GENIUS FORUMS

Dan,

I should have addressed your post earlier but I didn't have the time...

As David Hodges mentioned, you have to include the actviity of an oranisation like the KKK in that list. But I was really speaking about terrorism on US soil specifically. In that sense I'd include an organisation like the Waco Whackos, even though they got killed themselves before they were able to do anything stupid to others. You also have the multitudes of anti-government home grown militia movements who have the potential to wreak havoc at any time, but no-one seems to worry too much about them, presumably because they're "patriots" and as we know patriots would never do anything really bad.

I still disagree. I don't think Christian attacks on US soil compare to the Muslim attacks. Both are terrorist, but I think the Muslims are the real threat today. Why?

1) The Christian attacks are all decentralized. They are all different groups, and sometimes individuals, which are only united by their beliefs in God. They aren't united by a belief that all infidels should be slaughtered.

2) The Christian attacks don't happen nearly as often as Muslim attacks do. And just think about all of the plans that are foiled by law enforcement and the intelligence community.

3) Other Christians speak out fiercely against the fanatical Christians who act out in violence. Muslims might sheepishly say "Those guys don't represent our religion"...but as everyone knows, there isn't a call in the non-violent Muslim community for the "holy warriors" to stop.

In terms of direct threat to the US, I think your home grown dipshits are far more of an immediate threat than Islamic dipshits.

Then the pacific ocean must be clouding your view of the country. Because just this past Saturday there were foiled plans for an attack on Labor Day in Michigan. And around a week ago there were a big group of Muslims planning to use liquid explosives on planes from the UK to America. And just yesterday there was a Pak woman trying to board a plane with an explosive gel.

Plus I also think you have to include your own government in that in the sense that wars that need not be fought and should never have been fought (i.e. Iraq) have thus far killed fast heading towards 3,000 US citizens and screwed up the lives of nearly 18,000 of them (and that's just the soldiers).

Iraq needed to happen. There was a threat that would've been devastating if nothing had been done. And the death toll for US troops in this war is very small, considering how long we've been deployed. Sure, it still sucks. I'm sure it sucks for the amputees...especially when there are people spreading the propoganda that the war was pointless.

But that's what you give up when you say your oath to become a soldier.

Hmm, that's an interesting way to look at it I guess. Not everyone agrees however. You may want to look at this stuff I posted elsewhere: Signing Statements

I am having a deja vu, or something. I believe this was the link that was talking about torture in interrogation. I think it's okay to go beyond the rules when it comes to interrogation, because the rules are pretty wussy. But if it comes down to like...putting someone's head in a vice and cranking til their skull splits...I think that's taking it too far.

I'm not sure that exactly follows. Yes, they are a potential threat, but when you look at the actual facts there has only been 9/11, and that was 5 years ago.

You also have to consider that many attempts have been stopped...and that's mostly because of our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not like we're JUST patrolling over there. There are enemies we're taking out. But attempts have also been stopped even on US soil. And I'm sure a lot of things aren't ever reported, probably because they have to do with our ally countries, and delicate situations where the media would ruin relations. But that's just speculation on my part.

Thousands of illegals have been flooding into the US over its southern borders for years now, and seemingly the Muslim fundies haven't been smart enough to take advantage of that and wreak havoc.

I've heard quite a few stories of Muslims travelling into the US from Mexico. If you walk the streets of the US, you'll find how easy it is to get away with being a bad guy. You can be thinking anything. You can hide anything. Just don't arouse suspicion. It's good if you appear to be one of those nonviolent Muslims...or if you even forsake your religion for the cause. I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands that've gone this route.

In terms of an actual US-soil threat, I don't think fundie Muslims are really as much of a clear and present danger as is being suggested. But that isn't to say that US security organisations shouldn't be on the ball and looking out for potential problems. I do, and have always nominally supported the so-called "war" on terror. It's just some of its strategies and consequences that I take issue with.

They aren't a threat because US security has been on the ball, in my opinion. But that doesn't mean they're not plotting constantly. That's why this is what scares me:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/ ... index.html

So I suppose you're right when you say that the idiots in my country are the ones I should be fearing. Yes...I should fear the liberals for unconsciously letting the Muslims have a foothold.

But I guess in that, I'm really only fearing the Muslims.

What, not even the IRS? Lucky guy.

They can be a pain in the ass for people who don't earn enough. That's why I tend to side with the republicans...less government. Less taxes. People who are democrat are the ones that try to get government involvement in everything, and that means more IRS presence in our lives.

Scott: So Mossad agents probably knew about the attack before hand, and took photos and videos of it.

Dan: Yes, doesn't that scare the shit out of you? Your own ally, a nation to whom you are a significant benefactor was likely complicit in the worst terrorist event in your history (knowing and not telling makes oen complicity inn my view). I for one would be demanding that the truth of such activities came out and not hidden away under the bullshit rubric of "classified" information.

I acknowledge that major countries all have all intelligence on eachother. It's not as if the entire government of that country knows...just a small group of people. If countries didn't do this, they'd be screwed.

I can only say that intelligence agencies don't work with the countries they work for. They only work for them. They do their job, not representing the country they're from.

It really doesn't scare me that some Mossad agents were aware that this would probably happen. I'm sure some CIA people were waiting for it to happen. Probably a handful of people. Perhaps they tried to stop it.

About LIHOP or MIHOP:

I don't find it retarded in and of itself. I find it entirely possible. I presume you've heard of Operation Northwoods?

