The Future Of The Middle East!

[Mattius_]

Ok, when Iraq becomes democratic, Im thinking democracy will spread like wildfire to the rest of the Middle East...

Would the war in Iraq still be wrong even if there were no WMDs?

*If your answer is that it is still wrong, be prepared for a wave of demogoguery...

[Njorl]

When? I think you mean "If".

If by Wildfire, you mean those things they had in SoCal, I disagree.

If you mean that easy listening song by Michael Murphy, then yes, democracy will spread in the Middle east just like that song did.

Njorl

[Zero]

Good answers Njorl!!

[Ganshauk]

The middle east becoming democratic is like leading a horse to water.

You can do it, but you cant make him drink...

...unless you strap a siphon to his mouth and force the water in.

I think the world AND the administration has lost focus here. The intention was never about "democracy in the Middle East." This is a selling point that was concocted in order to sooth the teeming masses long after the assault began. It's oroginal purpose was to justify an invasion that was already justified (remove Saddam before he could burn the world).

This is a perfect example of how an administration promulgates serious mistakes by catering to popular (er, media) opinion. I am disheartened because the admiration I had for the administration sprang from the fact that they initially promoted policy that was sound, regardless of public opinion. Now, they are going in circles, losing focus, trying to please all the crybabies, and getting absolutely nowhere.

[Mattius_]

You can do it, but you cant make him drink...

I would like a very thurough explanation as to why the middle-east wont embrace democracy... That is, unless you retract your statement. Thx

[Bystander]

Without speaking for Ganshauk, cultural intertia is going to slow down any democratic "wildfire" in the ME; the only "popular" political movement in the area in the past century was the Pan-Arab game --- where is the UAR today? You're looking at a culture that has exhibited an unbelievable stability over the past two (or more) millennia --- rapid, radical change is not too likely an event.

[Mattius_]

Without speaking for Ganshauk, cultural intertia is going to slow down any democratic "wildfire" in the ME; the only "popular" political movement in the area in the past century was the Pan-Arab game --- where is the UAR today? You're looking at a culture that has exhibited an unbelievable stability over the past two (or more) millennia --- rapid, radical change is not too likely an event.

This is a strong point, but...

Wasn't China considered to be stable until Mao?
Wasn't Yugoslavia under Tito considered to be stable?
Wasn't Catholocism stable in France before reformation?
Wasn't South Africa considered to be Stable before Mandella?
Wasn't Italy before the renaissance considered to be stable?

I think we all might be surprised by the power of freedom.

[Bystander]

"Stable" is a lousy word to use, but what I meant was that there has been no real change in livelihoods or lifestyles in the area --- the Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, British, French, and whoever else have come and gone, along with assorted religions, strongmen, political movements, you name it, but there has been no real change at the "sand roots" level.

China stable under Mao? Really? Which 5 year plan, great leap, or cultural revolution are you talking about?

Yugoslavia under Tito? The Balkans haven't been stable since at least the days of Imperial Rome --- Yugoslavia as an artificial construct of Versaille was about as stable as old dynamite --- not a question of going off, just a matter of when.

Pre-reformation Catholicism in France? I'd have to hit the books, but what I recall is a damned near endless bloodbath --- stable in a way --- .

S. Afr. pre-Mandela? Another stick of overage dynamite.

Pre-rennaissance Italy? No such thing --- Italy is a 19th century emergence.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ganshauk
The middle east becoming democratic is like leading a horse to water.

You can do it, but you cant make him drink...

...unless you strap a siphon to his mouth and force the water in.

I think the world AND the administration has lost focus here. The intention was never about "democracy in the Middle East." This is a selling point that was concocted in order to sooth the teeming masses long after the assault began. It's oroginal purpose was to justify an invasion that was already justified (remove Saddam before he could burn the world).

This is a perfect example of how an administration promulgates serious mistakes by catering to popular (er, media) opinion. I am disheartened because the admiration I had for the administration sprang from the fact that they initially promoted policy that was sound, regardless of public opinion. Now, they are going in circles, losing focus, trying to please all the crybabies, and getting absolutely nowhere. What I find interesting is that while we interpret things completely differently, we kind of agree on some of the basic facts. We both agree that Bush decieves the American people to get his way, although the idea that Iraq was a threat is laughable.

[Jonathan]

I think Iraq was a threat, just not immediate. However, I do know that there was awful stuff going on there and now there is at least less of it, so I think so far so good. I do also disagree, the whole middle east will not become democratic, I think it will be an uphill battle just to keep Iraq democratic when it 'is'. 'is' indicating that for ex.: China is technically a democracy, but any idiot can tell that it is merely so only in the letter, not the spirit, of the definition of democracy. How democratic is it if someone has a gun to your head or if the only guys running for president are corrupt?

[Zero]

If Afghanistan is any idication, democracy is unlikely in Iraq...the current draft of their constitution declares Afghanistan as a theocracy...and democracy and religion don't mix.

[Jonathan]

I never hear about Afganistan anymore, and have gotten the impression that we have left it's people on their own, and I do not like that, but I also hear that there are still troops there. I'm a little fuzzy on this, will have to do some research. So they're drafting a constitution? Pretty soon they'll be ruling the world and I still won't be sure if they even have started their gov't yet.

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Mattius_
This is a strong point, but...

Wasn't China considered to be stable until Mao?
Wasn't Yugoslavia under Tito considered to be stable?
Wasn't Catholocism stable in France before reformation?
Wasn't South Africa considered to be Stable before Mandella?
Wasn't Italy before the renaissance considered to be stable?

I think we all might be surprised by the power of freedom.

China was in a state of near constant uprising or civil war for about 100 years before Mao.

Yugoslavia was considered very unstable, held together only because Tito had such power.

France had many heretical uprisings, the Albigensians/Cathari and many populist communal sects, before the reformation.

South Africa had significant unrest before Mandela. He was a product of the unrest, not an instigator.

