GameBanshee Forums

Is this your opinion or do you have proof?

Of course I have no proof, but I am not trying to argue...it wasn't meant to be controversial, it's just common knowledge. Of course I know that freedom fighters and rebels get their arms from all over, and of course the biggest supplier of arms to the palestinians are other Muslim sympathisers (correct word?), but I was just trying to make the point about the USA's dreadful moral stance, fueling both sides of the war with guns and ammunition (and object for hatred by the arabs), placing politics and money over life and liberty.

Originally posted by EMINEM
In that case, fable, can I have your vote? I'm sure I can put it to good use.

Sorry, @Eminem. I have even less tolerance for a theocracy than I have for most democracies.

Originally posted by Xan deVir
terrorist = a person who uses terror (suicide bombers, assaults on civilians*) or accepts the usage of it to achieve his political goals.

That's fairly broad, Xan deVir. I don't know what country you call home, but are you prepared to lump the United States and most of western Europe in with your definition of terrorists because we've been systematically assaulting civilians and non-military targets for years.

I am from the United States, which was founded in an armed insurrection and relied heavily on "terror tactics" (like the Boston Tea Party) to defeat a militarily superior foe. We've also backed many countries which employ terrorist tactics of their own, making us a sponsor of terrorist nations. So what's the difference between us and them?

Originally posted by frogus
Of course I have no proof, but I am not trying to argue...it wasn't meant to be controversial, it's just common knowledge. Of course I know that freedom fighters and rebels get their arms from all over, and of course the biggest supplier of arms to the palestinians are other Muslim sympathisers (correct word?), but I was just trying to make the point about the USA's dreadful moral stance, fueling both sides of the war with guns and ammunition (and object for hatred by the arabs), placing politics and money over life and liberty.

In others Bash the US in a thread about Boycotting Israel.

come on Weasel...I ask that you take into consideration Xan De Vir and HLD's discussion of 'what is a terrorist', Fable's talk about boycotting china, democracy and theocracy, Morlock's mention of suicied bombing and CE's recommendation of the creation of a new palestinian state before you have a go at me for being off topic, when actually I am about as on topic as anyone. USA bashing is getting to be a cliche. I will not say that one of the USA's policies or businesses is moral if it is not, just for fear of being called a USA basher. What do you want me to do? Say that actually I agree with the USA selling arms; or delete my posts because they are 'off topic'?

Should I take the fact that no one's paying serious attention to my last post as a hint to the feelings here?

Originally posted by frogus
come on Weasel...I ask that you take into consideration Xan De Vir and HLD's discussion of 'what is a terrorist', Fable's talk about boycotting china, democracy and theocracy, Morlock's mention of suicied bombing and CE's recommendation of the creation of a new palestinian state before you have a go at me for being off topic, when actually I am about as on topic as anyone. USA bashing is getting to be a cliche. I will not say that one of the USA's policies or businesses is moral if it is not, just for fear of being called a USA basher. What do you want me to do? Say that actually I agree with the USA selling arms; or delete my posts because they are 'off topic'?

I really don't care what you do. I have my answer.

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Embargo Iraq and you're a racist who hates muslims.

Embargo Israel and you're anti-semetic.

No?

Originally posted by Morlock
Well I have to go now, but...

@Anyone: Could you put this 'Boycott on Israel', in your own perspective, against the suicide bombing and shootings of Israeli civilians? since I have yet to see a Thread/reply saying 'Boycott the Palestinian authority' or something to that effect.
Food for thought.

Originally posted by Morlock
Should I take the fact that no one's paying serious attention to my last post as a hint to the feelings here?

What and be labeled a Racist who hates Muslims?

Just back from dinner out...this thread has certainly grown the past hours. As much as I'd like to voice my opinions both on democracy and the cliche of "US bashing" Ï will refrain from doing so here since Tom has requested no spam.

@Frogus & Weasel: Your discussion re where terrorist groups get their weapons from touches a lot upon the issue of trading of arms to non stately actors, something that was proposed by the UN but rejected only by the US. We could start a new thread on this topic, check this:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/CAB/smallarms/brochure.htm
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics ... llArms.asp

Well, back to the topic.

posted by Morlock

Anyone: Could you put this 'Boycott on Israel', in your own perspective, against the suicide bombing and shootings of Israeli civilians? since I have yet to see a Thread/reply saying 'Boycott the Palestinian authority' or something to that effect.
Food for thought.

