THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Foxfyre wrote:

Nimh acknowledging your post and respecting your point of view. You and I see what has been said differently but I doubt that can be remedied. I do appreciate your mostly noncontentuous way of expressing your point of view.

I wish we (collective we) could discuss and rebut points of view more than discussing how people express them. I do get tired of being told that I am immoral or disingenuous or whiny or a moving target or flat out a liar or in some other way am informed that my way of expressing myself or saying things are unacceptable. Sooner or later on any thread that seems to be what it comes down to. And that gets really really old.

Foxfyre, I was glad to see you arrive on the scene here; you raised interesting, provocative questions and had outspoken, but courteously articulated views. I found myself answering your posts all the time. I have no problem with the fact that we starkly disagree or that you have point of view A or B about topic C or D - in fact, I'm very happy to discuss opposing views.

But I do try to avoid debating with people when I find they do not respect what I consider basic parameters of productive debate. Others here are pretty anal about that, too. This is what you stumbled upon, imho. I can imagine that the criticisms of your style got tired pretty quickly. But it also gets really really old to enter into an elaborate discussion with someone and see that (s)he repeatedly turns around and
- misrepresents your opinion (making up stuff you never said),
- speaks of you in demonstrably false generalisations ("noone here has", "the liberals always say", etc),
- asserts every choice as a binary proposition (if we do not think A and B are necessary, we must just be touchy-feely peace and loveniks),
- discounts any answer that expresses disagreement with your question's presuppositions as "ignoring the question",
- posits one's personal assumptions as facts
- ignores data that is brought in and
- never, ever, ever acknowledges an erroneous statement, not even a concrete factual error.

Craven I'm sure has a list of beautiful Latin labels for each of these "sins" :wink:

Now it sucks if you're attacked on the form of your posts, it's true. But in my opinion, there is little point in "discussing and rebutting points of view" if you don't stick to certain basic standards of form. Politeness is one and you have been admirably civil even in the face of fierce attack - but intellectual honesty (there's one of these labels) is too. Because otherwise, the "debate" is just going to be an endless mutual repetition of statements of belief.

OK, now here's the upside. Why did all of us had to pick on you to pontificate on these standards, when so many other posters obviously blatantly violate 'em all the time? Why don't I go tell Bill W? (Sorry, Bill, gotta use an immediately recognizable example here :wink: ). Well, I guess you'd just raised high expectations <grins>.

Remember: if a buncha people start pestering you about applying norms of fruitful debate, then they're apparently hoping they can have one with you. Its when they start ignoring you that you can start assuming they dont hold you in any high regard. See, its like with SM. If they hit you, they love you. Its when they look to you with utter indifference that you gotta start worrying. Razz

OK, and now I'm just gonna leave you (and all of us) in peace about this.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

People observed and captured (i.e., poc) by us in the act of murdering or maiming are guilty of murdering or maiming.

People observed, not captured (i.e., ponc) by us in the act of murdering or maiming are guilty of murdering or maiming.

People who murdered and maimed but were neither observed or captured (i.e., pnonc) are guilty of murdering or maiming.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming number of suspects were not captured while being observed in the actual act of murdering and maiming. They were captured because something made them suspicious in our eyes - an anonymous tip, hanging out at a suspicious spot, saying something that could be interpreted as inidcating they might be pnonc's, being in the company of suspected TMMs - anything.

What degree of reason for suspicion to you is enough reasonable ground to start applying the shock interrogation treatments?

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Zionists looking to establish an exclusive state and working towards that goal are ... immoral actions ... .

Your use of the word exclusive here renders your statement BS. It should have been written: Zionists looking to establish an independent state and working towards that goal is no more immoral than arabs doing the same. By the way, that is, of course, exactly what Americans did in North America from 1776 on.

InfraBlue wrote:

That "they are not actions that warrant their perpetrators and their posterity being victimized by homicidal maniacs" is a straw man argument. Can you name anything that warrants "being victimized by homicidal maniacs?"

No, and I bet you cannot either. That is my very point. Nonetheless that is exactly what the homicidal maniacs among the Palestinian Arabs have been doing. Such action at best delays a civilized solution to the division of Palestine between a state initially governed by Palestinian Arabs and a state initially governed by Palestinian Jews, or if you prefer a fully integrated Palestinian state.

