Anti-Israel protest in South Africa

[Stan Shannon]

Vuemme wrote: Islam is not something you can "destroy", you can't destroy a religion Islam has evolved into something which goes far beyond a mere religion. It is a civilization comprised of a finite number of governments and people. I can assure you that those governments can and must be destroyed. Vuemme wrote: I live in Italy, and western Europe was the battlefield of two "World" wars, but today the countries that fought those wars are joined together in the EU, and the sons and grandsons same people that killed each other 50 years ago are working and living together. Yes, but what if the world had stood by and done nothing as the evil that caused the war went unopposed? The evil that is flowing out of Islamic culture and Islamic politics is no less than that former evil. I do not wish to destroy anyone's religion, but when that religion becomes a rallying cry for a movement that threatens my way of life, I want it to be stopped. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"

[Ed2002]

Stan Shannon wrote: If that is all the Palestinians desired they could have had it easily decades ago by simply following the clear examples of peaceful non-cooperation set by Ghandhi, King and others What a dumb argument! How can a generation of people follow a nonviolent movement, when their each and every rights are taken away. Do you want them to sit back and die silently while watching their houses are demolished, their access to move around within their own cities are denied, their family members are constatntly being killed by F16 and apache helicopter?

[jan larsen]

Stan Shannon wrote: There is simply no way Israel could have withstood a movement of millions of people peacefully demanding their rights. You know it, I know, everyone on this planet, including the Palestinians, knows it. Aha.., so what you're saying is: The US could actually stop spending money on the armed forces and start giving donations to peace organizations?... In the cold war, was there any US government plans on starting big marches for peace if facing a Sovjet invasion?. If someone said "Hey look, we actually own this piece of land, and by the way we could control it much better than you guys did anyway, and face it, out culture is superior..." and that piece of land was USA, would you just hand it over?. Stan Shannon wrote: If we in the west do not rise to the challange that we are being confronted with, and do it soon, we can kiss our civilization good bye. It seems to me that you just expanded the Islamic wish to destroy Israel to destruction of the Western Society, while it seems like the first notion is actually true, then the latter is pure rubbish. It is just that our culture is at least as uncomprehendable (spelling?) and sometimes disgusting to them, as their culture is to us, and for some reason their culture is producing more fanatics who are willing To Do Something About It. I do not think you can apply the view of some mad fanatics to the entire middle east, I think that the average arabian has something better to do than running around burning stars-and-stripes. Jan "It could have been worse, it could have been ME!"

[Vuemme]

Stan Shannon wrote: Sorry, but it is that explanation which is stupid. If that is all the Palestinians desired they could have had it easily decades ago by simply following the clear examples of peaceful non-cooperation set by Ghandhi, King and others. There is simply no way Israel could have withstood a movement of millions of people peacefully demanding their rights. You know it, I know, everyone on this planet, including the Palestinians, knows it. Indians were million of people against few people coming from another country, and Gandhi was a great leader. Martin Luther King was also a great leader, and the protest against discrimination in the U.S.A. was not a fight between black people and white people, but a battle against racist people. But if you read Nelson Mandela's auto-biography, you'll see that he states that non-violent protest was not enough to change the state of things in S.A., and he explain why he created an organization "Umkonto we Sizwe" (if I remember it correctly) devoted to fight against the government (even if he clearly stated that was against terrorism and action involving civilians). He didn't fight agains white people (and many white people supported him and were against aparteid), he fight _for_ a more democratic country, and he succeeded only after a long struggle. Also in Italy many people fought against fascism and contribute (with allies army) to restore democracy. I'm not justifing suicidal attacks against civilians (and also Palestinian government neved did that), but the situation is not simple as you stated. Many palestinians want to live in their own country and I think they've the right to do that, and also the Israeli people who approved the Oslo peace treaty, but doing that was not so simple during Netaniahu government and the peace process that was still alive during Barak government was stopped by Sharon's "promenade" in Jerusalem. Foundamentalist people on both sides are using violence and provocation to stop the peace process. Don't forget that the crisis begun when a Hebrew foundamentalist killed (Ygal Amir) killed Itzak Rabin.

[jan larsen]

Stan Shannon wrote: There is simply no way Israel could have withstood a movement of millions of people peacefully demanding their rights. You know it, I know, everyone on this planet, including the Palestinians, knows it. Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, but what if the world had stood by and done nothing as the evil that caused the war went unopposed? Hmmmm... Jan "It could have been worse, it could have been ME!"

[Stan Shannon]

Israel could no more get away with attacking people peacefully exercising their basic human rights before the camaras of the world than the English did in India or Southerners did against blacks in the U.S. Israel would be expunged from the community of civilized nations for doing such a thing and loose all support from the U.S. There would be no more F16's or Apache helicopters for them. In the modern world, peaceful non-cooperation has accomplished far more than guns and bombs ever have. The evidence is easily available. The leaders of the Palestinians have never tried it because they are purposefully trying to provoke the very sorts of reactions from Israel that are going on now. They do not want peace, and there is absolutely nothing that the Israeli's can do or give that will stop the violence. The "occupied" lands are areas that the Palestinians have never lived in. They were deserts until the Israeli's made them habitable. So why are the Palestinians so angy about that? They are angry because Israel exists. If Israel occupied no more than a single square foot of Palistine, they would be confronted with suicide bombers. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"

[Stan Shannon]

jan larsen wrote: Aha.., so what you're saying is: The US could actually stop spending money on the armed forces and start giving donations to peace organizations?... In the cold war, was there any US government plans on starting big marches for peace if facing a Sovjet invasion?. Of course not. The comparison is invalid. The Soviets or the Nazi's would have been unaffected by such tactics because their people's access to media is totally controlled by the government. They would never have seen the attempt at peace. I might have been worth a try, but I doubt it would have worked. Although, you can't argue that it did not have an impact on our military effort in Vietnam. The same is not true for the situation in Israel. The entire world would be watching and the Palestinians would garner the uncontested moral high ground in the argument. They would win easily. Evil has to be physically destroyed it will not yield to wishful thinking. I do not like Israel, but I do not believe that they are evil, they would yield to a peaceful movement of Palestinians. jan larsen wrote: It seems to me that you just expanded the Islamic wish to destroy Israel to destruction of the Western Society, while it seems like the first notion is actually true, then the latter is pure rubbish. I don't believe it is rubbish. I think it is a fact. A century from now our one world economy will be ruled by a one world government of some kind. It is unavoidable. We are in the early stages of a great contest to see what form that government will take. The U.S., Europe, China and Islam are the big players in this game. You can bet you ass that the leaders of the Islamic world know this and are manuvering for a better position in the final outcome. The know that if they don't, their culture will be eventually overwhelmed by ours, and that is what they wish to avoid. That is what is behind all of this. Israel is merely symbolic of a much larger global confrontation. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"

[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"