Italy was constantly torn between the Pope and the Emperor for 400 years before the Renaisance.

So, in short, no to all of your suppositions.

Njorl

[Njorl]

While I don't think that democracy will spread, I do think there will be one very large benefit for the US if Iraq becomes democratic.

The US will always want a foothold in an oil producing nation in the middle east. When the Shah of Iran fell, we increased support to Saudi Arabia. We have always supported despotism there. We aid a King in Jordan, and a dictator in Egypt. If we establish a democracy in Iraq, we will be able to cut off support to despots without harming our foreign policy significantly.

It will not be easy. If Iraq becomes truly democratic, it will be hard to be elected if you have a "pro-American" reputation.

Democracy will certainly not spread like wildfire, but, we will at least be in a position to stop funding those who actively suppress it.

Njorl

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Njorl
While I don't think that democracy will spread, I do think there will be one very large benefit for the US if Iraq becomes democratic.
It will not be accepted internationally.
And by the way US violates the Hague Regulations:

Bremer's reforms are illegal?
Bring Halliburton Home by Naomi Klein
"
But the "Troops Out" debate overlooks an important fact. If every last soldier pulled out of the Gulf tomorrow and a sovereign government came to power, Iraq would still be occupied: by laws written in the interest of another country, by foreign corporations controlling its essential services, by 70 percent unemployment sparked by public sector layoffs.

Any movement serious about Iraqi self-determination must call not only for an end to Iraq's military occupation, but to its economic colonization as well. That means reversing the shock therapy reforms that US occupation chief Paul Bremer has fraudulently passed off as "reconstruction" and canceling all privatization contracts flowing from these reforms.

How can such an ambitious goal be achieved? Easy: by showing that Bremer's reforms were illegal to begin with. They clearly violate the international convention governing the behavior of occupying forces, the Hague Regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, both ratified by the United States), as well as the US Army's own code of war.

The Hague Regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." The Coalition Provisional Authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance. Iraq's Constitution outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet two months ago, the CPA overturned them unilaterally.

On September 19, Bremer enacted the now-infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100 percent ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100 percent of their profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream."

Order 39 violated the Hague Regulations in other ways as well. The convention states that occupying powers "shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct."
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031124&s=klein
--------
Centre for Public Integrity (CPI). http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/home.aspSpecial Report
U.S. Contractors Reap the Windfalls of Postwar Reconstruction
(WASHINGTON, October 30, 2003) — More than 70 American companies and individuals have won up to $8 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years, according to a new study by the Center for Public Integrity. Those companies contributed more money to the presidential campaign of George W. Bush—more than $500,000—than to any other politician over the last dozen years, the Center found.>>

[Mattius_]

So, in short, no to all of your suppositions.

And if and/or when the middle-east falls to democracy, I wonder where the attributions will lie?

I knew when I posted those examples, that someone would try to correct me. Seriously, I wonder if when the middle-east succombs to democracy, what other false reasons people will give for the collapse of tradition.

Your reasons are sensible, and granted it was probably an accumulation of things, but It is my belief that freedom was the chief factor.

Why do people try to cover up the true pinnacles of humanity?

[Jonathan]

If you knew someone was going to correct you, are you claiming you knew those were false and were just waiting for someone to say you're wrong, or are you convined you are right despite the fact that Njorl seems to know what he's talking about (I don't know if he's right, I'm not a history buff)?

[Mattius_]

If you knew someone was going to correct you, are you claiming you knew those were false and were just waiting for someone to say you're wrong, or are you convined you are right despite the fact that Njorl seems to know what he's talking about (I don't know if he's right, I'm not a history buff)?

If you read my post critically, you would have observed that although njorls points are valid, I believe the primary variable is freedom.

[Zero]

Let's talk freedom...Iraq won't have it for a long time. America's first goal is stabilizing the oil exports.

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Mattius_
If you read my post critically, you would have observed that although njorls points are valid, I believe the primary variable is freedom.

Are you trying to claim that China became free under Mao? Or that Italy became free in the Renaissance? How about you get your encyclopedia and look up the Borgias, the Medici's, Francesco Sforza, Bernabo Visconti and a few other Renaissance tyrants.

Njorl

[Ganshauk]

Originally posted by Zero
What I find interesting is that while we interpret things completely differently, we kind of agree on some of the basic facts. We both agree that Bush decieves the American people to get his way, although the idea that Iraq was a threat is laughable.

We agree on many things, bro. But not this.

Bush may (or may not) have decieved the American people. Are you so aristocratic in your thinking to believe the "American people" actually matter to the fate of Iraq?

"Liberals are actually closet aristocrats."
- Frank Herbert

Bush says what he says (or any administration for that matter) to sway the "American People" to cough up the dough to make the world a safer and more stable environment which improves the chances of the "American People" to survive. It may not be popular. The only judgement we should make is "is it effective?"

All presidents lie. Thank god. If they didnt, we would all crap our britches at least three times a day. It would be impossible to manage a population exceeding 275 million souls if government told you about everything that was really happening. Most of the people on this board could probably handle the truth, but could they handle the solution?

[Ganshauk]

Sorry for the double post.

I forgot to mention that I dont think Saddam was a threat. If we hadn't have toppled his government :

I think that I would, at this very moment, be called up for training as a captain in an artillery unit due for shipment in 2 years and 5 weeks to the Middle East. I would be shelling demoralized and burned infantry under a softly glowing green sky in a radiation suit of 2nd hand quality. Alot of my brigade would be coughing up thier lungs while trying to load thier howitzers, impeding progress immensely.

Meanwhile, back home, the piles of bodies that succombed to the virus would be plowed unceremoniously into the hudson, chesapeake, and gulf.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ganshauk
Sorry for the double post.

I forgot to mention that I dont think Saddam was a threat. If we hadn't have toppled his government :

I think that I would, at this very moment, be called up for training as a captain in an artillery unit due for shipment in 2 years and 5 weeks to the Middle East. I would be shelling demoralized and burned infantry under a softly glowing green sky in a radiation suit of 2nd hand quality. Alot of my brigade would be coughing up thier lungs while trying to load thier howitzers, impeding progress immensely.

