On 2002-04-15 13:39, firemind wrote:
Eric, your response sickens me.

This is the mentality you are supporting:

Both sides have committed atrocities. Remember that Ariel Sharon is a war criminal. And recall that the Israeli military has been killing civilians left and right in the territories. It's one thing to go after the terrorists, but it is entirely different for there to be hundreds unarmed men, women, and children killed while trying to flee for their lives, and while simply trying to get food. Ethnic cleansing is not a solution to suicide bombings, just as suicide bombings is not a solution to occupation.

The ANC of Nelson Mandela never resorted to terrorism. Nor did the followers of Gandhi. Both accomplished their goals. Why cannot the Palestinians do the same?

Are you sure that the ANC never resorted to terrorism?

Terrorism, like slavery and torture, can never be justified. Those who attempt to justify it should be ashamed.

First, one has to define terrorism. The Nat Turner slave rebellion can be considered an act of terrorism. Do I support that rebellion? Fully.

Or one can turn the tables by speaking of state terrorism. Is the mass killings of unarmed Palenstinians of all ages an act of terrorism?

Arafat is a monster who teaches little girls to strap on bombs and blow themselves up for his own power. If somebody tried to teach my daughter to do that, there'd be no holding me back.

What if someone tried to teach your son to do so? Would you support kamikaze at the height of a major war?

Besides, we shouldn't use just one attack by a teenage girl to say that Arafat is using children to commit suicide bombings.

And yes, the news of the bombing really saddened me. It was sad seeing two cute girls on the cover of Newsweek (or was it Time?) go down like that. :sad:

I would be angry is someone tried to teach my children the same too. But this girl was either 16 or 18, depending on who you listen to. She made an independent decision. She was not an innocent little girl who was drawn to the dark side. She was old enough to make her own decisions, and make her own choices, and she chose violence.

To find humor in a very tragic story, at least the Palenstinians are learning something about gender equality.

Call me what you want. If one side is ruled by a President-for-life who kills dissenters and teaches their children to hate Jews and kill them whenever they can in any way they can, and the other side has open debates, free elections, free speech, and avoids killing civilians whenever possible, I know which side I'm on, and I make no apologies.

Avoids killing civilians? I don't think so. Hundreds upon hundreds of civilians have been murdered in cold blood. In fact, three times as many Palenstinians (nearly all civilians) have been killed as the Israeli. Remember that Ariel Sharon is a war criminal. I would agree with your statement if it wasn't for the recent massacres. But by the mass murders of those Palenstinians, Israel has lost much credibility. Perhaps, they could've just built massive prison camps for Palenstinians. That is more humane than just outright killing them.

And perhaps, one has to remember that she was an Xers, not a Millie. Of course, Americans are deeply shocked by this because this person is the same age as American teens. But recall that Israel and Palenstine are either in a late 2T, or an early 3T. Thus, to them, the news is not nearly as shocking.

In the prior two 2Ts here in America, there have been a few suicide bombers. Perhaps, one only needs to look at the late 1880s and the 1890s decade to find many of these suicide bombers. Perhaps, Arafat got the idea of suicide bombers from Americans that we hold dear.

If they are in a 2T or an early 3T, then we should expect for the suicide bombings to basically just go away as time passes. In fact, that is what I expect to happen. Sure, there will be random acts of violence, but nothing we haven't seen during the 1980s and 1990s here in America.

Because we are a society in early 4T, we have a heightened sensitivity to bombings. If America was in a 2T, most people would've cheered this girl. Perhaps, there would be copycat attacks here in the US. Even in a 3T, there would not be as much talk as there is now. Besides, was Timothy McVeigh a patriot who wanted to overthrow a "dictatorship", or was he a delusional criminal? Depends on who you ask. Of course, I say that he was a delusional criminal. But the few suicide bombings in another part of the world today incites strong feelings because we are in 4T.

On 2002-04-15 13:53, Kiff '61 wrote:
Jason and Freddy are fictional characters. Suicide bombers are/were real people who have killed real people.

True. But perhaps, this isn't a Palenstinian problem. Recall that we hold people like Jesse James, Columbus, and Al Capone in high regards.

Personally, I think it's horrifying that younger and younger Palestinians, including young women, are committing these acts of murder. :cry:

Basically, I think that we should expect for this to happen as Palenstine is either in late 2T or in early 3T. Besides, would it be any different if a young male committed that act? Whatever happened to Grrl Power?

Keep in mind that we are using 4T thinking to a society just getting out of 2T. Go back to 1979 or back to 1985, and imagine if your perception of this event would've been different.

And being in an early 3T at the earliest, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Israeli military has been killing children indiscriminately, as they are Nomads.

But as the Hero children begin to fill the lower childhood ages, I do not think that these suicide bombings will continue, nor do I think that the Israeli military would be inclined to kill children.

Nobody but idiots hold psychopaths like Capone or Jesse James in high regard. They are usually portrayed quite negatively in our media. Wrong, Robert.

Also, I think you take all of this 'T' stuff a bit too seriously with your other arguments.

Oh, and Robert, since you seem to pay a lot of attention to street demonstrations, there are massive pro-Israeli demonstrations going on right now in D.C. and San Francisco:







http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...2/415rally.htm

Er, "3T or 4T"? (Whatever)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-04-16 07:15 ]</font>

On 2002-04-15 15:29, firemind wrote:
Nobody but idiots hold psychopaths like Capone or Jesse James in high regard. They are usually portrayed quite negatively in our media. Wrong, Robert.