No, but I looked it up. Strange and interesting. But unless some evidence like that turned up for 9-11, I still think it's retarded.

But the theories just don't have enough evidence for them to be taken seriously. There is no evidence that we know of, for example, that those Israeli's or any of the others arrested before and after 9/11 were involved in anything other than information gathgering. I still say, however, that the very real possility that Mossad and Israel knew of the impending attack, right down to quite explit detail is something deeply disturbing in and of istelf.

I guess you can be disturbed by it. But the reason why I'm not, is that if the same thing was happening in Israel, I doubt any embedded CIA agent would report it. They'd probably just watch like the 5 dancing Israelis did. They might have even danced a bit, for whatever reason. Intelligence agents are fucked up.

Nick,

It's pretty easy to label what I'm talking about as politics isn't it? You're simply too afraid to see the true nature of our president especially when you support him. His true nature being idiocy, idiocy that you support.

Well, it's easy to label it politics because that's what it is.

I'm not afraid to see the true nature of the president. I don't support everything he does, for instance, the occuption in Iraq right now I don't support. I say let them deal with it. I also don't support his haircut.

But I don't think his true nature is idiocy. It's funny, because the only people I notice that say such things, I consider idiots.

You think Bush embodies masculinity? What do you think masculinity is, charging into a country with guns blazing and hanging out with the good old boys on his ranch in Texas?

That is one aspect of it. Sticking to your guns.

You must have no idea what masculinity really is. Bush is a Woman through and through.

Actually, I'd say that about you before I would about him.

He is a Christian fundamentalist who makes volatile decisions in distressfully emotional states. He doesn't know how to make decisions based in logic, only through his emotions.

I disagree.

This one one of the shittiest excuses I've ever heard as to why we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq.

What? That the UN took way too long and told Iraq where it was going before they actually went there to investigate?

You know what's funny? In my military career, I've met a few people who've told me that they've seen evidence of WMDs while deployed. Of course, that stuff isn't reported because we all want to believe there were no WMDs.

Funny when actual generals of Saddam are saying they helped move them out of the country, and you still don't believe it. That's all right...skepticism is good.

Any dictator like Saddam would not hesitate to use their WMDs, if they had them, when their country is facing a complete invasion. At this point, what have they got to lose? They would have certainly used these WMDs to defend themselves from the USA.

Ass umptions.

Yes you are right, he is definitely running it, running it straight into the ground.

Where do you get this from? I think the country's doing fine. Just as good as it ever was.

Yes, but it is limited and much less practical.

So the answer is yes...well then that makes your whole argument quite stupid.

It's a fairly new technology, and when you have religious fundamentalists like Bush deciding whether or not it recieves sufficient funding it's hard for it to even get off the ground.

Alright...it can be done without abortions, which makes it legal. They can work with the technology right now. And they are...and nothing good has come from it.

Don't blame that on Bush. He doesn't give them funding? So what? He's a republican. Should he take that out of our taxes in addition to everything else that's taken out? Marsha doesn't make enough money, Nick...you're going to run her into the ground.

Bad things happen, does that mean we should direct society towards a state of constant marshal law?

Do you see troops patrolling the American streets? No. If people listen to your phone calls and look at your internet use, that isn't martial law. People aren't raiding our homes and putting us in cells, unless we do actually have something to hide.

Should society go towards a state of constant martial law? No. It would be like communism. But where society is right now is pretty damn good.

Besides, these laws affect lawful Americans, not the terrorists training on the other side of the world. Read about why the founding fathers created a checks and balances system, and a government by the people, of the people, and for the people. We might as well stop calling him President Bush and start calling him King Bush the way he abuses power.

Not all Americans are lawful. Terrorists may train "on the other side of the world" but a lot of then plan to use the things they've learned here in the US. So I think the patriot act is good.

Perhaps the founding fathers weren't the brightest people...maybe they didn't think of every possibility. If there's a stagnancy, then we need to evolve. The founding fathers certainly had some great ideas, though. Especially a government by of and for the people.

The government regulates every thing you do involving a significant amount of money. And the Patriot Act doesn't allow the government to listen to your phone conversations without you ever knowing right? The truth is you really have no idea how much the government is actually involved with your life now.

I'm sure they know everything about my life. I've heard some crazy things from friends of mine about getting high level security clearances for military intelligence. It may have been bullshit though.

But it'd be easy to fly under the radar in this country...you just have to know how they track you. There are easy loopholes to jump through. I'm actually suprised more terrorist attacks haven't happened, thinking about how easy it is. I wouldn't be suprised if terrorists actually started doing tons of small scale attacks across the country, that take little planning. I'm sure there's some timeline that a large group of them follow, which will inflict the most terror.

It'd be easy to avoid the government altogether. Just look at illegal immigrants coming here and living relatively normal lives. Piece of cake!

I don't think the Americans born into poverty, or a family of drug dealers and criminals, choose to do so. If you were born into it chances are you wouldn't escape it, as most don't.

That's true.

sschaula wrote: There are people who can't drive their cars into town to get a meal...they can't read certain things...they can't visit the Genius Forum because it's banned because it's considered religious...they have to believe certain things...they have to wear certain clothes...they have to work at certain jobs...

Those people aren't free.

What a weird kind of argumentation. Cars, jobs, meals? Do you really think these things are lacking in any way in any developed country, including Muslim ones?

