Anti-Israel protest in South Africa
-
From a story on a local internet site: PALESTINE solidarity groups across South Africa are planning nationwide mass demonstrations on Friday against the Israeli invasion of the West Bank... :confused: This kind of thing happens here every so often, and I always wonder what the point is. Do these people really think that a protest in South Africa is going to have any effect on the situation in Israel? As if the Israelis are going to say "Ooh, the South Africans are upset, we'd better stop fighting now!"
MarSCoZa wrote: Do these people really think that a protest in South Africa is going to have any effect on the situation in Israel? As if the Israelis are going to say "Ooh, the South Africans are upset, we'd better stop fighting now!" It's not only South Africa. See this Christian Science Monitor article.. Mideast conflict fuels global anger
-
From a story on a local internet site: PALESTINE solidarity groups across South Africa are planning nationwide mass demonstrations on Friday against the Israeli invasion of the West Bank... :confused: This kind of thing happens here every so often, and I always wonder what the point is. Do these people really think that a protest in South Africa is going to have any effect on the situation in Israel? As if the Israelis are going to say "Ooh, the South Africans are upset, we'd better stop fighting now!"
I lose no love for Israel (I think the creation of Israel was about the most stupid thing the world could have done), but to blame Israel in any way for what is going on over there is ludicrous. There is absolutely nothing they can do but fight back. The Palestinians are not fighting for a state, the Arabs are fighting to destroy Israel. There are only two things that can be done to end the violence. 1) The destruction of Israel. 2) The destruction of Islam. The two cannot both exist simultaneously. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
-
I lose no love for Israel (I think the creation of Israel was about the most stupid thing the world could have done), but to blame Israel in any way for what is going on over there is ludicrous. There is absolutely nothing they can do but fight back. The Palestinians are not fighting for a state, the Arabs are fighting to destroy Israel. There are only two things that can be done to end the violence. 1) The destruction of Israel. 2) The destruction of Islam. The two cannot both exist simultaneously. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
Stan Shannon wrote: but to blame the Israel's in any way for what is going on over there is ludicrous. It's the occupation, stupid M. Bishara [The writer is a researcher at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales and a professor at the American University of Paris. He is also the author of Palestine Israel: Peace or Apartheid.] The situation continues to deteriorate in Israel/Palestine. What to do? Blame the Palestinians? Implore the parties to stop the violence -- at least for a week, as Ariel Sharon demands, or perhaps region by region, as Shimon Peres proposes? Build a wall between the two peoples? Or how about getting rid of Arafat, as the Israelis army insists? Better get rid of Sharon... Or, while you're at it, why not get rid of both? Alas, the list goes on, ignoring the factor that has prolonged the conflict and blocked the peace: the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. If the subject of occupation and illegal settlement in the occupied territories is not dealt with directly and quickly, it will continue to fester and move the region toward conflict. The Lebanese and Bosnian scenarios are being discussed seriously in the region. The Intifada is already turning into a classical colonial war. The latest debacle surrounding the Karine A only goes to confirm this. As long as the Israeli army continues to bombard Palestinian cities with its F-16s and Apache helicopters, Israel can expect no less than resistance from a people under occupation. Many initiatives are on the table, but most look for ways to calm the "security situation" under occupation -- surely a contradiction in terms. US special envoy Anthony Zinni is pointing to the so-called Dahania understanding between Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat as the basis for breaking the security impasse. And then there are the Tenet points, referring to the CIA director's plan to implement the Mitchell Report, commissioned internationally and made in America, which highlighted the need for a freeze on Israeli settlements -- all settlements. But to arrive at durable peace rather than a useless cease- fire under occupation will require going beyond a "freeze" to the outright dismantling of most if not all the settlements that constitute extra-territorial entities on Palestinian land. Today all the flashpoints involve scarcely inhabited settlements in the heart of Palestinian communities. Taking them out is long overdue. The Israeli government has done exactly the opposite,
-
Stan Shannon wrote: but to blame the Israel's in any way for what is going on over there is ludicrous. It's the occupation, stupid M. Bishara [The writer is a researcher at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales and a professor at the American University of Paris. He is also the author of Palestine Israel: Peace or Apartheid.] The situation continues to deteriorate in Israel/Palestine. What to do? Blame the Palestinians? Implore the parties to stop the violence -- at least for a week, as Ariel Sharon demands, or perhaps region by region, as Shimon Peres proposes? Build a wall between the two peoples? Or how about getting rid of Arafat, as the Israelis army insists? Better get rid of Sharon... Or, while you're at it, why not get rid of both? Alas, the list goes on, ignoring the factor that has prolonged the conflict and blocked the peace: the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. If the subject of occupation and illegal settlement in the occupied territories is not dealt with directly and quickly, it will continue to fester and move the region toward conflict. The Lebanese and Bosnian scenarios are being discussed seriously in the region. The Intifada is already turning into a classical colonial war. The latest debacle surrounding the Karine A only goes to confirm this. As long as the Israeli army continues to bombard Palestinian cities with its F-16s and Apache helicopters, Israel can expect no less than resistance from a people under occupation. Many initiatives are on the table, but most look for ways to calm the "security situation" under occupation -- surely a contradiction in terms. US special envoy Anthony Zinni is pointing to the so-called Dahania understanding between Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat as the basis for breaking the security impasse. And then there are the Tenet points, referring to the CIA director's plan to implement the Mitchell Report, commissioned internationally and made in America, which highlighted the need for a freeze on Israeli settlements -- all settlements. But to arrive at durable peace rather than a useless cease- fire under occupation will require going beyond a "freeze" to the outright dismantling of most if not all the settlements that constitute extra-territorial entities on Palestinian land. Today all the flashpoints involve scarcely inhabited settlements in the heart of Palestinian communities. Taking them out is long overdue. The Israeli government has done exactly the opposite,
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. Islamic civilization in its entirity wants to physically destroy Israel. Israel could give in to every demand, and the Arabs would merely see it as a sign of weakness and attack even more. I sympathize with the plight of the Palistinians, I don't blame them for being angry, and I certainly do not mindlessly support Israel. But the Palistinians are being used as pawns by the leaders of the Islamic world to achieve a goal which has absolutely nothing to do with ending any kind of occupation. 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. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
-