I think you'd be surprised. Sure, they are portrayed quite negatively on TV most of the time as it is more PC to do so. But evidence suggests otherwise. For instance, how many movies are there in which the bank robbers are the good guys (of course, they never kill anyone)?

And celebration of villains does not necessarily mean that they WANT to be villains. For instance, it is entirely possible (and probable) that the picture was nothing more than pure symbolism. People dress as cowboys and as gangstas all of the time. People love reading stories of legendary villains. But would anyone actually go rob a bank? I think not.

Also, I think you take all of this 'T' stuff a bit too seriously with your other arguments.

Oh, and Robert, since you seem to pay a lot of attention to street demonstrations, there are massive pro-Israeli demonstrations going on right now in D.C. and San Francisco:







http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...2/415rally.htm

Er, "3T or 4T"? (Whatever)

Again, my issue with Israel is the fact that a democratic nations resorts to this sort of barbarism. But then maybe I have to keep in mind that there is only ONE America.

There was a reason Bush demanded Sharon to step back. Not because war is wrong, but because of leaked reports of what the military was doing.

I would suspect that the BA is helping Israel in trying to squash the reports because doing so would increase world-wide antagonism against the US.

The US gave Sharon, a hardened war criminal, the go ahead to fight terror, but the US never did approve of the massacre of civilians.

_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." -- Heinrich Heine
"The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren and to do good is my religion."-Thomas Paine

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2002-04-15 16:25 ]</font>

Thanks Robert for helping to fill firemind in on the news. I wonder if his response to your points will be as feeble as they were to mine.

It's a war, man. We killed more Japanese than they killed us, but that doesn't mean they were right.

Our bombing of Hiroshima was terror of the worst sort. It was not justified.

Yep, sometimes, when it helps their soldiers survive. It's called war.

I fail to see how destroying homes of Palestinian civilians protects Israeli soldiers. You are justifying terror by saying it is committed by an army instead of by individuals. I find that ridiculous beyond belief. This is a nation once victimized in the same way by NAZIS, now acting like NAZIS. Were the NAZIS individual suicide bombers? If they were, would you find that worse?

Yes, sometimes, and sometimes they give (their land) back, too. What's your point?

They take land away from Palestinians, destroy their homes, and replace them with Israeli settlers. The settlers have never given back the land.

Any censorship on the Israeli side pales in insignificance to that found in Arab countries.

I don't recall any occasion in any country whatsoever where coverage of a war has been so ruthlessly supressed. Certainly not by the Palestinians. Reporters were shot at deliberately. This is an attempt by Israel to suppress the truth of what's going on, so they can keep people like you deceived.

YOu said ALL the Arab leadership wants to shove Israel into the sea. Then why did Arafat agree to peace treaties that recognize Israel?

Actually, he didn't; he launched a new intifada instead. But that doesn't matter, because it is a demonstrated fact that ARAFAT LIES.

You refer to the recent events. Arafat has recognized Israel and negotiated on that basis for many years now. Even in the recent negotiiations by Clinton, he recognized Israel's right to exist. Barak's plan just didn't go far enough, and Arafat couldn't accept it because his people did not. Too many settlements were allowed to remain. That was a defacto proposal to let Israeli conquests stand. There can be no other solution than for Israel to return to the 1967 borders except for the Temple Mount, which should be under international control.

But no I reject the intifada, thought it was pointless, and Arafat bears some responsibility for it.

They were hoping we'd fall for it again.

Statements like this just reveal your prejudice. You are prejudging their actions. The fact is that you said ALL Arab leaders want to shove Israel into the sea, when they proclaimed recognition of Israel just two weeks ago. For you to fail to recognize your error here, is sheer madness and arrogance. You simply refuse to face facts when they are pointed out.

Don't try to weasel out of it. You have implied your support for terror bombing by saying the Palestinians have no other option.

In your mind, firemind. To say they have no other option is not to say I support it. It is simply a fact. That is their only weapon. Their only alternative is not to use weapons at all. A fine ideal, but only possible under a leader like Ghandi in a peaceful, spiritual nation like India. As you point out, Palestinians are educated in a different way. I wish the Palestinians would stop terror bombing. But this is unrealistic to expect in this case until the Israelis make a real effort at peace, instead of provoking them and refusing to negotiate as they have done ever since the failure of the Barak proposal.

Your lame, tired attempt to establish moral equivalance between terrorism and defensive military campaigns is a throwback to barbarism.

Show me that the Israelis are attacking only terrorists. You can't. If you justify Israeli actions by saying "it's war," then the Palestinians can do the same with their suicide bombers, which at least don't destroy entire towns and cities. Don't weasel out of it; you support Israeli terror campaigns.

On 2002-04-15 15:46, Eric A Meece wrote:
Our bombing of Hiroshima was terror of the worst sort. It was not justified.

In battles over control of Pacific islands, more Japanese died than Americans. This was what I was referring to.

Israel has not nuked anybody (and, for that matter, they have refrained from aerial bombing in their current campaign), so I think our argument would be better off if we compare apples to apples.

I fail to see how destroying homes of Palestinian civilians protects Israeli soldiers.

If armed militia members are shooting at you and using those homes as cover, destroying those home could arguably protect Israeli soldiers. This is a matter of military doctrine, and a bit out of my experience, but I know that in wars, homes get destroyed. It has always been like that. Ever see a WWII movie? France looked in pretty bad shape after we got through liberating it.