Now the choice in books. For some countries like Iran, I'm sure the book choice is restricted though I know that e.g. Harry Potter and The Davinci Code were just as popular in the shops there as they were here. So it's not that black and white. Most of the people are interested in Persian authors anyway or have to wait for translations otherwise. I did hear that Iran has more philosophy book titles being published than anywhere else in the world, and I wonder what kind they are.

I've read once a compelling case that showed how nationalism could be considered a fully fledged religion, but I think the belief in Western Superiority is an even bigger religion, but not considered one because separation of church and state is one of our holy laws to believe in, "universal values" is another one. And somehow the believers are forgetting how state and state-culture just has taken on the role of yet another world-religion.

Religion is the rational of what you are down to the core, how you live, where you die for or where you want to sacrifice others for. Who is free from that religion? You aren't, by this definition, and any other definition turns religion into a useless thing to be discarded.

in response to scott's replies, i must say that the US government has accomplished its job in instilling fear in people through the attacks of 9/11 and every other 'muslim/arab' ploy that has been coming up in the news. once one fears what one does not have power over, they will look for protection. the american government gives its people 'security' through fear. some are afraid of more attacks, therefore they are pro-war because that gives them a sense of something being done to prevent the attacks. what if the government was behind 9/11, im sure you have seen Loose Change and many other revealing conspiracy movies/articles that go to prove clearly that 9/11 was a government plan that was suggested back when kennedy was in office over the cuban missle crisis. this is what the government wants from its people, their surrender of freedom in place of security. i have taken the point of view that makes most sense to me that the US government and its circle of friends around the world (top leaders with the most money/power) have a hidden agenda to control the world through one leading government. everything is unwravelling (sp?) just as they want it to and it is apparent to see everyday through current events, its amusing. we may try realize that there may be another agenda behind the decision to invade iraq and afganistan and be involved in these people's conflicts. then we will see that fear is what runs this world and the only way to overcome is to be aware of all possibilities.

sschaula wrote:So he was trying to expand what counts as permissable interrogation techniques? This is wrong...why?

Seriously, Scott, I think you should look into Bush's unprecedented use of signing statements. They are his way of trying to do something - a line-item veto - that he knows to be unconstitutional; he's trying to get around that court ruling.

The McCain Amendment was just an example - a particularly nasty and obvious one, I thought. But my mind boggles that you would ask why it's a bad idea for the President to over-rule the Congress (in a way many people consider unconstitutional, although there are some who argue it is legal) in order to torture people. You should be able to come up with three or four reasons off the top of your head why that's a bad idea.

What does it do when the president makes a signing statement with a law? Does it basically veto the law without going through court? What's unconstitutional about making them?

Kevin wrote:

Please move this discussion to a new thread.

Good idea. I'll start a new thread on the main forum.

-

Kevin wrote:

Yes, it was projection, but was I wrong?

You can usually judge the worth of something from its first minutes, and I doubt that this was an exception.

Perhaps the first half of the documentary was used to paint the Israelis as evil, and then the second half painted the Palestinians as evil. Either way, I don't have time for that kind of reporting. I want to see the facts without the drama.

For example,

1. Palestinians feel oppressed.
2. Palestinians feel oppressed because Israelis feel threatened.
3. Israelis are threatened for the following reasons:
a.
b.
c.
4. Possible solutions.

These are the facts without all the nonsense.

Rubbish. These are not the facts without all the nonsense. And I don't think there is anything wise in expecting to get "the" facts without "emotional nonsense" in news reporting! What planet are you on?

Yes, Kevin, you are wrong. Your brand of argumentation breeds the kind of anti-thought, fundamentalist idiocy present in Scott: a die-hard Bush fanatic.

I see no rational justification for a wise man emotionally responding to a position because that position is emotional without any reasonable assessment at all.

From what sources, incidentally, do you consider that you will get reporting that gives you the facts “without the drama”? What was the drama, exactly? The pictures of a group of armed Israeli soldiers smacking a rock against a Palestinian man, or the one where they were hitting another’s head against the wall? Are these not facts worthy of critical analysis? Palestinian soldiers throwing rocks against Israeli soldiers?

Maybe the images of an Israeli woman searching for her family after a suicide bomber attack?

Does that make the reporting emotional and dramatic, or your response to it emotional and dramatic?

One of the major points of the video is the function of PR. I would have been interested in seeing your critical analysis of that aspect of the Palestine/US-Israel conflict. It does not, however, surprise me that you avoid it. Ultimately, you are happy to reduce it to the single cause and fight against Muslim fundamentalism.

You are indeed fear mongering.

Your argument so far goes like this:

1. Palestinians are oppressed for the following reasons:
2. Israel is threatened by suicide bombers
3. Therefore, Israel has the right to “defend herself” by whatever means necessary
3. Islamic fundamentalists want Islamic law to rule the entire planet
4. Palestinians are Muslims, therefore they want to rule the entire planet with Islamic law
5. Therefore, Palestinians essentially do not have the right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary
6. Therefore, the US is right to fund the Israel’s defence and, thereby, the continued conflict rather than support any other solution to the conflict in that area

Like Bush, you are not at all interested in solutions.

.

Leyla,

I really come off as "fundamentalist", "die hard" and a "fanatic"? I have no thought, or am anti-thought?

That's pretty backward coming from a woman who has been responding emotionally to this topic the whole time. Yes, I pulled the woman card.

Heed Tharan's warnings of you being a cheerleader and me saying you are giving only fluff...try to think of what that means, instead of emotionally reacting. This should be about the truth, not about whether we're right or wrong. Not about taking sides.