InfraBlue wrote:

The establishment of an exclusivist state on a pre-populated land was morally wrong. "Being victimized by homicidal maniacs" is not justification. How, exactly, should that immorality be redressed? By establishing segregated states, as you and UN res.181 have offered? That's segregation.

No such state was established. The independent non-segregated state of Israel was established.

InfraBlue wrote:

So what if there wasn't a state of Palestine before the Israeli declaration? That land was designated as part of other Arab countries and territories.

By whom was it so designated? Prior to the British the Ottoman empire ruled Palestine. When did Palestinian Arabs actually rule Palestine? Answer, more than a thousand years ago for about 400 years. When did the Palestinian Jews rule Palestine? Answer, more than 2000 years ago for a lot longer than 300 years.

However, all that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that now two separate independent states or one integrated state can be established in Palestine after the homicidal maniacs in Palestine are eradicated.

InfraBlue wrote:

The designated character of that state is not merely form without substance. A candidate cannot run for a seat in the Israeli congress if he negates the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

I have zero simpathy for this argument, because the equivalent is true for the citizens of the US in that a ctizen cannot obtain a US congressional seat unless he/she pledges to support the US Constitution. Neither the state of Isael or the state of US are permitted to establish state religions or state belief systems other than supporting their respective Constitutions.

I'm resisting the temptation to infer your complaint is based more on mindless resentments, mythologies, desires and feelings than it is on any real substantive issue. I'm tempted to infer you want the Jews living in Palestine to have zero say in how they are to be governed, if in deed you would even permit them to live in Palestine. I infer this because the state of Israel already grants the Israeli Arabs the same say as the Israeli Jews have.

InfraBlue wrote:

So an Arab voter in Israel has a choice only between candidates who support the ethnocetric raison d'être of Israel.

This statement is also BS. Your statement should have been written: So an Arab voter in Israel has a choice only between candidates who support the Constitution of the state of Israel. That choice is of course exactly the same choice as a Jewish voter has in Israel.

InfraBlue wrote:

What good is suffrage if your forced to vote for your second class status in the country of your birth?

This is more BS. The second class status you rave against is non-existent save perhaps in your own head.

InfraBlue wrote:

What will the Jews in Israel do once the Arab population there reaches and surpasses fifty percent? Or sixty, or seventy percent?

Support the Israeli Constitution.

InfraBlue wrote:

How should the Arabs have responded to the immigrant ethnocentic, separatist European expropriators, ican?

More BS. You should have written: How should the Arabs have responded to the immigrant Jews?

Finally, we get to the real issue! They should have abandoned maniacal homicide and joined with the Jews to declare an independent state (before the British gave up their mandate) consisting of both Arabs and Jews. Failing that they should have asked the UN to do that. Failing that they should have adopted passive resistance for as long as it took to compel the Israelies to include all the Arabs and lands in Palestine in the State of Israel. Once, the arabs were a majority, they could have voted to change the name of Israel to something more to their liking, while all the while supporting the Constitution of Israel or Constitution of whatever you want to call it.

InfraBlue wrote:

About Operation Dani, one thing ...
.... after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth."

All this is BS, because it ignores the predictable consequences of the perpetrations of those Palestinian Arabs who were homicidal maniacs. It also ignores the Palestinian Jews's natural reaction to same -- self-defense including pre-emptive self-defense.

InfraBlue wrote:

What people comprise the native population, you ask? People born in Palestine. The Ashkenazim were born in Europe. They were not native born in Palestine.

Are you really so bent and twisted by pathological resentment that you actually believe that in 1948 that there were no Jews in Palestine who were born in Palestine? No, I refuse to believe that! I prefer to believe that you are merely ignorant of what is actually true.

0 Replies

Here's the "true" background on Palestine and jews.
http://jpdawson.com/Balfour.html

0 Replies

I do not have sufficient time to address all the logical fallacies in your post. I bet you don't have time to read all that I would write addressing such. I will address just one of your fallacies to give you an idea how to recognize your others. However, if you would like me to address one more of the others, just pick the paragraph you most want me to address and I will oblige you.

blatham wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

If we or those we love are destroyed, then our freedoms or the freedoms of those we love, and our values or the values of those we love are destroyed.

