Sept. 11 and the War on Terror: Bullshit or Patriotism?

[Kashluk]

Sure, jump in. And no, I ain't rambo.

So what you think? Should we exterminate all the arabs or not?

Duh, that's what the debates all about.

[the guardian]

Should we exterminate all the arabs or not


just the kinda question that suits kashluk....

to answer your question


no




just kill everyone, including, yourself...

[Hammer]

I don't think the Israeli's are trying to exterminate all of the Arabs, if they wanted to they could have done it a long time ago.

I do, for the record, support the Israelis 99%.

[Haplo]

No.

Nothing the US can do, short of Genocide, will stop the wars over there. Until some leaders step forth for thier parties to show the people just how meaningless thier battles are, they will not stop.

[the guardian]

I don't think the Israeli's are trying to exterminate all of the Arabs, if they wanted to they could have done it a long time ago.

I do, for the record, support the Israelis 99%.

no, we couldnt, they got chemical weapons and possibly, nukes... and we're not a very big country

plus the social impacts, economical impacts(oh the usa and europe will shut us down completely).... its not worth it, if we wont die from a counter attack, we'd turn into a dying country from it


nice to know you support us... hows about a blowjob, you know, to show you're supportive?

[Phoenix]

if you had read the peace treatys, camp david, oslo treaty and so on, you would see that in every treaty the israelies so "willingly" gives to the palestinians, they don´t offer an independent palestinian state, the want military control, political control, but the paliestinians still get to live there, but the are not independent, did you know that the israelies controll the amount of money that the "state of palestina" gets? Yeah, i think that israel treatys are generous, think again. or hey, just read them.

Hmm, you mean the same Oslo accord that starts off with:

1. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN:


September 9, 1993


Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the
history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to
confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace
and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a
peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares
that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be
resolved through negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles
constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful
coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace
and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and
other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO
elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent
violations and discipline violators

In view of the pormise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration
of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council
Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the
Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the
provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments
of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently,
the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for
formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian
Covenant.


Sincerely,

Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestine Liberation Organization

Yeah, I've seen it. Hmm, they trusted the guy before and look where it got them. Would you be bending over backwards to do it all over again?

yeah, and you think that the israelies did nothing but strive for peace during this time? Think again.

I'm sorry, but starting up and intifada and launching suicide attacks because you think you can get a better deal isn't a valid negotiating tactic.

and who does that do you think, extremist wings, not regular people, don´t pile up palestinians and israelies in them and them. we are talking about the people that run this and the extremist wings that are fighting right?

As a matter of fact, I think Arafat has no small hand in it. And he's the one who always winds up at the negotiating table. So what I said stands. If the "regular people" want things to change, then they should let their voices be heard.

And ariel sharon the angel going to the alaxa mosque laying a rock near it saying: "Here, i will build a synagog" I agree with you that arafat is not a good leader in the aspect that he probably funds the extremist wings(just as sharon continiues to push the israelise to attack more and support settlement and rightwing movements) but with arafat gone, the big question is, who will come next, who will be able to take his place? Of course the people should be heard, just as the israelise should be heard that are protesting and getting shot at with rubberbullets when they march for peace.

The Israelis likely won't be happy with everything, either, but they demonstrated a willingness to compromise in the name of peace.

same as above, read the treaty.

Note: that most of the paliestinian and israeli people want peace, but leaders and extremist groups and a little mix of hate makes it kinda hard,

Yeah, that sounds sweet, but how are you going to practically apply it even assuming you're right. What's your solution?

yuo should know that im right if you read about the conflict, this is a looooooooong peace process, you cant´t just overlook the hate and anger these people feel against eachother, its kinda like racsists, most racsists put all the lets say, "darkies" in the same category and would easily kick down any "darkie" even if he didn´t know him, if he got to know them better he would probably understand that not all, infact few people are evil at heart. This should in my oppinion be applied here, letting israelies and palestinians get to know eachother, remove the prejudice. They actually had a documentary on this a few days ago. quite interesting.