You are justifying terror by saying it is committed by an army instead of by individuals.

No, I am differentiating between terrorism and just war. You are not. By calling them equivalent, you are justifying terrorism.

Besides, the militas that the IDF has been battling are not "individuals", but organized military units. Perhaps not as organized as the IDF, but organized nonetheless. They don't make bullets in Palestine, Eric, those bullets are shipped in from Iran and other terrorist-supporting states. They get into the hands of the milita via organized networks.

I find that ridiculous beyond belief. This is a nation once victimized in the same way by NAZIS, now acting like NAZIS.

B*llsh*t! You know why that is not true?

Because if it was true, the Palestinians would all be dead, and Israel would rule an empire from Baghdad to Cairo.

The Arabs should be glad that the Israelis do not act like Nazis. An Palestinian man who was detained by the IDF recently was quoted on ARAB NEWS SOURCES as saying the experience was not as bad as being in a Palestinian jail.

Were the NAZIS individual suicide bombers? If they were, would you find that worse?

If the Nazis had used terrorism, it would only add to their long list of evil. I'm not sure what your point is, here.

They take land away from Palestinians, destroy their homes, and replace them with Israeli settlers. The settlers have never given back the land.

The Israelis have often withdrawn from territories that they formerly occupied. The withdrew from all of the Sinai, dragging Israeli settlers out kicking and screaming. They withdrew from southern Lebanon, only to have shelling of northern Israel now resume from southern Lebanon. And they have now withdrawn from Palestinian cities after completing their destruction of terrorist facilities.

As for Israeli settlers in Palestine, there are Palestinians living in Israel. Why is that not a problem? BECAUSE THE ISRAELIS DON'T HATE THE PALESTINIANS.

For that matter, there are Mexican settlers living in Chicago. Why is that not a problem? BECAUSE AMERICANS DON'T HATE MEXICANS.

Why the double standard?

I don't recall any occasion in any country whatsoever where coverage of a war has been so ruthlessly supressed. Certainly not by the Palestinians. Reporters were shot at deliberately.

No, they weren't. The Israelis shot at the ground. If they were shot at deliberately, they'de be dead now.

This is an attempt by Israel to suppress the truth of what's going on, so they can keep people like you deceived.

No, this is soldiers doing what they're supposed to do in a war zone when a bunch of reporters stumble in.

Reporters feel safe in Israel. They are free to go around unaccompanied.

Reporters do not feel safe in the West Bank. In the West Bank, they must be accompanied by a Palestinian who decides what they can report on and what they can't, what they can photograph and what they can't.

You refer to the recent events. Arafat has recognized Israel and negotiated on that basis for many years now. Even in the recent negotiiations by Clinton, he recognized Israel's right to exist. Barak's plan just didn't go far enough, and Arafat couldn't accept it because his people did not.

His people could not accept it because it would allow Israel to continue to exist.

Arafat was holding out for all Palestinians and their decendants to return to Israel, which would destroy Israel.

Hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled from Arab nations like Iraq when Israel became a state, but no one is allowing them to return.

Again, why the double standard?

PEACE, if that is your goal, WILL REQUIRE SOME PALESTINIAN CONCESSIONS. Arafat does not really want to make any.

Too many settlements were allowed to remain.

Again, why can't some Jews live in the West Bank? Can't we all just get along?

That was a defacto proposal to let Israeli conquests stand.

If Arafat took any of that seriously, he wouldn't have demanded that all Palestinians be allowed to return to Israel. He knew that was unacceptable. He was never serious about peace.

There can be no other solution than for Israel to return to the 1967 borders except for the Temple Mount, which should be under international control.

That'd be great, if the Arabs did not follow it up with further attacks upon Israel. History suggests otherwise.

But no I reject the intifada, thought it was pointless, and Arafat bears some responsibility for it.

You ain't kidding!

Statements like this just reveal your prejudice. You are prejudging their actions.

Again, if they were serious, they would make acceptable proposals.

The fact is that you said ALL Arab leaders want to shove Israel into the sea,

That's what they say in Arabic.

when they proclaimed recognition of Israel just two weeks ago.

That's what they say in English.

For you to fail to recognize your error here, is sheer madness and arrogance. You simply refuse to face facts when they are pointed out.

No, I simply have more facts than you.

In your mind, firemind. To say they have no other option is not to say I support it. It is simply a fact. That is their only weapon.

If your only weapon is to strap a belt of explosives on your daughter, send her in an ambulance over the border to bomb a restaurant, a sane, moral person would not use that weapon.

Their only alternative is not to use weapons at all. A fine ideal, but only possible under a leader like Ghandi in a peaceful, spiritual nation like India. As you point out, Palestinians are educated in a different way.

VERY different. Kind of like the Hitler Youth.

I wish the Palestinians would stop terror bombing. But this is unrealistic to expect in this case until the Israelis make a real effort at peace, instead of provoking them and refusing to negotiate as they have done ever since the failure of the Barak proposal.

Again, we did not negotiate with the Taliban. What's your point?

Show me that the Israelis are attacking only terrorists.

Open your eyes.

You can't.

Open your eyes.

If you justify Israeli actions by saying "it's war,"

I'm not giving the Israelis a blank check, but they have clearly been using accepted military technique, no worse than anything we did in Germany.

then the Palestinians can do the same with their suicide bombers

No, terrorism is clearly distinguishable from just war.

which at least don't destroy entire towns and cities.

