THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

...

Since you agreed that not all faithful believers of the Koran kill all non believers ... then you cannot be sure that the reason Palestinians sometimes use suicide bombs to kill Israelis because of the Koran verses you posted earlier. Other factors more than likely come into play other than those Koran verses such as being occupied and downtrodden for over forty years.

1918 AD: Ottoman Empire Ends Control of Palestine.
................British Protectorate of Palestine Begins.
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 thru 39 AD: 329 Jews killed 857 wounded
.........................3,112 Arabs killed 1,775 wounded
............................135 Brits killed 386 wounded.
............................110 Arabs hanged 5,679 jailed.
1947 AD: UN resolution partitions Palestine into a Jewish
................State and into an Arab State.

During the period 1920 trough 1947, it was the Palestinian Arabs who were first downtrodding the Jews, with the Jews doing the retaliation.

"What goes around, comes around!"

ican wrote:

During the period 1920 trough 1947, it was the Palestinian Arabs who were first downtrodding the Jews, with the Jews doing the retaliation.

"What goes around, comes around!"

In 1891 Asher Ginsberg, writing under the pen name of Ahad Ha'am, wrote in a pamphlet titled "Truth from Eretz Yisrael":

"[The Jewish settlers] treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamelessly for no sufficient reason, and even take pride in doing so. The Jews were slaves in the land of their Exile, and suddenly they found themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that ONLY exists in a land like Turkey. This sudden change has produced in their hearts an inclination towards repressive tyranny, as always happens when slave rules."
...

1918 AD: Ottoman Empire Ends Control of Palestine.
................British Protectorate of Palestine Begins.
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 thru 39 AD: 329 Jews killed 857 wounded
.........................3,112 Arabs killed 1,775 wounded
............................135 Brits killed 386 wounded.
............................110 Arabs hanged 5,679 jailed.
1947 AD: UN resolution partitions Palestine into a Jewish
................State and into an Arab State.
1948 AD: Jews declare independence and establish the
................State of Israel.
1948 AD: War breaks out between Jews defending Israel
................and Arabs attempting to invade Israel.
................State of Israel successfully defends itself and
................conquers part of Arab Palestine.

So Asher Ginsberg alleged that once freed, slaves will always tyrannize.

Where in Asher Ginsberg's pamphlet does he imply that some of the Jews in Palestine, circa 1891, were dkonks (i.e., deliberate killers of non-killers)?

Where in Asher Ginsberg's pamphlet does he imply that some of the Jews in Palestine, circa 1891, were sodkonks (i.e., supporters of deliberate killers of non-killers)?

Or, perhaps you possess yet unrevealed evidence that some of the Jews in Palestine prior to 1929 AD were dkonks or sodkonks

au wrote :
"Based upon what is happening in Iraq I begin to wonder if Saddam was all wrong in his methods to rule Iraq. To many appear to be no more than uncivilized barbarians. "

i think one has to understand how iraq came to be a country . it was "cobbled" together from bits and pieces of several middle-east groups/ constituencies , whatever one might want to call it .
and many of these tribes/groups had been at war forlong periods of time already .

there are certain paralles to the former yugoslavia . after WW I it was created out of pieces (provinces , sort of) of the old austrian empire , and after tito's reign ended , it broke apart . i don't really know how many different countries it broke into - and they are still not all happy with each other .

looking at europe during the period of about 1500 to 1700 , one will notice that there were many bloody wars .
there are stories about whole villages being wiped out by invading marauders , towns being devastated .
catholics fought protestants , spain brought devastion to the netherlands , france was invaded several times , germans fought against germans ...
and on and on it went .
even during the 1800 hundreds there were several wars involving the french , various german states , austria , denmark , russia ... to name just a few .

and let's not forget WW I and II ; certainly WW II is still in my memeory and my dad told me about WW I - i still have some postcards he sent to his parents from france .
so when it comes to brutality , the western nations have not exactly set a good example , have they ?

looking at today's "united europe" , perhaps one can hope that it provides an example for other nations of this world - but only time will tell .
it would certainly be expecting much of the iraquis to tell them :
"stop fighting and make up ! " , and they'd follow the advice .
that will often (usually ?) only happen when the fighting groups have suffered enough and are about to bleed to death - history should be a good teacher , but the students are often unwilling to learn .
hbg

ican wrote:

So Asher Ginsberg alleged that once freed, slaves will always tyrannize.

Where, exactly, does he say that?