Meanwhile, back home, the piles of bodies that succombed to the virus would be plowed unceremoniously into the hudson, chesapeake, and gulf. I get what you are hinting at...but there is absolutely no indication that any of your apocalyptic fantasy had even the slightest chance of happening...unless you change 'virus' to 'effects of global warming'.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Ganshauk
Sorry for the double post.

I forgot to mention that I dont think Saddam was a threat. If we hadn't have toppled his government :

I think that I would, at this very moment, be called up for training as a captain in an artillery unit due for shipment in 2 years and 5 weeks to the Middle East. I would be shelling demoralized and burned infantry under a softly glowing green sky in a radiation suit of 2nd hand quality. Alot of my brigade would be coughing up thier lungs while trying to load thier howitzers, impeding progress immensely.

Meanwhile, back home, the piles of bodies that succombed to the virus would be plowed unceremoniously into the hudson, chesapeake, and gulf.
Halirious. Sadly even the US government disagrees with you nowadays.

[kat]

Originally posted by FZ+
Halirious. Sadly even the US government disagrees with you nowadays.

FZ, David Kay is the voice of the US governments opinion on this as he was and still is responsible for investigating, on the ground the facts of this issue..and quite frankly you are far far off base to say that it disagrees with what he outlines. I know I asked you in a prior thread, but I will ask again...Have you read his report, in FULL?

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
*snip*Have you read his report, in FULL?
Have you? I haven't, and the reports I've been reading about it are contradictory. I'm sure there are specific things in it that support many views, but I don't have any idea what the overall judgment would be...likely, the report is honest enough not to draw a simple conclusion.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Have you? I haven't, and the reports I've been reading about it are contradictory. I'm sure there are specific things in it that support many views, but I don't have any idea what the overall judgment would be...
Actually, in order to not be misleading I should ask if he had read the transcript of David Kay'statement about his interim progress report. It can be found here STATEMENT BY DAVID KAY ON THE INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html)

likely, the report is honest enough not to draw a simple conclusion.

I think it has not progressed enough to draw a "simple" conclusion. But to say that the U.S. government does not consider Saddam to have been developing nuclear and biological/chemical weapons programs is not very honest.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Actually, in order to not be misleading I should ask if he had read the transcript of David Kay'statement about his interim progress report. It can be found here STATEMENT BY DAVID KAY ON THE INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html)



I think it has not progressed enough to draw a "simple" conclusion. But to say that the U.S. government does not consider Saddam to have been developing nuclear and biological/chemical weapons programs is not very honest. My understanding is that the report says that Iraq wanted nukes, but they had no capacity to make nukes...there's a big difference.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
My understanding is that the report says that Iraq wanted nukes, but they had no capacity to make nukes...there's a big difference.

I kinda thought that was why Ganshauk had said in 2 years and 5 weeks to the Middle East but, maybe I misread/misunderstood.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
I kinda thought that was why Ganshauk had said but, maybe I misread/misunderstood. You know something? I want a $600,000 Italian sportscar. I have repeatedly expressed desire to have one, and have even been to the website of the companies that sell $600,000 Italian sports cars. Do I have the ability to get one? Nope. If we wait '2 years and 5 weeks', will I have one? Possibly, but it is a one in a million chance. Desire isn't anything like ability. Iraq had desire and no ability.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
You know something? I want a $600,000 Italian sportscar. I have repeatedly expressed desire to have one, and have even been to the website of the companies that sell $600,000 Italian sports cars. Do I have the ability to get one? Nope. If we wait '2 years and 5 weeks', will I have one? Possibly, but it is a one in a million chance. Desire isn't anything like ability. Iraq had desire and no ability.

Lol...rrriiiiggghhhttt, cheap drugs or experimental medication?[;)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Lol...rrriiiiggghhhttt, cheap drugs or experimental medication?[;)] Just calm, rational thinking. Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., and had little chance of ever becoming one.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Just calm, rational thinking. Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., and had little chance of ever becoming one. [x=] Nuclear programs and eventual nuclear weapons. Nice attempt at making an omelet.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
[x=] Nuclear programs and eventual nuclear weapons. Nice attempt at making an omelet. Show me a link between wanting a nuke and actually being able to make a nuke within a time frame that made an unprepared invasion a necessity. Iraq wasn't a threat, terrorists obviously aren't much of a threat, but some folks like to play on irrational fear to push forward a political agenda.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Zero
... to push forward a political agenda.
Correct.
Check a part of that agenda: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=David_Wurmser . I really think Wurmser is one of the designers of the whole.

Interesting link inside:
"John Bolton was in Israel last week doing his job, fighting the spread of weapons of mass destruction(WMD). Bolton is the U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.... Bolton also stopped off to see Israel’s Foreign Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Perhaps Bolton took along his special advisor, David Wurmser. It would have been a nice reunion, since Wurmser was once an advisor to Netanyahu. In 1996, Wurmser co-authored a report for Netanyahu: 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.' The chief author, Richard Perle, and another co-author, Douglas Feith, are now high-ranking Pentagon officials.

"In that report, Perle, Wurmser and company laid out a truly messianic vision. Israel can gain political control of the entire Middle East, they said. The key is to contain 'and perhaps roll back' Syria, by surrounding it with an Israeli-led alliance including Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq. How to get Iraq into the alliance? Simple. Use 'the principle of preemption,' get rid of Saddam Hussein, and put a Hashemite king (from the family that rules Jordan) on the throne in Baghdad. Meanwhile, Israel would also use Iraq’s Shiites to weaken the power of Iran."