Just you wait until they get nerve gas.

Don't weasel out of it; you support Israeli terror campaigns.

There are no Israeli terror campaigns. If there were, I would be against them.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-04-15 16:41 ]</font>

I think this is real 4T.
And the response of our government is real 3T.

From Newsmax.com

Go to Centrexnews.com to get the link

Container Ships ? The Next Terrorist Weapon?
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax
Monday, April 15, 2002
On Sept. 11, Americans discovered that a civilian airline jet could be turned into a flying bomb.
Now the respected Economist magazine is warning that container ships could be the next terrorist vehicle.

Each year, more than 7,500 commercial vessels make approximately 51,000 port calls, off-loading 6 million loaded marine containers in U.S. ports. Current growth predictions indicate the container cargo will quadruple in the next 20 years.

One serious worry is that terrorists might use one of these ships to transport and then explode a nuclear device in a major U.S. port ? perhaps crippling the U.S. economy as the nation's stream of commerce stops in a self-imposed protective embargo.

And the experts agree there is no silver bullet to prevent such a catastrophe.

Already, the U.S. Coast Guard is employing highly sensitive equipment to check ships for radioactive material. But such checks are not foolproof, nor can the Coast Guard scan all ships for the potentially lethal material.

Another concern is that the terrorists may use an oil tanker as a way to collapse the U.S. economy.

Noted journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave, in a special "Off-the-Record" briefing to NewsMax readers, warns that terrorists have already bragged about being able to explode a fully loaded oil tanker as it passes through the Strait of Hormuz.

Such a disaster, de Borchgrave says, would close the narrow straits and send the world economy into a tailspin. For more on de Borchgrave?s revelations, click here.

But just how likely are such attacks?

Ominously, an al-Qaeda manual discovered in the United Kingdom said seaport workers could make good recruits.

Furthermore, bin Laden is said to own a fleet of freighters, already used to smuggle explosives into Africa for the 1998 embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya.

Other unhappy factoids: The Philippines, home to more than one militant group, is the world's biggest crew supplier. And Indonesia, headquarters for many radical Muslim groups, comes in second at supplying crews for the nettlesome container ships.

But the worst news is that the vulnerability of the critical supply line has already been illustrated ? in spades. Italian authorities recently found a suspected al-Qaeda member inside a sealed container headed for Canada.

Only 2 Percent Inspected

With the stowaway were mobile phones, false credit cards, plane tickets and certifications identifying the man as an airplane mechanic.

Presently only about 2 percent of containers arriving in the U.S. are inspected. And according to recent Hill testimony, even if that level reached 100 percent, the danger would not be neutralized, because if the infiltrated cargo even arrives at the U.S. port it may be too late.

One possible scenario: an electronic data system that would allow U.S. authorities to know in advance the origin, contents and shipper of each container ? before it is ever loaded at the point of shipment.

This would allow U.S. authorities to target the most vulnerable or suspicious shipments, possibly rerouting and inspecting them before they arrive in the U.S.

One important fault in this plan is apparent, however, say the experts. Digitized or not, the maritime industry's present documentation is unreliable.

In one instance, U.S. Customs audited 181 ships and found 96 had more or fewer containers on board than identified. What?s more, bills of lading describing the containers? contents also were incomplete or falsified.

And erroneous or not, the volume of paperwork is mountainous. The movement of each container is part of a transaction that can involve a score or more different parties: buyers, sellers, inland freighters and shipping lines, middlemen, financiers and governments.

A single transaction can crank out 30-40 documents, and each container can carry cargo for several customers, further multiplying the plethora of documents.

Expensive Gadgets

In the meantime, good intelligence and a handful of expensive gadgets are serving on the front lines of port security. The current mainstay: a $1.2 million per copy gamma-ray machine.

Loaded on trucks, the machine's long white arm makes the device resemble an electric company's cherry picker. Dubbed "VACIS,? the acronym for Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System, the machine sprays containers with gamma rays, producing a blurry X-ray-like image of what's inside. It takes skilled and experienced operators to make sense of the images.

But even with VACIS, the logistics of expanding the token inspections are daunting. According to the Charleston, S.C., customs office, its two dozen inspectors can?t possibly keep up with the crushing volume of cargo pouring through the southern port?s terminals.

"There are days when we have 10 ships coming in, and they might be spread across several terminals,? explained one customs official.

The same hectic scene is duplicated at all the nation?s ports, where staff levels have actually decreased over the years despite the fact that container volume has doubled since 1993.

So, what can be done to help make ports safe?

Part of the answer may rest with new technologies. Ancore Corp. of Santa Clara, Calif., for example, is making new machines that use laser-like beams of neutrons that can identify trace amounts of drugs or explosive residues.

Also being considered is having the U.S. push its borders out and pre-screen containers in specially created security zones before they are loaded onto ships in foreign ports. Done with the cooperation of the foreign authorities, American inspectors would be on hand to assist local officials.

Robert Bonner, the head of the U.S. Customs Service, wants to kick off such a plan by focusing on the top 10 container ports that trade with the U.S. and funneling as many containers as possible through approved gateways. The top 10 would include Hong Kong, Rotterdam and Shanghai.

Ideas From Private Sector

Private enterprise has its own ideas. In recent congressional testimony, Wayne Gibson, senior vice president of Global Logistics for Home Depot, suggested that "a well-controlled supply chain can serve as a foundation upon which security measures can be built.