Sorry, if I wanted to take a few days of research to write a thesis on this, I'd go for a degree.

to bad, because if you just keep saying what you think and not what you know, it kinda hurts the debate, since i have no real facts to argue with.

I know the feeling.

actually, you did seem to untill now when you posted a copy of the oslo treaty, congratts to you then

My mind has gradually digested all the facts over the years.

And where did you digest the facts from? Israeli righwing fox tv? The ariel sharon late show? you gotta think about where the info came from.

It doesn't come with footnotes. Blame the human mind.

Ok, the problem you have here is that everything you say is then taken from what youvé read or heard right? Then why should i belive anything you say if you cant back it upp with facts, hey, my fault perhaps in reseaching about it but you get a better view that just watching CNN or talking to your buddies.

I get my information from many sources as well as from participating and watching debates on forums like this. Where did you get your information, Hamas and Hezbollah press releases? (joking, even though I don't know if you were)

And "Everything you say is then taken from what you've read or heard"??? Where did you get your information, divine revelation?

news, media, documetaries, debates, hey, here is a good link for you
/http://www.btselem.org/

Everyone who disagrees with you must automatically be prejudiced, I guess.

wohoo, look whos talking, since you seem to have no real facts on what happend, and still say that the Palestinian people are the cause of whats going on, i would actually seem as Everyone who disagrees with you must automatically be a moron, I guess. but hey, maybe you cant help it.

I never said that. To be honest, I didn't think that, either. You did call me prejudiced, though. That's what I was responding to. Then, to top it off, you "apologized" and then said it again. Sorry if I overreacted, but I wasn't the one who got personal first.'

allright, we can flam this as much as you want, but you are pretty haughty in your arguments, so exuse me if i sound haughty myself. But as i see it, you would want to get the last word on this right?

If I made any judgments, it was solely based on what you've said,

yeah right, so all your views and jugements, are soley based on what i said, so actually, you don´t know that much about israel and palestina. your just juging what i said, don´t belive you, i think you judged palestina way before that!

You're welcome to your opinion. I could just as easily say you judged Israel way before this, especially considering your later rant, but I won't. It really doesn't add anything to the debate.

The Jews who came to Isreal, were European, they have no
special right to be there. The people who lived there ,
prior to the "Exodus" where ethnicly arab ( regardless of
their religion). Regardless of what the land was called,the
land was lived on by ethnic arabs that were driven out by
ethnic europeans. Isrealis could not trace their roots back
to the tribes of Isreal. No tribe of Isreal wandered up to
Europe. Religion does not give any one a right to a land.

Well, that pretty much sums it up, I guess. So you don't think that the European Jews weren't descended from the original ones? And what of the "Ethnic Arabs" who happened to be Jews who stayed in the area? What of the "Ethnic Arabs" who happened to be Jews who were forced out of other Arab countries and told to move to Israel? Do they have no claim? Did Jews living in the area before Israel was established who with a lot of sweat and hard work built up the area from wasteland to oasis have no right to their work because they weren't "Ethnic Arabs"? When the land was divided according to the current inhabitants, were the current Jewish residents just supposed to be shown the door because they weren't "Ethnic Arabs"?

lets see,
question 1: probalby, but that dosn´t give them the right to a land, besides, even if they where, after 3000 years, alot where probably not.
question 2: thats bad yes.
question 3: Claim? NO!
question 4-5 no, creating the state of israel there was wrong. they shouldn´t have been sent there from the begginging. otherwise, why not set upp the Assyrians there to and the kurdish people?

Is the entire world wrong? Is Israel right because the
bible says so?

Last time I checked, "the entire world" wasn't in accord here. And quit throwing out the "Bible says so" red herring. I've never based the argument on that.

ok, ill withdraw that question.

HOW then could the Israelis POSSIBLELY be "occupiers" in
their own territory?.

Semantics. If they claimed it as theirs, would it now not be occupied?
.

but you didn´t say that they clamed it, you said that it was theirs.

Well obviously everything that has been tried to uproot her(Israel) has failed.