I lose no love for Israel (I think the creation of Israel was about the most stupid thing the world could have done), but to blame Israel in any way for what is going on over there is ludicrous. There is absolutely nothing they can do but fight back. The Palestinians are not fighting for a state, the Arabs are fighting to destroy Israel. There are only two things that can be done to end the violence. 1) The destruction of Israel. 2) The destruction of Islam. The two cannot both exist simultaneously. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
Stan Shannon wrote: I think the creation of Israel was about the most stupid thing the world could have done The creation of Israel is a consequence of the most terrible thing humans have done. There is absolutely nothing they can do but fight back. Under Itzak Rabin government they didn't fight, and they were very close to peace. I think that many people on both sides still want peace, but peace is much more complicated than war, as your example states. Fight back is the simplest solution, not the only one, and not the best one! There are only two things that can be done to end the violence. 1) The destruction of Israel. 2) The destruction of Islam. Islam is not something you can "destroy", you can't destroy a religion and confusing islam with people who profess this religion (or claim to do that) and do horrible things is not a good idea. And you can't "destroy" Israel, you can destroy it as geographical expression, but not as people. You don't have to put the question simply in terms of "destroing" something or someone, but in terms of living together every day. 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.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I think the creation of Israel was about the most stupid thing the world could have done The creation of Israel is a consequence of the most terrible thing humans have done. There is absolutely nothing they can do but fight back. Under Itzak Rabin government they didn't fight, and they were very close to peace. I think that many people on both sides still want peace, but peace is much more complicated than war, as your example states. Fight back is the simplest solution, not the only one, and not the best one! There are only two things that can be done to end the violence. 1) The destruction of Israel. 2) The destruction of Islam. Islam is not something you can "destroy", you can't destroy a religion and confusing islam with people who profess this religion (or claim to do that) and do horrible things is not a good idea. And you can't "destroy" Israel, you can destroy it as geographical expression, but not as people. You don't have to put the question simply in terms of "destroing" something or someone, but in terms of living together every day. 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.
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"
-
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. Islamic civilization in its entirity wants to physically destroy Israel. Israel could give in to every demand, and the Arabs would merely see it as a sign of weakness and attack even more. I sympathize with the plight of the Palistinians, I don't blame them for being angry, and I certainly do not mindlessly support Israel. But the Palistinians are being used as pawns by the leaders of the Islamic world to achieve a goal which has absolutely nothing to do with ending any kind of occupation. 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. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
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?
-
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. Islamic civilization in its entirity wants to physically destroy Israel. Israel could give in to every demand, and the Arabs would merely see it as a sign of weakness and attack even more. I sympathize with the plight of the Palistinians, I don't blame them for being angry, and I certainly do not mindlessly support Israel. But the Palistinians are being used as pawns by the leaders of the Islamic world to achieve a goal which has absolutely nothing to do with ending any kind of occupation. 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. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
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!"
-
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. Islamic civilization in its entirity wants to physically destroy Israel. Israel could give in to every demand, and the Arabs would merely see it as a sign of weakness and attack even more. I sympathize with the plight of the Palistinians, I don't blame them for being angry, and I certainly do not mindlessly support Israel. But the Palistinians are being used as pawns by the leaders of the Islamic world to achieve a goal which has absolutely nothing to do with ending any kind of occupation. 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. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
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.
-
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"
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 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?
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 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!"
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"
-
There will be a demonstration against Israel tomorrow here in Berne ( Switzerland) too. That is an important sign to the address of Sharon, to finally stop repression agains the palestinians. zack:rose:
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 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.
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"
-
zack wrote: you are just outing yourself about knowing less than nothing about "protesters". I said Protests are for fringe dwelling political leaders to gather support, And I sincerly mean it, most protesters have good intentions but are commonly manipulated into conducting criminal activity to support the hidden agenda of a political movement. 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"
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)
-
Paul Watson wrote: nothing will stop the Israelis and Palestinians fighting short of an armed peace-force Twenty or Thirty points of IQ would probably make a difference too. ;) A bit of emotional maturity would be a great help as well. Both sides should stop indoctrinating their children with hatred, and have the decency/strength to move forward. Paul Watson wrote: The momentum there is too great for words to stop it. Well said; I agree. "There is a fine line between lunacy and genius; it is my goal in life to keep them guessing just where the line lies..." -- Unknown
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)
-
Jack Handy wrote: As far as the rest of the terrorism in the world it needs to be dealt with by someone.. but I don't think America is required to be that someone. 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. 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"
****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:
-
What makes you think that the view of the USA carry any weight whatsoever with the Palistinians ? The USA is a huge financier to Isreal and as such is viewed with suspician from the Palistinian point of view .The Isrealis will listen because of all the money that the US gives it . The biggest possible influence on the Palistinians would be fellow Arab countries such as Saudi , that is why the recent events where Sharon effectively blocked Arrafat from attending the Arab summit was a wasted opportunity. The Palistinians may listen to a European country more than the US , which is odd really because it can be argued that it was because of a huge cock up by us Brits in the way the Palistinian mandate was created that led to this unholy mess in the first place.
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.
-
****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:
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 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"
"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.)