[kat]

To do so, it called for ousting Saddam Hussein and installing a Hashemite leader in Baghdad. From that point, the strategy would be largely focused on Syria and, at the least, to reducing its influence in Lebanon. It would be nice to end Syria's occupation of Lebanon.Among other steps, the report called for Israeli sponsorship of attacks on Syrian territory by "Israeli proxy forces" based in Lebanon and "striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper". But really, Israel should attack from their own country and keep the hell out of lebanon. but, while they are at it,maybe they could send the palestinians back to Jordan.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by kat
It would be nice to end Syria's occupation of Lebanon.
Agree.
And it would be nice to end Israel's occupation of Palestine territories.
And it would be nice to end US occupation of Iraq.
And it would be nice to end China's occupation of Tibet.
And what about Kashmir?
... and some more of course.

Those are situations you can only handle internationally. That always takes time. But economic motives always cross politics (cfr. Tibet).

[kat]

Originally posted by pelastration
Agree.
And it would be nice to end Israel's occupation of Palestine territories.
And it would be nice to end US occupation of Iraq.
And it would be nice to end China's occupation of Tibet.
And what about Kashmir?
... and some more of course.

Those are situations you can only handle internationally. That always takes time. But economic motives always cross politics (cfr. Tibet).
The history of Arafat makes things a little bit different, you do realize this don't you? He is..the agressor, from Jordan to Lebanon to the West bank...his entire history can be summed up with one word "terror". Maybe the West bank should be returned to Jordan to, although when the king decides to take the upper hand with Arafat a second time...I am sure Lebanon will not be so welcoming to the Palestinians as they were the first foolish time.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
It would be nice to end Syria's occupation of Lebanon. But really, Israel should attack from their own country and keep the hell out of lebanon. but, while they are at it,maybe they could send the palestinians back to Jordan. Hmmm...the truth comes out, huh? Israel should attack its neighbors, and drive out the Palestinians? Am I reading this right? Tell me, so I know whether or not to respond to this in the manner it deserves.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmm...the truth comes out, huh? Israel should attack its neighbors, and drive out the Palestinians? Am I reading this right? Tell me, so I know whether or not to respond to this in the manner it deserves. No Zero, with you the truth never F-in comes out. It's always a convaluted mess that ignores anything but your own little tunnel vision, that ignores any other possible victimized population in the region but your very own precious victim projects. IF ISRAEL IS GOING TO ATTACK SYRIA THEY SHOULD STAY OUT OF LEBANON WHILE DOING SO. Clear? BUT IF THERE IS A FOCUS ON GETTING SYRIA OUT OF LEBANON ...BECAUSE THEY HAVE OCCUPIED IT FOR YEARS AND USURPED THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE LEBANESE>>THEN THEY MIGHT ALSO CONSIDER TRANSFERING THE PALESTINIAN MILITANT TERRORIST 'REFUGEES' who have and DO terrorize the LEBANESE population. ...SO, respond to it however you like, ARAFAT and HIS palestinians have MURDERED/SLAUGHTERED over 100,000 LEBANESE..including my brother in law who they LEFT twitching in the street in front of my mother in laws home with his penis STUCK IN HIS MOUTH and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS LIMBS CHOPPED OFF. ....GET IT? So screw you and your PC and your COMPASSION for terrorist who have the BLOOD of THOUSANDS of INNOCENT Lebanese on THEIR HANDS!
/end emotional rant

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
No Zero, with you the truth never F-in comes out. It's always a convaluted mess that ignores anything but your own little tunnel vision, that ignores any other possible victimized population in the region but your very own precious victim projects. IF ISRAEL IS GOING TO ATTACK SYRIA THEY SHOULD STAY OUT OF LEBANON WHILE DOING SO. Clear? BUT IF THERE IS A FOCUS ON GETTING SYRIA OUT OF LEBANON ...BECAUSE THEY HAVE OCCUPIED IT FOR YEARS AND USURPED THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE LEBANESE>>THEN THEY MIGHT ALSO CONSIDER TRANSFERING THE PALESTINIAN MILITANT TERRORIST 'REFUGEES' who have and DO terrorize the LEBANESE population. ...SO, respond to it however you like, ARAFAT and HIS palestinians have MURDERED/SLAUGHTERED over 100,000 LEBANESE..including my brother in law who they LEFT twitching in the street in front of my mother in laws home with his penis STUCK IN HIS MOUTH and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS LIMBS CHOPPED OFF. ....GET IT? So screw you and your PC and your COMPASSION for terrorist who have the BLOOD of THOUSANDS of INNOCENT Lebanese on THEIR HANDS!
/end emotional rant I'm sorry for your family's loss.

[pelastration]

Kat, I understand that personal experiences like that have more impact then reading about it. I feel with you and appreciate the moderate view you (still) expressed in your posts.

----
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3280435.stm
"Now we see in Europe also something moving:

The European Union has strongly criticised the Israeli Government's plans for a barrier in the West Bank.

In a strongly-worded written statement, the EU also raps other actions by Israel which, it says, make life intolerable for ordinary Palestinians.

The statement says the continued building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank was an obstacle to peace.

It came at the end of a two-day meeting of the EU-Israel Association Council in Brussels.

The EU statement has challenged the heart of the Israeli government's policies.

It calls for the dismantling of the barrier through the territories, which the Israeli Government says is needed to stop devastating suicide attacks.

The Europeans say that the barrier is already cutting thousands of Palestinians off from essential services.

They say that it could make a two-state solution physically impossible.

Suicide attacks condemned

The EU also condemns the intensification of suicide attacks by Palestinians.

This Brussels meeting, far from calming the policy dispute between the two sides, appears to have brought it to a head.

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said his country would ease its effective boycott of the EU's diplomatic representative in Israel, Marc Otte, imposed in protest against Brussels' determination to keep open its contacts with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

But the EU says it has not been assured that Israel will re-open normal contacts with other senior EU figures, such as the foreign policy chief Javier Solana."

Can it be that the very tough attitude of Sharon (to please fundamentalist voters) on local level ... brings up stronger anti-Israel (in fact anti-Sharon) emotions in the International world?

