Fourth Generation War: Racists Infiltrate Anti-War Movement

steissd wrote:

PM Sharon is ready to resume talks just after the Palestinian violence stops.

You are indoctrinated. It was Sharons provocative visit to Haram al-Sharif (a Muslim shrine) that stirred Palestinian emotions. This action directly lead to the second intifada, so it would be hyprocite to see Sharon as a messenger of peace. He is an angel of death.

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

About the pictures: as a combat soldier with rich experience (four years in Afghanistan as a Soviet infantry officer) I come to conclusion that these people got caught in the crossfire, and they are hiding until the fire exchange between IDF and Palestinian militants comes to end. No one is attempting to kill them. If there was such a purpose, they would not survive more than two minutes: I guess, you have never been a combat soldier, and you have very slight idea of hand grenades, grenade launchers, flamethrowers and other facilities that can be used against people (I mean, of course, not these particular ones, but the armed militants) hiding behind a barrel.

If there was no occupation this boy never would be dead. Dont mix causes and effects. Israel is one of the only countries, since WWII, that enlarged its territory trough war. Other countries like Iraq or Argentine tried but failed to do so. The normal procedure after a conflict is that you give back the land you occupy. History learns us that an occupation leads to more violence. See the French and Belgian occupation of the Ruhr Area after WW I.

the Versailles Treaty: Roots of the Holocaust

0 Replies

Jews visited the Temple mount before Sharon did it many times, and nothing happened. It is not only a Muslim shrine, but also a site where the Jerusalem Temple was situated before havinf been demolished by the Roman pagans. I have no clue, whether you are a Christian (I have strong doubts about this, there are lots of Muslims in Europe in general, and in Belgium in particular), but any Christian knows about this place, since Jesus appeared there. Arafat needed the excuse to start violence, and he found this. If Arafat was concerned about his visit, he could have visited the Wailing Wall as a response.
In fact, Islamic Waqf has control over the Temple Mount just as a result of good will of the Israeli government. In 1967, when Jerusalem was retaken from Jordanians, Israelis had all the opportunities to impose control over the Temple Mount of the governmental Religions' office, but they permitted to the Jordanian-controlled Waqf (later, Arafat replaced Jordanians with his people there) Waqf to control the site, despite of absence of any peace agreement with Jordan. And until September 2000, anyone was free to visit the site, and Mr. Sharon is not an exception.
About Israeli government's attempts to reach peace:

Quote:

Yet as Mr Sharon made his threats against Mr Arafat, it was confirmed that the Israeli leader had last week held his first talks in nearly a year with senior Palestinians.
He met Palestinian parliament speaker Ahmed Korei, also known as Abu Ala, on Wednesday, officials on both sides have confirmed.
Mr Sharon offered an Israeli pull-out from Palestinian areas where militants are being reined in by Palestinian sources, one unnamed Israeli official told the Associated Press news agency.

This is a quote from a neutral source, BBC News, that is not characteristic particular affection toward Israel.

0 Replies

There is no evidence that the boy is dead. I see him just laying on the lap of his relative. This may be his response to fear caused by the gunfire. There are no blood stains on his clothes, and if he was killed by gunfire, some of these should be expected.
If the Versailles connection to the Holocaust is direct, it means that you accuse in it rather France and Belgium, than Hitler's regime.

0 Replies

And one more thing. I am not concealing that I am an Israeli. You call yourself a Belgian. But I would like to know whether you are an "indigenous" Belgian, or an immigrant from the Muslim country. Something makes me think that you are the one, and conceal your identity behind the Belgian passport/residence permission. Let us conduct fair play.

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

If the Versailles connection to the Holocaust is direct, it means that you accuse in it rather France and Belgium, than Hitler's regime.

The Versailles treaty made the Hitler regime possible. Just like the Israeli occupation makes Hamas, Jihad,.... possible.

Never wondered why 18 year old boys and girls want to blow up themselves? Is this normal behaviour? Why did Jan Pallach immolated himself? Its very dangerous to give people no future.

I'm not a Muslim. I went from my 6 years until 22 to Catholic schools and University. But IMHO Religion is opium for the masses.

0 Replies

Islamic terror exists since 12th century, when Hasan a-Sabah founded a sect of assassins. At that time there were neither Zionists, nor Israel. And the main purpose of the medieval terrorists was exactly the same as of the modern ones: power through intimidation.
Ottoman empire that claimed global domination did not appear in 1967 either: its proliferation was stopped in 1683 after the Battle of Vienna. Early medieval Islamic Khalifates were stopped from conquering all the Europe in 732 by Charles Martell, but it took 700 years more to remove Arab aggressors from Europe.
Jan Pallach has distinctive difference with suicide bombers. He killed himself in protest against Czech/Soviet Communists policies, but he did not attempt to kill anyone else. This makes him the freedom fighter, and not the terrorist. And he was not promised 72 virgins after death in the paradise. Arab teenagers grow in the communities where premarital sex is excluded, and part of them go to a suicide killing for the same reason the normal bourgeois male visits a brothel. They are brainwashed by cynical leaders of the Islamic movement. When the suicide bombers' recruiters started contacting the 18-years-old son of one of the Hamas leaders, Abed el-Aziz Rantissi, they were ordered to back off immediately by his parents, and the boy was transferred to Saudi Arabia, to avoid any accidental recruitment. And Rantissi is one of the prominent ideologists of the suicide bombings. People like Rantissi brainwash disadvantaged kids and promise them eternal bliss and non-stop sex in exchange for homicide combined with suicide.
And here are some Koranic quotations:

Quote:

He it is Who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of Truth that He may make it prevail over all religions.[48:28]

and

Quote:

And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is worse than slaughter.[2:191]

and

Quote:

O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends of each other. And whoever amongst you takes them for friends he indeed is one of them. Surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. [5:51]

IMHO, this explains everything.