But in regards to your post to Kevin, I think Kevin's thought is pure. His brand of argumentation is what is needed in a pursuit of wisdom. Your brand of argumentation is...non existent because there aren't any points. Only stabs at your opponent and a bunch of fluff. I don't want to offend Marsha, but it really resembles her writing. It seems like you're making a lot of points, but really no points are made. It's like you're trying to write a short story everytime you post. That seems to be your goal, instead of ridding delusion.

It's a prime example of femininity. It's cute...like a little puppy that keeps running into things. And it's dangerous, because not many people can comprehend what's wise from what's unwise. True intelligence versus seeming intelligence.

You, Scott, are seriously deluded, for a number of obvious reasons.

.

That's exactly what I'm telling you about, Leyla. Your post contains a stab, and no reasons about why or how I'm seriously deluded. It is all fluff.

This is a philosophy forum. What does it say when you make a post that has nothing to do with the truth, and all to do with this? That you're being offended and defending yourself. It's all emotional.

I wish you'd add some substance to it...like a list of reasons why I'm deluded. Evidence, like things that I wrote, which are deluded and untrue. That would be philosophical...but what you're posting now doesn't contribute to the forum.

It doesn't even contribute to my personal growth as a person. Being called names without suggestions doesn't help a person. Perhaps you could give me some helpful suggestions as to what I could do to alleviate my apparent anti-thought?

Anyway, if we are going to continue to do this, I'm not going to do it in this topic. Send me a PM if you want to continue this kind of thing.

Leyla Shen wrote:From what sources, incidentally, do you consider that you will get reporting that gives you the facts “without the drama”?

From an intelligent source. They are looking for solutions rather than mere entertainment and points-scoring.

What was the drama, exactly?

The drama is in reporting only partial information, which promotes outrage. For example, implying that the purpose of roadblocks and curfews is simply to cause suffering to the Palestians, and little else.

The pictures of a group of armed Israeli soldiers smacking a rock against a Palestinian man, or the one where they were hitting another’s head against the wall?

Gruesome images can be found anywhere - especially in such conflicts. They don't prove anything other than things are gruesome.

Are these not facts worthy of critical analysis? Palestinian soldiers throwing rocks against Israeli soldiers?

This is the conflict itself. They are fighting over land among other things. No wonder they are fighting. I'm not sure what kind of critical analysis you think is required.

One of the major points of the video is the function of PR.

In the U.S I understand that the PR has anti-Palestinian. While in Australia, in my opinion, it has been anti-Israeli.

I would like to see more balanced, rational reporting, in the manner I have suggested.

This won't happen of course, because people want entertainment more than they want solutions.

1. Palestinians are oppressed for the following reasons:
2. Israel is threatened by suicide bombers
3. Therefore, Israel has the right to “defend herself” by whatever means necessary

Try this:

Palestinians are oppressed because the state Israel is under threat by Palestinians. Israel defends itself.

That's all there is to it.

5. Therefore, Palestinians essentially do not have the right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary

I have never said that. The Palestinians can fight as much as they like.

6. Therefore, the US is right to fund the Israel’s defence and, thereby, the continued conflict rather than support any other solution to the conflict in that area

I don't care what the US does. That's there business. I'm not American.

Like Bush, you are not at all interested in solutions.

I think you will find that Bush does want a solution. Only it might not be the solution you want.

Personally, I don't particularly care if the Israelis stay where they are or move the entire state to Canada.

And around a week ago there were a big group of Muslims planning to use liquid explosives on planes from the UK to America. And just yesterday there was a Pak woman trying to board a plane with an explosive gel.

Is it not odd that no one has been arrested for the planned attacks in Britain?

The Pak woman was released when second tests confirmed that the questionable substance was hair gel or something else harmless.

Faizi

They're being held in custody, right?

They are being questioned. A couple have been released. No charges. I understand that there are differences between British and American law but, given that the threat was put out as absolute fact, I think some charges would be brought by now.

Kind of weird.

Faizi

They probably don't want people thinking they were profiling. I think I remember hearing that there are a lot of Muslims when that cartoon came out of Denmark, who were protesting in London. If your country is made up of however much of a certain group of people, you definitely don't want to offend that group. "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

But maybe I'm way off on there being a lot of Muslims in the UK.

I was reading about Jack Idema earlier this evening, and he said something good pertaining to this situation, from his lavish prison suite in Afghanistan...

"You can't fight terrorists with law enforcement and prosecution, Clinton tried that for eight years. You can't do it, they are animals– they are not human, just ask the families that lost their loved ones on 9/11. When the terrorists capture us they cut off our heads on television. When we capture them they complain that we don't let them piss for twelve hours. Well, sorry about that motherfucker, you were about to drive explosive rigged gas tankers into Bagram and kill 500 American soldiers in a ball of flames. You should be glad I didn't defenestrate you. I believe that real Americans want real counter-terrorist operations, not bullshit press junkets and canned PR stories from PAOs that shot a gun once in their life on the basic training qualification range. I didn't start this fucking war, not the one with bin laden, nor the one with the press, they started it, but I will finish it, or die in the process."

I hope there are other people like him out there, and that they'll see to it that whoever's let go by the authorities gets what's coming to them. Real counter-terrorism.