[russ_watters]

Yikes, kat, I had no idea. Sorry to hear about that.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by pelastration
Can it be that the very tough attitude of Sharon (to please fundamentalist voters) on local level ... brings up stronger anti-Israel (in fact anti-Sharon) emotions in the International world?

Hmm... Do you have any idea what you're talking about
or are you giving us another example of why all this
"international" court and other crap are totally
worthless and run by people who made drugs legal ? [:D]

Ariel Sharon's policies are "tough" and he's trying
to "please" the settlers ? Actually, just a bit of info
seeking will reveal to you that the settlers today
are amongst the worst opposition to Sharon and that
the Israeli public consensus on many issues regarding
the Palestinians is actually more "tough" - as you put it,
than Sharon's current policies.
________________________________________________


May the British counsul and all Turkish and UK citizens
killed in Istanbul rest in peace.

Terrorism is extreme Islam, extreme Islam has adresses,
we must pay them a visit.

Live long and prosper.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by drag
Hmm... Do you have any idea what you're talking about
I have a university degree on this. You also?

Originally posted by drag
or are you giving us another example of why all this "international" court and other crap are totally worthless and run by people who made drugs legal ? [:D]
You prefer a world without rules, don't you ....? And the strongest is the 'good guy', isn't it?
Originally posted by drag Terrorism is extreme Islam, extreme Islam has adresses, we must pay them a visit.

Drag,
I believe you express what you think ... your perception. But black and white thinking is more easy than also to include a scale of grey.

If you believe that terrorism is an exclusive of Islam I believe it's time to open your eyes. There are several kinds of terrorism.

What to think about this one: "In a world where terror tactics have become almost commonplace, it is easy to forget that the XXXXXX terrorists were responsible for some of the most shocking crimes. There was the blowing up of the King David Hotel, the murdering of British soldiers and police. Some were kidnapped, flogged and then hanged. The deadly letter bomb was used. The British Minister-Resident in Cairo, Lord Moyne, was murdered in cold blood.".
Please DRAG ... fill in .... the x's.

Maybe you should google on 'King David Hotel'.
I am sure you also are familiar with the 'irgun' before you wrote your post. Ever googled on IRGUN?

To make it more easy: You can also check the official website of Irgun: http://www.etzel.org.il/english/: An extract:
"With the publication of the 1939 White Paper restricting Jewish immigration into Palestine, the Irgun had no choice but to direct their efforts against the British too. A truce was briefly declared after the outbreak of the Second World War. When the full extent of the Holocaust became known, and it was clear that Britain was continuing to implement the White Paper, the Irgun realized that there was no alternative but to renew the armed struggle against the British in Palestine.

On February 1, 1944, the Irgun proclaimed a revolt against British rule over Palestine and demanded that the British leave the country forthwith and a Jewish state be established. The gradual intensification of military action against the Mandatory government undermined the basis of British rule. These operations, carried out with the Lehi (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) and occasionally with the Haganah as well, ultimately forced the British government to bring the question of the future of Palestine before the United Nations.

On November 29, 1947, the UN Assembly decided to partition Palestine into two states: a Jewish state, the State of Israel, and a Palestinian-Arab state."

Now when you read the whole 'official site' you can ask yourself: Was Irgun a terrorist organization? For the British: sure, and for moderate Jews: sure, but the fighter saw themselves as national 'defenders'.
You can ask the same thing about the US independence fighters (against the British Queen): Terrorists?
You can ask the same thing about the US settlers (against the Indians): Terrorists? Where those settlers: invaders? Did the Indians had the right to defend their territories (even if they did had fixed locations) by all means: meaning kill also children and wives? :/

My point is that it's easy to point others to be terrorists, and these will call themselves: freedom fighters.

So what is a terrorist? What turns a simple man, or a freedom fighter into a 'terrorist'? Blind targeting like the 4 terrible blasts in Turkey? Religious fanatics, like you seems to state ? ... but you have on both sides such extremists. Is it a hopeless situation of living?

Maybe we should try to look to define all the elements involved.

But Drag ... it's no as simple as telling: there are good guys and there are bad guys!

Extreme standpoints and actions of both parties only create more actions and reactions.

Mahatma Gandhi said: An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind.

Drag, Live long and peaceful. Make love not war.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by pelastration
I have a university degree on this.
That is precisely your problem. You THINK, that
BECAUSE you have a university degree you know things
without actually witnessing and studying them firsthand.
*EDITED FOR BEING THE NORMAL "DRAG VIOLATION OF PF GUIDELINES"* YET AGAIN*
Then again, if you have a degree one would think
you'd know how to study things. [;)]

As for the rest of your posts, some links :
(They're as "relevant" as what you've wrote.)
http://europeanhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geographia.com%2 Fbelgium%2Fbxhis03.htm

http://europeanhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geographia.com%2 Fbelgium%2Fbxhis03.htm

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Peace and long life.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

That is precisely your problem. You THINK, that
BECAUSE you have a university degree you know things
without actually witnessing and studying them firsthand.
*EDITED FOR BEING THE NORMAL "DRAG VIOLATION OF PF GUIDELINES"* YET AGAIN*
Then again, if you have a degree one would think
you'd know how to study things. [;)]

As for the rest of your posts, some links :
(They're as "relevant" as what you've wrote.)
http://europeanhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geographia.com%2 Fbelgium%2Fbxhis03.htm

http://europeanhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geographia.com%2 Fbelgium%2Fbxhis03.htm

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Peace and long life.

Is this an answer? Agressive.
You didn't respond even on one point.
Not able? [6)]

Mahatma Gandhi said: An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind.

Live long and peaceful. Boy, make peace not war.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by pelastration
Is this an answer?

*Edited because Drag still hasn't read the PF Guuidelines, and apparently wants to get banned*
Originally posted by pelastration
Agressive.
Not at all, as you can see.
Educating, in fact.
Originally posted by pelastration
You didn't respond even on one point.
Not able? [6)]

You had 2 points. As you can see I've provided more
than enough of a response to both, even though they
didn't even require much of a response due to their
irrelevancy.