"While we source from over 40 countries and 268 vendors and 555 factories, 80 percent of that comes from five countries and 40 vendors. We had over 50,000 POs inspected in 2001. And 100 percent of our shipments were inspected.?

And the Coast Guard is hard at work figuring out a solution. Captain Anthony Regalbutto, chief of port security for the United States Coast Guard, recently told Congress, "We're trying to establish two centers ? one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast.

"In those fusion centers will be representatives from various government agencies, including Customs and INS and Office of Naval Intelligence and others, that will be able, then, to look at the information that's coming in and then pre-screen the information.?

Regalbutto is also for the first time looking at or prototyping a canine program for the Coast Guard. "That's something that we want to prototype and we think that, again, with our marine safety and security teams as they go on board ships, particularly if we have intel information that we suspect on a ship, hopefully the dogs will be able to help us in that sensing ability."

Who's in Charge

One Hill witness, however, voiced concern that the salient issue must be a hammering out of just who is in charge. Christopher Koch, president and chief executive officer, World Shipping Council, has said:

"Customs is presently modernizing and adjusting its information systems, which will cost over $1 billion and is planning on using their systems as part of the Container Security Initiative. Are the Customs systems what the government will use?

"The government should establish one system, not competing information systems. If the advanced cargo information system used for security screening is not Customs' job, the White House or the Congress should make that clear immediately, because Customs thinks that it is and is acting accordingly."

And, finally, who?s going to pay the tab?

Basil Maher, president and chief operating officer of Maher Terminals Inc., Jersey City, N.J., suggested to Congress that legislation must not assess fees or tax terminal operators or carriers for costs properly borne by the federal government.

"If any additional federal revenue needs to be raised for cargo transportation security purposes, it should come from existing federal revenue streams relating to cargo, which uses this system of ships, terminals, rails and trucks," Maher said.

One thing all agree on: Security procedures must be implemented in a manner that does not disrupt terminal operations and the $400 billion in commerce it supports.

Sign up for NewsMax's "Off-the-Record" Club now

Also

Israel to US: Don't Mind Us, Attack Iraq

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBu...20020412c.html

On 2002-04-15 09:02, Stonewall Patton wrote:
LBJ is Risen! He is reincarnated in the form of our Lord and Savior George W. Bush! Behold the Power and the Glory!

An increase in government spending or taxation does not automatically mean socialism. Socialism is the suppression of market distrubtion and collective ownership.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-04-15 20:17 ]</font>

On 2002-04-15 10:37, madscientist wrote:
I would not agree. Sure, he has a strong dislike of Bush, but I would not call him a "rabid-Bush-hater"...not even close. Besides, there are many people here (including moi) who dislike Bush.

To someone who is a neo-liberal one day and a Christian conservative the next, depending on the mood I experience. I happen to respect GW Bush, although I have criticised some things he has done.

Recently I have found an admiration for people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Newt Grinrich. I feel that the Christian Right is the only people around defending western civilisation from its enemies.

Stonewall's hatred of Bush is not illrational, it is within his political viewpoint and he makes criticisms of Bush according to his beliefs. Sometimes I am about as right wing as Marc Lamb, however I did not approve of the witch-hunt the Republicans did to Bill Clinton over Monicagate.

Oppositionism sometimes is a good thing especially when a political leader might be making real big mistakes. Sometimes oppositionism just makes no sense; it really depends on the circumstances.

_________________
For those about to die, we salute you!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-04-15 20:15 ]</font>

Cynthia McKinney charges that the Bush war on terrorism is being waged for nothing more than profit. In some ways it seems Third Turning with that level of partisanship. But political parties do turn up the heat in the Fourth Turning beyond even the heated level of the Unraveling. So maybe it's more Fourth Turning. The nature of her accusations go beyond a particular form of corruption as 3rd Turning partisan wars focus on and charge an administration with being corrupt to the core. That would definitely seem 4th T.

Read the article and decide for yourself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Apr11.html

On 2002-04-15 13:52, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
The ANC did practice Terror. Try a Google search on "necklacing". HTH

However the ANC never used suicide bombers or purposely killed civilians. Their demands were reasonable, namely full equality for Blacks. They did want to destroy the White population.

The Palestinian groups want Israel destroyed and ever Jew killed. Israel cannot deal with such people; these nutcases need to be destroyed.

_________________
For those about to die, we salute you!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-04-15 20:13 ]</font>

I do think Eric in a lot of ways on this issue acts like the Arabs and Europeans. This National Review article outlines the sort of Bombastic exaggeration which the Arab and European press do on this subject.

Who?s the Victim?
Arab bombast, European hysteria.

By Nissan Ratzlav-Katz



The official news agency of the Palestinian Authority, WAFA, ran an editorial on March 31, 2002, that contained evocative language about the Israel Defense Forces' operations against the terrorist infrastructures of the PA: "They have brought back the Tatar, the Mongolians, the Nazis and all the invaders throughout the dark history of mankind? they are the descendants of Hulagu [grandson of Genghis Khan] and Hitler, therefore the practice of the occupying soldiers is programmed and not an individual behavior? they seemed to have emerged from the depth of the dark and evil history of their ancestors? Joy to the Jews, who are proud of their army, which horribly kills gentiles? [commits] atrocities? our holocaust?."