Well, sorry about that motherfucker, you were about to drive explosive rigged gas tankers into Bagram and kill 500 American soldiers in a ball of flames

The US is in Iraq by choice and it is an all volunteer army. Not that I want to see American soldiers killed. I have a lot of empathy for them but the US was stupid for going into Iraq. The US took advantage of its soldiers and is using them for ill purpose.

The US invaded Iraq at its own peril. The idea that we would be greated with open arms is preposterous and inane. The invasion was an invitation to terrorists.

Faizi

Kevin,

Leyla: From what sources, incidentally, do you consider that you will get reporting that gives you the facts “without the drama”?

Kevin: From an intelligent source. They are looking for solutions rather than mere entertainment and points-scoring.

I share this sentiment. However, where we differ appears to be that the lack of such sources is a justification for not addressing any particular source.

Have you identified any such single intelligent source on the matter, Kevin?

Leyla: What was the drama, exactly?

Kevin: The drama is in reporting only partial information, which promotes outrage. For example, implying that the purpose of roadblocks and curfews is simply to cause suffering to the Palestians, and little else.

No. It was more than that. But you won’t see that if you only watch the first ten minutes. It is explicitly claimed to be a response to partial and unintelligent pro-Israeli reporting in the US -- something you are against, apparently.

Leyla: The pictures of a group of armed Israeli soldiers smacking a rock against a Palestinian man, or the one where they were hitting another’s head against the wall?

Kevin: Gruesome images can be found anywhere - especially in such conflicts. They don't prove anything other than things are gruesome.

Leyla: Are these not facts worthy of critical analysis? Palestinian soldiers throwing rocks against Israeli soldiers?

This is the conflict itself. They are fighting over land among other things. No wonder they are fighting. I'm not sure what kind of critical analysis you think is required.

That kind. That is the first time I have heard you offer it as a reason. You could say that I have found your “reporting” on the subject as dramatic with a definite bias, or emphasis, on the conflict being due to Muslim fundamentalism than to issues over land. Maybe that is because of your narrow Australian-media induced view of the situation.

I think that only once the real (as in realism) issues are identified can there be solutions. If, for instance, you are going to make this conflict primarily about Muslim fundamentalism, then of course the only “solution” is going to be to wipe out Muslims.

Leyla: One of the major points of the video is the function of PR.

Kevin: In the U.S I understand that the PR has anti-Palestinian. While in Australia, in my opinion, it has been anti-Israeli.

I would like to see more balanced, rational reporting, in the manner I have suggested.

This won't happen of course, because people want entertainment more than they want solutions.

Well, I can’t really argue with that in terms of mainstream media.

Leyla:
1. Palestinians are oppressed for the following reasons:
2. Israel is threatened by suicide bombers
3. Therefore, Israel has the right to “defend herself” by whatever means necessary

Kevin:
Try this:
Palestinians are oppressed because the state Israel is under threat by Palestinians. Israel defends itself.

Eh, slightly better. I would just add to the end of that last sentence: with a lot of help from the US and against the basic values of international law.

Course, I don’t really care whether you or anyone else likes that particular addition, but it is a fact that should be addressed.

Kevin: That's all there is to it.

No. That’s not all there is to it. On what grounds do you attempt to compartment influential aspects of the situation out of existence?

Leyla: 5. Therefore, Palestinians essentially do not have the right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary

Kevin: I have never said that. The Palestinians can fight as much as they like.

The key word was “essentially.” I just love this hype about Muslim fundamentalism being a threat to the world when there is insignificant, if any at all, military funding to Palestinians from Muslim nations to support the idea. There’s certainly an imbalance in their right to defend themselves there.

Naturally, it will be argued by some that the single reason for this is the ever-masculine G Dubbya and the US: that, given the opportunity, Muslim nations would blow up the world.

Yes, I too would like to see intelligent reporting that is something other than entertainment.

Leyla: 6. Therefore, the US is right to fund the Israel’s defence and, thereby, the continued conflict rather than support any other solution to the conflict in that area

Kevin: I don't care what the US does. That's there business. I'm not American.

If you are interested in solutions from intelligent reporting, what has “caring” got to do with it?

Leyla: Like Bush, you are not at all interested in solutions.

Kevin: I think you will find that Bush does want a solution. Only it might not be the solution you want.

I think you are kidding yourself if you think I don’t know what Bush’s “solution” is. Sticks out like dog’s balls to me! Fund the state of Israel in the Middle East, at any cost. It seems to be a "solution," however, that you do not want to acknowledge.

Kevin: Personally, I don't particularly care if the Israelis stay where they are or move the entire state to Canada.

I'm not sure I believe you, yet. I am not asking you if you care, Kevin. You cared enough to comment on the subject. You even cared enough to say that you wanted intelligent reporting and solutions. Yet, now you don't care?

What is the meaning of this?

.

No good comedian takes personal oppression for a reputation. Comedians whose material comes from belonging to an oppressed group are automatically pitiful or pushy.

The ability to breach social taboos freely is essential for a comedian. Poking fun at rituals isn't funny, it's superficial. This is why religious and oppressed-group-comedians are like mawkish social workers. They lack the wild, creative frenzy that comes from turning the entire value-system on its head.

A decent comedian can swing it in many cultures; is an outsider; is a jester who can suck anyone's toes. If a culture allows such comedians to exist, then it is one worth protecting.

Kelly Jones wrote:A decent comedian can swing it in many cultures; is an outsider; is a jester who can suck anyone's toes. If a culture allows such comedians to exist, then it is one worth protecting.