Mahatma Gandhi was struggling for the independence
of the Indian people from the British Empire - a once
powerful and willful entity which was nevertheless not
devoid of humanity and rationale. The terrorists, and
those who cheer at the sight of their acts, are.

Live long and prosper.

[FZ+]

Mahatma Gandhi was struggling for the independence
of the Indian people from the British Empire - a once
powerful and willful entity which was nevertheless not
devoid of humanity and rationale. The terrorists, and
those who cheer at the sight of their acts, are.

How do you know?
Have you ever talked to a terrorist? [a)]

In sort, how are you able to make the judgement that they are "inhuman" and have no rationale and cannot be dealt with, when you already assume so and thus refuse to attempt to understand them? Its a circular argument...

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
It would be nice to end Syria's occupation of Lebanon. But really, Israel should attack from their own country and keep the hell out of lebanon. but, while they are at it,maybe they could send the palestinians back to Jordan. Been reading the PNAC website?

[pelastration]

Originally posted by drag
You had 2 points. As you can see I've provided more than enough of a response to both, even though they didn't even require much of a response due to their
irrelevancy.
Sorry Sir Drag Superman, I believe I had some more:
1. Ever googled on IRGUN?
2. Was Irgun a terrorist organization?
3. You can ask the same thing about the US independence fighters (against the British Queen): Terrorists?
4. You can ask the same thing about the US settlers (against the Indians): Terrorists? Where those settlers: invaders? Did the Indians had the right to defend their territories (even if they did had fixed locations) by all means: meaning kill also children and wives? :/
5. So what is a terrorist? What turns a simple man, or a freedom fighter into a 'terrorist'?
5.a. Blind targeting like the 4 terrible blasts in Turkey?
5.b. Religious fanatics, like you seems to state ? ... but you have on both sides such extremists.
5.c. Is it a hopeless situation of living?

You didn't answer any. That shows you have an emotional attitude and an egocentric view. You are not open to other information. Simple neutral questions are judged by you as being 'dissonant', and thus you don't read what is written.
You are projecting you own aggression on others. You seems not to be able to look to new information in a scientific (neutral) way.

Waiting for your answers in depth. If you are able please do it point by point.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Been reading the PNAC website?

You mean this?: http://pnac.info/

I googled it but I don't have time to look for something relevant. What is it?

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
You mean this?: http://pnac.info/

I googled it but I don't have time to look for something relevant. What is it? It seems to be the source of your opinion on the Middle East. I'm sure the contributors to that group have directly or indirectly influenced you, with thier pro-Israel, anti-Arab, American imperialist desires.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
It seems to be the source of your opinion on the Middle East. I'm sure the contributors to that group have directly or indirectly influenced you, with thier pro-Israel, anti-Arab, American imperialist desires.
you'll have to show me where I'm anti-arab and imperialistic. There's nothing wrong with being pro-israel, but that's not really accurate. You just confuse my correcting your mis-information as being something greater then it is. As for where my opinion comes from and what I am influenced by, I think I've clarified that for you numerous times. There's a whole society of people who agree that Syria should not be allowed to continue to occupy Lebanon. That Syria should not be allowed to finance terror in the middle east. That Syria should not be allowed to use Lebanon as a launching pad for war against Israel. That the Palestinians should be returned..to somewhere..and out of Lebanon. I believe they still hold Jordanian citizenship and Jordan has offered to take them back.
I've honestly never even heard of PNAC. Much of my outlook as far as Syria and the refugees in Lebanon are concerned was rooted in my husbands experience, both as a child and during the period of time that he served under Michelle Oun.

[Sanders]

Originally posted by Mattius_
Ok, when Iraq becomes democratic, Im thinking democracy will spread like wildfire to the rest of the Middle East...

If you replace the word "democracy" with "terrorism" you've hit the nail right on the head.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by pelastration
Sorry Sir Drag Superman, I believe I had some more:

Well, my dearest sir I kindly accept your due appologies,
and please do not be shy of further humbling my
worthless presense. [:D]
Originally posted by pelastration
1. Ever googled on IRGUN?

Hmm... Why should I google on something I know.
Were there no attacks against civilian population
in Belgian history ?
Originally posted by pelastration
2. Was Irgun a terrorist organization?

Yes.
Originally posted by pelastration
3. You can ask the same thing about the US independence fighters (against the British Queen): Terrorists?

No, they did not fight civilians.
Originally posted by pelastration
4. You can ask the same thing about the US settlers (against the Indians): Terrorists? Where those settlers: invaders? Did the Indians had the right to defend their territories (even if they did had fixed locations) by all means: meaning kill also children and wives? :/
Yes to the first two, yes to the first part of 3,
no to the second part of 3.
Originally posted by pelastration
5. So what is a terrorist? What turns a simple man, or a freedom fighter into a 'terrorist'?
Murder of civilians.
Originally posted by pelastration
5.a. Blind targeting like the 4 terrible blasts in Turkey?

Yes.
Originally posted by pelastration
5.b. Religious fanatics, like you seems to state ? ... but you have on both sides such extremists.
Indeed. But on one side they are mostly
controlled while on the other they are supported
by those in charge and a many of the people.
Originally posted by pelastration
5.c. Is it a hopeless situation of living?