The Arab world is graduating more scientists every day, Isrealstechnolgical advantage will dwindle everyday. They
need a lasting peace more than the Arab world. If they
continue on the path they are on now. They will eventually
lose.They can sit there and pound on their cheast all they
want and say you "you can't win" to the Arab world but what
about 10 years from now.

Sure, so why don't they just give up everything now and get it over with. Once they're weak and vulnerable and the Arabs are in a better position, I'm sure the Arabs will just be nice guys. All you'll have to do is go tell them to respect other countries' boundaries and they'll be glad to comply. It's not like every other historical encounter with Israel and other Arab states would say otherwise..

that was totaly uncalled for, if they make their peace with palesina now, they wont have to worry that much later, if they show them selves tollerant, so will the arab countries, and the rest of the world will support israel instead of condemming it.

ok, my view solution:
Look at Europe, thousands of years of blood and now the European union. Who
would have even dreamed of such a thing 100 years ago.If
the Isrealis conformed with UN resolutions and international law and the Palestians "Realy" cracked down
on militants peace would be possible. The problem is peace
would not remove the humiliation put on the Palestinains or
make the Isrealis feel SAFE. Only victory will do that, a victory neither side can acheive. Neither side wants to "settle" for peace but both sides need this peace to survive!

Sounds nice. The European Union only came about, though, because the problems of the past were by then largely irrelevant and most of the people who'd oppose it were long dead. That's not the case here. It would be more like trying to make the EU two years after the Hundred Years War.!

then let it take 100 years, its better than nothing, and you need a start to end things...

And on the topic of UN resolutions, how many of them are demanding the Palestinians do their fair share? I guess Israel's just going to have to abide by the resolutions and trust the Palestinians to uphold their end of the bargain and crack down on the militants, right? After all, their leadership has shown an amazing ability to uphold past agreements.

why not? sharon has shown his credability, arafat his, israel has to give up more thats true, but it´s mostly what they have taken themselves. And don´t tell me that you think that sharon is the good part in this.

actually, we can go on like this forever, or we end this debate soon, since we obviously dissagree and continiue to flam eachother Anyways, your call, we stop or continiue.

[Kashluk]

Haplo:

Again, a very wise reply.

nice to know you support us... hows about a blowjob, you know, to show you're supportive?

Oh, you silly guardian :mrgreen:

[Crow of Ill Omen]

No.

Nothing the US can do, short of Genocide, will stop the wars over there. Until some leaders step forth for thier parties to show the people just how meaningless thier battles are, they will not stop.

Well said. Currently, the leaders are not being clear enough about the benefit of ending the conflict. Some of their effort is for peace, but some is attempting to win a victory. Victory cannot end this conflict short of genocide.

[Walks with the Snails]

Yeah, might as well drop it. Though I do think you're overly optimistic about how the other Arab states would react if Israel just rolled over now. The world just isn't as nice a place as you seem to think it is. And though I'm no fan of Sharon, it's not like his more diplomatic predecessors got too far doing things their way, either.

[Phoenix]

Yeah, might as well drop it. Though I do think you're overly optimistic about how the other Arab states would react if Israel just rolled over now. The world just isn't as nice a place as you seem to think it is. And though I'm no fan of Sharon, it's not like his more diplomatic predecessors got too far doing things their way, either.

hey, allthough i don´t agree with your views, it was kinda interesting, as you think that im optimistic about arab states, i think you are optimistic in israels goodness in this. Thats it, any new subject?

[Crow of Ill Omen]

Care to discuss Northern Ireland?

*ducks and covers*

[Phoenix]

i would like to but i really haven´t followed the northern ireland conflict that much state your ideas and i´ll have a look.

[the guardian]

i thought you people STOPPED this flame war 2 pages ago...


i dont even know what you're talking about anymore, i know its about my country,it interest me, but i cant realy spare 3 hours to read 6 pages of replies...fuck you write alot



im tempted to write in big capital letters "just shut the fuck up, god damn it" so you'll, well, shut the fuck up, but i know that all im gona get is flames... so here's the deal: hows about you argue about your country's bad doings instead of mine? that way, i could not care less, AND you'll be talking about something that effects your ass

and a second option

moderators, close this topic

[Crow of Ill Omen]

It's not so much my ideas. I was kidding really. The conflict in Northern Ireland (with terrorism) has been going on longer than the one in Palestine/Israel, but doesn't get much coverage outside the UK. Despite the fact the IRA has bombed civilians, kidnapped families and forced fathers to drive explosive-filled cars, and various other acts of terror, the US public has been fairly sympathetic to their cause.