No. That's wrong. If a gas explosion occurs in your house and two family members are killed, you have not lost your freedoms and liberties.

No, it is not wrong. I'll restate it with some boldface added:

If we or those we love are destroyed, then our freedoms or the freedoms of those we love, and our values or the values of those we love are destroyed.

In other words:

If I am destroyed then my freedom and my values are destroyed.
If those I love are destroyed then their freedom and their values are destroyed.

When you are destroyed your freedom is destroyed.
When you are destroyed your values are destroyed.

While the values of those who have the same values as you do, are not destroyed -- if they themselves are not destroyed --, your values are most certainly destroyed when you are destroyed.

All this is true regardless of what actually caused the destroying.

0 Replies

ican

We are all rushed for time, no problem. Please feel free to save whatever fallacies I've left you with and pass them on to others as opportunity permits. If you have those others then forward them again, but with a dollar, one day we'll both be rich.

I think too, we'll leave the existential conundrum you argue in your reply immaculate and unsullied by any further pickiness from me.

0 Replies

Terrorism...such a handy word.

Quote:

FBI Warns Cities of Possible Eco - Terrorism

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) -- The FBI has told law enforcement agencies across the country that radical environmentalists may stage protests, possibly violent ones, this weekend in support of a jailed arsonist.

The FBI bulletin said the Earth Liberation Front reportedly was planning a ``day of action and solidarity'' that could include acts of eco-terrorism, according to Tor Bjornstad, a police commander in Olympia, one of several cities named as possible targets.

Some of the others were Eugene; Ore.; San Francisco; Modesto, Calif.; Morgantown, W. Va.; Portland, Maine; Worcester, Mass.; Lake Worth, Fla.; and Lawrence, Kan., Bjornstad said.

The general warning was part of a weekly intelligence bulletin the FBI distributed to some 18,000 law enforcement agencies on Wednesday, said Bill Carter, a spokesman in the FBI's Washington, D.C., headquarters.

0 Replies

The FBI and CIA better start rounding up all those Earth Liberation Front members, and start their interogation techniques used at Gitmo and Abu Garaib. They might start talking.

0 Replies

My use of the word "exclusive" here renders my statement BS only to your argument because it is inconvenient to it, ican. The Ashkenazim went into Palestine with the aim of establishing a state by Jews, for Jews, and of Jews--Ashkenazi Jews.

Americans established a country in North America by and large at the expense of the pre-existing peoples there, engaging in genocidal massacres, and interning the rest in reservations.

Noting warrants "being victimized by homicidal maniacs," but you would, as does the state of Israel for that matter, base your negotiations and policy on the actions of those few to the detriment of the majority who are not "homicidal maniacs." You'd have those "homicidal maniacs" among the Palestinian Arabs speak for the majority, thereby giving them undeserved legitimacy. You'd be, just like the state of Israel is, an enabler. The state of Israel uses the excuse of "homicidal maniacs" as a pretext to maintain the status quo.

Palestine was designated as part of other Arab countries and territories by Arabs. The Ottomans were imperialist rulers much like the British were, and the Arabs in Palestine as well as the rest of the Middle East revolted against their rule.

The citizens of the US are not forced to maintain an ethnic character. It would be immoral if that were a requirement written into the US constitution.

My criticisms of the state of Israel are based on the "actual actions" of that state and its founders: arrogation of land to which they emigrated, and the establishment of an ethnocentric state at the expense of the pre-existing peoples thereof. Your temptation to infer that I "want the Jews living in Palestine to have zero say in how they are to be governed, if in deed I would even permit them to live in Palestine" is stupid. Get over your temptations. I want the Jews living in Palestine to take into account exactly how the state of Israel was created--with an immoral, ethnocentric disregard for the peoples that inhabited the land upon which it was created--and to expiate for this malefaction.

