Petition for warcrime trial against Sharon: http://www.petitiononline.com/warcrime/petition.html

Here is a petition for solidarity with Israel: http://www.petitiononline.com/PFPII/petition.html

On 2002-04-16 08:13, JayN wrote:
http://www.yahweh.com/Temple/ctmpmka.html

Here's the shortcut link

Looks to me like a *great* idea, except that there's no way the Islamic World would *ever* accept it. Of course, that's their problem, and their shortsightedness. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if Israel would at least be willing to consider the idea of building the Temple alongside the Dome of the Rock mosque (hopefully with a nice, thick reinforced concrete wall between them, topped with concertina wire!).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-04-16 09:08 ]</font>

Seriously, I know I and others have been indulging themselves here with debates about issues and that's not all bad. But we should really stay on topic. If you want to debate these things go to the Beyond America threads or one of the threads in this forum about the Civilizations Clash Crisis.

Third Turning or Fourth Turning is the topic here.

I would nominate this headline as a 4th Turning event. It's almost unprecedented for the Pope to call the Cardinals from a single country together.

American Cardinals Called to Vatican
Mon Apr 15, 7:53 PM ET
By CANDICE HUGHES, Associated Press Writer

JDS writes...

Looks to me like a *great* idea, except that there's no way the Islamic World would *ever* accept it. Of course, that's their problem, and their shortsightedness. On the other hand, I would not be surprised it Israel would at least be willing to consider the idea of building the Temple alongside the Come of the Rock mosque (hopefully with a reinforced concrete wall between them!).

Perhaps two walls? With only one wall, you would have to decide which side the fortrifications would face. With two walls, civilians behind the walls would be somewhat protected, while the fanatics on top of the wall would still get to shoot one another.

I will submit this article: http://www.msnbc.com/news/738568.asp?0dm=C11OO

On 2002-04-16 09:15, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
JDS writes...

Looks to me like a *great* idea, except that there's no way the Islamic World would *ever* accept it. Of course, that's their problem, and their shortsightedness. On the other hand, I would not be surprised it Israel would at least be willing to consider the idea of building the Temple alongside the Come of the Rock mosque (hopefully with a reinforced concrete wall between them!).

Perhaps two walls? With only one wall, you would have to decide which side the fortrifications would face. With two walls, civilians behind the walls would be somewhat protected, while the fanatics on top of the wall would still get to shoot one another.

Great idea about the *two* walls. And something particularly nasty can be put in the space between the walls, to further deter anything more than the shooting you mentioned. Mines? Punji stakes? A moat filled with crocodiles or piranha?

Here is more evidence that the 4T meme has infected America: http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?ItemId=13152

Here is an example, in the liberal New York Times no less, of the double standard Arabs apply:

"This frenzy in the Arab world is fascinating, because while the Israeli brutality in the occupied territories is real, it is small potatoes by Arab standards."

"Some 1,600 Palestinians have been killed since the latest round of violence erupted in the fall of 2000. In contrast, two million Sudanese have died in the ongoing civil war here, with barely anyone noticing."

"Likewise, Syria blithely killed about 20,000 people in crushing an abortive uprising in the city of Hama in 1982. And Saddam Hussein, who has killed more Arabs than Ariel Sharon and all his Israeli predecessors put together, is somehow a hero for much of the Arab world."

"What's going on here?..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/16/opinion/16KRIS.html

I am not arguing that any ACTUAL war crimes should be ignored, but merely pointing out the hypocrisy of it. It's as if you lived in a city where the police were ignoring gang wars, but always prosecuted you for using force to protect yourself from criminals.

There is an underlying racism in the approach. The "International Court" crowd hold the Arabs to a lower standard, as if they don't believe the Arabs are capable of behaving any better. This has got to stop if they want anyone to take them seriously.

It would certainly help them appear impartial if the Dutch battalion commander were brought up on war crime charges for allowing 8000 people to be slaughtered in 1995...

Oh, well, Tristan would probably post this if I didn't.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script...ohen041602.asp

I'll only post excerpts, though:

****

As the Israelis were busy hosing pools of blood off the streets after the latest murder-suicide bombing at Jerusalem's Machane Yehuda market, the Palestinian propaganda machine was busy churning out yet another Big Lie: the "massacre of Jenin."