Yes, I agree, if even only to know the Nature of the specific toes being sucked.

"In the abundance of water, only the fool is thirsty" - Bob Marley, Rat Race

Leyla Shen wrote:Have you identified any such single intelligent source on the matter, Kevin?

Not yet. I doubt that such a source exists within the journalistic community.

It is explicitly claimed to be a response to partial and unintelligent pro-Israeli reporting in the US -- something you are against, apparently.

Yes, upon watching the rest of it I see that it claimed to be providing information that the pro-Israeli reporting in the US does not show. Unfortunately, it did so in the same sensationalist, propaganda-like way of their opponents - which turned me off right from the beginning.

You could say that I have found your “reporting” on the subject as dramatic with a definite bias, or emphasis, on the conflict being due to Muslim fundamentalism than to issues over land.

So far as the Palestinians are concerned, the conflict is primarily over land, and they using their religious beliefs to help justify their fight, and empower them.

So far as Hezbollah are concerned, I don't believe their anger is because of a conflict over land, since Israel had already fully withdrawn from Lebanon. In dispute are only a few relatively small farms, which are also in dispute with Syria. Hezbollah are fuelled more by an anger encouraged by their religious idealism.

. . . Unless of course Hezbollah want to claim the landmass of Israel for itself - in which case the conflict is about land.

I think that only once the real (as in realism) issues are identified can there be solutions.

Quite right. But the real issue is that Israel's neighbours probably want Israel to cease to exist.

If, for instance, you are going to make this conflict primarily about Muslim fundamentalism, then of course the only “solution” is going to be to wipe out Muslims.

Fundamentalism is only an energy source - an energy of irrationality - which can be turned towards any purpose you happen to have.

Palestinians are oppressed because the state Israel is under threat by Palestinians. Israel defends itself.

Eh, slightly better. I would just add to the end of that last sentence: with a lot of help from the US and against the basic values of international law.

The occupied territories is of course a problem. Of course, as far as many Palestinians are concerned, the whole of Israel is an occupied territory. Israel wants to claim the occupied territories as its own, arguing that they are necessary to its survival, etc.

The U.S and Australia can't very well argue with this line of reasoning very convincingly, since that is precisely how the U.S and Australia acquired its land - by forcing the inhabitants off the land and occupying the land.

Australia, for example, has been an illegally occupied territory for the last two hundred years.

There’s certainly an imbalance in their right to defend themselves there.

There are less resources on their side, that's for sure. Just as there were less resources on the side of the Australian aboriginals and the American Indians.

Leyla: 6. Therefore, the US is right to fund the Israel’s defence and, thereby, the continued conflict rather than support any other solution to the conflict in that area

The US don't have an easy choice to make. Either they support Israel, or they abandon them. If Israelis are abandoned by the US, they could well perish.

But then what is the point to the UN setting up Israel, only to abandon them to perish?

Fund the state of Israel in the Middle East, at any cost. It seems to be a "solution," however, that you do not want to acknowledge.

I acknowledge it alright. That is Bush's current solution. And I bet he wishes there were a better, cheaper solution.

But there's no use criticizing unless you can come up with a better solution.

Kevin: Personally, I don't particularly care if the Israelis stay where they are or move the entire state to Canada.

I'm not sure I believe you, yet. I am not asking you if you care, Kevin. You cared enough to comment on the subject. You even cared enough to say that you wanted intelligent reporting and solutions. Yet, now you don't care?

What is the meaning of this?

I think Israel should be allowed to exist peacefully within the borders of their small bit of land. But if that is not possible, then it might be necessary to relocate them. It's better than having a third world war over it.

The main reason I starting writing-in was because I was appalled by the shallow reporting I was seeing on T.V, which was simplifying the conflict down to "Why are the Israelis purposely targeting their bombs at groups of children?"

You can take or leave the second half of this article as your prejudice so dictates, but the first part of it is a proper reflection of recent events. Please read this Kevin:

---------------

July 27, 2006

Israel's "new Middle East"
Tanya Reinhart

Beirut is burning, hundreds of Lebanese die, hundreds of thousands lose all they ever owned and become refugees, and all the world is doing is rescuing the "foreign passport" residents of what was just two weeks ago "the Paris of the Middle East". Lebanon must die now, because "Israel has the right to defend itself", so goes the U.S. mantra, used to block any international attempt to impose a cease fire.

Israel, backed by the U.S., portrays its war on Lebanon as a war of self defense. It is easy to sell this message to mainstream media, because the residents of the North of Israel are also in shelters, bombarded and endangered. Israel's claim that no country would let such an attack on its residents unanswered, finds many sympathetic ears. But let us reconstruct exactly how it all started.

On Wednesday, July 12, a Hezbollah unit attacked two armored Jeeps of the Israeli army, patrolling along Israel's border with Lebanon. Three Israeli soldiers were killed in the attack and two were taken hostage. In a news conference held in Beirut a couple of hours later, Hezbollah's leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah explained that their aim was to reach a prisoner exchange, where in return for the two captured Israeli soldiers, Israel would return three Lebanese prisoners it had refused to release in a previous prisoner exchange. Nasrallah declared that "he did not want to drag the region into war", but added that "our current restraint is not due to weakness... if they [Israel] choose to confront us, they must be prepared for surprises."