I wrote the statement, "so an Arab voter in Israel has a choice only between candidates who support the ethnocetric raison d'être of Israel," exactly as it should be written. First of all, the state of Israel has no constitution, your ignorant assumptions notwithstanding. Second of all, being forced to support and ethnocentric raison d'être which isn't one's own, in one's own country, is immoral, no matter how "constitutional" it may be. "Constitutionality" does not equate morality.

The second class status of non-Jews in Israel is written into it's by-laws.

When you say that the Arabs "should have abandoned maniacal homicide," you prejudice the majority of them for the actions of the few that engaged in "maniacal homicide." Once again, ican, You'd have those "homicidal maniacs" among the Palestinian Arabs speak for the majority, thereby giving them undeserved legitimacy. You'd be, just like the state of Israel is, an enabler. Your prejudice aside, I agree with you on how they should have responded to the European immigrants.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are being deliberately obtuse about the ethnic-cleansing that was carried out by the Zionist leadership and military organization during the war.

I didn't say there were no Jews in Palestine who were born in Palestine in 1948. I said the people that comprised the native poppulation in Palestine were those born in Palestine. The Ashkenazim were born in Europe. I know there were Jews living in Palestine for centuries. They were a very smalll minority at the time of the Zionist incursion. However, it wasn't they, the Arab Jews, who were clamoring for an exclusivist state. It was the Zionists, Ashkenazi Jews from Europe who were clamoring for a state for Jews, by Jews, and of Jews. In 1920, Palestinian Jews, the Arab Jews born and living in Palestine, signed anti-Zionist petitions denouncing Ashkenazi rule. (Adam Hanieh, "Israel: divided by racism" 1997)

0 Replies

Quote:

The WP reports, ominously, that the Riyadh kidnappers' statement referred to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and warned that, "We have our legal right to treat [American hostages] the same way they treat our people."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102341/

0 Replies

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-diplo13jun13,1,1142936.story?coll=la-home-headlines

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

You've already defined TMM as to intent and as to real guilt. In the paragraph above, you use the term 'judged'. How judged?

By judged I mean: A person is determined by a competent interrogator or interrogators to possess knowledge about one or more future strikes by the TMM. If a person is so judged, then a painful interrogation short of killing and maiming in an attempt to get that knowledge is morally justified. But what if the interrogator's judgment is wrong and either the person is not a TMM or is TMM who is not knowlegeable of future strikes? That presents us with the hellish tradeoff of which I wrote. If we shun all painful interrogations because of that possibility, then we expose ourselves to what I perceive to be a greater moral failure than employing pain in interrogations. We limit our ability to detect future strikes against the innocent and thus increase the probability that we will fail to secure the freedom of some innocents.

blatham wrote:

Consider that the majority of people at Abu Ghraib were there as a result of sweeps of suspicious looking/behaving people (eg, saying something negative about American occupation). We now know many of them were tortured. Some were beaten to death. As many have now been released, they clearly weren't TMMs according to your definition.

I agree. I am not defending what was done to those who were known not to be TMM.

blatham wrote:

So here is where you miss an important part of what Dworkin is saying. What if the possibility exists that a single innocent American life is or MIGHT BE at risk? Does this give you the justification to torture three hundred Iraqis on the possibility that a single innocent American life might be spared? This is Dworkin's point that American policy places American life ABSOLUTELY above the lives of others

I don't miss the point, I disagree with it. It doesn't fit the reality we are faced with. First, it is not simply a question of knowing in advance how many American and non-American innocent lives would or would not be saved. Second, If it were known in advance, that a googol (i.e. 1 followed by a hundred zeros) number of painful TMM interrogations (short of killing and maiming) were to save but one innocent life, American or non-American, I'd say the painful interrogations would be justified even if I were to be one of those TMM painfully interrogated. TMM are not innocent.

But suppose, I were misidentified as a TMM and were myself an innocent person. My answer would be the same. It's the least I can do to save an innocent life.

blatham wrote:

ican wrote:
Killing, maiming, terrorizing, hurting, or discomforting a captured TMM perpetrator for amusement, recreation, sport, hate, or anger is a crime for which it is morally imperative that the true perpetrator(s) of that crime be tried, convicted and punished as criminals. There must be no exceptions!

This looks to be noble. But in tandem with what else you hold here, it doesn't mean much at all. It is exactly as if you were to say that the police might round up folks in your neighborhood when something bad happens and torture them, but the only relevant moral/legal question relates to whether the police had fun or not.

