather. I could describe a slaughterhouse. I would also be relegated to the most boring and narrow minded poster on the board and would probably annoy the hell out of everyone in the process. Sound familiar?
Jeff, I actually *do* post on other subjects here. I even occasionally still post in the Rockets Forum (I remind you that I've been here since before 9/11, and am actually a fan - and had about 750 posts pre-9/11, only two in the Hangout). Many of the topics posted in the Hangout simply do not interest me, and it is fair to say that the majority of my posts have been on this issue, but to say that I post *only* on this topic is misleading and untrue. I think you're just tired of thinking about these issues, and want them to go away. Well guess what? Even after I leave, and even if boy and glynch stopped posting on them as well, these issues would not disappear. And I happen to think that these issues are possibly the most important issues facing our country - the whole world - in over 50 years. Unlike all of those other issues you'd like me to post more on, these actually matter. If we aren't supposed to discuss important issues in the Hangout, then fine, I'll stop posting on them. And I'm not sure if you've noticed, but boy and I are *not* the only people here who are interested in these issues. Sometimes our threads generate no responses, sometimes they are flooded with responses. People care about these issues. Agh, whatever. You don't need to try and chase me away - I'm gone in two days anyway. Thanks for the thinly veiled personal attack, though.
I enjoy reading Treemans responses and will miss them when he is gone.The guy is going off to serve our country and obviously really cares about the subject.I applaud him and the work he has put in against all the propaganda that gets posted here.
Not to keep derailing this thread, but as far as treeman's posts go, Jeff, I don't think it's a big deal. Personally, I enjoy reading them, much as I disagree. More importantly, though, as long as people keep responding, that shows that lots of people are interested in the subject. It would be different if treeman or boy kept posting articles and they were the only two ever replying to each other, but it seems a good number of different people at least chime in here and there.
You are a vegetarian? Oh thats it, I need to dig up some of my research on that and start posting right away
Doesn't this apply to most of the posts on these boards? I can't tell you how many "fill in the next sentance", "what's your favorite", or "what's the blah blah blah" posts that are repeatedly opened daily? This is usually the case in even the Rockets forum. Does the number of responses determine the thread's worth? I've seen my share of irrelevant posts with with hundreds of replies. Many of the posts that I start don't have many responses, but then again, I'm not after numbers... I'd rather get meaningful responses from posters who may have the same tastes/interests as I do. I, for one (and I'm probably in the minority here) find the ME topics as very relevant and interesting. I tend to find treeman's arguments very well thought out and expressed; and although I rarely agree with boy's and glynch's posts, I do enjoy hearing a counter-perspective and respect them for being willing and able to express their views. Nobody's forcing anyone to read all the threads here. If somebody's not interested in (or has become tired of) certain topics, then all they have to do is avoid opening them in the first place. Those interested will seek them out, even if they sink to the bottom... x34
Actually Jeff, I agree with treeman that this isn't just a meaningless issue. I personally feel like these events are only the beginning of a major story (or maybe I'm just paranoid.) Either way I can see your point. It seems like whenever I come to the hangout forum there are a few new posts on this issue and either treeman or boy/glynch have a biased account of the current events. It doesn't bother me too much though because after looking at both sides of the coin I get a better picture of things. It's actually informative when you get the truth out of it. Also it's not really their fault because every media is biased. Anyway, I can see how it borders on flooding. At least it's not as bad as the "Langhi/KT for Shaq - Trade Accepted!" threads in the Game Action forum.
Jeff, I understand your feelings, but IMHO, they should not be presented as from an administrator, just another board member. Many others here are probably tired of the topic also. I am very interested in events there and I admit that I have to take periodic breaks. But the topic is very complex, Americans tend to be uniformed, the media reporting is all skewed, and the ramifications of the events there are certainly felt the world over. Sounds like a valid topic for the board. BTW, if you can get people here to read daily threads on vegetarianism, the more power to ya.
While I sometimes think "Oh no, another one of these threads" and get tired of the whole subject, I think that treeman is right when he says that just because we wish this subject would go away, it will not. I think that some of the things boy and glynch post are so outlandish from my perspective that it is good that someone kind of from the far other side like treeman reacts to it. I think that treeman's views on the issues are kind of radical, but I cannot say for sure that he is not right (just as I cannot disagree with EVERYTHING boy and glynch post). To me, the whole perception of right and wrong in this conflict is blurred. Jeff, could it be that it (maybe subconsciously) annoys you even more because treeman obviously represents a totally different part of the political spectrum than you do? Just wondering. While I disagree with a lot of what treeman posts, I have great respect for him standing up for his beliefs and him being willing to risk his life serving in the military to protect the freedom we enjoy in the western world. I wish him the best and hope he will come back and post more - on the Rockets, on the Middle East and on anything Clutch and the Clutch Crew allow us to post on and people are interested in.
Nobody's forcing anyone to read any particular thread. That's why there are headlines. If bandwidth is really an issue, start flushing the archives. <b>treeman</b>: Do a job and come back!