Yes, as long as the majority and leadership of one
side does not believe in an alternative that's
acceptable or at least nagotiable for both sides.
Originally posted by pelastration
You didn't answer any. That shows you have an emotional attitude and an egocentric view. You are not open to other information. Simple neutral questions are judged by you as being 'dissonant', and thus you don't read what is written.
[:D] And I thought that was because, unlike Zero,
I can't edit people's post's, especialy as they're
writing them. [:D]
Originally posted by pelastration
You are projecting you own aggression on others.
Nope, I am at peace... wooshoo... [:D]
Originally posted by pelastration
You seems not to be able to look to new information
in a scientific (neutral) way.
[:D] Now that I find aspecialy amusing. Kin'na
shows one of my points against this BS "international"
court. Tell me pelastration, scientificly - is a the
yellow colour of an apple, for example, good or bad ? [;)]
Originally posted by pelastration
Waiting for your answers in depth. If you are able please
do it point by point.\
You should be proud of me. [a)]

Live long and prosper.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by drag
Tell me pelastration, scientificly - is a the
yellow colour of an apple, for example, good or bad ? [;)]

You should be proud of me. [a)]

Thanks Drag,

indeed I am proud about you. [a)]
Your answers showed that terrorism has many faces and many masters.
It's not a unique 'Islam' attitude.

Now on that apple: scientificly we can say that the yellow color of a red or green apples gives an indication of their degree of decay (starting of the rotten process). The yellow color of a yellow apple doesn't provide that information.
Good or bad ... ? depends from the intended use. Apples can be used for several goals: eating, throwing, distillation, mixed in animal food, dried as chips, filtered to 'apple juice', part of cookies and cake, testing gravity, etc. ...

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
How do you know?
Have you ever talked to a terrorist? [a)]

In sort, how are you able to make the judgement that they are "inhuman" and have no rationale and cannot be dealt with, when you already assume so and thus refuse to attempt to understand them? Its a circular argument... What, you mean you haven't? They publish a press release every time they commit an act of terrorism. Read one some time. This is the same as in the other thread where you (I think it was you) said we couldn't really know their motivations. We can and do. They tell us every chance they get.

The judegment that the terrorists are sub-human follows directly from their public statements, starting with their lack of respect for the sanctity of any human life (even their own). Their actions only prove the voracity of their motives.

Maybe tonight I'll google you some quotes. Your answers showed that terrorism has many faces and many masters.
It's not a unique 'Islam' attitude. No one here has ever claimed otherwise, pelastration. It is however, simply a FACT that the majority of terrorism affecting the western world right now is perpetrated by people calling themselves Muslims and committing those acts in the name of their religion. Thats a problem that most countries dominated by Islamic populations/governments have as of yet been unwilling to address.

To expand on some of drag's answers to your questions though: 2. Was Irgun a terrorist organization? Yes. Ironically, I'd never heard of them and apparently they aren't active now. Is that an attempt to draw a parallel between a Jewish terrorist organization and the Islamic ones that are active now? If you can't see the obvious discconect in time and influence... Ironic. 3. You can ask the same thing about the US independence fighters (against the British Queen): Terrorists? Not even close. For the fighting itself, the colonial soldiers were uniformed and fighting against other uniformed soldiers. They did not target civilians. If you mean the political situation, the colonies were semi-autonomous before they broke away and they published a written, internationally recognized declaration of independence. None of that can be said by the Arabs attacking Israel.4. You can ask the same thing about the US settlers (against the Indians): Terrorists? Where those settlers: invaders? Did the Indians had the right to defend their territories (even if they did had fixed locations) by all means: meaning kill also children and wives? :/ The settlers were not terrorists. Does that make them RIGHT? Thats not an easy thing to generalize. It is however, still WRONG to kill women and children for the sake of killing women and children. Is there a right to use any means necessary to defend yourself? NO. You will not find such an absurdity in any recognized moral/ethical/political writing. Even the worst of the worst (people like Stalin and Hitler) still recognized limits. 5. So what is a terrorist? What turns a simple man, or a freedom fighter into a 'terrorist'? See the thread where this is defined, but in general, its the targeting of non-combatants by people who claim to be fighting a war.

[drag]

Originally posted by pelastration
Now on that apple: scientificly we can say that the yellow color of a red or green apples gives an indication of their degree of decay (starting of the rotten process). The yellow color of a yellow apple doesn't provide that information.
Good or bad ... ? depends from the intended use. Apples can be used for several goals: eating, throwing, distillation, mixed in animal food, dried as chips, filtered to 'apple juice', part of cookies and cake, testing gravity, etc. ...
Sp what is your scientific conclusion on the
good/bad issue ?
Or maybe, the scientific way, like you did, provides
you with the facts, while the interpretation is up to you. [;)]

Now, we come to the core - why we disagree on things.
For example, you disagree that a missile should be fired
to kill a terrorist in his car. Even though he is responsible
for murder of civilians and plans to do it again.
(btw, I'm not sure you'd think the same if the victims
were your fellow citizens, but let's leave out this for now.)
I think it is correct.

But, these are our opinions. This is not a disagreement
of any "cientific" actual data. Now, why have we looked
in a scientific way at this situation - all facts considered,
and arrived at different conclusions ? That's what you need
to ask yourself. Why do you thing that this is bad ?
Originally posted by russ_watters
The settlers were not terrorists. Does that make them RIGHT? Thats not an easy thing to generalize. It is however, still WRONG to kill women and children for the sake of killing women and children. Is there a right to use any means necessary to defend yourself? NO.

Technicly, those of the settlers and the indians that did
slaughter each other's non-militants were terrorists.
As for those of the lands that were stolen (most for just
easily purchased) - that's just plain old theft.
Originally posted by russ_watters
You will not find such an absurdity in any recognized moral/ethical/political writing. Even the worst of the worst (people like Stalin and Hitler) still recognized limits.
Actually, I wouldn't say that - I'd say that they balanced
their madness and lust for power with reality - just so much
that reality is not totally erased from their attention.

Live long and prosper.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by drag
Sp what is your scientific conclusion on the good/bad issue ?Or maybe, the scientific way, like you did, provides
you with the facts, while the interpretation is up to you. [;)]
Science must be as much as possible neutral. Facts must be judged on the correct value. There must be repeatability, and independent testing. A number of the definitions are based on conventions (to speak the same language and to compare results). Good and bad have no place it such an excercise. Good and bad are subjective values in relation to the outcome or in relation to the initial start.