I can of course only speak for myself, but those are my reasons for boycotting Israel but not Palestine authorities:

Israel is a state, I my personal choice of boycotting Israel (I haven't visisted Israel as a tourist either, although I would have liked to because of the scenery, the historical sites and the great paragliding resorts) is a statement against the Israeli goverment, not the people of Israel. On the contrary, don't view Israeli people any different from other people. I am sad that a person like Sharon was elected democratically, but that can be said about Dubbayh and Chirac as well. Not to mention Le Pen's recent success, and the voting in of racist parties in the parlament of Austria and Denmark.

Israel as a state perform acts that violates human rights and international war laws. The Palestinian terrorists on the other hand, are not sanctioned by Arafat, on the contrary Palestinian Authorities have repeatedly urged suicide bombings to stop. The Palestinian terrorists are not a state - be assured I would boycott Islamic Jihad et al if they produced goods on the market. However they do not, and boycotting the Palestinians as a whole people because of the acts of a minority group of terrorists.

Originally posted by C Elegans

The Palestinian terrorists are not a state - be assured I would boycott Islamic Jihad et al if they produced goods on the market. However they do not, and boycotting the Palestinians as a whole people because of the acts of a minority group of terrorists.

Fair enough, forget about boycott and the Palestinian people for a minute- what's you response on the subject of terrorist agression towards Israeli civilians?

Originally posted by Morlock
Fair enough, forget about boycott and the Palestinian people for a minute- what's you response on the subject of terrorist agression towards Israeli civilians?

Terrorist aggression targeting civilians is totally unacceptable to me. No matter if a group, a state or an individual is performing those acts.

I would be more accepting towards suicide bombings if military targets were choosen - but using murderer of innocent civilians as a means of applying pressure is something I can't find any excuse for.

Apart from the inhumanity and immorality of attacking Israeli civilians, I also think it's outright stupid. Stupid because the Palestininian terrorists are only disrupting the peace process, a peace process that would be beneficial to the Palestinian people. Also, just as Israel must have noticed the attacks increased after the intensified invasions in Palestininan terrority after the 11th Sep, the Palestinian terrorists must have noticed that every attack they make only leads to heavly retaliation from Israel. Both sides must stop the cycle of violence and realise that violence only leads to more violence.

Originally posted by Morlock
Should I take the fact that no one's paying serious attention to my last post as a hint to the feelings here?

@Morlock, I can't boycott the Palestinian Authority, much as I'd like to see Arafat standing in a food line. I'd gladly boycott Israel, except that I don't buy anything made there. I also realize that the action of a boycott is simply a sop to my sense of emotional frustration. Unless a boycott is internationally organized and well-funded, it has no impact.

I also have the distinct impression, rightly or wrongly, that Sharon wouldn't mind the rest of the world falling into a ravine provided the US kept those checks coming in the mail.

Originally posted by fable
I also have the distinct impression, rightly or wrongly, that Sharon wouldn't mind the rest of the world falling into a ravine provided the US kept those checks coming in the mail.

Unfortunately I share this impression

@Morlock: As far as I know, you are the only SYM:er who live in Israel. What is you personal opinion of possible solutions to the present conflict? Of course I don't expect you to be able to solve a conflict that many international professional negotiators have failed to find a solution to, but I'd be interested in your thoughts.

I got a bad feeling about this...

I have always stayed well-clear of debates on Isreal, because, quite frankly, I do not believe that a "good" solution exists. But seeing some of the comments here, I decided I might just use someone else's words (Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe) to make a point against the majority view (I always seem to be in that position). Here is a part of one of his editorials, comparing Isreal to the "Palestinian state."

Disclaimer: I do not claim to hold these views, but I feel that they are worthy of consideration at a time when anti-semitism is accelerating world-wide.

"The history of this conflict is long and complicated, but its moral dimensions now are clear-cut.

One side sends its soldiers to wipe out suicide bombers. The other side sends suicide bombers to wipe out diners at a Passover seder.

One side publishes maps showing how Israel and a Palestinian state can coexist. The other side publishes maps on which Israel doesn't exist.

One side apologizes when its explosives kill the wives and children of the terrorists it targeted. The other side targets wives and children.

One side was grief-stricken on Sept. 11 and declared a national day of mourning. The other side danced in the streets and distributed candies in celebration.

One side has never deployed a suicide bomber in its 54 years of existence. The other side has deployed more than 40 in the past 12 months alone.

One side developed a mandatory "peace curriculum" to prepare its children to live in peace next to a Palestinian state. The other side steeps its children in hate, extolling suicide bombers as "martyrs" they should emulate and operating summer camps to train them for jihad.

One side is an unshakable ally of the United States and fully backs our war against global terrorism. The other side is armed and financed by Iraq, Iran, and Syria, three of the world's most notorious terrorist states.

One side repeatedly gave up land for peace. The other side took the land and made war."