0 Replies

Steissd,

Quote:

There is no evidence that the boy is dead. I see him just laying on the lap of his relative. This may be his response to fear caused by the gunfire. There are no blood stains on his clothes, and if he was killed by gunfire, some of these should be expected.

Though you and I frequently agree, this is a time I must dissent. This was a famous incident and is well documented. The boy and his father were on their way home when a firefight broke out between Palestinians and Israel forces. They took what refuge they could, but were pinned down for sometime. They were in plain view and obviously not involved in the firefight. The boy was killed. Shot several times if I recall correctly. The bullet(s) were traced back to Israeli weapons, and only the Israeli forces were in a position to see and fire upon the man and his son. The boy really was killed.

These things happen when bullets start to fly. I doubt that anyone put these victims in their sights and deliberately pulled the trigger, but the boy was killed anyway. Intense military fires within urban areas will result in the deaths of "uninvolved" persons. Such deaths are seldom intended, but they do happen. Some insist that collateral damage be avoided by never conducting operations within areas occupied by civilians. That just isn't possible. Terrorists attack wherever and whenever they can and civilian casualties actually advance their cause. Identifying "innocent civilians" is a futile concept, for there is no visible difference between the two. A twelve year old is capable of delivering a hand grenade, or firing easily concealed small caliber handguns. Children are easily motivated and exploited by cynical leaders who send them out to die. Uniformed soldiers often let down their guard when approached by a cute little kid with sad eyes. Sometimes they die for their sentiment and their comrades will never look at a little kid again with the same innocence. The child terrorist will die, and the terrorist organization scores a double win. Its killed a soldier, and gotten sympathetic media attention. Their right bastards, and hard to fight.

0 Replies

Ditto. I really did not recognize that this was Mohammed a-Dura (well, I do not remember his appearance). The soldiers in the incident when the boy was killed responded to the Palestinian gunmen fire, and the father and the son had a bad luck to be in the middle.

0 Replies

Regarding underage terrorists: it happened to me to meet in Afghanistan the 12 y.o. kids carrying anti-personnel landmines under the shirt. They were caught on their way to install these. Of course, such kids were shot without any sentiments: they were neither soldiers (that conform the definition of POW), nor innocent civilians, so there is no law in the world that protects their lives.

0 Replies

I have to say that my standpoint on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not pro-Arab.

After all, the return from the diaspora after WWII from thousands of Jews was never accepted by the Arab countries. Afraid of the 'alien' immigrants, they formed an Arab coalition and attempted to chase the Jewish people, who - and this is of central importance - initially came in peace.

So the first act of agression in the modern conflict between these two people came from the Arab side. As I have understood from studying the history of the subject, a territorial war begun after the first Arab war. You can not blame the Jewish people for defending themselves against the Arab animosity towards their return after the holocaust. The Arab coalition should have been more tactful.

Fourty years later, the Jews are winning the territorial war (let's call it what it is) and everyone sympathizes with the underdog. But this underdog was the first to bite - this is not sufficiently mentioned.

0 Replies

i guess we all have a different perspective of history but this is not consistent with my understanding of the events occuring between 1932 and the present.

0 Replies

Let's stick to the United Nation's publications as independent sources. The internet is riddled with partisan, so called objective viewpoints, that really only highlight one side of the issue. Not this link: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

The Israeli territorial drift only begun once the Jewish immigrants were obliged to accept that they were not welcome in the decolonization of the British territories. I believe that if the Arab community would have said (and I'm simplifying): "Welcome, let's try and live together," there wouldn't have been any Jewish violence. The first clear signal of violence, I repeat, was the Arab coalition to chase away the Jews from the formerly British colonies.

Unfortunately, both people take their reciprocal dichotomy for granted. Therein lies the real problem. Jews and Arabs have to recognize each other's humanity - the common points in each other's lives. Remedy the intolerance and forget the concentration on differences, and you're halfway to solve every conflict. Or you can oppress the other. Sharon is possibly wiser than to continue those tactics much longer.

Agreed, the Jewish people may have lacked a certain openness to the Arab land to which they returned, but I strongly believe that their looking for a safe haven was not intended as an agression. Here in Europe, I have learnt that Jewish and Arab people both form getto's, but the Jews have never ever resorted to violence or criminality. The Arabs, unfortunately, have done so often, and I fear that they easily mistake offensive violence as a solution. The Arab-Israeli conflict is rooted in the same mistake, and it's all too easy to blame the ad hoc hardwinger Sharon for all the wrongdoings. If I would see terrorists blow themselves up in my urban, civic communities every week - even if my government was supposedly occupying some of their land (which is disputable, as the territorial battle was waged from both sides) - I would support hard wing politics myself. And it takes a lot before I drive up that road.

0 Replies

Israel used to win wars on the battlefield, but always lost psychological wars. Arab politicians managed to win hearts of liberals by pretending being underdogs and freedom fighters. But every time these freedom fighters succeed in getting to power, they establish dictatorial regimes. And every time these underdogs get ability to oppress different ethnic/religious minorities, they never miss such an opportunity.

0 Replies

Fourth Generation War: Racists Infiltrate Anti-War Movement

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know