Anti-Israel protest in South Africa

[Tim Smith]

That is an important sign to the address of Sharon, to finally stop repression agains the palestinians. Too bad the Palestinians are just pawns in a much larger problem. Too many groups are using them to destroy Isreal. Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?

[Stan Shannon]

If it were up to me, Israel would be moved to the Baja peninsula of Mexico and the Palistinians would have their homeland back. But that just ain't gonna happen. Maybe non-violence is not the complete answer but at least it was an important aspect of Mandela's public strategy.( If anything the terriorism in SA probably slowed the progress of Mandela's movement.) The Arabs do not use it at all. They are collectively playing the leaders of the western world like fools. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"

[James Pullicino]

I strongly agree with you. I see this happening a lot in my country. All these protest/peace/rights marches all have a political body behind them. The worst thing is that the participants don't even know that they are being used, they think that they are doing something 'good'. (2b || !2b)

[James Pullicino]

Daniel Ferguson wrote: Both sides should stop indoctrinating their children with hatred, and have the decency/strength to move forward. Its true. Maybe a longer term solution should be thought of. One which starts by educating the children. Leave the adults kill themselves - its too late to save them. Teach the children better things to do and they might be saved. (2b || !2b)

[Brit]

****Colin Davies wrote: Yeah, its just last September G.Dubba.Bush asked for the worlds countries to be with or against the USA. In shock a lot of countries said they would help fight terrorism, but it appears that it was only Anti-American terrorism. Many countries have engagements in Afghanistan currently due to this. I guess one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Did I miss something, or is this last statement a non sequiteur? :confused:

[Jack Handy]

What I'm saying is that America has the influence to make Isreal stop for now. Heres how it works now..

while (true) {
america("asks isreal to restrain");
isreal("restrains themselves");
palistein("bombs isreal");
isreal("starts firing missles and brings tanks back to arafat's headquarters");
}

What I proposed is that we throw a break in there at the end and don't ask for restraint next time they suicide bomb another little girl's bat mitzvah. -Jack To an optimist the glass is half full. To a pessimist the glass is half empty. To a programmer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

[ColinDavies]

Brit wrote: Did I miss something, or is this last statement a non sequiteur? I dunno, I'm confused also, whats a "sequiteur" ? Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"

[Brit]

"Non sequiteur" means "does not follow". It's used when describing a statement which does not logically follow from the previous information. Here's an example of a non sequiteur: "My house is blue. Therefore, I drive a car." The fact that my house is blue does not logically imply that I drive a car. When you said: Yeah, its just last September G.Dubba.Bush asked for the worlds countries to be with or against the USA. In shock a lot of countries said they would help fight terrorism, but it appears that it was only Anti-American terrorism. Many countries have engagements in Afghanistan currently due to this. I guess one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. I was confused as to the statement, "I guess one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist." The fact that the US seems only interested in fighting Anti-American terrorism does not mean that the US sees non anti-American terrorists as freedom fighters. (I don't know if that was your intention, but I couldn't figure out any other interpretation.)

[ColinDavies]

Brit wrote: "Non sequiteur" means "does not follow". Ok, I learned something new today. Brit wrote: I was confused as to the statement, "I guess one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist." The fact that the US seems only interested in fighting Anti-American terrorism does not mean that the US sees non anti-American terrorists as freedom fighters. (I don't know if that was your intention, but I couldn't figure out any other interpretation.) Yes, now that I look at it again something appears ambiguous or missing from my message. What I am meaning to say. Is for example the IRA are considered by the British to be terrorists and by many Americans as Freedom fighters. I'm sure Palestinian Americans consider the Hamas/PLO to be freedom fighters and Jewsih Americans consider them to be terrorists. Also Sept/11 Pilots we consider as terrorists, but some OBL followers consider Martyrs and heros. Hope I have made myself clearer. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"

[Brit]

Is for example the IRA are considered by the British to be terrorists and by many Americans as Freedom fighters. I've always been a little confused by this. Why do people think Americans see the IRA as freedom fighters? I certainly don't. I've heard that in the past the IRA has rasied money here in the US, but I think that must be primarily among Irish-Americans. I'm sure Palestinian Americans consider the Hamas/PLO to be freedom fighters and Jewish Americans consider them to be terrorists. True, but (like the previous example) the problem that we're running into here is that anyone can become an American. If you want to talk about mainstream America, you really have to largely ignore the hyphenated Americans. Also Sept/11 Pilots we consider as terrorists, but some OBL followers consider Martyrs and heros. I think in some cases, a minority of Americans do think of terrorists as freedom fighters. Even when they think of them as freedom fighters, though, it's generally in the context of "They are fighting for a just cause, but doing it in a completely wrongheaded way." But when people are intimately tied to one cause or another, they're willing to ignore wrongs (terrorism) done in pursuit of a cause they believe in (hence, the Irish-Americans, Palestinian-Americans). Personally, I can respect the Palestinian cause against Jewish settlements (but not against the existence of Israel or its citizens), but it does make me angry that they constantly strike out punatively* against Jewish people. The fact that they use terrorism (and it is terrorism) cannot be ignored by anyone who honestly evaluates the situation. * I use the word "punatively" because their purpose is to punish Jews for wrongdoing, not to "defend" themselves, not to help their cause, not to build peace.

[ColinDavies]

Brit wrote: Is for example the IRA are considered by the British to be terrorists and by many Americans as Freedom fighters. I've always been a little confused by this. Why do people think Americans see the IRA as freedom fighters? I certainly don't. I've heard that in the past the IRA has rasied money here in the US, but I think that must be primarily among Irish-Americans. If Al-Queda was raising funds and training and hiding people in Britain, The USA would certainly take action. However the IRA did this in the USA and no action was ever taken, as some US politicians pander to the "Irish-American" vote. Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"

[Brit]

Okay, but "failure to take action against fund-raising for terrorists" != "we view terrorists as freedom fighters". Sounds like some american politicians were too spineless to take action against something which might cost them votes, so they ignored the whole issue. This is in contrast to viewing the IRA as freedom fighters.

[ColinDavies]

Brit wrote: Sounds like some american politicians were too spineless to take action against something which might cost them votes, so they ignored the whole issue. This is in contrast to viewing the IRA as freedom fighters. I think we are arguing silly semantics now, In most warfare both sides claim that not only "God" is on there side but they are morally right. Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"