Subject:
|
Re: A question of remembrance...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 5 May 2001 17:40:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
963 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
>
> > Simple question: Why do you take the side of the oppressor? Divorce that
> > from the context too.
> Three part answer:
> - I'm not taking sides when I say one side is worse than the other... we are
> talking shades of black, after all, not black vs. white.
Then, my friend, you are chosing the PLO to be the "far worse" shade when,
factually and morally, it is totally opposite. Stop lumping things together
and believing the Zionist propaganda about the Intifadah (the uprising of
Palistinian citizens against the Israeli occupiers) or that the PLO is a
"terrorist organization," or that Yassir Arafat uses children as terrorists.
Be your own man and seek the truth.
> - Oppressor is such a loaded word, really. You haven't demonstrated that
> either side in this instance is an "oppressor" to my satisfaction.
> "oppressor" requires an egregious preponderance of firepower against an
> essentially unarmed foe.
I am truly baffled! Who is chucking stones at "soldiers" with machine guns,
grenades, rocket launchers and tanks? Who invaded who's land? Who had terror
squads and massacred entire Palistinian villages, ran the rest of the
population out and bulldozed their homes? Why are millions of Palistinians
(Jews, Christians and Moslems) living as refugees in Jordan? If you want to
tell me that "terrorists" target "bystanders," then figure it out.
If you want to bring up the hijackings and car bombs carried out by militant
groups, let's just review the rules of war. Both sides are expected to
resrict engagement to soldiers and minimize civilian casualties. But if one
side (the Israelis) choses to target the civilians (Palistinians), expect
the other side to do the same.
> - That said, I don't ever *intend* to take the side of an oppressor. You
> won't hear me rooting for Stalin against the kulaks, for example.
That's why I'm trying to point you in the right direction. The Israeli
occupation is just plain wrong, as wrong as me coming over and kicking you
out of your home. Then, when you fight back, I go "boo hoo hoo" to the
Dan-sympathetic world, "see how Larry beats me!" Forget the word oppressor
if you think it's loaded. Just be on the side of justice.
> I'm not as interested in this particular question (of who is right or wrong
> in the mideast) as I am in the questions of what terrorism is, what can be
> done about it, and if it is ever legitimate to initiate the use of force.
I have told you who is right and wrong from the perspective of morals, human
rights and respect to other nations, you just want to stick to your
pro-Zionist paradigm. You are standing by the Gestapho and don't know it. We
cannot have a reasonable conversation about "terrorism" until you change
your paradigm. It is clear to me that you buy into the mainstream notion of
the "Arab terrorist" without considering the reasons or context of the
violence. You said "never negotiate," doesn't that speak to your one-sidedness?
Be your own man, learn the truth and stand up for the oppressed.
Dan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| (...) Three part answer: - I'm not taking sides when I say one side is worse than the other... we are talking shades of black, after all, not black vs. white. - Oppressor is such a loaded word, really. You haven't demonstrated that either side in (...) (23 years ago, 5-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
197 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