Originally posted by drag
Now, we come to the core - why we disagree on things.
For example, you disagree that a missile should be fired
to kill a terrorist in his car. Even though he is responsible
for murder of civilians and plans to do it again.
(btw, I'm not sure you'd think the same if the victims
were your fellow citizens, but let's leave out this for now.)
I think it is correct.
.
I disagree shooting missiles because there are better and more ethical ways to act against criminals.
The result of firing a missile is uncertain about the causalities. Also children and women may be hit. If the target is not hit or just wounded but his family members are killed it just make the hate larger, and amplifies the motives to hit back ... and also to target children and women of the others.

By using brutal and distant force you bring yourself on the SAME LEVEL as your attackers. An Eye for an Eye just make everyone blind at the end.
Culture and education have given us a number of rules to settle 'problems' in Court following a number of RULES and rights. If a Government like US 'with the Patriot Act) or Israel (like David showed) reduces freedom to its own people, and people can be sentenced for years WITHOUT TRIAL ... then something is rotten in that state. We see other states like Syria were even less freedom happens but we can say that every people deserves the leaders it has.
Like you have national courts and rules you have also international courts and rules. They are the result of evolution and insight that conflicts should be settled in the benefit of all. Between counties there have to be also rules of behavior or principles and CONVENTIONS of conduct. If a 'great' country with traditional high ethics and noble principles like US always was ... but now with Bush II :
1. throws away the International achievements and humiliates other countries
2. just uses the UN when it fits in his goals
3. refuses to be subject to conventionally set rules (cf.. international Court),
4. refuses to apply a number of conventions (cf.. Kyoto)
5. Proclaims to have the right to kill everybody in the world (which acts against 'US national INTEREST' whatever that means)
6. Declares war based on fabricated 'facts',
7. Points to others for developing 'nukes' (Iran) ... while developing SELF new additional weapons of mass- and local destruction (cf.. mini-NUKES) and highest lethal biological weapons (as they sold to Saddam in past),
8. ....
9. ....
10. ...
Then I ask you: Is there good faith? Is there normal 'moral' conduct? Is there the intention to bring peace and freedom ... or just take power and control? Is 'We bring them to JUSTICE ... ' the real justice ... or just blow them away? Is the general behavior of US resembling to the Christian traditions USA always had ... and is it in the SPIRIT conform the 10 Commandments of the GOD Bush always refers to and which is also incorporated in your Constitution? The real GOD the US Constitution refers to is a God of Jesus, of Dignity, of Love, of Peace, of Honesty, of Compassion, of Truth ... not the (newcon) God of Revenge, Hate and Lies. I am sure that a lot of Americans are ashamed to have a President like that ... which had as Governor of Texas the highest number of death executions ( and even publicly mocked and laughed with people asking for grace). I almost start to believe that his tragic history of heavy alcohol addiction and drug addictions resulted in permanent brain damage ... and to me: that's not the guy to have power over the RED button.

About this all, I say: that's bad.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by pelastration
Science must be as much as possible neutral. Facts must be judged on the correct value. There must be repeatability, and independent testing. A number of the definitions are based on conventions (to speak the same language and to compare results). Good and bad have no place it such an excercise. Good and bad are subjective values in relation to the outcome or in relation to the initial start.
Nope, they are only in relation to that who judges the facts.
Originally posted by pelastration
I disagree shooting missiles because there are better and more ethical
ways to act against criminals.
O.K. what are they ?

Let's lay off Bush for now. [;)]

Live long and prosper.

[pelastration]

Originally posted by drag
Nope, they are only in relation to that who judges the facts.

You means who interprets the results?
The results come from the measuring or experiment.
Then you can see if the confirm or contradicts with your expectations and initial idea.

Originally posted by drag
O.K. what are they ?
Every country should have a number of rules which warrants juridical rights to it's citizens or guests/visitors. They must include rights like the possibility to defend yourself against allegations, nobody is guilty without a fair trial, etc.
They should also be conform general principles as the universal declaration of the human rights, international rules of war prisoners, etc.
When a country doesn't have such rules or doesn't apply it's own rules it's is infringing the human rights. Also the kinds of punishments must be as human as possible, even the most extreme such as the death penalty.

I have a serious problem with countries where the religious or military courts have a superior ranks then civilian courts.
Extreme examples are in countries like most Islamic countries (with penalties like amputation of hand, stoning, etc) like Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Syria, etc.
But we see also that Israel uses martial law to execute suspects by guided missiles or other ways.
We see now also that the US has joined the countries which have created a juridical framework that gives them the possibility to act similar an international level (such as the right to kill Castro), and even proclaims that in such cases it doesn't accept 'independent' judgments - based on facts to be proven and possibilities to the accused to defend themselves - of a professional and balanced international court. What do countries like Israel and US - which call themselves democracies - have to fear?
When the Taliban 'suspects' were put - deliberately - by US from US-custody by US-planes into in a non-US-juridical area (Guantanamo) without any rights ... is that hypocrite or not?

Think about this analogy: When a parent beats his kid ... doesn't that mean that he has lost control over himself? And doesn't that means that he don't want to use less violent means or use arguments? Has that kid some rights Drag? Or can that parent just do what he wants with the kid and even send him the Neverland?

[pelastration]

For years there's a rather technical dispute between Europe and Israel about the territories. Europe gives to a number of 'partners' zero import rights. Israel is one of them. But where is the exact border? A technical dispute with political implications!


Export labels split Israel
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1203/p01s02-wome.html
" Israel agreed last week to EU demand to specify products made in settlements.

MISHOR ADUMIM, WEST BANK – It is a clear winter's day in the Judean hills, but clouds are gathering around dozens of Israeli firms in the occupied territories that export to the European Union.

Last week, during talks with the EU, Israeli Trade and Industry Minister Ehud Olmert agreed that Israel will begin specifying the place of origin of its exports. The decision could threaten the well-being of Israeli West Bank firms producing everything from humus to skin-care products."

and more ... on that website.