Subject:
|
Re: jumping to conclusions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Apr 2002 19:41:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1434 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > I said:
> >
> > "My views on human rights and international law, together with my
> > understanding of recent middle-east history, leads me to sympathize with the
> > Palestinian people, not with "PLO terrorists". I hope you understand the
> > distinction between the two."
> >
> > You said:
> > "Sorry, there isn't one."
>
> I think I clarified that. I said that if they *support* terrorists, they are as
> *culpable* as terrorists.
You said:
1. “Sorry, there isn't one. “
2. “The PLO represent the Palestinians.”
3. “Whatever the PLO does, the Palestinians support them.”
4. “Anyone who supports the actions of terrorists is just as culpable as the
terrorists themselves.”
> Since the PLO represents them, they are in the
> unfortunate position of supporting terrorism. They are being woefully misled.
This really is nonsense. Tony Blair can be said to represent me, that does
not mean I necessarily support him
>
> Or
> > > is *your* information simply your daily dosage of BBC poured down your throat?
> >
> >
> > No. But a recent report I read suggested that the media tended to have a
> > pro-Israeli stance.
>
> Okay, that one made me literary laugh out loud. Not only is it not true, it's a
> circular argument at best-- "Newspaper claims newspapers aren't biased".
It was actually based on academic research undertaken at a UK university. It
will be published in “Developments in Sociology” next month.
>
> As an aside, I happen to live in a state whose major newspaper, (and I use that
> term loosely) The Minneapolis Star and Tribune, is about the most biased paper
> in the US. A different editorial staff from another city even criticized it for
> that reason. I'll have to see if I can dig up the sources.
Relevance?
>
>
> Rather than alleging some sort of international media
> > conspiracy,
>
> Not conspiracy, just liberal bias. It's a fact. I have friends in the media,
> and they acknowledge it, too. If you want to believe that the media is
> unbiased, that's your business, but you'd be wrong.
Have you got any independent confirmation that there is an anti-Israeli bias
in the press?
>
> >
> > Who else can they turn to? International law is on their side. UN
> > resolutions support them... but still justice has not been served.
>
> The UN Charter called for them to set up their own state *54 YEARS AGO*. What
> have they been waiting for!!
They were dealt a bad hand.
> Oh yeah, the destruction of Israel by their
> brothers in other Arab countries. But that never happened, but not for lack of
> trying. And the Palestinians can't understand why they aren't embraced by the
> Israelis? The Arab world is as much to blame for the plight of the Palestinians
> as Israel is.
>
> The Palestinians are where they are by their *own* actions 54 years ago.
> Instead of declaring their own state as the Israelis did, they choose to *
> attack* Israel. Since the moment Israel was a sovereign state, they have been
> under seige by the Arabs. And it has gone downhill for them ever since.
> >
> > >
> > > Let's see the Palestinians take the "high ground". No more terrorism, period.
> >
> > I assume you mean from both sides?
>
> No, I meant the Palestinians.
So you support Israeli terrorist activities?
> Read down further why I said that it must begin
> with them.
> >
> > > And let's see an unequivocal acknowledgment from the Arab world of the right for
> > > Israel to exist as a sovereign nation.
> >
> > Is that not what is being offered right now? What has the Israeli response been?
>
> What do you expect their response to be??!! The proof is in the pudding, my
> friend.
Answer the question!
> >
> > > It must begin with them, because it is
> > > not reasonable for the world to expect Israel to answer terrorist attacks
> > > against her citizens with inaction, or to expect them to negotiate peace with a
> > > group who is simultaneously inflicting terrorist attacks upon them.
>
>
> > Nor is it acceptable to allow Israel to kill civilians in the manner they
> > do; an Israeli civilian is worth no more/less than a Palestinian.
>
> In what manner is that, exactly?
Sharon’s words:
"The Palestinians must be hit and it must be very painful. We must cause
them losses, victims, so that they feel the heavy price".
> Any Palestinian could be a human bomb, for all
> they know... That tends to skew one's perception of a population-- a perception
> brought on by that population.
Strange how the UK was able to control a terrorist situation in the UK
without firing rockets into residential areas.
>
> If you
> > have studied the "Arab-Israeli dilemma" you will know that Israel has been a
> > belligerent nation with a shocking record on human rights since its UDI.
>
> That is B, as in B, and S as in S. "Belligerent nation"? What tripe! Their
> violence as a nation can be directly linked to her defending herself against
> Arab aggressors.
That is B, as in B, and S as in S. What was Israel’s claim to the Straights
of Tiran? I won’t even mention Ben-Gurion’s “fantastic plan”.
Below is how Moshe Dayan described border clashes with Syria in the prelude
to the ’67 war (when he was minister of defence):
==+==
I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion,
more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We
would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn't possible to do
anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians
would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to
advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.
And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's
howit was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara [Rabin's predecessor as chief of
staff] did that, and Yitzhak did that, but it seems to me that the person
who most enjoyed these games was Dado [David Elazar, OC Northern Command,
1964-69].
==+==
One could hardly accuse Moshe Dayan as being part of the international
anti-Israeli conspiracy?
What was Israel’s role in Suez? Why no mention of its own borders in its UDI?
>
> > Your view appears to be that this is a battle of good v evil - I reject that
> > notion totally. I agree that Arafat is a problem, but the same can be said
> > of Sharon – both have blood on their hands. Do you deny that?
>
> How can you blame Sharon? He hasn't been leading Israel for that long.
Are you saying Sharon has no blood on his hands? Seriously?
> Israel
> has had the gambit of the political spectrum leading them, from Meir to Begin to
> Peres to Sharon. They have been all over the place; Arafat has been in one
> place.
> >
> > Who “started” the current round of violence?
>
> Current schmurrent. Who started the war in '48?
Answer the question!
> >
> > >
> > > But I don't believe it will happen, because the Arab world loves its hatred for
> > > the Jews more than it cares about the plight of the Palestinians-- it's as
> > > simple as that. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are caught in the middle.
> >
> >
> > Your stated view is a generalisation. But why do you think that “hate” exists?
>
> You say so.
It’s a fact.
> Hatred exists because of intolerance. This whole thing started
> because the Arabs couldn't tolerate a Jewish state.
> >
> > > Time will tell, and the longer this drags on, the more I will be proven right.
> >
> > Time will tell. Perhaps this will end when the USA stops funding Israel to
> > the tune of ~$2.5B pa. Perhaps that will force Israel to negotiate?
>
> You idiot.
*sigh*
> We will *never* stop supporting Israel. *Their* allegiance could be
> argued to be more valuable than yours (England).
I’m not English, I don’t live in England.
I should hope the “allegiance” is valuable, given that the US pays Israel
the equivalent of >$400 per head of population. It’s just a pity they
humiliated your president last week on the international stage… not very
good value for money!
>
> But speaking of funding, let's see the Arabs throw a few billion towards the
> Palestinians that *isn't* in the form of weaponry...
Are you saying they give nothing? Are you saying Jordan has not helped? Are
you saying Syria did not offer to take 300,000 refugees in ’49 – even though
they only had 100,000 within their borders at that time?
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: jumping to conclusions
|
| (...) So what's a Palestinian to do? Speak out against the PLO? Peacemakers aren't very welcome in the Arab world--just ask Sadat's widow. (...) None really, except to note that the US media is getting *so* biased that it is surprising even itself. (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: jumping to conclusions
|
| (...) I think I clarified that. I said that if they *support* terrorists, they are as *culpable* as terrorists. Since the PLO represents them, they are in the unfortunate position of supporting terrorism. They are being woefully misled. Or (...) (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