The Egyptian newspaper, al-Messaa, referred to "the genocide war waged by the Nazi terrorist and the world's first butcher Sharon?." Al-Ahram, the leading newspaper in Egypt, similarly stated, "Sharon is attempting a Nazi invasion of the Palestinian territories; an invasion similar to that attempted by Hitler?."

However, standing out for bombastic exaggeration, no mean feat in the Arab world, was Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan bin Abd al-Aziz al-Saud. According to the Saudi newspaper a-Sharq al-Awsat, the prince called the enforced isolation of PLO leader Yasser Arafat and the current Israeli military offensive "the greatest crime in the history of humanity."

Not unexpectedly, the European Union has reacted hysterically to the Arab rhetoric and propaganda, and has called for an emergency meeting of its member states to determine how to handle reports of an "IDF slaughter" in the areas formerly under the jurisdiction of the PLO. The EU further threatened "harsh consequences" should Arab allegations of "massacres" in Jenin turn out to be true. Undoubtedly, the EU members have been buried with documentation purporting to show high casualty rates among the Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Yet, casualties of warfare can be classified in many different ways, depending on who is doing the counting. Therefore, it is very instructive to examine information on Arab casualties over the past 18 months of warfare as provided by Arab or supposedly neutral sources.

According to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG), founded in 1996 by members of Fatah, the PFLP, the DFLP, Hamas, and others, the number of Arab residents of the Palestinian Authority killed by Israeli security forces in what they call the al-Aqsa Intifada, from the period of September 29, 2000, through March 25, 2002 is 1,080. Then, after an uninvited homicidal guest killed 27 Jews at a communal Passover meal in a Netanya hotel, things got worse for the Arabs. In Jenin, the focus of Arab propaganda claims of IDF massacres, as of April 8, the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights & the Environment, LAW, reported that 100 residents had been killed in three days of fighting. While extrapolation to April 11, the day the fighting in Jenin was basically concluded, would equal 200 dead, that would be unfair to PA cabinet member Saeb Erekat. Erekat told Newsday on April 11 that "he received reports of 500 Palestinians killed in the offensive, but said he could not confirm the figure." Other Arab cities taken by the IDF in its Passover offensive suffered fewer casualties. The Washington Post reported that 37 Arabs died in Ramallah, the city where PLO leader Yasser Arafat is under house arrest. MSNBC reported that 41 Arabs were killed in Shechem (Nablus) by April 9, 2002. In all, regardless of the fact that most of those killed were armed members of one PA militia or another, approximately 1,358 Arabs died in a little over eighteen months of warfare. That is, an average of three people per day.

The question of whether or not those figures constitute a "slaughter" of Arabs needs to be seen in perspective. How do other democratic states fight their wars?

In 1982, a war was initiated over Argentinean claims to the sheep-heavy Falkland Islands off the Argentine coast and the British rejection of those claims. In 72 days of warfare soldiers of the United Kingdom managed to kill over 700 Argentineans. The British offensive, never labeled a "massacre," cost an average of 10 Argentinean lives per day.

The United States is far better at killing its enemies than the British. During the U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983, U.S. armed forces killed about 800 Cuban troops and 45 Grenadian civilians in two days of fighting. According to reports at the time, the U.S. found a cache of weapons that could arm 10,000 men. That is, about 40,000 less than the number of armed men in the various PLO militias.

Let us not forget the American incursion into Panama in December of 1989. The U.S. did not take chances against the fearsome Central American shipping lane and employed F-117 jets and AC-130 gunships, dropping about 400 bombs on Panama City before going in with ground troops. By that time, most of the Panamanian defenders were waiting to surrender. It will also be recalled that the Panamanian strongman and drug dealer, Manuel Noriega, was "isolated" by the Americans and fled into a church, where he hid until American pressure (including loud heavy metal music) forced him out. In just seven days of fighting, 314 Panamanian troops were killed, along with about 200 civilians. That is, 74 people a day.

America's latest war, in Afghanistan, has caused the death of nearly 3,800 Afghanis, between October 7 and December 7 alone, according to Professor Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire. Herold was quoted as saying that his estimate was very conservative. In a war to eliminate al Qaeda terrorists hiding behind and among Afghani civilians, much like the PLO terrorists do, the Americans have killed 42 civilians a day. That does not even begin to include the casualties among the fighters of the Taliban or the al Qaeda "Afghani Arabs."

Now, of course, the Arab claim is that all of those military conflicts are not the same thing as the Israeli offensive in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza ? nothing is ever the same thing as fighting the Jews. However, a very close parallel from the region does exist. During the late 1960's, the PLO established a terrorist fiefdom in the eastern part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. King Hussein did not take kindly to the PLO moves to divide his country, as he had good reason to believe that the PLO had the goal of creating a "Palestine" on the ruins of the Hashemite kingdom rather than beside it. Therefore, in the space of one month in 1970, which came to be called "Black September," the "moderate" king slaughtered 10,000 Arab PLO supporters and expelled the leadership to Lebanon. At the cost of 333 lives per day, Hussein managed to put down his intifada, exile seditionist elements, and totally remove the PLO claim to Jordan from public discussion.

Not only have there been fewer Arab deaths in the current year and a half of conflict in Israel than in the one-month-long intifada against Jordan, but Israeli troops are even less brutal, apparently, than the Los Angeles police department. When riots broke out all over Los Angeles in 1992, following the verdict in the Rodney King case, the California governor called in the National Guard to quell the unrest. The LAPD and the California National Guard managed to contain the rioting after six days. During that time, in a confrontation that was presumably less violent than the actual warfare being waged now in Israel, 54 people were killed. That works out to a rate of 9 Angelinos killed every day of the riots.