The Israeli government, however, did not give a single moment for diplomacy, negotiations, or even cool reflection over the situation. In a cabinet meeting that same day, it authorized a massive offensive on Lebanon. As Ha'aretz reported, "in a sharp departure from Israel's response to previous Hezbollah attacks, the cabinet session unanimously agreed that the Lebanese government should be held responsible for yesterday's events." Olmert declared: "This morning's events are not a terror attack, but the act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel for no reason and without provocation." He added that "the Lebanese government, of which Hezbollah is a part, is trying to undermine regional stability. Lebanon is responsible, and Lebanon will bear the consequences of its actions."

At the cabinet meeting, "the IDF recommended various operations aimed at the Lebanese government and strategic targets in Lebanon", as well as a comprehensive attack on southern Lebanon (where Hezbollah's batteries of rockets are concentrated). The government immediately approved both recommendations. The spirit of the cabinet's decision was succinctly summarized by Defense Minister Amir Perertz who said: "We're skipping the stage of threats and going straight to action."

At 21.50 that same day, Ha'aretz internet edition reported that by that time Israel had already bombarded bridges in central Lebanon and attacked "Hezbollah's posts" in southern Lebanon. Amnesty International's press release of the next day (13 July 2006) stated that in these attacks "some 40 Lebanese civilians have reportedly been killed... Among the Lebanese victims were a family of ten, including eight children, who were killed in Dweir village, near Nabatiyeh, and a family of seven, including a seven-month-old baby, who were killed in Baflay village near Tyre. More than 60 other civilians were injured in these or other attacks."

It was at that point, early on Wednesday night, following the first Israeli attack, that Hezbollah started its rocket attack on the north of Israel. Later the same night (before the dawn of Thursday), Israel launched its first attack on Beirut, when Israeli warplanes bombed Beirut's international airport and killed at least 27 Lebanese civilians in a series of raids. In response, Hezbollah's rocket attacks intensified on Thursday, when "more than 100 Katyusha rockets were fired into Israel from Lebanon in the largest attack of its sort since the start of the Lebanon War in 1982". Two Israeli civilians were killed in this attack, and 132 were taken to the hospital . When Israel started destroying the Shiite quarters of Beirut the following day, including a failed attempt on Nasrallah's life, Hezbollah extended its rockets attacks to Haifa.

The way it started, there was nothing in Hezbollah's military act, whatever one may think of it, to justify Israel's massive disproportionate response. Lebanon has had a long-standing border dispute with Israel: In 2000, when Israel, under Prime Minister Ehud Barak, withdrew from Southern Lebanon, Israel kept a small piece of land known as the Shaba farms (near Mount Dov), which it claims belonged historically to Syria and not to Lebanon, though both Syria and Lebanon deny that. The Lebanese government has frequently appealed to the U.S. and others for Israel’s withdrawal also from this land, which has remained the center of friction in Southern Lebanon, in order to ease the tension in the area and to help the Lebanese internal negotiations over implementing UN resolutions. The most recent such appeal was in mid-April 2006, in a Washington meeting between Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and George Bush . In the six years since Israel withdrew, there have been frequent border incidents between Hezbollah and the Israeli army, and cease-fire violations of the type committed now by Hezbollah, have occurred before, initiated by either side, and more frequently by Israel. None of the previous incidents resulted in Katyusha shelling of the north of Israel, which has enjoyed full calm since Israel's withdrawal. It was possible for Israel to handle this incident as all its predecessors, with at most a local retaliation, or a prisoner exchange, or even better, with an attempt to solve this border dispute once and for all. Instead, Israel opted for a global war. As Peretz put it: "The goal is for this incident to end with Hezbollah so badly beaten that not a man in it does not regret having launched this incident [sic]."

The Israeli government knew right from the start that launching its offensive would expose the north of Israel to heavy Katyusha rockets attacks. This was openly discussed at this first government's meeting on Wednesday: "Hezbollah is likely to respond to the Israeli attacks with massive rocket launches at Israel, and in that case, the IDF might move ground forces into Lebanon". One cannot avoid the conclusion that for the Israeli army and government, endangering the lives of residents of northern Israel was a price worth paying in order to justify the planned ground offensive. They started preparing Israelis on that same Wednesday for what may be ahead: "'We may be facing a completely different reality, in which hundreds of thousands of Israelis will, for a short time, find themselves in danger from Hezbollah's rockets', said a senior defense official. 'These include residents of the center of the country.'" For the Israeli military leadership, not only the Lebanese and the Palestinians, but also the Israelis are just pawns in some big military vision.

The speed at which everything happened (along with many other pieces of information) indicates that Israel has been waiting for a long time for 'the international conditions to ripen' for the massive war on Lebanon it has been planning. In fact, one does not need to speculate on this, since right from the start, Israeli and U.S. official sources have been pretty open in this regard. As a Senior Israeli official explained to the Washington Post on July 16, "Hezbollah's cross-border raid has provided a 'unique moment' with a 'convergence of interests'." The paper goes on to explain what this convergence of interests is:

For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.