Gad, your hyperbole here is dumb. I provide a long list [i.e., Killing, maiming, terrorizing, hurting, or discomforting a captured TMM perpetrator for amusement, recreation, sport, hate, or anger is a crime] and you abstract it to "had fun or not".

Listen up! My point is that it is not a crime when painful (not killing or maiming) interrogation is done with the real expectation that it will probably save innocent lives.

blatham wrote:

WW2 provides no justification for torture.

We disagree. If it were genuinely expected that painful interrogation (not killing or maiming) of certain Nazi or Shinto TMM would have reduced the killing and maiming of innocent people during WWII, it would have been justified. For all I know that in fact was done during WWII to accomplish exactly that. Failure to do that would of necessity have had to be carried for the rest of their lives on the consciences of those who failed to do that.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yeah, first you torture them to admit they are guilty, then follow that with more torture to get information. It's the process that counts!

I did not advocate torturing people to admit they were guilty of a crime. I did multiple times advocate using painful interrogations (not killing or maiming) to gain knowledge of future TMMs, to wit:

ican711nm wrote:

it is not a crime when painful (not killing or maiming) interrogation is done with the real expectation that it will probably save innocent lives.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

ican

We are all rushed for time, no problem. Please feel free to save whatever fallacies I've left you with and pass them on to others as opportunity permits. If you have those others then forward them again, but with a dollar, one day we'll both be rich.

I think too, we'll leave the existential conundrum you argue in your reply immaculate and unsullied by any further pickiness from me.

Please see above. i finally found the time. :wink:

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go
The 26 ex-diplomats and military leaders say his foreign policy has harmed national security. Several served under Republicans.

The signatories while not explicitly endorsing Sen. John F. Kerry for president, 26 former diplomats and military officials, including many who served in Republican administrations, have a signed a statement calling for the defeat of President Bush in November.

I wish they had said who they endorsed and why. I also wish they had explained what they think Bush should have done. I further wish they had explained what they think Bush's replacement ought to do now. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

ican

I'm afraid I cannot go along with your argument above, for precisely the reasons Dworkin forwards. Your 'hellish tradeoff' turns you (you meaning America or Australia or Belgium or any country who evicerates legal and moral codes to such an extent and for unknowable result) into a functional police state. You possibly understand that I think this argument, if followed, is a much greater threat to your liberty than is Usama.

As to the folks who are signatories to the letter, it is unecessary that they propose some solution for the present situation, or what he ought to have done previously. On both these questions, there is much to be found within the US government itself, and certainly elsewhere.

But the point is that even if they have no such plan, they are fully entitled to say what they've said. If you are driving a car which has a safety problem from some design or manufacturing defect and this contributes to or causes a crash that kills a family member, you do not have to have any engineering solution at all to properly insist that whoever was responsible for is removed from his position.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Listen up! My point is that it is not a crime when painful (not killing or maiming) interrogation is done with the real expectation that it will probably save innocent lives.

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2001, 2002, 2003, released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Department of State, March 4, 2002 ("DOS Human Rights Report") characterizes exactly this as torture.

Okay, I admit: it's done by "the others".

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Palestine was designated as part of other Arab countries and territories by Arabs. The Ottomans were imperialist rulers much like the British were, and the Arabs in Palestine as well as the rest of the Middle East revolted against their rule.

Untrue! The istory of Palestine is a tad more complicated than that.
Assembled from www.britannica.com

Quote:

2000 BC:First Canaanite Culture.

1300 BC:First Israelite Culture.

1100 BC:First Philistine Culture (Philistra, from which the name Palestine is derived).

Jews start ruling part of Palestine
1000 BC:Saul King of Israel (all Palestine except Philistra and Phoenicia).
950 BC:Solomon King of Israel.
721 BC:Israel Destroyed, but Judaea Continues.
516 BC:2nd Temple in Judaea.
333 BC:The Greek, Alexander the Great Conquers Palestine.
Jews stop ruling part of Palestine