That's part of the reason I'm a little suspicious about the current war on terror; it seems that the US isn't so much concerned with terrorism in general, but just with middle-eastern terrorism. That's perfectly natural, since the US is only concerned with protect itself from attack, but it does irritate me a little that there is a pretense that the fight is some kind of altruistic crusade against evil.

Regarding Northern Ireland: it is a mess. The English messed up Ireland hundreds of years ago, indirectly causes a religious division that has fomented violent conflict ever since. Here's what happened (as I understand it):

• England invaded Ireland (14th century, I think) and replaced a lot of the Irish nobility with English people, but never gained comfortable occupation.
• England invaded again (16th century), due to fears that Spain would use Ireland as a staging ground for an attack against England. At this point England introduced Anglican Protestantism to the otherwise fervently Catholic country. After that point, a (minority) proportion of the population became fervent protestants and were in constant conflict with the dominating Catholics.
• William of Orange brought peace to Ireland for a while.
• A rebellion in 1798 (spurred by the French Revolution and the American Independence) was put down and led to the "Act of Union". During the next centuries tension in Ireland grew. The English viewed the Irish as little more than animals and treated them horrendously.
• In the 19th century, the Potato Blight was brought to Ireland from America, leading to famine. Robert Peel (the British Prime Minister) attempted to aid Ireland with cheap food during the famine and was kicked out of office. The subsequent government exploited the famine for profit, leading to a much increased death toll as well as widespread poverty and unrest.
• The unrest increased, and the Irish demanded self-governence. However, the Protestant population were scared that they would be massacred by the Catholics, so demanded to remain part of the UK. Hence, in 1921 the majority of Ireland was given self governance but a partition was created (Northern Ireland) for the Protestants, which remained part of the UK. The Catholics in Northern Ireland, a minority, resented this and demanded that the terrirtory be made part of Ireland.
• During WWII, Eire (the independent nation of Ireland) remained neutral and was not attacked, whereas Northern Ireland, like the rest of the UK was blitzed by the Nazis and suffered horribly. After the war, the politics of Northern Ireland was a mess and became increasingly violent. Protestants and Catholics killed each other and poverty was widespread. In 1967, the UK moved in the army as a peace-keeping force. This did not help, mainly because there was widespread injustice. Irish Nationalists were oppressed by the army and by the UK in general with unfair treatment.
• In the 1970's, the IRA began a campaign of terrorsism. This included bombings on civilian targets all over England and Ireland as well as other killings and acts of terrorism. A loyalist (Irish who wanted to remain part of the UK) terrorist group sprang up and committed similar acts against nationalists.
• In the 90's various ceasefires were negotiated and eventually a real peace process was started with the "Good Friday Agreement". The peace process is still ongoing, but hits many bumps. There is a new organisation, calling themselves the "Real IRA". They are rejecting the peace process for dubious reasons. It is possible that these people represent the criminal element that was never interested in politics and sees the peace process as a threat to their lucrative underground operations (such as smuggling arms to other terrorist organmisations around the world).

[Phoenix]

hey, i cant argue with you there..

[James]

In the 1970's, the IRA began a campaign of terrorsism. This included bombings on civilian targets all over England and Ireland as well as other killings and acts of terrorism. A loyalist (Irish who wanted to remain part of the UK) terrorist group sprang up and committed similar acts against nationalists.

Possible nit: wasn't this the PIRA? (Provisional IRA)

[Crow of Ill Omen]

Thanks for pointing it out. It forced me to read up.

Apparently, the official IRA existed for a long time before the 70's, but had been inactive in the violence. In 1969, when the political turmoil was reaching new heights, as was violence against Catholics, the Provisional IRA emerged and claimed they were going to protect the Catholic populace. It was the provisionals who committed the attrocities in the name of freedom.