Palestinian mouthpieces claim that the Israeli military killed as many as 500 civilians in Jenin, a stronghold of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. When the Israelis cleared the booby traps and allowed Western media into the city on Monday, the reality turned to be completely different: difficult door-to-door infantry fight; 23 Israeli soldiers fallen in battle; dozens of terrorists killed. No massacre....

The fierce fighting went on for days in the small, winding alleys of the town and in the Jenin refugee camp that Arafat did not even think to eliminate despite years of his rule. Many houses were booby trapped by the terrorists who hoped to blow Israelis to smithereens. The IDF repeatedly ceased fire and demanded that all civilians leave the area, but the top Palestinian terrorists, true to form, were using them as human shields.

If this action had taken place in Afghanistan, U.S. troops would have called in the "vitamin B": B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers. If it had happened in Chechnya, the Russian generals would have called in artillery and flattened Jenin, just as they did Grozny. Israeli tanks were there, and they could have shot straight into town and the refugee camp. Instead, Israelis fought on foot, placing themselves at risk while trying to protect Palestinian lives. One of the fighters, reportedly a young boy, detonated a booby trap in a building already taken by the Israeli reservists, and 13 were killed on the spot.

After the city fell, 1,000 Palestinian fighters surrendered. In any other place, in any other war, there would be no one left to surrender. The air force, rockets, and artillery would have done the job...

I heard Richard Harwood on the local NPR station this morning. Here's a movement with definite 4T overtones:

http://www.theharwoodinstitute.org/n...ism/index.html

The American Soul

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5457

On 2002-04-16 11:16, Kiff '61 wrote:
I heard Richard Harwood on the local NPR station this morning. Here's a movement with definite 4T overtones:

http://www.theharwoodinstitute.org/n...ism/index.html

Great find! :smile:

Since the subject has been discussed, here is conservative columnist Bob Novak on the man with the ham sandwich in his back pocket and the Bush administration:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20020415.shtml

(For info and discussion)

Robert Novak (archive)
(printer-friendly version)

April 15, 2002

The GOP for Sharon

WASHINGTON -- Conservative sage William J. Bennett, blunt as ever, last Thursday said publicly what elected Republican officials say privately. President Bush's new Middle East peace initiative, said Bennett, is "making very angry ... his entire political base. A firestorm is starting to build -- a firestorm of criticism." That defined the political threat to the president for seeking peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

The transcript of Bennett's remarks (in his new role as a CNN contributor) was perused, but not officially commented on, by senior aides at the White House. They are concerned. Bennett may have exaggerated a little, but not much. I telephoned several prominent Republican conservatives, some of them elected officials, who were in unanimous agreement with Bennett while declining to go public.

The implications for George W. Bush are horrendous. From his first day in office, he has tried to avoid his father's alienation of the conservative Republican base. Nevertheless, his aides tell me, the president intends to proceed with peacemaking even if it means undermining his political game plan. It does cause Bush to tread carefully, however.

That reality is appreciated in Israel. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been able to brush off, with impunity, U.S. demands for military withdrawal "without delay" from the Palestinian territories. When Sharon refused at their meeting Friday to give Colin Powell any timetable for ending the military offensive, the secretary of state did not publicly insist. Sharon has called Washington's bluff.

Congressional criticism of the Bush peace initiative has publicly come from the usual suspects -- partisan Democrats with large Jewish constituencies, such as Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. ("We're telling Israel, which is simply trying to defend herself, to pull back, " Schumer complained last week.) Bush doesn't worry about the Chuck Schumers. What bothers the White House are the Bill Bennetts.

Bennett represents gradual but accelerating escalation of support for Israel from the Republican Party's dominant conservative wing, especially from the Christian religious right. When 46 years ago a Republican president in the midst of his re-election campaign took a tough stand against the Israeli attack on Egypt, Dwight D. Eisenhower did not have to worry about his party's base. Conservatives then tilted toward the Arabs. The move by the American right, overwhelmingly non-Jewish, toward Israel has intensified over the last 10 years.

Some Israeli policies are more popular with Republican conservatives than others. The Oslo agreement and the former Prime Minister Ehud Barak's failed peace initiative are not. Sharon's Bismarckian policy of settling the Palestinian question with blood and iron are.