Jews start ruling part of Palestine
161 BC:Maccabaen Maximum Expansion of Judaea to All Palestine Plus.
135 BC:Maccabaen Maximum Expansion Ends.
40 BC:The Roman, Herod Conquers Palestine.
73 AD:Fall of Jerusalem and all resistance ceases.
Jews stop ruling part of Palestine

Arabs start ruling part of Palestine
638 AD:Arabs take Jerusalem,
1099 AD:Crusaders take Palestine.
Arabs stop ruling part of Palestine

1187 AD:Saladin Takes Palestine.
1229 AD:Saladin/Crusader Treaty.
1244 AD:Turks Take Palestine.
1516 AD:Ottoman Empire Begins Governing Palestine.
1831 AD:Egypt Conquers Palestine.
1841 AD:Ottoman Empire Again Conquers Palestine.
1915 AD:British Ambassador Promises Palestine to Arabs.
1917 AD:British Foreign Minister Balfour Promises Palestine to Zionists.
1918 AD:Ottoman Empire Ends Control of Palestine.
1918 AD:British Protectorate of Palestine Begins.

InfraBlue wrote:

First of all, the state of Israel has no constitution, your ignorant assumptions notwithstanding.

While not a formal Constitution it is nonetheless a constitution expressed as a system of "basic laws", plus ....

www.britannica.com

Quote:

Constitutional framework
Israel does not have a formal written constitution. Instead, its system of government is founded on a series of “basic laws” plus other legislation, executive orders, and parliamentary practice. The country is a democratic republic with a parliamentary system of government headed by a prime minister and involving numerous political parties representing a wide range of political positions.

Israel's lawmaking body, the Knesset, or assembly, is a single-chamber legislature with 120 members who are elected every four years (or more frequently if a Knesset vote of nonconfidence in the government results in an early election). Members exercise important functions in standing committees. Hebrew and Arabic, the country's two official languages, are used in all proceedings.

The country's prime minister, who is directly elected by separate popular ballot in each national election, is the head of government and is entrusted with the task of forming the cabinet, which is the government's main policy-making and executive body. Israel has a strong cabinet, and its members may be—but need not be—members of the Knesset.

The president, who is the head of state, is elected by the Knesset for a five-year term, which can be renewed only once. The president has no veto powers and exercises mainly ceremonial functions but has the authority to appoint certain key national officials, including state comptroller, governor of the Bank of Israel, judges, and justices of the Supreme Court.
...
Besides the civil courts, religious tribunals for Jews, Muslims, and Christians had jurisdiction in cases involving personal status. Arabs had equal political rights and in 1959 and 1961 eight and nine Arabs were members of the Knesset. Nazareth, a predominately Arab town, had an Arab municipality and an Arab magistrate.

There's more to come!

0 Replies

Quote:

There's more to come!

of a certainty

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

My use of the word "exclusive" here renders my statement BS only to your argument because it is inconvenient to it, ican. The Ashkenazim went into Palestine with the aim of establishing a state by Jews, for Jews, and of Jews--Ashkenazi Jews.

This is the source of major disagreement between us. You maintain that the alleged aims of the Jews are relevant. I maintain the actual deeds of the Jews and not their alleged aims are relevant.

InfraBlue wrote:

Americans established a country in North America by and large at the expense of the pre-existing peoples there, engaging in genocidal massacres, and interning the rest in reservations.

The US was established in 1776. At that time we were allied with our North American predecessors we call American Indians. In fact we borrowed from the Iroquois Federation Constitution in developing our own state and federal constitutions. There were no Indian reservations in North America in the 18th Century.

The reservations you write of were not established until well into the 19th Century. American Indians were not interred or interned in these reservations but were given a choice. They could choose to remain off reservation or on reservation. Some preferred to be on reservation because they were guaranteed 100% economic support there by our federal government. Others chose the reservation in the belief they could better preserve their ethnic identity there. Some changed their minds about both more than once.

In the 19th Century, many who arrived in America long after the North American Indians came to America, did in fact massacre large numbers of American Indians (as did North American Indians massacre many of themselves). While some of this was in self-defense, most wasn't. However, as horrible as this was it's no match for the terrible horrors in the history of Palestine (please refer to my previous time-line post for Palestine).