Israel's war with the PLO been far less deadly for the Arabs, relatively, than similar conflicts around the world, but for the Israelis themselves "peace" with the PLO has been far more deadly. According to a study published by an organization calling itself the Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, Btselem, more Israeli civilians have been killed by Arab terrorists and militiamen in the years since Israel began turning over land to the PLO, in 1993, than in a comparable period of time prior to that. Furthermore, last week, it was announced that more Israelis have died during the years of "negotiations" with the PLO than during the 1967 Six Day War with five Arab states.

Bearing all of that historical information in mind, the wise and enlightened European leaders could never reach the conclusion that Israel is committing "massacres" or "slaughter," much less "the greatest crime in the history of humanity." Could they? With their rich experience as perpetrators of massacres, inquisitions, and genocide (against the Jews), one hopes that the European states will be able to discern the drivel in the PLO claims against the Jewish state.

I guess we'll be seeing Sharon in the new International Criminal Court.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=285413

<font color="blue">
Amid the ruins of Jenin, the grisly evidence of a war crime
Phil Reeves in Jenin
16 April 2002

A monstrous war crime that Israel has tried to cover up for a fortnight has finally been exposed. Its troops have caused devastation in the centre of the Jenin refugee camp, reached yesterday by The Independent, where thousands of people are still living amid the ruins.

A residential area roughly 160,000 square yards about a third of a mile wide has been reduced to dust. Rubble has been shovelled by bulldozers into 30ft piles. The sweet and ghastly reek of rotting human bodies is everywhere, evidence that it is a human tomb. The people, who spent days hiding in basements crowded into single rooms as the rockets pounded in, say there are hundreds of corpses, entombed beneath the dust, under a field of debris, criss-crossed with tank and bulldozer treadmarks.

In one nearby half-wrecked building, gutted by fire, lies the fly-blown corpse of a man covered by a tartan rug. In another we found the remains of 23-year-old Ashraf Abu Hejar beneath the ruins of a fire-blackened room that collapsed on him after being hit by a rocket. His head is shrunken and blackened. In a third, five long-dead men lay under blankets.

A quiet. sad-looking young man called Kamal Anis led us across the wasteland, littered now with detritus of what were once households, foam rubber, torn clothes, shoes, tin cans, children's toys. He suddenly stopped. This was a mass grave, he said, pointing.

We stared at a mound of debris. Here, he said, he saw the Israeli soldiers pile 30 bodies beneath a half-wrecked house. When the pile was complete, they bulldozed the building, bringing its ruins down on the corpses. Then they flattened the area with a tank. We could not see the bodies. But we could smell them.

A few days ago, we might not have believed Kamal Anis. But the descriptions given by the many other refugees who escaped from Jenin camp were understated, not, as many feared and Israel encouraged us to believe, exaggerations. Their stories had not prepared me for what I saw yesterday. I believe them now.

Until two weeks ago, there were several hundred tightly-packed homes in this neighbourhood called Hanat al-Hawashim. They no longer exist.

Around the central ruins, there are many hundreds of half-wrecked homes. Much of the camp ? once home to 15,000 Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war ? is falling down. Every wall is speckled and torn with bullet holes and shrapnel, testimony of the awesome, random firepower of Cobra and Apache helicopters that hovered over the camp.

Building after building has been torn apart, their contents of cheap fake furnishings, mattresses, white plastic chairs spewed out into the road. Every other building bears the giant, charred, impact mark of a helicopter missile. Last night there were still many families and weeping children still living amid the ruins, cut off from the humanitarian aid. Ominously, we found no wounded, although there was a report of a man being rescued from beneath ruins only an hour before we arrived.

Those who did not flee the camp, or not detained by the army, have spent the bombardment in basements, enduring day after day of terror. Some were forced into rooms by the soldiers, who smashed their way into houses through the walls. The UN says half of the camp's 15,000 residents were under 18. As the evening hush fell over these killing fields, we could suddenly hear the children chattering. The mosques, once so noisy at prayer time, were silent.

Israel was still trying to conceal these scenes yesterday. It had refused entry to Red Cross ambulances for nearly a week, in violation of the Geneva Convention. Yesterday it continued to try to keep us out.

Jenin, in the northern end of the occupied West Bank, remained "a closed military zone", was ringed Merkava tanks, army Jeep patrols, and armoured personnel carriers. Reporters caught trying to get in were escorted out. A day earlier the Israeli armed forces took in a few selected journalists to see sanitised parts of the camp. We simply walked across the fields, flitted through an olive orchard overlooked by two Israeli tanks, and into the camp itself.

We were led in by hands gesturing at windows. Hidden, whispering people directed us through narrow alleys they thought were clear. When there were soldiers about, a finger would raise in warning, or a hand waved us back. We were welcomed by people desperate to tell what had occurred. They spoke of executions, and bulldozers wrecking homes with people inside. "This is mass murder committed by Ariel Sharon," Jamel Saleh, 43, said. "We feel more hate for Israel now than ever. Look at this boy." He placed his hand on the tousled head of a little boy, Mohammed, the eight-year-old son of a friend. "He saw all this evil. He will remember it all." So will everyone else who saw the horror of Jenin refugee camp. Palestinians who entered the camp yesterday were almost speechless.