Even more popular than Sharon is former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was lionized by Republican lawmakers in Washington last week during an apparent campaign trip to get his old job back. Netanyahu is even tougher than Sharon in his stated intent to bring peace by destroying the Palestinian Authority and exiling Yasser Arafat. When Netanyahu pleaded with Republican senators not to "pressure" Israel to stop defending itself in an implicit criticism of Bush, no senator spoke in defense of the president.

Nor did White House spokesman Ari Fleischer question the propriety of Netanyahu's electioneering on Capitol Hill. Instead, Fleischer -- echoing what senior aides are saying -- contradicted reality and what Sharon himself told Powell by insisting that the Israelis really are obeying the president's demand, however slowly. In a calculated White House hedge, Fleischer stressed that Powell's Israeli-opposed meeting with Arafat was the secretary of state's idea, not the president's.

Since hedging won't get Bill Bennett back on the president's side, Bush might consider the words of a distinguished Israeli Knesset member: former Justice Minister Yossi Beilin. In a PBS interview Thursday, he asserted "this operation has cost us a lot, not only in our international image, which has deteriorated, but I believe that mainly we increased ambitions on the Palestinian side to take revenge, and we increased the hatred toward us." Beilin also called the Palestinians "not a group of terrorists like al Qaida" but a "big nation with several millions of people" who long ago chose Arafat as their leader.

Middle East specialists at the State Department agree with Beilin. For President Bush to publicly concur would feed Bennett's firestorm.

Contact Robert Novak | Read his biography

?2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

When you guys post these long URL links, you make it too hard to read an entire page. I have to use a horizontal scroll bar to read each sentence.

Please do not post long URL links.

BTW I myself rarely visit links that are posted. It takes too long to load most pages these days. Why not just post short excerpts? Also, there is no need to quote entire previous posts, just to make a one-sentence comment. That wastes space on the server I'm sure, and wastes time scrolling through all that typing (and sometimes re-posted pictures too!)

I must agree concerning the quotes of entire posts. If one's response comes immediately after the post in question why quote at all?

On 2002-04-16 12:12, Tim Walker wrote:

I must agree concerning the quotes of entire posts. If one's response comes immediately after the post in question why quote at all?

In case it needs to be stated, all that quoted text can be wiped out in one second by left-clicking on the mouse (and holding it down), dragging the cursor over all the text whose removal is desired such that it is "blued out," then right-clicking over the "blue" area and clicking "cut" or "delete." Poof, it is gone!

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.

You don't seem to get the point. Israel is not killing Arab soldiers alone; it is mainly killing civilians in a terror campaign. And yes they ARE doing aerial bombing, and have been for months.

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.

Because any home in an opponent's town might harbor a terrorist, why not just destroy them all? That is your contention. It is pure terrorism. What the Germans and Allies did in WWII was also terrorism, and I'm glad we at least profess no longer to wage war in that way. That was a very dark time, and both sides were in the deepest darkness of insanity and evil.

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

No, because what Israel is doing is not "just war." It is over-reaction targeting civilians just as the suicide bombers did. You are justifying atrocities in war and calling them "just." I do NOT approve of the suicide bombers. The war should stop on both sides, and both sides should stop terrorism. But don't say that the Israelis are not practicing terror war and the Arabs are. That is simple prejudice and hatred.

The Israelis are acting like Nazis now. They have not always been that bad, but this does not excuse their current behavior. You know that's what I said, so don't confuse the issue.

The Israelis have often withdrawn from territories that they formerly occupied.

They need to complete the job. If we occupied part of Mexico, we would not get credit for withdrawing from part of it. We would need to withdraw from all of it.

And they have now withdrawn from Palestinian cities after completing their destruction of terrorist facilities.

Destruction of their cities, you mean. And even where thay have not withdrawn, they maintain many roadbloacks throughout the country, and have for 7 years. The Palestinians are still oppressed in their own country.

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

I saw the news. The Israelis shot directly at reporters. The reporters themselves showed and reported this. Denial is not a river in Egypt, firemind. It gets you nowhere. Why swallow propaganda??

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.

Yet somehow we get the news from there, but couldn't when the Israelis went in.

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

He has to give ground on that; but I heard it that he was holding out for the removal of settlements, and that Israel wanted to keep enough land to make Palestine a patchwork and not a viable state entity.