Quote:

In 1891 Asher Ginsberg, writing under the pen name of Ahad Ha'am, wrote in a pamphlet titled "Truth from Eretz Yisrael":

"[The Jewish settlers] treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamelessly for no sufficient reason, and even take pride in doing so. The Jews were slaves in the land of their Exile, and suddenly they found themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that ONLY exists in a land like Turkey. This sudden change has produced in their hearts an inclination towards repressive tyranny, as always happens when slave rules."
...

Quote:

Where in Asher Ginsberg's pamphlet does he imply that some of the Jews in Palestine, circa 1891, were dkonks (i.e., deliberate killers of non-killers)?

Where in Asher Ginsberg's pamphlet does he imply that some of the Jews in Palestine, circa 1891, were sodkonks (i.e., supporters of deliberate killers of non-killers)?

Or, perhaps you possess yet unrevealed evidence that some of the Jews in Palestine prior to 1929 AD were dkonks or sodkonks

This is a ridiculously blatant straw man argument. Ahad wasn't referring to "deliberate killers of non-killers," or their supporters, and neither were you. You were referring to "downtrodding," and Ha'am wrote about the Zionist settlers "downtrodding" the Arabs in Palestine in the late nineteenth century--the time of the first Aliyah--at a time before the period you mention, between 1920 through 1947.

"The Jews were slaves in the land of their Exile, and suddenly they found themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that ONLY exists in a land like Turkey. This sudden change has produced in their hearts an inclination towards repressive tyranny, as always happens when slave rules."

Your false strawman accusation is one of your favorite responses when you are unable to rationally rebut an argument.

...
You have an inclination to obfuscate an issue when it doesn't suit your ideology.
...

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/transference
Main Entry: trans·fer·ence
Pronunciation: tran(t)s-'f&r-&n(t)s, 'tran(t)s-(")
Function: noun
1 : an act, process, or instance of transferring : CONVEYANCE, TRANSFER
2 : the redirection of feelings and desires and especially of those unconsciously retained from childhood toward a new object (as a psychoanalyst conducting therapy)
- trans·fer·en·tial /"tran(t)s-f&-'ren(t)-sh&l/ adjective

Infrablue, I think you are characterizing yourself and attempting to transfer that characterization to me.

The questions are no longer whether there's a civil war or whether we can achieve a military victory. The only question is, who can we turn the country over to?

At the moment, that would be no one.

ican711nm wrote:

Infrablue, I think you are characterizing yourself and attempting to transfer that characterization to me.

No, I merely took the time to point out this particular one of many straw man arguments of yours that you posit in your attempt to warp a disscussion around your ideology, truth and clarity be damned.

Quote:

The questions are no longer whether there's a civil war or whether we can achieve a military victory. The only question is, who can we turn the country over to?

At the moment, that would be no one.

Maureen Dowd, NYTIMES 11/25/2006

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:

The questions are no longer whether there's a civil war or whether we can achieve a military victory. The only question is, who can we turn the country over to?

At the moment, that would be no one.

Maureen Dowd, NYTIMES 11/25/2006

Let us all agree that there is a civil war in Iraq.

Agreed

Let us all further agree that there would not be a civil war in Iraq if Saddam Hussein's regime had not been removed by the USA in April 2003.

Do not agree
Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War

Quote:

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden.

Can we also agree that if Saddam Hussein's regime had not been removed, probably the al-Qaeda sanctuary created in Iraq in December 2001, would have grown and trained at least as many fighters by December 2006, as were trained in Afghanistan September 1996 to September 2001?

No, since there is no evidence there was an Al Qaeda sanctuary. What there was a few was Zarqawi and a few other small number of those types of Al Qaeda (who at the time wasn't even affiliated with Osama Bin Laden but was rivals) in the no fly zones which was an area outside of Saddam Hussein's control, but rather in an area we controlled. In fact we could have gotten him if we wanted to.

The Death of Zarqawi

Quote:

In March 2004, NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski reported that the White House had three times in 2002 turned down a Pentagon request to attack Zarqawi, who then was believed to be running a weapons lab in northern Iraq--in territory not controlled by Saddam Hussein's government. Miklaszewski wrote that "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam." That is, the Bush White House let Zarqawi alone so it would have an easier time selling the war in Iraq.

Can we also agree that if Saddam Hussein's regime had not been removed, probably the number of Iraqis killed by violence by Saddam Hussein's regime March 2003 to December 2006, would exceed the number actually killed by violence since Saddam's regime was removed?
no