Rajib Ahmed, from the Palestinian Energy Authority, came to try to repair the power lines. He was trembling with fury and shock. "This is mass murder. I have come here to help by I have found nothing but devastation. Just look for yourself." All had the same message: tell the world. </font>

_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." -- Heinrich Heine
"The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren and to do good is my religion."-Thomas Paine

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2002-04-15 23:17 ]</font>

On 2002-04-15 20:35, Tristan Jones wrote:
I do think Eric in a lot of ways on this issue acts like the Arabs and Europeans. This National Review article outlines the sort of Bombastic exaggeration which the Arab and European press do on this subject.

Who?s the Victim?
Arab bombast, European hysteria....

Good article, Tristan. There's only one problem with it. It recycles debunked figures for the Afghan civilian casualty count. The real figure could be as low as 1000, and certainly no higher than 1500.

There is a good article on the distortions here:

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache...n+deaths&hl=en

Even after they had been debunked, the distorted casualty counts have continued making the rounds for months, but it is surprising that the National Review would make the same mistake. If NR can make mistakes like this, what kind of distortions might we expect from left-wing propaganda rags like Britain's "Independent"?

Robert's "Independent" article reminds me of the battle of Guadalcanal during WWII. Nobody charged the US with war crimes for cremating hundreds of Japanese soldiers alive when they refused to surrender and come out of their caves.

I don't think the new "International Court" will have any credibility if they charge Sharon with war crimes. Recent history in the Arab world is filled with much more gruesome events which the Europeans tend to ignore. Entire villages have been wiped of the map without a peep from the Europeans.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-04-16 06:03 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-04-16 06:04 ]</font>

On 2002-04-16 05:57, firemind wrote:

On 2002-04-15 20:35, Tristan Jones wrote:
I do think Eric in a lot of ways on this issue acts like the Arabs and Europeans. This National Review article outlines the sort of Bombastic exaggeration which the Arab and European press do on this subject.

Who?s the Victim?
Arab bombast, European hysteria....

Good article, Tristan. There's only one problem with it. It recycles debunked figures for the Afghan civilian casualty count. The real figure could be as low as 1000, and certainly no higher than 1500.

There is a good article on the distortions here:

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache...n+deaths&hl=en

Even after they had been debunked, the distorted casualty counts have continued making the rounds for months, but it is surprising that the National Review would make the same mistake. If NR can make mistakes like this, what kind of distortions might we expect from left-wing propaganda rags like Britain's "Independent"?

Robert's "Independent" article reminds me of the battle of Guadalcanal during WWII. Nobody charged the US with war crimes for cremating hundreds of Japanese soldiers alive when they refused to surrender and come out of their caves.

I don't think the new "International Court" will have any credibility if they charge Sharon with war crimes. Recent history in the Arab world is filled with much more gruesome events which the Europeans tend to ignore. Entire villages have been wiped of the map without a peep from the Europeans.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-04-16 06:03 ]</font>

As was said in another post, I forget where, an institution like the International Criminal Court cannot help but be the obedient tool for one faction to prosecute it's opponents' leaders for war crimes, while war crimes committed by the controlling faction would be ignored - or maybe even charged to the other side, if posible. The way the Soviets tried to charge the Germans with the Katyn Massacre, and the North Koreans tried to charge us with killing *their political prisoners* during the Korean War.

Tristan Jones wrote:

To someone who is a neo-liberal one day and a Christian conservative the next, depending on the mood I experience. I happen to respect GW Bush, although I have criticised some things he has done.


Recently I have found an admiration for people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Newt Grinrich. I feel that the Christian Right is the only people around defending western civilisation from its enemies.

As a person of liberal persuassion who has lived in close proximity to both Jerry Falwell (10 years) and Pat Robertson (20 years), I can assure you that they are far from beign. They have a vision of a Christian world, with non-believers swept aside and good Christian values in place, everywhere.


You cannot appreciate the level of narrowmindedness unless you have lived with it day after day. Because their neolithic brand of Christianity is overwhelmingly dominent here, practioners claim the "right of the majority" is trampled when they are restricted from publically inflicting their beliefs on everyone. Even worse, they have managed to get those beliefs injected into the schools. Their reasoning for this: because it's "what we believe".


Tristan. While you may have a Christian bent, please tell me you don't believe that the world sprung full-blown from the mind of God roughly 5,000 years ago.

On the worship of cattle from the Golden Calf to the little red heifer. 3T or 4T?

Hi!

On 2002-04-16 07:56, jds1958xg wrote:

Actually, the mindset of the Christian fundamentalists could be better described as 'medieval'....

I think one might look at St. Thomas Aquinas for the "medieval" view and find it quite differnt on some major points of view from modern American Fundamentalist Christianity. HTH

If you want a peaceful solution to the Temple Mount issue go to http://www.yahweh.com and search for Peaceful Solution to Yerusalem link.

It's in the middle of the page and the picture shows a rebuilt Temple standing side by side with the Dome of the Rock. Two wonderful testaments to the same God of Isaac and Ishmael.

http://www.yahweh.com/Temple/ctmpmka.html

Here's the shortcut link

Tristan writes,
"To someone who is a neo-liberal one day and a Christian conservative the next, depending on the mood I experience."

I would suggest the removal of the term "Christian" in the context used, Tristan. While I can understand vascillating between liberal and conservative, I question how the same might occur with your faith: Are you your father's son "one day," but a bastard child "the next"?