The Boston Globe journalist is obviously heavily biased towards Israel since he not only uses a very selective way of presenting things, he also includes some factual errors. A similar list, but pro-Palestinian instead of pro-Israeli, would be easy to compile:

"One side is asking for a state they could call their own. The other side says 10 000 of their lives is not worth a fingernail of their own side"

"One side has been violating the Geneva conventions for 54 years. The other side doesn't even have a proper army."

"One side used the 11th Sep terror attack to take the opportunity of invading towns and refugee camps, saying they would be "less critisised" now. The other sides leader publiclly condemned the terrorist attacks and expressed his mourning.

"One side has ignored the UN, international laws and the international community for 54 years. The other side has asked the international community for help with negotiations."

Note: This is not my views, my views are posted here already, I just wanted to demonstrate how things can be distorted in the manner as the Boston Globe journalist has choosen to do.

My impression is that the majority view in the US in not coinciding with the viewed expressed in this SYM thread - what do you American think? I have certainly got the impression that a majority of the US population supports the Israeli government and the US goverment's military, finacial and political support of Israel.

Originally posted by C Elegans


My impression is that the majority view in the US in not coinciding with the viewed expressed in this SYM thread - what do you American think? I have certainly got the impression that a majority of the US population supports the Israeli government and the US goverment's military, finacial and political support of Israel.

I for one will say I do support the Israeli Government. I cannot support a regime (IMHO) that targets citzens on purpose. At least Israel doesn't rush to take credit for every bomb and will admit citizens where killed by mistake.

Is the way the Israeli Government handling the events right or wrong?
I cannot answer because, I don't have their mind set.(Meaning I don't have to worry about a crazed killer blowing his/her self up around me all day 24/7.)

How to solve it? It will never be solved till one side either wipes out the other or the Suicide bombers stop giving Israel a reason to attack back.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
So what's the difference between us and them?

the difference is that they use suicide bombers on a daily basis and yet the worldwide opinion supports them and they are still innocent poor people in the eyes of many governments. and a military operation against them is negated because they are so helpless ...

Originally posted by Weasel
I for one will say I do support the Israeli Government. I cannot support a regime (IMHO) that targets citzens on purpose. At least Israel doesn't rush to take credit for every bomb and will admit citizens where killed by mistake.

Just to avoid misunderstandings here, I wish to state that I support the existance of an Israeli state, and that this state must have the same right as other states to defend itself and it's population. (Although my opinions is that not only Palestinians but also for instance Kurds, should have a state created for them.) However, this defense should be according to international law and considering human rights.

For reasons already explained, I do not support the actions of the present Israeli goverment. I don't support any goverment that repeatedly abuses human rights and commit war crimes. And the rejection of the UN-fact finding committee is IMO not admitting that civilians where killed by mistake. How do you view the Jenin events Weasel? That Israel demanded to have control both over who the fact finding committee could speak to and what was written in the final report? Do you find this in line with an honest policy? I certainly do not.

Originally posted by C Elegans



How do you view the Jenin events Weasel? That Israel demanded to have control both over who the fact finding committee could speak to and what was written in the final report? Do you find this in line with an honest policy? I certainly do not.

In Jenin. I believe that Israel walked into a trap and during the fighting citzens where killed. Why set an ambush up in the middle of your own people? To make them martyrs. And it has worked.



I find nothing honest about the whole problem in Israel. Both sides lie, both side push their views. But only one side tries to kill citzens.

Originally posted by C Elegans
@Morlock: As far as I know, you are the only SYM:er who live in Israel. What is you personal opinion of possible solutions to the present conflict? Of course I don't expect you to be able to solve a conflict that many international professional negotiators have failed to find a solution to, but I'd be interested in your thoughts.

I have always thought of myself a rather moderate person when it comes to politics. As someone living here- I don't agree that we should have a full unconditional withdrawl from everything, until we can ensure that never again will a bomber or shooter attack any more civilians.
I also don't agree that we should kill all Palestinians, civilians with terrorists to reach the desired result.

As a moderate person- I see no good, or even adequate answer to this problem.

I think Arafat is a swine- and deserves the same thing that Franklin's kite got- a lightning bolt. I believe that any effort he's made to thwart terror was only for show- The 'Karin A' proves it.
The 'Karine A' was a cargo ship, which was raided by Isreal commandos in January. It contained hand guns, AK47's, grenade, explosives, C4 and many more weapons. It was personaly approved by Arafat's cabinet members to be purchased from Iran.
With that, I say Arafat is the slightly Lesser of two Evils- I shudder to think what would happen if he were to be replaced by Sheik Ahmed Yasin, or someone else from the Hamas or Islamic Jihad.