[HappySuitcase Man]

Here's the skinny, everybody. My internet decided to take a two week vacation, apparently deciding that I wasn't "cool" enough to go with it. To cut to the chase, I'm not going through twenty-one pages of anything, much less something that's likely to contain large doses of Nationalism.

Anywho, during my involuntary "off" time, I took a stroll down to the San Antonio Central Library (Da-dun-dun-da!). Surrounded by books on all sorts of Political Ideologies, I curled up in a corner and started reading. I've since decided to become a card-carrying Anarchist (actually, I just took some cardboard and scribbled, "Professional Anarchist"). Oh, and adjusting my views to Party lines (Anarchists don't really have a Party; I just mentioned that to look cool), all State Socialists are my official enemies. That's including "Democratic" Socialists. Uh... just kidding. But Trotsky still sucks. Just don't ask what an Anarchist is doing with a computer.

Topic Diverted. Uh... okay, back to the thing. This is what all this "Patriotism" is -- Nationalism. Those in power (I'm not just talking about Republicans) have decided that, to avert some worker-initiated class warfare (in contrast to the top-down class warfare Corporate America subjects us proles to everyday), that a war would be needed to drain excess energy into helping the Capitalist system. Thus, those at the top were able to pull to wool over our eyes, and proceed with excuses for more Corporate Welfare, additional Corporate Military Protectionism (which I've noticed, that neither O'Reily or Nader have attacked), and passing that grand ol' "Economic Stimulus" bill (which falls under "Corporate Welfare", but things look better in three's). Just as in World War I, which was entered to hold back the rising Socialist Movement, World War II, which was entered to aid the dying American Industries and stop the Japanese, who weren't sharing the exploitation of China, the Korean War, which was used to gain a Liberal-Conservative consensus on fighting "Communism" abroad with an aggressive foreign policy, and the Gulf War, which was used to prove to the world that, with the "Soviet" Union out of the way (it still existed, but in a very weakened state), the United States could operate unilaterally, and helped aid the ailing Pentagon System of Corporate Protectionism.

Jesus Christ, I went off topic again. Okay. *Deep Breath*

The War on Terror is quickly turning into another "War against Communism." It started out innocently enough. But this planned invasion of Iraq already has me pissing in my pants (more than usual, I mean.) A war on Iraq would be nothing short of a war for oil. We have enough oil at home, using the Middle East for oil is so we can keep at the lever of Middle Eastern oil. Just look at Bush's stupidly honest speech on Iraq. Remember when he said he would like to see a "regime change"? Well, that's exactly what he wants. Those in power want to have a dictator like Saddam minus the disobedience. How the hell would a U.S.-style "Democracy" form when you're putting a civilian-killing embargo on the people? That seems to me like the recipe for a military coup, perfected in 1973 Chile. And after the Army (who I respect dearly, since A) most men who are drafted into the military are from the slums, and those who enter the military are still of the proletariat, and they can really kick my scrawny ass) marches in and puts the country under martial law, you're gonna see a right-wing dictator installed. And just like the "War on Communism", the "War on Terror" will be used to justify invading some shit country who have little to do with terrorism, just like Sandinista-era Nicaragua had little to do with USSR-style State Capitalism.

And uh... back to my original point. I define Patriotism as a love for ones country, whether it's its culture, or history. But what we're seeing now is blind Nationalism, which has always used by the State to align the views of the Proletariat with the Ruling Crass'. Flag waving abounds, and if the war on Iraq goes as planned, it's gonna get wider-spread. And the cycle continues.

I can't think of a conclusion to this rant. Sorry.

Y'know who's sexy? Dave Foley. And I'm not just talking about all those times he was dressed up like a woman, either. Kids in the Hall rock, dude.

EDIT - DAMMIT!!! I can see that the topic has turned into a discussion about the IRA. Well, I guess it's time for suicide...

[Phoenix]

haha, you rock happy!

[the guardian]

our dear suitcase man does not only rock, he's also paper and scissors


they also decided to argue on my country somewhere in those long pages, suit