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

Maybe his people are too uncompromising. We can't blame Arafat alone; he represents his people. He did agree to denounce terrorism in Arabic at Powell's insistence yesterday, even though the Israelis did not denounce what they were doing. He has recognized Israel. So it may be possible to negotiate with some Palestinian leader. I'm not sure that Arafat will ever be willing to do it. He is not an effective leader.

I have outlined the deal that needs to be made. It is simple and equitable.

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

Fine, I agree. Let them buy property within the Palestinian state, live under Palestianian Authority, and meanwhile the state-built and protected settlements should be given up. You can't get along with someone who has illegally destroyed your home and replaced it with his own.
The Arabs should have the same right in Israel, and no more.

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.

I agree that the Palestinians must give up that demand.

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

That is the problem. Some Hamas terrorist whom Arafat does not control explodes a bomb, and Israel retaliates by attacking Arafat and bombing civilians. No peace is possible as long as advocates of war are allowed to dictate events.

That's what they say in English.

That was an international communique. You don't read the news. The Arab governments all offered to recognize Israel in its 1967 borders. That is not a proposal to drive them into the sea. Your contention that ALL Arab leaders want to do this is hateful prejudice and you refuse to back away from it or admit it. This total nonsense is beyond the pale of all sane discourse, firemind. You need to back off when you are wrong, and not defend anything and everything you have ever said. I assume you also believe that Mubarak and King Abdullah want to drive Israel into the sea.
If so, the US government disagrees with you. These are Arab leaders, no? The leader of Lebanon recognized Israel on Lehrer last night. He's an Arab, no? Stop stereotyping and fostering hatred and prejudice with ridiculous statements. Get the fire out of your mind and replace it with some light.

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.

A sane, moral person would not use tanks and missiles to destroy entire neighborhoods regardless of who is living in those towns.

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?

Israel started this war by occupying the territories. We were not occupying Afghanistan on Sept.11th.

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.

You approve of what they are doing now, then you are giving them a blank check for terrorism of the worst sort. You apparently don't understand what the word means. What we did in Germany was also terror.

Your technical distinction between terror conducted by a state's army and terror conducted by individuals is useless. If anything state terror is worse because it is more deadly.

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

There are, and you are all for them.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-04-16 13:08 ]</font>

Eric:

Since you obviously have no conception of "just war" theory, a theory which has developed over the centuries by wise philosophers seeking to mitigate the harm done by wars, make them short and decisive, and protect civilians, and,

Since you obviously belong to the Moammar Khadaffi school when it comes to the definition of "terrorism" (believing that any use of of force in any way represents "terrorism"), and,

Since you have repeatedly distorted my arguments in ways ridiculous for all to see,

I, therefore, see no reason to debate you further.

Oh, and just because I am not refuting anything in your last post, Eric, does not mean that it was not riddled with factual errors. It was, as are most of your posts on this issue.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-04-16 13:36 ]</font>

I'm not sure what to make of this one:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/739373.asp

I'm astonished, quite frankly, that Clarence Thomas actually broke with Scalia and Rehnquist on this decision.

3T or 4T?

On 2002-04-16 14:56, Kiff '61 wrote:
I'm not sure what to make of this one:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/739373.asp

I'm astonished, quite frankly, that Clarence Thomas actually broke with Scalia and Rehnquist on this decision.

3T or 4T?

3T; this is similar to the striking down of the COPA, etc in the latter part of the nineties

this ruling is a wonderful victory for free speech.

I also support it because I would like to see smut expand and ruin the moral fibers of society that are needed to make capitalism more durable.

On 2002-04-16 15:10, Sbarro wrote:
this ruling is a wonderful victory for free speech.

I also support it because I would like to see smut expand and ruin the moral fibers of society that are needed to make capitalism more durable.

Sbarro, smut purveyors are prime examples of capitalism. Just look at all the bucks they rake in!

I wasn't discussing the financial aspects of porn. Of course you are correct to point out that the porn industry is as capitalistic as any other one.

I was discussing how people will spend so much time with porn instead of more "productive" activities that it weakens the moral discipline needed to keep exploiting workers for thier income. Workers may decide that if they can violate moral taboos by viewing naked men or women or even children why can't they break other rules? It's not all that different than the pressure that capitalist competition is bringing on student to cheat on thier exams so they can get in the best schools. Capitalist competition, in the quest for more and more dollars, backfires on itself because workers are also consumers.