InfraBlue wrote:

Nothing warrants "being victimized by homicidal maniacs," but you would, as does the state of Israel for that matter, base your negotiations and policy on the actions of those few to the detriment of the majority who are not "homicidal maniacs." You'd have those "homicidal maniacs" among the Palestinian Arabs speak for the majority, thereby giving them undeserved legitimacy. You'd be, just like the state of Israel is, an enabler. The state of Israel uses the excuse of "homicidal maniacs" as a pretext to maintain the status quo.

EUREKA!

You have accused me and Israel of doing the equivalent of what you are doing here in this forum.

You would, as does [Arafat] for that matter, base your negotiations and policy on the actions of those few to the detriment of the majority [of Jews] who are not "homicidal maniacs." You'd have those "homicidal maniacs" among the [Jews] speak for the majority, thereby giving them undeserved legitimacy. You'd be, just like [Arafat], an enabler. The [Arafat] uses the excuse of "homicidal maniacs" as a pretext to maintain the status quo [by continually encouraging "homicidal maniacs."]

InfraBlue wrote:

My criticisms of the state of Israel are based on the "actual actions" of that state and its founders: arrogation of land to which they emigrated, and the establishment of an ethnocentric state at the expense of the pre-existing peoples thereof.

What exactly do you think constitutes "the establishment of an ethnocentric state at the expense of the pre-existing peoples thereof"? How is that establishment manifested? Does such establishment constitute bodily or mental injury.? If so what kind of bodily or mental injury?

www.m-w.com

Quote:

Main Entry: eth·no·cen·tric
Pronunciation: "eth-nO-'sen-trik
Function: adjective
: characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior
- eth·no·cen·tric·i·ty /-sen-'tri-s&-tE/ noun
- eth·no·cen·trism /-'sen-"tri-z&m/ noun

InfraBlue wrote:

Your temptation to infer that I "want the Jews living in Palestine to have zero say in how they are to be governed, if in deed I would even permit them to live in Palestine" is stupid.

Shall I be stupid if I infer

Quote:

from if in deed I would even permit them to live in Palestine

that you would want zero jews living in Palestine? If so, then, if no Jews lived in Palestine, is it stupid to infer they would likely have zero say in the government of Palestine? My how stupid of me to infer anything of the kind! Laughing

InfraBlue wrote:

I want the Jews living in Palestine to take into account exactly how the state of Israel was created--with an immoral, ethnocentric disregard for the peoples that inhabited the land upon which it was created--and to expiate for this malefaction.

Again, what do you mean by the words "immoral ethnocentric disregard"? Also, how shall anyone quilty of such behavior properly "expiate for this malefaction"? Shall one dispense with one's pretense of superiority or what?

InfraBlue wrote:

The second class status of non-Jews in Israel is written into it's by-laws.

False! There are no such words in the by-laws or any other laws of Israel

InfraBlue wrote:

When you say that the Arabs "should have abandoned maniacal homicide," you prejudice the majority of them for the actions of the few that engaged in "maniacal homicide."

You are right! I apologize. I meant to write: the Arabs "should have eradicated maniacal homicide by that minority committing it"

InfraBlue wrote:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are being deliberately obtuse about the ethnic-cleansing that was carried out by the Zionist leadership and military organization during the war.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you understand that the so-called Zionist leadership is and has been a minority of the Jews in Israel. Therefore, all the Jews in Palestine should not be tared with that same brush (that's another way of saying what you wrote: "you [should not] prejudice the majority of them for the actions of the few that engaged in ethnic-cleansing).

InfraBlue wrote:

... In 1920, Palestinian Jews, the Arab Jews born and living in Palestine, signed anti-Zionist petitions denouncing Ashkenazi rule. (Adam Hanieh, "Israel: divided by racism" 1997)

Oh, is that the reason why?
(assembled from www.britannica.com )

Quote:

1920 AD:5 Jews killed 200 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.
1921 AD:46 Jews killed 146 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.
1929 AD:133 Jews killed 339 wounded--116 Arabs killed 232 wounded.
1936,38,39 AD:329 Jews killed 857 wounded--3,112 Arabs killed 1,775 wounded

(and so on and so on)

I don't think so!

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know