News Where Is the Exact Border for Israeli Export Labels to Europe?

[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 their 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 their 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, I am 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.

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.

And I thought that was because, unlike Zero,
I can't edit people's post's, especialy as they're
writing them.

Originally posted by pelastration
You are projecting you own aggression on others.

Nope, I am at peace... wooshoo...

Originally posted by pelastration
You seems not to be able to look to new information
in a scientific (neutral) way.

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.

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.

Thanks Drag,

indeed I am proud about you.
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?

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]

Economic pressure on Israel

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.