For the U.S., the Middle East is a "strategic playing field", where the game is establishing full U.S. domination. The U.S. already controls Iraq and Afghanistan, and considers Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and a few other states as friendly cooperating regimes. But even with this massive foothold, full U.S. domination is still far from established. Iran has only been strengthened by the Iraq war and refuses to accept the decrees of the master. Throughout the Arab world, including in the "friendly regimes", there is boiling anger at the U.S., at the heart of which is not only the occupation of Iraq, but the brutal oppression of the Palestinians, and the U.S. backing of Israel's policies. The new axis of the four enemies of the Bush administration (Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran) are bodies viewed by the Arab world as resisting U.S. or Israel's rule, and standing for Arab liberation. From Bush's perspective, he only has two years to consolidate his vision of complete U.S. control of the Middle East, and to do that, all seeds of resistance should be crushed in a devastating blow that will make it clear to every single Arab that obeying the master is the only way to stay alive. If Israel is willing to do the job, and crush not only the Palestinians, but also Lebanon and Hezbollah, then the U.S., torn from the inside by growing resentment over Bush's wars, and perhaps unable to send new soldiers to be killed for this cause right now, will give Israel all the backing it can. As Rice announced in her visit in Jerusalem on July 25, what is at stakes is "a new Middle East". "We will prevail" - she promised Olmert.

But Israel is not sacrificing its soldiers and citizens only to please the Bush administration. The "new Middle East" has been a dream of the Israeli ruling military circles since at least 1982, when Sharon led the country to the first Lebanon war with precisely this declared goal. Hezbollah's leaders have argued for years that its real long-term role is to protect Lebanon, whose army is too weak to do this. They have said that Israel has never given up its aspirations for Lebanon and that the only reason it pulled out of Southern Lebanon in 2000 is because Hezbollah's resistance has made maintaining the occupation too costly. Lebanon's people know what every Israeli old enough to remember knows - that in the vision of Ben Gurion, Israel's founding leader, Israel's border should be "natural", that is - the Jordan river in the East, and the Litani river of Lebanon in the north. In 1967, Israel gained control over the Jordan river, in the occupied Palestinian land, but all its attempts to establish the Litani border have failed so far.

As I argued in Israel/Palestine, already when the Israeli army left Southern Lebanon in 2000, the plans to return were ready. But in Israel's military vision, in the next round, the land should be first "cleaned" of its residents, as Israel did when it occupied the Syrian Golan Heights in 1967, and as it is doing now in southern Lebanon. To enable Israel's eventual realization of Ben Gurion's vision, it is necessary to establish a "friendly regime" in Lebanon, one that will collaborate in crushing any resistance. To do this, it is necessary first to destroy the country, as in the U.S. model of Iraq. These were precisely Sharon's declared aims in the first Lebanon war. Israel and the U.S. believe that now conditions have ripened enough that these aims can finally be realized.

Tanya Reinhart is Professor Emeritus of linguistics and media studies at Tel Aviv University and a frequent op-ed writer for the Israeli evening paper 'Yediot Aharonot'. The second edition of her 2002 book Israel/Palestine - how to end the war of 1948 has appeared last year (Seven Stories), and her new book: The Road Map to Nowhere, will appear in September (Verso).

the first part of it is a proper reflection of recent events.

Yes, the first part sounds like a reasonable account to me.

What is disputable is that "there was nothing in Hezbollah's military act" (of killing and taking Israeli border troups).

If there's "nothing" in it, then Hezbollah might as well go over the border and kill a few Israeli soldiers every week or so.

To a large extent it's up the Israelis to decide how many killings they will tolerate before they respond, or how they will respond.

It's not up to us to say, for example, "No, they only killed 3 of your lot, so you can only kill up to a maximum of 10 of their lot."

I've no doubt that the Israelis have been closely watching the Hezbollah military build-up over recent months, and this was probably a factor in deciding the manner of their response.

Leyla Shen wrote:Marsha,

I am of Jewish descent…[snip]

I cannot read beyond this. I don’t get it at all. Hence, I have a barrage of questions.

It’s like me saying, “I’m of Muslim descent.” What does it mean? Am I related by blood to every other Muslim through religion? If I have a blood transfusion and the donor is a Buddhist, am I from that day on of Buddhist descent? When you became a Muslim, did you suddenly become of Muslim descent or were you an American Muslim, ex Jew? Were you ever really a practising Jew? Is a practising Jew one who lives in Israel? If a pregnant Christian woman travels to Israel and has her baby there, is that baby a Jew or an Israelite -- on what grounds (ha!) is there no difference? How, exactly, does one retain their Jewishness?

Is today’s young American of Secular descent?

.

Judaism is a race cult. They're gods chosen PEOPLE. The hilarious irony is they run all the groups that go around calling everyone else racist. :rotflmao:

millipodium wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:Marsha,

I am of Jewish descent…[snip]

I cannot read beyond this. I don’t get it at all. Hence, I have a barrage of questions.

It’s like me saying, “I’m of Muslim descent.” What does it mean? Am I related by blood to every other Muslim through religion? If I have a blood transfusion and the donor is a Buddhist, am I from that day on of Buddhist descent? When you became a Muslim, did you suddenly become of Muslim descent or were you an American Muslim, ex Jew? Were you ever really a practising Jew? Is a practising Jew one who lives in Israel? If a pregnant Christian woman travels to Israel and has her baby there, is that baby a Jew or an Israelite -- on what grounds (ha!) is there no difference? How, exactly, does one retain their Jewishness?

Is today’s young American of Secular descent?

.

Judaism is a race cult. They're gods chosen PEOPLE. The hilarious irony is they run all the groups that go around calling everyone else racist. :rotflmao:

Yes, I thought I raised some important questions there. But, you see, women are the worst misogynists. They will be the first to accuse a female of fluff and being womanly, rather than think about and respond to the implicit ideas in a communication. You see, unless you point it out to them in very plain and direct English, they are lost to any meaning -- having no meaning themselves except that which is spoonfed to them.

.